Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive271

Request concerning I-82-I

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions : "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes."


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 31 August 2020 Uncollapsing a discussion that had been collapsed to prevent a heated debate escalating
 * 2) 1 September 2020 Templating an editor the user was in a heated debate with


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 8 May 2018 Infobox probation - latest update


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 August 2020


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I have participated in the RfC on Talk:Frank Sinatra, requesting the status quo is preserved and summarising both sides of the debate fairly without taking sides, which makes me too WP:INVOLVED to take any action directly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * About SchroCat; I had previously left this message on their talk, saying I couldn't take any admin action against anyone unless it was equal and fair, which would undoubtedly result in sanctions against a bunch of people, including SchroCat for telling another editor to "bugger off", which I was not impressed about. AFAIK, SchroCat has now stepped away from the project for a bit, as a self-imposed restriction; however I won't stand in the way of any other admin who feels differently about this. Like Guerillero, I'm not sure what to do (except recognise I'm not the best-placed admin to do it), but this is why we have arbitration - to break the back of intractable disputes. And this is certainly one of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Other editors may disagree on this, but for me the revert + template on an editor well known for being on the other side of the debate to you seemed to me to be "the straw that broke the camel's back", and significantly that editor did not respond (otherwise I would be justified bringing them here). I appreciate this does sound draconian, but this is such an entrenched argument. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you remind me which discussion that was? From a search I can see I closed Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive871, but I don't think that's the one you're thinking of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah right, in that case the primary reason for the hatting was a follow-on from El C's comment : "No need for heads to roll, but the heated rhetoric has to go, or it's likely that eventually it might lead to sanctions. Which would be a shame.". In your specific case, I think SchroCat has picked completely the wrong target to pick on and have said so as much (hopefully you can see the humour in not wishing to sanction Levivich "because he's Levivich" but the suggestion that if SchroCat gets annoyed by you he should just ignore it is serious). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there's been a mix-up in communication. I generally don't favour action when multiple editors start yelling at each other and calling names, beyond hatting a discussion in the hope they'd give it a rest unless it is accompanied by disruption to articles, such as edit warring. I blocked Cassianto once; I got called names and the block was reversed a few hours later - can you really blame me for not wanting to do that sort of thing again? The actual reason I don't want to take administrative action is because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. The reference to "closing as no consensus" was rather a cynical and jaded view of this sort of discussion; people yell at each other for a bit, neither side has the upper hand, everyone drops out of exhaustion ... ergo, "no consensus". In the case of the message to SchroCat, I was simply reminding him "if you can't take it, don't dish it out", and even if I wasn't involved (as you have pointed out yourself) I could not in good conscience sanction another editor without doing it fairly and evenly across the board. I hope that clarifies things. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning I-82-I
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Cassianto

 * What's this, another AE request surrounding infoboxes? Surely not.  And there was me thinking the previous committee had solved this last time by sticking me on "infobox probation". Clearly not.  Clearly, the last committee got it monumentally wrong. Clearly, something now needs to be sorted once and for all regarding the real disrupters in this very boring argument, one of whom is the subject of this request.   Cassianto Talk  12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As you'll see over at the Sinatra talk page, ladies and gentlemen,, and someone who calls themselves  are also part of the infobox problem.  Badgering, bludgeoning, harassment, lies and slurs are all evident from the pro-infobox side of the argument towards those on the opposing side of the argument. But it is tolerated from various administrators, including Bishonen, Johnuniq and El_C to name but three, as they've all been alerted to the problems caused by the pro-side, and all have chosen to ignore it.  It appears the biased sanctions, authorised by the failed, previous committee who thought I was the problem, are only suitable for those who oppose the uniform approach of applying these boxes across the website. Shameful.   Cassianto Talk  17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, there are plenty of other editors. Gerda is associated with infobox discussions almost on a daily basis, (but of course, she'll tell you she has nothing to do with them). With Gerda, it's all the back room stuff, like welcoming random IP accounts whose only contribution is to miraculously know the coding for an infobox template (not bad for a "new user"); relentless "thanking" via the thank button to those openly causing trouble in IB discussions; the constant linking to previous IB discussions in order to discreetly push the word that there is "a cabal in operation at an IB discussion and, if you wouldn't mind, could you pop along to support the pro-IB side?" The fact you want to penalise SchroCat (and let's be honest, there is history between you and him with regards to Fowler&fowler) says everything we need to know about how you want to deal with this. When will ARBCOM realise that this pathetic "infobox probation", is just a sticking plaster and not a cure?   Cassianto Talk  06:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you care to explain why chief agitator Lepricavark is exempt from your list and SchroCat is included? Or maybe you're taking the typical slovenly attitude that all arbitrators take when they can't be arsed to solve an issue, by making an example of everyone. It smacks of being at school and the whole class being made to stay behind because no one will own up to smearing Copydex on the door handle.  Cassianto Talk  07:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -- ask nicely, and I'll think about it. How dare you be so downright rude.   Cassianto Talk  14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the type of shit stirring that goes on. This is why people get so pissed off and is why these discussions spiral into incivility cesspits.  But it's me who's the problem.   Cassianto Talk  16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, hilarious that you're so offended with the use of "noise reduction", yet were only too happy to restore it.  Cassianto Talk  17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Good faith assumed.   Cassianto Talk  18:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A further note to the arbs: I've taken the time to research 's comment "OK boomer". Sadly, I've discovered that it is a personal attack, it being an ageist slur. Can someone tell me if this acceptable for an admin to be using this kind of ageist language? I do intend to report it should I not get an apology. We would not be tolerating sexism or racism, and I see no difference in ageism. Oh, I'll add this one to the ever increasing list, too.  Cassianto Talk  18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, you're so right. He was such a good, productive editor with 50+ featured articles to his name, chased off by the likes of you, your mates and incompetence in high places.  Cassianto Talk  18:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah,, thank you. So that's how NPA works. Unfortunately, nowhere there does it say "meet perceived incivility with incivility." And administrators are supposed to be above the average editor.  Sadly, with this ageist comment, it's very much in the gutter.   Cassianto Talk  18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another note to the arbs: (another admin) should also be added. No-one should write the following, let alone someone who purports to be an admin: a tiny, but very vocal and toxic minority. The second comment was left on 26 August; he had been left an ArbCom notification five days previously.   Cassianto Talk  19:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , whilst we're on the subject of incivility, care to explain this?  Cassianto Talk  19:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , be in no doubt, SchroCat is aware of this lazy witch hunt against him. He won't be returning to this cesspit of a place, there are far better online encyclopaedias out there where people are treated far, far better in receipt of their contributions and not hounded or bullied out by a lot of trouble makers and incompetent administrators. I don't know what you hope to gain from leaving your crass little notice on his talk page, but if you like to see your name up in lights, pontificating over someone who you deem to be behind such troubles, go ahead, restore my comment if it makes you feel better.   Cassianto Talk  06:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to address the use of "ok boomer" by one admin, and another editor who cries when people are uncivil to them? This kind of bullshit bigotry has no place on the encyclopaedia. I'm damned sure if I'd have called Guerillio a name based upon their age, I'd have been blocked.   Cassianto Talk  20:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Imagine my surprise. Ohhh, I do wonder what messrs Guerillero, HAL333, Lepreviark, Barkeep, and the rest of you think about this? Probably nothing, I should wonder.   Cassianto Talk  13:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My most sincere thanks to you,, for your acknowledgment re the infobox problem caused by the pro-side of the debate, in your most recent comment. Incidentally, and talking of "toxic" behaviour, I've just reported HAL333 for harassment. They were warned to stop pinging me, but they went into "thank" me and abuse the barnstar feature in a passive aggressive manner.    Cassianto Talk  17:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
This filing is one-sided and incomplete. For instance, it ignores that the collapsed section in dispute, which involves several editors questioning SchroCat's rationale, was originally collapsed by SchroCat, who subsequently edit-warred to enforce their actions, , and also reverted a more neutral description for the collapsed section. Any admins reviewing this filing need to consider the full context. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: while there have been many discussions throughout the history of Wikipedia in which bludgeoning was a serious problem, I encourage any admins reviewing this filing to consider that not all expressions of disagreement with a particular !vote should be considered bludgeoning. It is quite clear that many of the editors who are opposed to uncollapsing the infobox do not want the conversation to take place at all, but that does not mean that other editors may not treat the discussion as a discussion. In observing this thread, I have seen that some editors who are opposed to the uncollapsed infobox seem to be more interested in vilifying editors with the opposite viewpoint for daring to even participate in the discussion. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to Cassianto's statement, which singles me out by name as being part of the problem, I'll simply note that the following diffs constitute the sum total of my participation in the Sinatra thread: a vote, a civil reply, and a civil reply. Perhaps Cassianto should be required to justify his accusations against me by providing evidence. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * can you please explain where I've done anything to warrant being sanctioned? Participating in a contentious discussion is not in and of itself grounds for punishment. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * More accusations from Cassianto, but I'm still waiting for evidence. As far as I know, this page is not exempt from WP:NPA. I have not engaged in bludgeoning or other forms of agitation and I am tired of being targeted with bad faith aspersions. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA lists "some types of comments [that] are never acceptable." One of them is: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Maybe Cassianto thinks it is "downright rude" for you to require him to follow a bright-line policy, but I consider it a matter of necessity. Meanwhile, Cassianto's failure to provide evidence should be taken as an indication that he knows he has no case against me. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the diffs provided by Levi, it seems that SchroCat should be place on infobox probation at a minimum. Meanwhile, I see that Cassianto has completely ignored his obligation to abide by NPA even as he demands an apology for 'ok boomer'. The lack of self-awareness would be amusing if it wasn't so disruptive. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the chronology betrays you. Your unsupported accusation against me came well in advance of the 'ok boomer' remark, so it can hardly be explained away like that. You have pointed fingers at a great many editors, myself included, but when do you intend to take responsibility for your own actions? Are we to believe that the fault lies exclusively with everyone who clashes with you? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Cassianto has no intention of complying with NPA by substantiating his slurs against me, even as he continues to overreact to 'ok boomer'. do you believe that the purported bludgeoning by HAL333 and Mclay1 is equivalent to SchroCat's ownership and incivility as laid out in Levi's extremely detailed presentation of diffs? If no, it seems strange to say that they should receive equivalent penalties. If yes, I could not disagree with your interpretation more strongly. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , an interesting development for you to consider: after I-82-I is CU-blocked, Cassianto posts a taunting message that singles out several editors, including myself and HAL333, by name (without pings). HAL333 objects and pings Cassianto in his reply, prompting Cassianto to show up at HAL333's talk page and again accuse him of harassment because of the ping . In other words, it's okay for Cassianto to name-and-shame HAL as if he was responsible for another editor's socking, but if HAL pings him in response, that's harassment. Now, I ask you, which one is engaging in actual harassment? If Cassianto didn't want us pinging him, he should have kept our names out of his mouth (especially while he's gravedancing). But now it's too late for that and he needs to be heavily sanctioned as it is clear that he has no intention of stopping this bullying on his own. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich is right. There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about opening an occasional talk page discussion about an infobox. Furthermore, if you disregard oppose !votes that don't contain a meaningful rationale beyond 'we already discussed this and I don't like it', there's a clear consensus in favor of the infobox at the Sinatra talk page. The problem is that editors who oppose the infobox have attempted to suppress discussion and demonize those who favor an infobox. See my post immediately above for a demonstration of the blatant bad faith dispensed by Cassianto toward HAL333. This isn't a situation where fault can be evenly distributed among both sides of the dispute. This is a situation where overtly disruptive behavior has been permitted for far too long and now the conversation has become so complicated that it seems easier to give everyone a slap on the wrist and hope the problem goes away rather than actually dealing with the root problem of toxic incivility. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, that would indicate that there is a certain level of popular demand for infoboxes. Not sure why we need to do anything to stop or suppress that. The incivility problem, on the other hand, is readily apparent and could easily be stopped. There's no good reason to require myself and HAL to put up with being baited, taunted, and accused of harassment. How were we supposed to know that I-82-I was socking? Also, why is it okay for Cassianto to bait us like that and then threaten HAL over a ping? Why is this behavior tolerated? What am I missing here? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by I-82-I
, your statement is an excellent summary of mine. I will add some more views on this topic here. Please do not view SchroCat as completely innocent in this situation. Honestly, he might have violated the discretionary sanctions himself. SchroCat did not "merely collapse a conversation to save space", this is a gross oversimplification to the point where it loses all meaning. SchroCat named it "Noise reduction" (which was recently changed to Further conversation), and it is clear that the only reason he collapsed it is a disagreement with the editor who commented.

