Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

TFBCT1

TFBCT1 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 15:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 TFBCT1 User who is submitting this request for enforcement DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 25 July 2018 Claiming that being placed in "limbo" on a GRG list is sufficient to remove someone from a living list; and stating that the GRG trumps other RS contradicting the consensus for this article. 20 July 2018 Claiming that the consensus for inclusion, in place for at least 10 years in this article, is merely a guideline and also claiming that the prior error of inclusion negates that consensus. 20 July 2018 and 20 July 2018 and 20 July Claiming that an earlier error invalidates the application of consensus. Then reverting an attempt to apply consensus and consistency between linked articles. Then edit-warring without waiting for consensus on the talk page. 4 July 2018 Removal of an addition which is not supported by the GRG on the spurious/deceptive claim that an age template wasn't used (they were more than capable of making the appropriate edit as I did subsequently). 8 June 2018 Claiming that the GRG and other longevity "experts" know better than Reliable Sources, again contradicting consensus (on the source article for this article). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Result_concerning_TFBCT1 Previous enforcement result: "Closed without action following assurances that the user will respect consensus." If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previous DS enforcement as above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Prior to Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede? this RFC List of oldest living people differentiated between those validated by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and others that were reliably sourced, with anyone not validated by the age of 113 removed. The consensus of the RFC was that the GRG not have any precedence over other RS. Given there was some confusion as to how this consensus should be applied I clarified this here. User:TFBCT1 failed to comment on this at the time and subsequently repudiated the original consensus, claimed that the clarification was not the latest consensus, when in fact it was, and repeatedly claimed that old consensus was still current on numerous longevity articles when in fact many had been updated to bring them inline with the above consensus. There are numerous other instances of this user editing by pushing the "GRG trumps other RS" line despite me pointing out repeatedly that such editing has resulted in a topic ban. Note the comment by the closing admin: "Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is." This user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has been warned as recently as 20 July 2018. Their typical modus operandi is frequently to edit-war without contributing to talk page discussion. Their current editing across multiple longevity articles could also be considered as perpetuating an edit war. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning TFBCT1 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 TFBCT1 There is a long history between myself and the accusing editor not getting along. He has continually threatened to take action against me with no just cause. His first (3) points have no cause. My statement 07/25/2018 regarding the GRG and "limbo cases" was a direct result of his reverting other editors who had attempted to remove an individual placed by the GRG in "limbo." Even though he is aware that this concurs no confirmation of life, he attempted to reinstate an individual placed in "limbo." DerbycountyNZ has a strong anti-GRG bias and a general disdain for the topic of longevity and it is very difficult to have a productive conversation with him or collaborate. His (2) points from 07/20/2018 are an attempt to be inflammatory with an issue that has already been resolved with another editor. Each of us made notice to the edit warring board against one another. The issue is resolved amicably on the talk page with me siding with the opposing argument and the case being closed without cause. The 06/8/2018 argument is skewed and misleading and presented erroneously. It had to do with cases in excess of 115, not 113 as incorrectly presented, that had been previously defined as "longevity claims, " not pure longevity cases. DerbycountyNZ continually stated that he had no such knowledge of this prior definition, which is hard to believe. That situation was resolved once again with me capitulating and there has been no incidence since. Most importantly, I do not have a modus operandi of edit warring without using the talk page. This is a blatant distortion of my character. I have a spirit of compromise and am always willing to take opposing views to the talk page. I have been updating the tables of the longevity pages every night @ 7:00/8:00pmEST/EDT for 12 years. This is quite a contribution to wikipedia and takes some dedication. I am thanked weekly by other editors for this commitment. It is disheartening to be constantly harassed by one disagreeable editor.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Clarification. I have also never been blocked for "edit warring". This is pure fiction on the part of DerbyCountyNZ. And a further attempt to disparage my character.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning TFBCT1 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. These are all content disputes and therefore not actionable here, except the edit-warring on List of oldest living people. TFBCT1, please focus your response on that issue. Sandstein 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Contrary to what TFBCT1 writes, TFBCT1 was in fact once blocked for edit-warring, per their block log. In this case, TFBCT1 edit-warred on List of oldest living people on 20 July ([2], [3], [4], [5]). TFBCT1's response does not address this misconduct. A block is therefore required to prevent further misconduct. TFBCT1 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher

No action. Sandstein 18:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Waleswatcher User who is submitting this request for enforcement Mr rnddude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Waleswatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 05:27, 20 July 2018 - This is not a breach of the DS, I'm including it because it's important to contextualizing the following diffs. 07:23, 21 July 2018 - Gameing of the 1RR restriction by waiting a couple extra hours to avoid explicitly breaching it. 11:29, 22 July 2018 - Gameing of the 1RR restriction by waiting a few extra hours to, again, avoid explicitly breaching it. 12:13, 26 July 2018 - There is currently a talk page consensus at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#quotes removed by 72bikers here that the quotes should not be reinstated at this current time (two editors for permanent removal, two editors for clarification before reinstatement, one editor for clarification with no comment on reinstatement, one undeclared editor, and one editor for immediate reinstatement - Waleswatcher). Despite this, and multiple warnings, Waleswatcher has continued to revert. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None to my knowledge. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Waleswatcher has handed out warnings to both 72bikers and Thomas.W. Moreover, I gave them a personally written only warning. It is plainly obvious that they are aware of the DS in place. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is a little bit slapdash because I did not anticipate that Waleswatcher would choose to carry on, particularly given the attention this has already received at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#How to handle this and two threads at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. The primary issue here is that Waleswatcher has been gameing the DS restrictions, and then edit-warring on top of that. I think the fourth diff may constitute a direct and explicit violation of the discretionary sanctions. This has gotten out of hand, and we need an admin to intervene. I'm going to take a moment to note that I (and others) stand accused of violating the discretionary sanctions as well. Our reverts are said to be a violation of the "consensus required" clause by Waleswatcher. One of several similar posts directed at myself and/or others - 23:23, 21 July 2018. Other accusations are available at WT:AE#How to handle this, these have been hatted by Sandstein. Gameing of the 1RR restriction: The diffs I have provided above are all related to the 1RR restriction and edit warring in general. First, and foremost, I have already delivered a personal warning to Waleswatcher on their talk page about this: Second, waiting a period of 26 hours ([[Special:diff/851115390|previous revert]]) to perform the revert will not exempt you from an edit-warring block. Please refer to [[WP:Edit-warring]] for a detailed explanation, with particular focus to the following: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. As 1RR is enforced on the page, you can change the word "fourth" with the word "second". Since that initial warning from me, Waleswatcher has received a standard template warning from Thomas.W (12:29, 22 July 2018) for continuing to edit-war and only a few hours ago a request for self-revert from Springee (12:29, 26 July 2018). The warnings have been to no avail. With regards to this, I anticipate that Waleswatcher will justify their edit-warring as being strict enforcement of the consensus. I, and practically everyone else, disagree. The emerging consensus as I outlined above is against inclusion in their current form, and no fewer than four editors have directly addressed Waleswatcher requesting that they cease and desist. Those individuals are: Thomas.W, Afootpluto, Springee, and myself. Notes: I haven't filed an AE request before, so if there's any errors feel free to fix or request that I fix them. There is a lot of material that isn't relevant to AE, but a reviewing admin may choose to take it into consideration. That material is available at User talk:Mr rnddude#For admins at AE. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) One question: Should I, or should I not, notify the individuals I have named in my request about this discussion? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Sandstein - I didn't put the restriction in place, though I understand why it's there. Modern sporting rifles or Assault weapons (depending on your POV) are the central subject of the modern gun control debate in the U.S. This has been particularly aggravated by their use in most of the deadliest recent mass shootings in the U.S. The article itself is not about gun control, but the subject of the article is one of the main topics of the debate. This type of rifle was also subject to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested I have notified Waleswatcher of the request Discussion concerning Waleswatcher 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 Waleswatcher This will have to be somewhat incomplete. I can only access Wikipedia from where I am now via a very slow phone data connection, which makes it very difficult and time consuming to post diffs, or even search for edits. So I cannot argue my case very effectively and will have to rely mostly on memory. Please excuse typos, same reason. I hope admins will agree that the situation is pretty clear. It started with an edit by 72bikers, who removed some quotes that had been in the article since at least March, well before NealN put the current remedies in place. I did not agree with that removal and I reverted it. My edit summary was unfortunately incomplete - I hit the wrong button while in the middle of typing it. The "consensus version" I mentioned should have been "version consensus is required to change" or something to that effect, and I hadn't detailed my reasons for objecting yet. I can understand how this might irritate someone that agreed with 72bikers' edit. Nevertheless, the rules in place there, as I understand them (and I don't see room for ambiguity, they are quite clearly written) are that once an edit has been challenged by reversion, it cannot be reinstated without first achieving consensus on the article talk page. So, when Thomas.W undid my revert, I politely requested they self-revert on their talk page. They refused, and I was accused of bad-faith by them and several other editors, notably including Mr rnddude. At that point I asked for guidance from NealN, but when I realized they were on vacation, I reported Thomas.W to ani. Unfortunately my report was quickly closed as wrong venue, with no guidance about what the right venue was (I didn't even know this board existed until later). So, I decided