Read his reply: "Please do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors: I see you commenting multiple times just because you don’t like the arguments put down. My comments here stand as they are, and quoting out of context from previous threads which pose different questions is misleading. Please don’t do it again, and please don’t bludgeon everyone who happens to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)" In this replay, SchroCat accuses M.Clay1 of "bludgeoning".

Read his statement. M.Clay1 is not bludgeoning. He is merely quoting SchroCat and asking to explain strongly-worded, profane and meaningless arguments "The arguments against collapsing are not IDONTLIKEIT. However, you are calling infoboxes "nonsense" and previously said "If school readers are interested in finding something out about a subject then they actually need to read something. They will learn next to fuck all looking at the idiot box." As you said to me, "Why is it that people who can’t deal with a consensus against their own preferred position always go to the IDONTLIKEIT argument"? Do you have any actual retorts to the arguments presented? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)"

If you actually read this statement, it is clear that M.Clay1 isn't bludgeoning. He was making a valid argument, which SchroCat immediately collapses as "Noise reduction".

Honestly, I feel like this AE was made because I disagreed with Cassianto once for typing "yawn" as an "argument" here (to which he promptly accused me of bludgeoning.

In short, I don't believe that discretionary sanctions are necessary, due to the fact that my edits have been twisted and taken out of context. Also, SchroCat is not an innocent editor who tried to collapse a discussion to save space. Rather, he collapsed a valid discussion as "Noise reduction", and this discussion sharply opposed him. M.Clay1 is not an editor who bludgeoned SchroCat. Rather, he quoted SchroCat's stronngly-worded and profane, (yet meaningless) and refuted them. SchroCat called this bludgeoning and labeled it as noise reduction. For this reason, I ask that you please to do not apply discretionary sanctions to me.

Thanks,  I-82-I &#124;  TALK  15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: About the templating, which I forgot to mention. I templated SchroCat for improperly collapsing the discussion as noise reduction, and repeatedly edit-warring for it. I politely gave him a notice, and gave him a L1 template. I don't see how that is not appropriate.

Statement by HAL333
No matter what I, or others, do, Cassianto will assume bad faith and take offense. I recently defended him and other editors (from an admittedly suspect editor) on my talk page, and Cass still found my response lacking. (It's important to note that I have never given a civility warning to anyone in my entire time on Wikipedia.) When I requested that Cassianto strike personal attacks directed towards me, my request was reverted. I could have brought them to ANI, which Cass has already done multiple times, however, I didn't see much good coming from that and I just sat back. All I know, is that I haven't reverted any edits or made any personal attacks towards Cass in this process, however, Cass has said that I am a "troublemaker" who is "the very worst of Wikipedia" and "no good to anyone". Compare that to how I spoke about Cass and other editors. I haven't seen I-82 saying anything like that. Who's really the agitator here? The Sinatra IB discussion doesn't involve any more incivility or responses to votes than other IB discussions that I've witnessed. Ultimately, what we have here, is someone who is upset that the discussion isn't going their way: around two-thirds of editors support the IB being uncollapsed. I really haven't seen any particularly uncivil edits from I-82 - at least not any worse the SchroCat. ~ HAL  333  22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I should note that per WP:BLUDGEON, that bludeoning is "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." I only made 5 comments (at most - that's being rather liberal) in which I was disagreeing with other editors. Other editors in the discussion made similiar numbers of disagreeing edits. GoodDay, for example, made 6 edits in which he expressed his contrary viewpoint to a vote. This is ridiculous. I didn't revert anyone. I didn't edit-war. I wasn't involved with the editors removing and adding the "Further conversation/noise" template. Enforcement wasn't even requested against me. ~ HAL  333  23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why does this fall under infobox probation? We weren't discussing the inclusion or removal of an infobox. ~ HAL  333  00:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If you assume bad faith and make wild accusations against people, don't act surprised when someone points out how ridiculous your claims are. ~ HAL  333  16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering his fitting namesake, he'll be back real soon. ~ HAL  333  19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Now you've chased away a constructive editor. I hope everyone is satisfied with themselves now. ~ HAL  333  17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My takeaway To prevent future situations like this, I'll refrain from commenting several times in a discussion. Going forward, I'll just say what I want to say and step away. I realize that I talk too much sometimes (which may be true beyond Wikipedia as well). I'll make my first trip to ArbCom my last. Thanks! ~ HAL  333  15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since being warned of the sanctions, I have not responded to a single opposing editor on that thread. I only asked an editor who supported the proposal to clarify his statement. Beyond that, I reverted edits by, who was repeatedly closing the RFC and claiming that there was a consensus to uncollapse the infobox (which they did and I reverted). I reported them for vandalism, and they were banned. A diehard pro-infoboxer (Which I'm not - I've gotten several of my works up to featured status without an IB) would have sat back and watched gleefully. ~ HAL  333  16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon the request of Barkeep49, here is an extensive history of my interactions with these editors. These are all of the articles where our edits occured within the span of a day or less I don't have the willpower or time to do this part yet.
 * Schrocat
 * I voice my opinion to a publicly posted rfc 16 days after Schrocat, who edits a day later. This issue later went to Dispute Resolution, where I sided with Cassianto and SchroCat.
 * SchroCat responds to an RFC one day after I did
 * I make a nomination to Recent Death at In the News, where SchroCat is apprently rather active. My edit happens to be 16 hours after SchroCat's - I was nominating the great Ken Osmond (i.e. Eddie Haskell). We have no interaction with one another.
 * I make over a dozen edits to Barry Lyndon, one of my favorite films. Within 7 hours, Schrocat reverts some of my edits. He had never previously edited that page.
 * I happen to edit a user's talkpage 85 days after SchroCat. I was asking the editor about the criteria of a potential FLC. SchroCat gives him a Brownie seven hours later.
 * I edit the talk page for A Christmas Carol 6 hours after Schrocat. I partly agree with Schrocat on an image selection. If I was being purely antagonistic I would have disagreed with both images.
 * Following a public posted rfc, I think opened by Guy, I comment in several Reliable Sources rfcs 5 hours after SchroCat did. However, none of the discussions overlap.
 * We are both active at Kubrick's article. SchroCat often reverts me.
 * I comment over at Cass's talk page, which SchroCat is almost always active at.
 * After I edit Disney World, SchroCat shows up for the first time. However, he is not antagonistic and reverts an IP edit to my last edit.
 * There is some overlap at Death of Jeffrey Epstein, a page which I created.
 * I appear at a biographical article 3 hours after SchroCat did. However, I agree with SchroCat and oppose the addition of an infobox.
 * I edit this page after it is linked to at an ANI discussion.
 * Schrocat becomes heavily involved in Jeffrey Epstein articles, often opposes me.
 * SchroCat edits a page he had never edited before just 35 minutes after my most recent edit.
 * We are involved in unfortunte ANi discussions, mostly brought against me.
 * We both edit Frank Sinatra, sometimes agree, sometimes don't
 * I agree with Schrocat and Cass at Dispute resolution
 * We both edit Endgame, no disagreements
 * We disagree over grammar. SchroCat is quite active there. I edit 16 days after his most recent and am reverted within 2 minutes
 * He reverts me within two minutes. He had never edited this page before.
 * Common discussions at ANI
 * I edit this 26 days after he did and am reverted within 36 minutes
 * Heavily involved in disucssion at Mozart
 * You're already familiar with that...
 * Cassianto

Please note that I did not want to bring this up. I like to let sleeping dogs lie. It has already been resolved by a sysop. I apoligzied if it resembled wikihounding and promised not to do similiar things again. Cass and SchoCat issued no such apology, but I'm cool with it. Our interests seemingly overlap, and, consequently, we edit similar articles. I believe most of these were coincidences. We sometimes even agree! I have an awful headache after going through all this... ~ HAL  333  18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * "Messer" is a personal attack. Could you please strike it. ~ HAL  333  16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by AlmostFrancis
That probation looks like not a great idea for anybody. It restricts users to one comment on any specific inclusion discussion but allows unlimited comments on general info-box policy everywhere else. That is basically an inducement to spread and expand the scope an argument as opposed to contain and de-escalate. Has it ever been succesful? AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mclay1
There has been a lot of uncivil discussion in that RFC; I can't say that I-82-I is one of the main offenders (or even an offender at all). I made a few good faith attempts at furthering the discussion (I wouldn't at all call it bludgeoning), but once I was alerted to the sanctions, I stopped trying to participate in the discussion. SchroCat hid my replies to his comments, which was clearly a passive-aggressive move, not an attempt at defusing the situation. The fact that numerous editors disagreed with his move but he insisted on ignoring the objections and telling me to "piss off" justify I-82-I's actions. Maybe I-82-I took a step too far. This Arb discussion feels a bit extreme though. The conversation got a bit out of hand, but it seems like it's cooled off now. I don't see that any action is needed. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not particularly. It's fairly self-explanatory. Both you and SchroCat have persisted in constant hounding of those who wish to discuss the infobox over the years, and I have no interest in this constant bickering any more. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Genuine question: Can, , , or another admin please explain how my replying to a few comments (about 4 out of 16 at the time) on an RFC is bludgeoning? With the exception of the one small conversation with SchroCat (whose behaviour I found warranting response), I did not press my point of view or attempt to draw out a response if someone chose to not respond to me. I was not aware there were any strange sanctions on infobox discussions. As I already said, after a few comments, I was alerted to the sanctions and stopped. If there is something I should do differently, I'm happy to listen, but I find the idea of imposing restrictions simply for being an active member of a discussion fairly ridiculous. Also, I'd like to point out that Frank Sinatra is the only page I've been involved in infobox discussions on (as far as I can remember); it's not like I'm some serial offender. I'm perfectly happy to chill out without needing a warning. MClay1 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , : It seems unfair to label my actions edit warring. When there was clear disagreement from multiple people over the edit, what were we supposed to do? Just allow it? If I continually altered your comments in this discussion, would you just let me or would you revert me? After SchroCat reverted three editors, I didn't continue the edit war; I made a compromise, which he also reverted. I then made a different compromise, even more in his favour, which he again reverted, until finally another editor reverted him and he left it. So clearly he was in the wrong. My edits were an attempt at dispute resolution. It's not like I could talk to him about it – him not wanting to talk was the issue to begin with and he told people not to ping him. And I didn't need to ask other another editor for assistance in the dispute, because other editors were already involved. If there was another course of action, I'm open to hearing it for next time. MClay1 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
This is a ridiculously one sided report. SchroCat not only edit warred over this cot, they also edit warred previously over another thread about which image to have in the infobox. That was taken to ANI and Ritchie closed collapsed it as non actionable. In addition, SchroCat has posted uncivil statements, calling other editors "IB warriors" and so forth. This has been going on all summer long. There is one editor who is the most disruptive editor on that page and it's SchroCat, not I-82. And before we go and do a group sanction against three or four or five editors, why don't we just try sanctioning one? Sanction the editor who is doing the most edit warring and who has posted the most uncivil comments. Let me know if anyone wants diffs to help figure out who that is, but the history of the page makes it pretty clear to me. Lev!vich 15:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess everyone should diff:

Round 1:
 * 1) 15:09 June 20 - starts a thread entiteld "Why is the infobox hidden?"
 * 2) 20:16 June 20 - SchroCat one click archives the thread after responding to it. Total abuse of the one click archiver tool.

Round 2:
 * 1) 22:37 July 23 - starts a thread
 * 2) 22:38 July 23 - one minute later, SchroCat one click archives it
 * 3) 22:47 July 23 - I restore it assuming it's a misclick
 * 4) 22:49 July 23 - two minutes later, SchroCat removes it again with the edit summary saying HAL333 is "someone determine to create disruption"
 * 5) 01:12 July 24 - HAL333 restores it with edit summary "This is really ridiculous and an absolute abuse of OneClickArchiver" (which is true)
 * 6) 05:48 July 24 - SchroCat removes the thread from the archives with the edit summary "As the troll has edit warred it back in, someone had better clear up after him"
 * 7) The above was discussed at Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042., my apologies I had remembered it as you closing the entire thread, but actually you just collapsed the section that addressed SchroCat's behavior, with the notation "That's enough, folks". (In that collapsed thread, SchroCat told me to "fuck off" twice, which some people still think is acceptable, so whatever.)

Round 3: (I'm not timestamping these, it takes too long, these are Aug 23 - 31)
 * 1) cot added by SchroCat with the reason
 * 2) removed by I-82
 * 3) reinstated by SchroCat (first time) with the edit summary
 * 4) removed by me
 * 5) reinstated by SchroCat (second time)
 * 6) removed by
 * 7) reinstated by SchroCat (third time, against three different editors for those following along at home)
 * 8) moved (not removed) by Mclay1 so Mclay1's reply isn't collapsed
 * 9) moved back by SchroCat with the edit summary  I have no idea why SchroCat thinks he is "entitled" to collapse other people's comments, but the sense of entitlement is clear
 * 10) Mclay1 changed the header from "Noise reduction" to "Further conversation"
 * 11) SchroCat puts it back to "Noise reduction" (!!!)
 * 12)  (nb: who !voted oppose in the RFC) puts it back to "Further conversation"
 * 13) I-82 removes the cot (second time)
 * 14) Johnuniq restores it with the "Further conversation" header

Now, why the heck is this report against I-82 (who did not edit war or do anything disruptive) and not SchroCat (who is edit warring and showing extreme WP:OWNership of the page, going so far as to claim that he is "entitled" to collapse others' comments, and even edit war over blatantly-rude headers like "Noise reduction"? Lev!vich 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, some admin should address Cassianto's section above, which is filled with personal attacks, aspersions, a refusal to diff those aspersions when asked, and followed by the amazingly un-self-aware "How dare you be so downright rude". I miss 's participation on this board; at least he'd address things like this not just ignore them as if they're normal. Lev!vich 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see the humor in it but I'm not sure about the humour ;-) Also, the kafkaesque insanity of a dispute about collapsing a section of a discussion about collapsing an infoxbox. Mostly I'm just embarrassed that this is what my life has become. Lev!vich 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * that was a misclick that I fixed in the next edit. Lev!vich 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a report brought against I-82 based on a diff in which he reverted SchroCat. It seems everyone agrees that I-82's behavior is not sanctionable; also, I-82 has posted the retired template on his user page. Meanwhile, SchroCat scrambling their password renders all SchroCat behavioral questions moot. We've apparently lost both editors, which is a really unfortunate outcome. But it makes closing this report as no action easy. As to anyone else's conduct: no one has filed a complaint against anyone else, though anyone could have at any point, and still can if any disruption continues. But as of today there is no ongoing disruption relating to Frank Sinantra's infobox and no reason to think it's going to resume given the current circumstances. (Old Blue Eyes can now rest easy.) Lev!vich 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Got any diffs to back up ? Because I think that's a myth. I started the RfC and it was my first time ever suggesting adding an infobox to any article. I am tired of this constant phony accusation that there are people pushing info boxes. It may have been true years ago, but not today, and most importantly, not on this article. Lev!vich 17:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ikjbagl
I wanted to comment to corroborate the statement that is fast to assume bad faith and bias in this area and to summarize my interactions with  regarding this subject.

After only two comments (really two questions), Cassianto accused me of being "obsessive" over the Sinatra infobox. I have never participated in an infobox discussion (that I can remember) before I discovered by chance that the Sinatra infobox was collapsed, so I held up the mirror and it revealed how obsessed with the subject Cassianto is; SchroCat then quickly deleted my comment, replacing it with a warning that something uncivil had been in its place. (archive as it shows now, with insinuation that I was uncivil or impolite: ) That action was inappropriate and ridiculous; it is ridiculous to think that linking ArbCom pages for context (when someone else wrongfully accuses you of being obsessive) is a personal attack, and it is inappropriate to delete my comment and leave a message that insinuates I was uncivil or impolite. I really can't think of a reason to delete the comment other than to hide exposure of a bias or involvement. SchroCat proceeded to come annoy me on my talk page. 

Schrocat then prematurely archived the entire discussion I had started. I wanted to leave a notice that a discussion had been prematurely archived from the location, and both SchroCat and Cassianto came by to leave comments. 

Now in this newer Sinatra episode, SchroCat thought it was appropriate to say in an edit summary on my talk page that I was "on thin ice" for casting "slurs" at people. This is after SchroCat threw a (not-so-)underhanded insult in my direction when they told me that I was "struggl[ing] to deal with things [I] can't understand" (referring to a silly infobox discussion). When I again held up the mirror and pointed out that Schrocat was actually the one casting "slurs" (at me) and personalizing the discussion ("IB warriors", etc.), I was simply told to "bugger off" (and the edit summary accused ME of "tedious baiting/trolling"). 

While this behavior might not quite rise to Wikipedia's standard for incivility, it is certainly not civil. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I just learned that SchroCat was complaining about me pinging them. To put it out there for the record, I DID NOT know that SchroCat had put out a request not to be pinged. I now see that SchroCat requested not to be pinged by SOMEBODY ELSE.  It's a little unfair to expect me to know (by telepathy?) that SchroCat made a request of somebody else, and to know that I wasn't allowed to reply to SchroCat (particularly when SchroCat had JUST promised to give me "the last word" ). Ikjbagl (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * And, I mean you no disrespect, but I would be remiss not to address your participation in that discussion. You explicitly said that you weren't going to take action because of a result you wanted to achieve in an RFC. ("I'm not going to take any action on that because I'd like somebody to close the RfC with the inevitable "no consensus"") That does not seem appropriate AT ALL; I'm not familiar with Wikipedia rules on administrators, but basing your determination of whether to use administrative privileges on your preferred outcome for an RFC seems like an incredibly serious abuse of those privileges.