to re-revert, with a long edit summary explaining my reasons more clearly and reminding everyone of the rule that consensus is required before a challenged edit can be reinstated. Unfortunately Mr rnddude reverted that, despite knowing the rule. This happened once again, this time Afootpluto doing the reverting. These look to me like clear and purposeful violations of the article restrictions. I made sure my reverts were more than 24 hours apart to abide by the rules, even though it seemed to me that might not be necessary given that the edits I was reverting were clear violations of the restrictions. I decided to stop after the third cycle as it seemed pointless to continue, and because by then there was a report at an ae board that I hoped would resolve this. There was also progress on the talk page towards agreement on keeping the quotes while adding some comments to address 72bikers' original concern. Unfortunately the (other) ae report was closed too, again with no guidance. My latest edit was an attempt to restore the quotes 72bikers removed while adding some clarifications to address their concern, following a suggestion from the talk page discussion. I thought this was at least potentially constructive. It would really have been helpful to have some guidance or even an opinion from an admin, so this didn't have to come to this. But of course I understand everyone is busy or might not want to intervene for various reasons. Again, apologies for lack of diffs - I hope this is clear enough. I'll log on occasionally in the next days to see if there are specific questions I should address. ETA - apart from anything else, please ask yourself this question. The talk page says this, at the top: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. 72bikers made an edit on July 19th that I reverted. How is Thomas.W's edit less than 7 hours later reinstating 72bikers' edit not a violation of that restriction? Same question for Mr rnddude's and Afootpluto's reinstatements the following two days. There was no talk page consensus for 72bikers edit at any of those times (nor is there now), as can easily be seen from the talk page history. Springee, the claim that there was the necessary consensus for 72biker's edit when Thomas.W reinstated it is patently false. Their reinstatement came only seven hours after my revert, and there was hardly any discussion at all, let alone consensus, on the article talk page. I suppose you may be referring to the discussion on Thomas.W's talk page, but that is not what is required by the restriction - article talk page consensus is explicitly required. In any case, to call that discussion a consensus, when hardly any of the involved editors were even aware if it, is disingenuous. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) {U|Awilley}}, is a boomerang allowed by the rules here, if warranted? Waleswatcher (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by ansh666 Not planning on getting involved, but just noting that I've fully protected the article for 1 week because of the last revert/edit by Waleswatcher. Technically, per talk page consensus as mentioned by Mr rnddude, it's on the WP:WRONGVERSION, but oh well. Should this request come to a conclusion one way or another, anyone can drop the protection. Do note, however, that (independently of the proceedings that led to this request) I'd previously semi-protected the article for a while a few days ago because IP socks of User:HughD were active on the page. ansh666 17:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein, you're certainly right to say that most of the article generally doesn't overtly have anything to do with gun control. However, almost everything about the gun control debate nowadays is implicit. For example (again, not related to this specific request, but as has been discussed separately on the article talk page), gun control advocates will try to play up the lethality of these guns, for example, while opponents will downplay it - vying for public opinion, emotion, and concern in order to bolster their side without ever saying anything about "gun control". It's a big part of what makes the topic so heated - and so difficult to edit in without disputes. ansh666 20:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (slatersteven) It may be relevant to refer those concerned to [6]. I am not sure that this can be dealt with ion this way as I feel more then one ed is at fault. It might have been nice to have actually received some kind of guidance over the wider issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC) I have to say given that there are at least three other eds who may have breached DS in this one matter I think issuing sanction against one user is wrong. This is why I say this cannot be dealt with within the strictures of AE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng @Sandstein: It looks like the restriction was put in place by NeilN here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: I believe he is on vacation until the 29th.[7] PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (Springee) This editor has a problematic edit history in this area. The justification for reversion focused on gaming the system rather than explaining the content (quotes inside a citation) contribute to the article. 3 restorations after other editors stepped in shows a failure to listen and poor judgment given the sanctions on the article. The first reversion of 72biker's edit was not justified by an edit summary or talk discussion but was within the rules of DS RR1. That reversion resulted in objections from two editors, myself and Mr rnddude prior to Thomas.W's reversion. So at the time of the first reversion we have 3 editors + 72biker supporting the change (or objecting to WW's restoration) and only WW supporting the restoration. Even with 4:1 against, WW reverts a second time not arguing the material but rather a lack of consensus. Even after a few days of discussion WW hasn't offered much in the way of reasons why the material should be restored despite now four restorations! Conversely, four different editors have removed the material. This should be a hint. I suspect there is no love lost between 72biker and WW. 72biker reported WW for edit warring.[[8]] WW encouraged others to assume the worst intentions of 72bikers (see WW's 10 July comment and VQuakr's final comment, end of section [[9]]) Waleswatcher complains about 72biker to an admin [[10]] while generally failing listen to others about their own edits.