 * You also basically said that the reason you weren't going to take action on the page is that you didn't want to take action against SchroCat, meaning that the limit of behavior you were willing to accept was effectively determined by what you were willing to let SchroCat get away with (and that you might otherwise sanction "any other editor on that thread [SchroCat] might want [you] to"). ("it pretty much makes it impossible for me to sanction any other editor on that thread that you might want me to, because all they've got to do is say "aha, but why didn't you sanction SchroCat for telling another editor to bugger off?" and I'd have to do it, if nothing else to be fair.") Again, this seems like an incredibly serious abuse of administrative privileges.


 * You made these statements on SchroCat's talk page AFTER you had taken a side on the issue by voting in the RFC (well, if "neutral" is a side), which makes this seem even worse. I'll repeat that I don't know the Wikipedia rules about administrators, and that this behavior could be completely innocuous, but I don't see how that could be the case. It seems like a serious conflict of interest to even muse about using administrative privileges in an RFC where you had already voted, let alone to say that your determination of whether to exercise those privileges was based on the outcome you wanted. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
IP 73.193.59.165 was the only individual who attempted to uncollapse (via edit-warring) the infobox-in-question, during the ongoing Rfc. So, let's get back to concentrating on the Rfc-in-question, which still has about 2.5 weeks to go. Even the South Korean Parliament eventually passes or rejects bills, despite any individual disputes :) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW: Why are some of you describing your posts in your edit summaries here, as replying to yourselves? It's rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

May we shut this report down, seeing as I-28-I has been blocked? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Moxy
Same people now fighting the next generation of new editors.-- Moxy 🍁 11:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning I-82-I

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I have no idea what to do here and in am interested to hear ideas -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest? I agree with you that I have no ideas. The two I can come up with are punting it back to ArbCom or banning the whole lot of the disputants from infoboxes.. both pro and anti box folks. But neither of those probably are very GOOD solutions. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My current thought is something along the lines of ",,, , and are under infobox probation" but I really just want to restrict them all to a single comment in these sorts of RfCs. I'm seeing a ton of bludgeoning going on. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I could live with that. Is there anyone else that keeps cropping up that needs some probation also? --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole area is just plain toxic. Cass has a point that folks keep pushing for infoboxes, but some of the folks opposed to infoboxes (whether in all cases or in some cases) often react ... badly... to even the mildest suggestion of an infobox. We need to stop both extremes - the constant pushing of boxes on pages where it's clear that there isn't consensus for them, while also stopping the incivility in the whole area. I'm not sure that the infobox probation will solve either situation. But ... to be frank, the incivility present and the behavior exhibited here are certainly not making me want to deal with anyone involved. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say that anyone mentioned here was constantly pushing infoboxes. Across many pages lacking infoboxes, there are indeed a steady trickle of "why doesn't this article have an infobox" discussions. That doesn't mean that anyone mentioned here is going article to article starting those discussions. They just happen, usually from folks not involved in them at other articles. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I accidentally included you -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an arb, I am a random administrator and I am trying to find a way forward in this situation using the tools that I have available to me. In response to your accusations about, provide diffs or remove your comments. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok boomer -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My feelings about editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny can be found in quite a few block logs -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I made an error, . I included Lepricavark incorrectly. FWIF, I agree with the rest of your thoughts and proposals -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds correct to me and is in line with the evidence -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't really see anything actionable against I-82-I here based on the full talk page discussion. All three contributions to it are easily civil, and unhatting a section that was being editwar collapsed by SchroCat seems far. A trout at worst. I'm more worried about the actions of SchroCat which are decidedly not civil in edit summaries (per the decision), but even then, that's hard to find something actionable. The only matter and this goes to the first stated by Guerillero is that maybe that a needed addition to the case is an anti-bludgeon statement, in that when there are RFCs that are properly opened about when an article should have an infobox or not or collapse or uncollapse an existing one, that editors are strongly cautioned from responding to other !votes repeatedly, and even if there's a discussion section on the RFC, from flooding that with comments. The arguments pro and con on infoboxes have been long laid out, and so the discussions should focus on what's changed since any prior RFC, and should not require rehashing "why this does/doesn't need an infobox" in the RFC !votes. If editors bludgeons others with that type of repeated comments that might be something that action could be taken on, but that would have to go through ArbCom to affirm, I'd guess, not here. This incident, I can't see an immediate action beyond trouts. --M asem (t) 14:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And a wholly separate note, many things have changed since the last site-wide discussions of infoboxes in general (Wikidata, how Google and other search engines present info, etc.) I am not saying we need to reconsider the position (presently, per-article determination) now, but this is something we may need to re-address sooner than later, but that's well beyond the scope here. --M asem (t) 14:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh $DEITY please no. The problem is that then we either get inappropriate infoboxes crowbarred into articles (casting batshit insane YouTube videos as "films" for example) or we end up with a totally unmanageable sprawl of infoboxes for every conceivable compromise of what something is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be issues to work out in the re-evaluation (what topic families are unsuited for infoboxes, what type of infoboxes are actually needed rather than forcing existing ones into working for niche areas, etc.) but again, well beyond this discussion and not a simple yes-no question. --M asem (t) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Placeholder to say I intend to comment here, but would like to read through the page history since June when this thing blew up, and that will take me a little while since I'm also at work. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now read through the entire talk page history since June, and that's a few hours of my life I'm never going to get back. There's a number of editors whose behavior has been consistently below par. SchroCat has been consistently uncivil. HAL333 and Mclay1 have bludgeoned the discussion at Talk:Frank Sinatra. I-82-I has also not behaved very well, but unless there's more history that I'm not seeing, I don't think their two bad edits are sanctionable. A logged warning is what I would recommend. I don't see evidence that sanctions are necessary against Lepricavark either; is there evidence I am missing?, I agree that the other three users need infobox probation, or at the very least a 1-comment-per-infobox-thread restriction. For his entirely unnecessary edit-warring over the collapse tag and abuse of the one-click archiver, I would additionally restrict Schrocat from modifying, removing, or hiding other users' contributions to discussions about infoboxes (which should be allowed by the infobox DS regime). Also, though the incivility has largely been on the part of those arguing for a collapsed infobox, they do have a point about endless discussion and bludgeoning on that talk page, and this is something we can address; the DS regime gives us enough leeway to limit discussions intended to change the consensus on the infobox to once every so often (two years? three?).  Finally, Cassianto has been quite uncivil with very little provocation, both on the talk page and in this discussion. He's already on infobox probation, and it seems not to have made one whit of difference. I'm struggling to think of an effective solution less draconian than an infobox TBAN.  , I don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that there's no sanctionable behavior here; just the edit-warring over the collapse template is bad enough, IMO. , I really don't think this is ripe for arbitration. There's no complex history here that requires weeks of perusing the evidence; just intemperate and/or pushy behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * re: HAL333; I read once again through the diffs I compiled yesterday, and I still feel a warning is insufficient. While most of their comments were fine, there were enough instances of incivility, bludgeoning, pot-stirring, and other behavior exhibiting a battleground attitude. I made a list of diffs, and will supply it if requested, but don't want to let this become a prolonged argument over specific diffs; the behavior is patently obvious when you read the page history at one sitting. While I appreciate that both HAL333 and Mclay1 have now committed to recalibrating somewhat, the fact that this came after sanctions were being considered diminishes greatly the weight it carries with me. I would warn I-82-I for needlessly inflaming the situation. re: Lepricavark, thanks. re: I-81-I: does this mean you agree with me about a warning vs a sanction?  I do not see where anyone besides SchroCat has unnecessarily modified or removed other editors' comments. Mclay1 edit-warred over the collapse tag, but that behavior is covered by infobox probation. I'd also be interested to hear 's take on all of this, since she commented earlier. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The utterly pointless edit-warring over the collapse tag happened after Mclay1 had been alerted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where everyone should just have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. The trajectory of the dispute is towards sanctionable behaviour but it's not there yet and the best result for all concerned would be to calm down. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure comprehensively reading this, the discussion on Sinatra, and assorted diffs was the best use of my Wikipedia time but it's time I've now spent. As this discussion has turned towards looking at SchroCat I have notified them of this discussion. That said I think this discussion is too sprawling for this forum and think it is better served at ArbCom Appeals or as a new case request. FWIW, I don't find any issue with I-82's conduct here and would be opposed to sanctions against them. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please restore the notification I left Schrocat. Schrocat has certainly left right now. But we both know many who leave return after some time away. That time can be short (a cool down day) or long (weeks, months, years). There is clearly discussion above about sanctioning Schocat and out of fairness they should know that. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but I'm just not seeing what we would warn I-82 for or maybe I do see it and just have have a hard time seeing that it rises to the level of a formal warning. What are you seeing as the warning encompassing? In terms of Mclay and HAL (both of whom I've alerted specifically in regards to sanctions being proposed for them), while reading the thread initially I didn't find either's comments particularly BLUDGEONy. However, in rereading it with that mindset, I will admit that I find Mclay's participation could qualify as disruptive in a way that infobox probation would be warranted. Despite HAL having more overall comments, I find their edits less disruptive; they don't tend to engage in repeated discussion with those who disagree, for instance, their comments were cited approvingly by at least one editor as helpful, and I see efforts (outside their interaction with SN) at lowering the temperature of the discussion. So I could support infobox probation for Mclay and a warning for HAL about bludgeoning discussions.I like Vanamonde's proposal for Schrocat. As for Cassianto, I really think his vision of incivility is at odds with the community as a whole. This is why so many people accuse him of it and why he is so mystified when nothing happens when he sees it in others. I wish he could magically align better given all the value he adds and the obvious frustration it causes him, when he sees it in others, and others, when they see it in him. As for what it means here, I dunno. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really dislike labeling editor's participation as BLUDGEONing and intentionally labeled what I saw from you in that discussion as disruptive editing. The five replies I saw from you (not counting the reply to your own participation) did not, in my reading, help further the discussion and at times raised the temperature whether you meant to or not. That said your comment about not having been involved in infobox made me think. (or others) I see M.clay was given a DS aware at 07:00, 23 August 2020. As far as I can tell he only made 1 subsequent contribution to the conversation, a reply to himself. That feels like very weak evidence upon which to impose infobox probation. Given the spirit behind DS Awareness is for situations where an editor might not realize just how fraught or contentious a topic is - like Guy said on his talk page the infobox wars are  - or how at risk of sanction they are. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so it was. There's another reason, (sorry for the bad ping above) why we're ending up where we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So having read the links by HAL, I've come to the conclusion that he's a fine editor. But so so many of the infobox people are fine editors and infobox probation was designed to be a way for them to participate in infobox discussions without causing other issues. I have seen enough to support that for HAL. Cassianto is also a fine editor but I would support Vanamonde's remedy (someone should let him know that this is being discussed because, despite his latest post here, he has indicated to me that he's not paying close attention while also asking me to ping him about this discussion). SchroCat has scrambled their password, but that wouldn't prevent a new account so I, reluctantly, support Vanamonde's remedy for him too. I-82 has been CU blocked. I think that's everyone who has been seriously discussed here and per Black Kite, takes a look at the totality. I am planning, outside of anything directed at me, for this to be my last comment here given how many bytes I've already used. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you discuss or go to a conduct forum. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to any action against SchroCat here without equivalent action against some of the editors (Hal333 and Mclay1 at least) mentioned above on the "other" side, as pointed out by Vanamonde above. One-sided action is almost always unproductive in cases like these.  Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , this infobox dispute is just not something I want to engage at this time. As a volunteer, I don't think that (inaction) discredits me in any way. El_C 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think it was inappropriate of you to respond with "Ok boomer" — I think it is important for admins to maintain decorum, especially when responding to AE requests. El_C 22:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. I see that as, at very most, the most harmless of harmless jabs. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 23:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it seems like an identity-based non sequitur — how does it help? El_C 23:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't cross into npa I think. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think greater sensitivity and decorum is called for,, regardless of how you define it. El_C 02:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess I understand that, for me it feels like there's more egregious things going on here to label as uncivil. But whatever, you can have your opinion. I'm sure we agree on much more important issues. (You know that sounded friendlier in my head but now that I'm reading I kind of sound like a dick head)Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, not at all. And you may well be right. I have not yet had a chance to review this request closely. El_C 02:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting that I’ve CU blocked I-82-I for vandalism and abuse. No comment on the rest of the situation (also work is crazy, so unlikely to be responsive to pings.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth a ping though - - is I-82-I a sock of a known banned editor, and if so who?  This might be relevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there was inappropriate logged out editing on multiple IP addresses within the 90 day CU window. No accounts identified, but it was enough to block when taken as a whole. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose an unblock if there was a good appeal, but there’s also not much use of a 1 week block when someone claims to have retired and there’s evidence of logged out disruption. Indefinite in this case does not necessarily mean infinite. I can’t link to any particular IP because of the privacy policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Antidiskriminator

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE: DS


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period Created on 21 August 2018, still exists – An example of a poorly written POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article created by Antidiskriminator. See the talk page for detailed explanation of why that is an accurate description of the article.
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs Created 12 May 2020, deleted after AfD on 21 May 2020 – another poorly written highly POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article created by Antidiskriminator, note the clear implication there has been canvassing here.
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito Created 8 August 2020, redirected after AfD on 16 August 2020 - another poorly written highly POV/Serb nationalist article created by Antidiskriminator, more canvassing likely involved here.
 * 4) Talk:Pavle Đurišić which is classic Antidiskriminator, just one example of many I could include, where they politically attack/attempt to discredit sources which oppose the POV narrative he's trying to promote and at the same time the portrayal of his own heavily criticized sources in a way that tries to legitimize them. When you read on further in this report you will see that their disruption and POV-pushing on the Pavle Đurišić (a WWII Chetnik) article goes back eight years.
 * 5) User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles – This is included to show the tidal wave of highly POV/Serb nationalist articles, fringe sources and conspiracy theories we will face from Antidiskriminator in the future if action isn’t taken.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) November 2012 AE TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything related to Pavle Đurišić by, lifted in January 2014 by EdJohnston – This was imposed after months of tendentious editing regarding the WWII Chetniks and related subjects
 * 2) July 2014 ANI TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything related to “Serbs and Serbia 1900-current” (broadly construed) by – this was imposed six months after the narrower TBAN was lifted, during which time Antidiskriminator started over 45 new sections on the Pavle Đurišić talk page, along with 560 edits to that talk page.
 * 3) Unsuccessful attempt to have the TBAN immediately overturned (five days after its imposition).
 * 4) Unsuccessful attempt to have TBAN lifted in February 2015
 * 5) Unsuccessful attempt to have TBAN lifted in August 2015
 * 6) Successful appeal of the TBAN in August 2016


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 November 2012 by EdJohnston, also reminded recently., but the idea that they are not aware of DS is risible.

I file this report with a due sense of exhaustion and dread, and probably should have done it ages ago, but have been encouraged to so by both involved and uninvolved editors because I am one of the few admins that operate in the Balkans WWII space, probably know Antidiskriminator’s editing history better than most, and frankly this just isn’t going to get better.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : (word limit extension approved by )

Since his TBAN on “Serbs and Serbia 1900-current” was lifted four years ago, Antidiskriminator has continued their endless tendentious bickering about anything that paints Serbs in a bad light, right across en WP. They have also created (and drafted) dozens of highly POV articles in the area they were previously TBANed from, mainly using Serb historians that are identified with the Serbian nationalist and anti-communist negationist/illegitimate revisionism fostered by state policy in post-1991 Serbia, and eschewing academic sources from outside the former Yugoslavia. See and  for examinations of Serbian historiography since 1991 that support my characterisation of it. I can expand with further scholarly examinations of recent Serbian historiography if necessary. This article creation by Antidiskriminator has included numerous fringe POVFORKs using dubious sources and promoting Serbian nationalist conspiracy theories.

Even where there is justifiable scope for an article on a given subject, Antidiskriminator has proved to be incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs, giving undue weight and avoiding mentioning anything negative about them. In just one example, in September 2019 they created an article on a rare Chetnik attack against the Germans (obviously to try to push the POV that the Chetniks actually fought the Axis rather than extensively collaborating with them, the overwhelming academic consensus about the former is that they did very little resisting after November 1941 – rehabilitation of the Chetniks being a major stream of Serbian historiography and Serbian government policy since 1991), and managed to completely avoid mentioning that the Chetniks immediately proceeded to massacre 2,000 Muslims in the captured town. Despite this being raised on the talk page, they have done nothing to address this issue (or even respond), and that is the pattern with every article they create. They create a terrible POV article, often with a highly POV title as well, and it is left to fester or eventually be AfD’d (which is usually fought tooth and nail by a bunch of fellow travellers), in what is an obvious gaming of our systems. This has meant that many of their articles need to be subjected to TNT for a fresh start, as has happened twice recently. I have provided several recent examples above, and if not for limited space I could provide dozens of examples, and the list of drafts I linked above is just breathtaking in its POV and scope. Antidiskriminator has been [|indefinitely blocked from Serbian WP] since May 2012 for precisely the sort of behaviour they have been demonstrating here for years. This occurred after a series of blocks of increasing duration from 2010 onwards.

EdJohnston, who, along with Drmies, is the admin who, in my experience have had most interaction with Antidiskriminator, characterised his rule of thumb as ”Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion”. I work mainly in the “Yugoslavia in WWII” space and have found this to be true hundreds if not thousands of times in the last eight years. The need for AE action has been suggested by several uninvolved editors during the two recent AfDs that resulted in deletion/redirect, which has prompted this report. The years of disruption, tendentious bickering on talk pages, lack of clue/competence, extreme bias and inability to edit neutrally, and promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe sources have demonstrated that Antidiskriminator is far from a net positive for the project, and also causes considerable disruption and stress to other editors. Enough is enough, we need to take action against this behaviour. To protect the project from any more of this egregious POV-pushing, it is time to impose an indefinite TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything to do with “Serbs and Serbia” (broadly construed), and stick to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Antidiskriminator says "Almost all five good articles I wrote are related to Serbs or Serbia. That refutes the accusation that I am incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs". I can only assume the ones listed at User:Antidiskriminator/Articles I created, which include Ba Congress (a Chetnik political meeting late in WWII). That article, created by Antidiskriminator on 30 June 2019, was yet another complete POV mess (which included the completely ridiculous claim that a lowly US OSS lieutenant was a personal representative of the US president, along with a bunch of pro-Chetnik nonsense that is refuted in the current article) until I became aware of it the following day, took a grip of it, rewrote it neutrally using non-partisan academic quality sources, then successfully nominated it for GAN and Milhist ACR. It will shortly go to FAC. A cursory look at the article history and talk page makes it clear that Antidiskriminator's claim that they in any way contributed significantly to the current state of the article, or even to its state when it was promoted to GA is completely mendacious. The initial state of Ba Congress is another example of the terrible POV-pushing Antidiskriminator engages in. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bludgeon this process, but Antidiskriminator has linked to the five claimed GAs, all of which are ancient history, the most recent promotion being seven years ago. For example, Autonomous Albanian Republic of Korçë was created by them in 2011 and promoted in the same year and it is questionable if it was really a GA then, with several uncited sentences and some pretty dodgy sourcing. It also only mentions Serbs once, and that is in passing. Another, International Gendarmerie, is of the same vintage and had similar quality issues at the time of its promotion, including the use of nationalistic Serbian historian Dušan T. Bataković and uncited material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that another Antidiskriminator creation has been TNT deleted for reasons of POV. As mentioned by OyMosby below, it is Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was probably being a bit generous with my initial suggestion, . A Balkans TBAN is probably best for the encyclopaedia as a whole from a prevention perspective, which is what this is all about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Antidiskriminator
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Antidiskriminator

 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is not a poorly written POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article because anybody can see that it presents all different POVs regarding this topics.
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs presented all different POVs regarding the topic and included many exceptional sources. The weak consensus to delete this article was reached mostly by editors who share similar POV and who are often involved in numerous disputes with me.
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito also presented all different POVs regarding the topic. The weak consensus to delete this article was reached mostly by editors who share similar POV and who are often involved in numerous disputes with me, although the conclusion of the discussion was that the topic is notable.
 * 4) Talk:Pavle Đurišić - There is nothing actionable here. Every sentence I wrote in a comment at the beginning of this discussion was sourced by the sources I presented. I did not edit war nor I insisted on my position when editor who filed complaint against me here disagreed with me.
 * 5) User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles - There is nothing actionable here. I created 523 articles on Wikipedia, most of them related to Serbs or Serbia and many about Yugoslavia in WWII, first as a draft on my userspace. Many of them of TOP importance. Almost all five good articles I wrote are related to Serbs or Serbia. That refutes the accusation that I am incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * ”Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion” - The best evidence that this is wrong is exactly Peacemaker67, we agreed dozens of times about topics of Yugoslavia in WWII. I will present here a very long list of our agreements as soon as I catch some more time.
 * Accusation that I avoid mentioning massacres of Muslims committed by Serbs: The best evidence that this claim is wrong is that I even created multiple neutral articles about massacres of Muslims committed by Serbs in Yugoslavia, such as: Šahovići massacre and Kulen Vakuf massacre.