[[11]] Note that the article is under DS1 in part due to WW's behavior. WW should have known to be careful based on the warning that closed this WP:ARE.[[12]] Note that the events in that WP:ARE are the reason why the article is under 1RR rules. I think it's easy to assume WW reverted 72biker's edit not based on the edit but the editor and then used wikilawyering to make the change about the sanctions rather than arguments for or against the material itself. This is why I think WP:GAME applies. This same editor argued that rather than the onus being on the editor making a change it was on the editor who wanted to revert the change! (see edit comment [[13]]) As was mentioned above, several editors, myself included warned WW to get consensus before making new changes. This advice was ignored and here we are. @Dlthewave:, I agree that the previous consensus version included that text and we can view that as simply something that wasn't challenged at a time when there were lots of edits in this area and it was best to pick and choose where to put energies. However, at the time that Thomas.W restored 72biker's edit, the consensus was 4:1 against. Also, consider the comments in the discussion. I pointed out that the quote does not support the article text. If the quote doesn't support the text in the article why is it there? Even if we assume consensus hadn't changed, WW was still edit warring after restoring the material 4 times. Given WW's failure to listen to others this time and in previous cases I would suggest a formal warning. Springee (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein:, would a close indicate this is the wrong venue based on the question if RR1 applies to the article or an opinion that Waleswatcher's actions are acceptable? I would think that multiple reversions after consensus against WW's preferred version should indicate that WW is simply not listening (again). Springee (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley, WW's original reversion of 72biker was within 1RR guidelines. However, after WW restored the material there was a 4:1 consensus against the material. At that point we have a change in consensus and the material shouldn't have been restored the second, third or fourth time. That was just WW refusing to listen along with using wikilawyering vs content based reasons to keep the material in the article. Springee (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken @Ansh666: I appreciate your attempt to be even-handed in your description above, but this is definitely one of those cases of false equivalence. It's not that one side "plays up" the lethality of the weapon and the other side "downplays" it, any neutral observer will testify that one side simply wants to report the weapon's lethality, while the other side wants to suppress it. There is simply no reason for this weapon to exist except to kill things as rapidly and efficiently as possible. Any other considerations are completely secondary. And Sandstein, as a number of editor have reported, the gun control aspect of the AR-15 dispute is not as apparent on Wikipedia, but it's extrinsically true. This is one of those cases where you really do have to look outside of this project to get a clearer picture of what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Thomas.W There are a few things that are worth noting here, the first one is that Waleswatcher in the edit I reverted, where they re-added the contentious and misleading material that 72biker had removed, in their edit summary claimed to be reverting to a "consensus version", a claim that seems to be false since no one else has seen such a consensus, and Waleswatcher hasn't been able to point to it, in spite of being asked to do so by multiple other editors. The second thing to note is that Waleswatcher well knows that they can't re-add contested material without a consensus, as shown by them in a number of edit summaries (sample diffs: "This material has been challenged and cannot be re-added without consensus. You may be blocked from editing if you persist.", "... once an edit has been challenged, the usual procedure is to seek consensus before reinstating it"), 'and the third thing to note is that Waleswatcher has a habit of twisting the rules, and claim the rules say the direct opposite to what they say, whenever it fits their POV, such as "Getting consensus" is not necessary for an edit on wikipedia. Rather, you should get consensus to undo" (as edit summary for an edit where they re-added a large block of contested text), i.e. claiming that editors can add whatever material they want without consensus, but removing it requires consensus. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC) @Dlthewave: I can't see any consensus for adding it in that discussion, it's just two editors, you and Springee (you supporting it and Springee opposing it), having a very short discussion about it (a discussion with four short posts, two from each of the participants, that was over in about an hour, with no chance for anyone else to weigh in). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: There was never a consensus for adding the material (misleading editorialising quotes embedded in references), see my comment above, and since the quotes were visible only in the reflist section, far from the section where the references are, it took a while before anyone noticed it and challenged it... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewave The disputed quotes stem from a discussion held in March regarding whether or not the Armalite AR-15 should be described as an "assault rifle." These quotes were added along with the references to clarify that sources do specifically support the term. The section was stable until July 19 when the quotes were removed by 72Bikers and restored hours later by Waleswatcher. The ensuing discussion (see collapsed section) turned into a chicken-or-egg argument over whether there was existing consensus for the quotes and whether Waleswatcher or 72Bikers was the one who challenged an edit. As I pointed out at the time, this really couldn't be decided without an assessment by an uninvolved admin, and it also begs the question of how All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) is to be followed when both the addition and removal of the content have been challenged. Frankly the best solution would have