There is no doubt that edits of Peacemaker67 (and small group of editors who often contradict my edits) promote POV which is different from POV of my edits (and other editors). Wikipedia is based on collaboration. No editor/article - no problem is not and should not be the way Wikipedia works. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the list I announced:


 * Some earlier agreements and conclusions:
 * I agree that we need to amend the text and info box... - link
 * I don't mind. I believe I understand your position. - link
 * I think it would be good to present his initial position which was in favor of Greece instead of Slovenia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC) .... Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC) link
 * Solved:All three major grievances against the Italians explained as per source. link
 * I propose this information to be doublechecked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ...... Done. It was 20 December 1941, not October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) - link
 * I have re-structured the sections and subsections... (per your 1. above),...Thanks. The timeline issue of the section titles is finally resolved. - link
 * Ah, I see your point now. I agree to some extent, particularly about the context issue. link
 * I think moving would be better than renaming. Thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC) ... Move it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Done link
 * Some recent agreements and conclusions:
 * Resolved family details - link

There is basically not a single diff to prove any policy violations or to prove accusations against me. On the other hand I am probably the only wikipedia editor whose neutral editing regarding massacres of Muslims by Serbs can be supported with some secondary source per WP:SECONDARY wikipedia policy. The work authored by professor Richard Rogers and published by MIT Press which explains how I struggled against attempts to present the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica as simple military conflict and removed military conflict infobox to insert massacre of civilians infobox. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is evidence of my constructive contributions which resulted in the substantial improvement of the article in question, which proves that the above-mentioned accusation against me is incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After I proved that I do not avoid to mention massacres of Muslims by Serbs by pointing to two articles I created precisely with this topic, I see that I was accused to avoid to mention massacres of Muslims committed by Chetniks. Here is proof that this accusation is incorrect:
 * I created an article about massacre of Muslims committed by Chetniks - Bukovica massacre and wrote After short battle with Muslim militia, Chetniks captured Bukovica and massacred more than 500 civilians. - diff
 * In February 1943 Chetnik units commanded by Kalaitović, together with those commanded by Ostojić, Baćović, Đurišić and Lukačević killed about 1,200 Muslim men and about 8,000 women, children and old people. (diff)
 * I am particularly proud on article I created Resolution of Sarajevo Muslims in which I presented a relatively less known event when most notable Muslims issued a resolution (one of many) at the beginning of WWII and condemned the persecutions of the Serbs by Ustaše. This proves that accusations for anti-Muslim bias of my editing are incorrect because this article I wrote presents Muslims very positively. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to the latest false accusation regarding Ba congress. Here is a list of five GA articles I referred to. It does not include Ba Congress. There is nothing I did at that article that would warrant any sanctions against me. Did I edit war? No. Did I violate any wikipedia policy? No. I wrote three comments (link) why I disagree with removal diff of text cited by recently published source. If there was some content dispute regarding that article it is irrelevant for this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Maleschreiber

 * This is a particularly significant report because it addresses the issue in a very direct manner: POV-pushing is bound to exist, but in Antidiskriminator's there's a wide-ranging editing pattern which 1)blatantly abuses bibliographical consensus, 2)constantly promotes WP:FRINGE theories of Serbian nationalism and then 3)attempts to discredit respectable authors - who criticize Serbian nationalist tropes - by selective inclusion of criticism by few Serb authors in order to further legitimize WP:FRINGE theories. Whenever they are confronted with bibliography, they never reply, they keep a WP:STONEWALL attitude and reply to strawman arguments that nobody has put forward.
 * The report itself is an example of Antidiskriminator's attitude. PM wrote that Antidiskriminator as an example of his attempts to relativize Chetnik collaborationism. Antidiskriminator replies that PM accused him of  in general. It's a strawman argument that deflects PM's actual argument. But the examples cited by Antidiskriminator highlight that almost all articles which he has written are related to what PM highlights. The Šahovići massacre which Antidiskriminator mentioned in its original form put forward a conspiracy theory in Serbian nationalism that the Serbian Orthodox mob killed 600 hundred Muslim Slavs because they didn't know that the group responsible for the killing which prompted the mob to assemble were in fact Albanians. The Kulen Vakuf massacre concerns a mass killing of Muslims by Partisans - but the function of the article is to relativize the massive scale of Chetnik massacres via the counterposition of a massacre committed by another faction. Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is a conspiracy theory, but for the purpose of the report we should also check the talkpage Talk:Relocation_of_Serbian industry during the Informbiro period.  (linked userpage for transparency reasons) tried to explain the problems, but he never even got a reply which at least tried to address some them.
 * Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs was closed as delete (16 to 9) amid many concerns about canvassing in support of !keep about an article whose lead sentence started with "the demonization or satanization of Serbs". Under normal circumstances, this would be deleted immediately in every environment which claims for itself to generate encyclopedic knowledge. So, the AfD highlights the enviroment which the toleration of POV-pushing, conspiracy theories and stonewalling has created in the Balkan topic area. It signals to many editors that if that sort of editing is acceptable, then it's a threshold which allows for many other mid or high intensity cases of POV-pushing to occur without admin oversight. A topic ban of Antidiskriminator from anything related to “Serbs and Serbia” (broadly construed) is a significant first step towards the restoration of wikipedia's policies in the Balkan topic area. I really hope that the result of the report will set a new threshold for every active editor in a very difficult editing environment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A broader scope (Balkans) as suggested by Fut.Perf. is very reasonable. It would prevent further problems from arising in related topics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (OyMosby)
Another article of issue by the editor is up for possible deletion Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia of which pertains to an article Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia that is written in POV style. Really this is just a tip of an iceberg of recent anti-Croat pro-Serbian occurrences on Wikipedia via multiple POV pusher accounts acting as a traveling block, going article to article. Even when an article is brand new and couldn’t possibly be on their radar. Has been going on for over a year now from what I see, older users will know more. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I doubt a topic ban just on "post-1900 Serbian history" will be enough. A's long-term activity on pre-1900 history topics has been just as bad. There's been continuous low-level POV warfare over topics such as Skanderbeg, Skanderbeg's rebellion and other pre-modern topics touching on Serb/Albanian history, all motivated by the same ethnic agendas. A narrow topic ban would probably just push his activity back into these domains, where he's been somewhat less active recently but where he's been just as disruptive in the past. I'd strongly recommend a more comprehensive topic ban from all Balkan history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Joy
It should go without saying that if we see a user persistently gaming the system over a period of many many years in order to write apparent claptrap, that we would be fools not to impose the harshest appropriate sanctions. I haven't had much interaction with Antidiskriminator for a few years now, but I'm posting this in this section because I've had numerous mind-numbing interactions with them in the past (which in itself is cause enough for concern because I don't believe it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to have its editors and admins persistently worn down by stuff like this). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Antidiskriminator

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I would bring back the Serbs and Serbia 1900-current topic ban -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I could go for a topic ban from the Balkans based on further comments -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reinstate the TBAN immediately, and I would be open to removing the time limit and perhaps extending it to the Balkans broadly construed. As far as I am aware I am not involved here at all, so am happy to do this. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with JzG. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also concur with Guy. I appreciate Peacemaker trying to find nuance here but I think we'd be pushing the disruption into the historical realm even more than has happened already if we passed a more limited TBAN. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dr2Rao
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Dr2Rao

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :Persistent and egregious original research.
 * 1) 30 August 2020 Creates this draft, largely copied from the deleted Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (sorry, admins only). Full of OR, including the claim about rape in the lead that isn't substantiated by the source, and misrepresentation of the NYT source.
 * 2) 24 August 2020 Adds an exceptional claim with no supporting source.

No previous sanctions, but warnings aplenty on their talk page.
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified in May 2020.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * The obsession with conversion to Islam is certainly shared. I am not familiar enough with the master to offer any more evidence, but I could go digging, if needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for forgetting about this, but did you need me to file a formal SPI? The fact that you were suspicious before I had even considered socking suggests an immediate check would be justified, does it not? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Addendum; I see now someone else already filed an SPI, [|here], but it's languishing for lack of attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Notified.

Discussion concerning Dr2Rao
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Dr2Rao
After being warned, I have always cited sources for my edits (after 24th August, 2020) and I self reverted what I added on the 30th (I had copied a lot of matter from the "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" article and did not construct that sentence myself but did not verify what the source said as I believed that the matter was checked by previous editors), so please do not sanction me. Please forgive me for the original research before the warnings. I promise not to repeat any original research. I believe that there is a rule that an editor is given a rope at least once to avoid a sanction, so please give me that rope now (see WP:ROPE)! I am trying to avoid the deletion of an article, the discussion of which is going on here and any sanction now will be counter productive to Wikipedia (I will be unable to defend it and the article will be deleted).&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not a sock puppet of anyone.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for my rope as per WP:ROPE. I have been citing references for my edits if you have observed. I have even rechecked them to make sure they were made up as per the source used.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Toddy1
Because of Salvio giuliano's comment, I started Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tayi Arajakate
Don't know anything about the user or the issue but just wanted to inform that they have created a copy draft of the mainspace article and then mass pinged a large group of editors (including me) on Draft talk:Religious conversions in Pakistan. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit
Please also take into consideration Draft:Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan, which Dr2Rao has created in case Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan is deleted, and its talk page where Dr2Rao WP:CANVASSed a swathe of editors both to work on the draft, and to leave comments at the AfD discussion. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent
Consider this really bizarre comment by Dr2Rao .VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Dr2Rao

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I am unfamiliar with this master, so take this with a grain of salt, but doesn't Dr2Rao look like a likely sock of Jishnusavith? Salvio 08:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Dr2Rao turns out to not be a sock, a topic ban from religion in the Indian subcontinent seems to be in order -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Salvio 07:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sock or not, this is an editor on a mission, and a topic ban per Guerillero is appropriate given the extreme fatigue this style of contribution can cause. I would suggest that perhaps 3 months would be apporopriate in the first instance, to see how they get on in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have soured to time limited topic bans at AE -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , due to gaming, or because it's better to have a formal review before lifting, or what? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to see that they won't cause disruption and lift the ban in 3 months than be back here again once they wait out the ban -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , understood - and actually I share the concern that people would simply not edit until the ban expires (we have seen that many times before), which of course negates one primary purpose, which is to encourage them to learn our ways on less contentious articles.
 * So I revise my suggestion: indefinite TBAN, appealable after not less than 3 months, with the implicit understanding that any successful appeal would have to be based on a history of productive editing elsewhere. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting an RfC and then asking a user, in Hindi yet, to "go here and enter "Support"", is really very bad. For my money, there's nothing much wrong with Dr2Rao's English, or with the recipient's English either; the only reason I can see for him to write in Hindi on the English Wikipedia is to hide. Same reason as for using "hidden pings" here. Complete abuse of Wikipedia's system for creating consensus. I do notice that the user apologizes on their page a few days later (when warned) and states that they have since learned what canvassing is and will not repeat it. Girth Summit's tip above about the canvassing on Dr2Rao's Draft talk:Religious conversions in Pakistan is interesting in this context. Quite recently, on 2 September, Dr2Rao canvassed a large crowd of editors there, saying with great frankness that "I have created this draft because the article with the same name and contents is about to be deleted for being an "attack piece"", providing a link to Articles for deletion/Religious conversions in Pakistan and suggesting people add their comments here. A very recent attempt to subvert AfD — obviously this is not what "drafts" are for. The post Vice regent refers to above,, is... well, basically, I think it would be enough in itself for a topic ban. Per above, Dr2Rao would like more rope, but reading through the warnings on their page, it looks like they've already received quite a lot of it. I have topic banned them indefinitely from pages connected with India and/or Pakistan, broadly construed. I agree with JzG's comment that the ban should be appealable after not less than 3 months, with the implicit understanding that any successful appeal would have to be based on a history of productive editing elsewhere. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC).

Kolya Butternut
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Kolya Butternut

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

American Politics Gender-related controversies Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * Discretionary Sanctions
 * GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions
 * Battleground conduct
 * BLP denigration
 * Single purpose accounts
 * Decorum
 * Recidivism
 * Discretionary Sanctions RE: BLP
 * BLP "where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be ... that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached"
 * Decorum Decorum, incivility, gaming the system


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) Aug. 8, 2020 14 possible violations of partial AP2 TBAN regarding Senator Al Franken and his resignation for alleged inappropriate gender-related behavior, subject to Admin interpretation of the scope of the TBAN.
 * 2) Sept. 7, 2020 partial AP2 TBAN violation. Discussing DeJoy's alleged illegal Trump campaign contributions.
 * 3) Aug. 8, 2020 Battleground/uncivil talk page interaction RE: Gender-related edits relating to the next link, on an article talk page in which KB bludgeons 95 81 posts in less than a month on the article talk page that editors say appears to COATRACK a contemporary gender agenda into the article. (corrected 81, not 95 posts and added link 13:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
 * 4) August 24, 2020 KB ignoring policy-based objections of many other editors.
 * 5) August 27-28, 2020 Apparent gaming of unrelated WP:V disucussion of ONUS to justify BLP-sensitive reverts on gender-related BLP article Aziz Ansari.
 * 6) June 1, 2020 IDHT talk page epic to deprecate NY Times finding on allegations concerning Joe Biden. In the course of this, KB had a lengthy BLPN Sealion discussion trying to justify an edit that was rejected at the article pages. See next diff.
 * 7) May 10, 2020 BLPN thread attempting to WP:GAME BLP-sensitive information into Biden article.
 * 8) May 25, 2020 Another long bludgeon and incivility thread. KB sought to include article content disparaging Trump's mental health apparently to establish a precedent to WP:GAME a similar disparagement into the Biden article, after her initial attempt there was rejected. See following link:
 * 9) April 28,2020 Attempt to insert egregious BLP violation into Joe Biden article after KB attempts to amplify gender-related allegations were rejected.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) May 1, 2020 AP2 Arb Enforcement block by
 * 2) May 27, 2020 partial AP2 TBAN by


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * May 1, 2020 AP2 Block by.
 * Feb. 14, 2020 Alerted about sanctions in BLP
 * August 31, 2020 Alerted about GamerGate/gender issues

This editor has recently begun to disregard their its partial AP2 topic ban. This comes on top of six months of disruptive editing in areas related to politics, gender, and BLP. I apologize for posting several links to long threads, but I think this is the clearest way to demonstrate the problem. This account is WP:NOTHERE and regularly fails or does not care to understand policies and guidelines their it cites to justify tendentious editing. In addition to the sanctions linked above, there were others by and  that were undone on appeal. I have not listed diffs for the additional instances of incivility, AGF fails, and aspersions in the three subject areas.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

The following interaction with Wugapodes on his talk page may be illustrative of the sealioning and misappropriation of various policies and guidelines. 1) Regarding KB's one-way interaction ban with SPECIFICO, 2) KB accusations about SPECIFICO, and 3) KB mansplaining Wugapodes regarding his Admin actions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my oversight and misstatement as to the scope of KB's TBAN. I have inserted partial in all instances. In this diff KB deleted article text explicitly related to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's presidential campaign, so that edit is a clear violation of the limited TBAN. Admins might not consider each one of the cited 14 edits a violation, however in light of the wording of the TBAN -- relating to pages -- and given that 2020 Presidential candidate Gillibrand was the prime mover for Franken's resignation, and further in light of the gender-related issues with Biden and Trump, I would personally think these edits do fall within the scope. I can see that Admins might interpret it more narrowly, and I apologize for my imprecision and possibly erroneous interpretation in filing this case. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have stricken the two instances of "it" and replaced them with "they". There's a brief discussion of this on my user talk page. I have made a point of referring to them as KB, acknowledging that to my knowledge KB has not disclosed a gender preference. KB, please accept my changes and apology for the instances you pointed out.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To help get closure on this, I'm going to ping the editors who were involved in retrospective discussion at the bottom of the Anne Frank talk page I linked. This should clarify whether I've misinterpreted KBs behavior at that and the other linked gender-related evidence. . I presume the Admins here have read the entire page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notification link here

Discussion concerning Kolya Butternut
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Kolya Butternut
SPECIFICO just referred to me as "it"...twice, and cites a sanction I don't have. I hope I'm not being baited into an IBAN, I don't need that. This comes immediately after I invited him to discuss his desired changes after he had fought so hard to reverse the ONUS onto me, as observed by. Now that I started editing Al Franken, SPECIFICO reverted my clearly neutral edits and does not appear to want to discuss them with me. There are many more false statements I'll need time to look at, but please understand that everything I have done is in good faith, and I believe you can see from Talk:Aziz Ansari that I have tried very hard to do better to avoid unnecessary arguing, even if I didn't always succeed. Everything before my sanction has already been discussed in the past; I am trying to move on. I do see that my last edit to Talk:Joe Biden was actually on May 25th. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the Gillibrand text I had removed: Accusations that the forced resignation was unfair were described as a liability to Gillibrand's presidential campaign in mid-2019, and added. I came to the article to edit the sexual misconduct allegation against Franken...I wasn't expecting to run into this and just wasn't thinking. I would not intentionally put myself in the position to be sanctioned. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) +diffs Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC) wrong word Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that of all the edits I made to Al Franken which SPECIFICO reverted, at the talk page he chooses to discuss the edit most likely to get me sanctioned, without warning me, and then when I respond he replies by bringing me to AE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My comment about DeJoy in response to is about his campaign contributions to Republicans in general, again, maybe I should have been paying closer attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I assume he called me "it" because of how I identified myself in my old user page, and because I edit trans and gender articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO typically calls me "she". and "her" in his diff description #8 just above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO saw call me "they". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an IBAN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've already said this to SPECIFICO: SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

1&2 addressed.

3&4. As saw at Talk:Anne Frank, editors were repeatedly making false statements and misrepresenting my arguments. No evidence of "95" comments. My RfC !vote and comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Apology. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors and admin present at Talk:Anne Frank who may offer insight into Talk:Anne Frank are and. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

5. Ask El C about the conflict at Aziz Ansari where SPECIFICO would not respect ONUS. At WP:V I was asking for ONUS interpretation; stated that my reverts were proper. SPECIFICO has been making POV non-V edits with false edit summaries, as I showed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

6,7,8,9, These were before my sanction; do I have to defend myself still? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC) clarify. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel that it is SPECIFICO who is violating the gender-related sanctions, as witnessed by, Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Same behavior that witnessed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's logged warning violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2018, SPECIFICO was told never to refer to any editor as "it", and he responded, that "it" is the preferred politically correct way to address our colleagues of unidentified gender.

This July he was asked to please stop misgendering people.

SPECIFICO is routinely referred to by "they", as by several people in his AE case brought by this year, and he has been called "they" no doubt for years since adding a w/e pronoun infobox to his userpage in 2013.

SPECIFICO is so familiar with gender topics that he participated in a Sexology arbitration request about "TERFs" in 2014, and also in 2014 participated in a discussion at the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force where other editors discussed using WP:Xe, s/he, and Template:Gender-neutral as gender neutral pronouns for editors.

There is no reasonable doubt that SPECIFICO is very, very well aware that "they" is the standard pronoun for people of unknown gender. When he called me "it" here he was bullying me to provoke a reaction (perhaps to get me to waste my word count), and when he feigned ignorance at his talk page he was violating [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying], which I dare to say he regularly does (just read Talk:Aziz Ansari to observe the master manipulation).

Is there such thing as a "net positive" editor we can't trust? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's AE warning to follow WP behavioral standards. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

One of SPECIFICO's ANI warnings: ...User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban; 3) User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion;... The closing admin is inactive, but former admin was present, and current admin . Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see an indef topic ban from sex and gender topics specifically for lying/dishonesty. The misgendering personal attacks towards editors and the misogyny towards women who make sexual misconduct allegations are the influencing factors, but the most toxic behavior to the community is the lying and manipulation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv
I'm busy in real life so I'm speaking perhaps more off-the-cuff than I normally would, but I am concerned to see this request. I've been pinged by KB, so take note of my POV, but I am a fan of and long-time lurker at Aziz Ansari, which this is about. Here is my perspective: around 24 August, SPECIFICO begins making rapid edits relating to Aziz Ansari, a topic they seem to be relatively unfamiliar with (not an insult, not necessarily an issue—I've edited lots of topics I know little about). Specifically, a woman (Grace) described a date with Ansari in which (both he and she agree) he acted aggressively and sexually towards her in a way that made her deeply uncomfortable. The way that I felt reading SPECIFICO's comments and edits is that they present Grace as a malicious actor, emotional woman or person who should be entirely ignored. For instance, this comment: [...] the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. [...] the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. This is not an accurate summary of what reliable sources say—though it is an accurate summary of what half of reliable sources say, the half that SPECIFICO has been focusing on over the last few weeks. Before this, the article was in a relatively stable state given the sheer amount of continued content produced by the alt-right on this topic (not anyone in this discussion), with most conflict being IPs trying to whitewash the article. It was a surprisingly good compromise given the polarised set of reliable sources (particularly given that most editors have strong opinions on the topic).

I left the discussion almost immediately, realising it to be not productive to engage in a conflict which would drain me of energy. KB is the only user who has engaged in the discussion in a comparable level to SPECIFICO. If I were to be uncharitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as specifically intended to Gish gallop until all other users had been driven away, and this enforcement action as part of that behaviour. If I were to be charitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as a good-faith attempt to improve Aziz Ansari based on a reading of reliable sources that I disagree with, due to our different personal opinions and beliefs; I am happy to recognise mine but I don't know if SPECIFICO has commented on theirs. Either way, there is nothing here that KB has violated but people independent of the situation (not me) should evaluate whether SPECIFICO's use of the pronoun "it", filing of a non-actionable request and behaviour at Talk:Aziz Ansari has been made in good faith. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
(Responding because I was pinged.)

At Talk:Anne Frank I wrote:


 * "I have decided to unwatch this and related pages. I have made my point as best I can and don't think more words from me will change any opinions at this point. Also, I have a suspicion in the back of my mind that this just might end up at Arbcom, and I want to be able to say I withdrew from the discussion."

As I predicted, it is now at Arbcom, and I am pointing out that I withdrew from the discussion.

Much of this request concerns current US politics, which I refuse to have anything to do with. If any Arb thinks that the part about Anne Frank is actionable, I can comment, but it seems to me that that particular content dispute was settled by RfC and that the page has been stable and NPOV ever since. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bondegezou
As I was pinged... I have only, as far as I remember, interacted with KB on the Anne Frank article and Talk page. Discussion there has got heated at times, but I saw nothing that warranted any action being taken against KB. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Kolya Butternut

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I have yet to read through the entire request, but I am concerned that the report cites violations of a supposed AP2 TBAN, whereas in fact the ban was from "pages or discussions related to 2020 United States presidential election, candidates, issues and events" ., in the spirit of AGF I'm assuming this wasn't intentional, but in that case you may want to amend some parts of your report. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Louis DeJoy edit was a violation, and a bad idea. Everything else seems to be part of genuine content disputes, though I'm not going to read through the 95 posts without a clearer reason to do so. 95 posts is veering into BLUDGEON territory, but then again this is an AP2 article, where reams of nonsense are produced on talk pages every day and need to be rebutted. I missed before that SPECIFICO was referring to KB as "it"; I would almost consider a boomerang just for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been open three days, during which no one has expressed interest in levying a sanction. The misuse of pronouns is bad (and by "misuse", I mean intentionally referring to another human being as "it"), but I can't see what to do about it besides warning that it may be met with an immediate block next time. I would also remind KB to be more mindful of the boundaries of the topic ban, which is broadly construed. I will close with these warnings unless other administrators suggest anything to the contrary in the next 24 hours or so. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the topic ban relates to the presidential election, issues and candidates and was issued on 27 May. I can't see a full AP2 ban unless I'm missing something. Therefore, the 7 September edit to Talk:Louis DeJoy was a technical breach, though minor, and I can't see any others.  Though I can't say I'm impressed with some of KB's editing I don't see a major violation of any AE that they're subject to. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please provide a really good reason why you're repeatedly calling another editor "it". The only reasons I can think of are (a) dehumanizing them, in which I think an indef block is called for until you agree to never do that again, or (b) trying to subtly claim that this is one of several accounts this editor is using, and you at talking about things they've done with this account, in which case, you are not being subtle at all, so provide substantiation or knock it off. I look forward to learning about a completely harmless explanation (c), at which time I will happily eat my words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO has changed the pronouns, and explained (?) on their talk page. I understand KB's taking offense, and won't begrudge them pointing it out at all, nor their comments about it so far.  But I think KB would be better served focusing on the actual subject at hand, since my understanding is that there is a one-way i-ban with SPECIFICO. Any mention of SPECIFICO that is required to address their claims is allowed, but there is a limit of some kind, and I'd hate for you to find out what that limit is the hard way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I usually don't do AE, i always make a pig's ear out of it. There is no i-ban, I misread the AN/ANI close.  The i-ban was overturned by the community 3-4 months ago.  Pay attention, Floq. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Albertaont
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Albertaont

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 16:07, 14 September 2020 Restored death removed here clearly stating unreferenced as anything to do with George Floyd protests. The reference provided makes no mention of Black Lives Matter, George Floyd or racial unrest. I mean, seriously, is every single death in America fair game for being classed as being part of a George Floyd protest?
 * 2) 06:37, 14 September 2020 Amends total from 19 to 23 at George Floyd protests, using references that don't mention George Floyd specifically this, this, this, and this
 * 3) 22:17, 13 September 2020 Restores unreferenced figure of 30 people killed during George Floyd protests despite it being specifically removed mentioning WP:BURDEN
 * 4) 02:51, 5 September 2020 Adds the death of Michael Reinoehl to the table at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. While a case could be made (by references of course) that the person he allegedly killed was during a George Floyd protest, Michael Reinoehl's subsequent shooting by police wasn't during a George Floyd protest
 * 5) 02:47, 5 September 2020 As diff above, only adding Michael Reinoehl to the article text. The reference makes no mention of George Floyd.
 * 6) 16:19, 1 September 2020 Restores information previously removed. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
 * 7) 17:39, 31 August 2020 Reverts to include an unreferenced total of 30 deaths at George Floyd protests
 * 8) 06:25, 29 August 2020 Restores information previously removed, claiming this article looks at the entirety of fatalities from all BLM protests, as some of the deaths in this article could also be reasonably attributed to outrage over Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery. Um, no. The article is called Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are not George Floyd protests.
 * 9) 05:58, 29 August 2020 Reverts at George Floyd protests saying 30 is the death toll at another article. That would be the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article, where they edit war to include incidents of no direct relevance to George Floyd, even ignoring that Wikipedia articles can't be used as references.
 * 10) 14:51, 26 August 2020 Unreferenced change of total deaths at George Floyd protests
 * 11) 05:55, 29 August 2020 At Talk:George Floyd protests argues content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
 * 12) 02:47, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
 * 13) 17:42, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll. Says I should challenge any of the . . . additional deaths. We've already seen what happens when entries are challenged at the other article as not being verifiably related to George Floyd protests, Albertaont reverts!


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Notified.

Here they said to bring admin to deal with their persistent violations of policy, which led to me reminding them of content policies here. Their constant attempts to include virtually every single death in America as part of the George Floyd protests are tiresome, and in violation of policy.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering your misrepresentation of references was brought up at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270, it's probably not a good idea to misrepresent them again. You say One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters, and refers to this edit. The incident where a car drove through a protest barricade was supposedly referenced by this and this. As I correctly stated in my edit summary removed some incidents that did not verifiably occur during a George Floyd protest, the burden of evidence is on anyone restoring them to provide references proving they did, since the references don't mention George Floyd. The references do however mention Rayshard Brooks, and the killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd. So the death of Secoriea Turner did not occur during a George Floyd protest, but during a Rayshard Brooks protest. FDW777 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Albertaont
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by (Alexiod Palaiologos)
As far as I can understand, this comes as a case of User:FDW777 refuses to engage in the talk section, and simply deleting random pieces of information in article, without any kind of consensus. One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters, yet User:FDW777 claimed it had nothing to do with the protests, which is ridiculous. User:FDW777 fails to assume good faith, and fails to reach any kind of consensus as to why he is removing large pieces of information from an article. So to then want to ban users for reverting information he deleted, is very surprising to me. He also gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users (possibly five, I'm not too sure because the article in question was attacked by vandals which makes it hard to read the history), so it seems his changes are generally not welcome. Suggest administrative action against User:FDW777 instead.

Statement by (slatersteven)
This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Its still a case of OR, my above still applies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Albertaont

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.