been for an uninvolved admin to wade in and make a decision so that the discussion could move forward. My take on the matter is that the quotes had implied consensus due to being stable for 3 months, and 72Bikers' removal edit should not have been repeated by Thomas.W, Mr rnddude and Afootpluto. That being said, neither was it appropriate for Waleswatcher to continue reinserting it just outside of the 24-hour 1RR window. In any case, Waleswatcher has added a new version of the quotes which seems to alleviate any concerns about being misleading. I don't see any ongoing disruption that would require sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Afootpluto The reason I removed the quotes after waleswatcher added them back for the third time is because by that time we had a consensus to either not have them in at all or to have them modified Afootpluto (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish This is absolutely, positively correct: "The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate, as much as anything is these days." 20 years ago it was mostly about semi-auto pistols, but this has radically changed. You may have to be an American to understand how much it has changed. That article and its talk page are unquestionably within the DS scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Waleswatcher This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. The remedy reads that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control." Can the complainant please explain how either the article AR-15 style rifle or the edits at issue are related to gun control? I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: Thanks, I'll leave this to NeilN to decide, then. Personally I don't think this is in scope. The article as such is about the rifle, not about control of its use, and the edits are likewise about how great the rifle is, or not is. Sandstein 18:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC) I rarely say this, Sandstein, but you're completely wrong. The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate, as much as anything is these days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) The article certainly relates to gun crime and mass shootings, that‘s well covered in the article. But there‘s little in the article about actual gun control measures or proposals, only a mention of an apparently now expired ban that the rifle was once subject to. The connection appears remote judging solely by the article. But I won‘t object if other admins see this differently. Sandstein 20:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC) If there are no comments by other admins, I'll close this without action tomorrow. Sandstein 09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) From what I can see Waleswatcher's interpretation of the "consensus required" sanction was correct, though the slow edit war wasn't ideal. 72bikers made an edit that removed longstanding material, WW challenged that edit with a revert, and then consensus should have then been required to remove the material again. I'm fine closing this with no action. ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Because of the ongoing discussion about who has consensus on their side - pointless because this is not the forum for that - I am closing this request now without action. This is not an endorsement of anybody's position or actions, just a finding that, in my view, the edit at issue is not subject to discretionary sanctions and that therefore normal WP:DR procedures will need to be used to resolve this dispute. Sandstein 18:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 09:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Malik Shabazz User who is submitting this request for enforcement Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : specifically, violation of TBAN imposed by DS. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 01:03, 24 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour is ECP protected and under ARBPIA DS sanctions. Sarsour is a Palestinian-American who has been critical of Israel. The edits in question relate to criticism of Sarsour in relation to her BDS stance on Israel - which is clearly ARBPIA related. 23:33, 17 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour, same issue as above. Also incivility -- "rv stupidity" 13:08, 19 July 2018 - Linda Sasrour, same issue as above. 01:55, 8 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour, same issue as above. PA in edit summary: "sorry you don't like the facts, as reported by reliable sources -- please peddle your hate elsewhere". 22:10, 21 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue. Incivility - "Are the two of you as clueless in real life as you act on Wikipedia?". 21:58, 21 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue. Incivility - "No, the natural conclusion of what I wrote is that the majority of editors are morons". 01:43, 23 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue. 21:14, 28 July 2018 +21:17, 28 July 2018 - edits to Avera Mengistu - an Israeli held captive in Gaza (with no notability otherwise) - clearly conflict related, though not marked ECP protected or with DS sanctions. 17:28, 28 July 2018 - edit to Israel. ECP protected and marked with ARBPIA DS sanctions. Edit is in relation to legal status of Arabs in Israel and Israel's identity as a Jewish state - which is conflict related. 17:27, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above. 16:04, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above. 15:56, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above. Mild incivility - "What a load of self-serving baloney". 03:51, 19 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above. 01:36, 20 July 2018 - Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque - article is ECP protected and marked as under ARBPIA DS sanctions. Removal of IP comment (not sure on what grounds - the IP should've provided a source for their assertions, but sources to at least some of the assertions made are available) which was directly related to the conflict. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 17 August 2015 - 48 hour block for "Repeated personal attacks and incivility" 20 January 2017 - 4 day block for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for your personal attacks on others ("dickhead", "moron") in the context of discussions about the WP:ARBIPA topic area" 12:47, 23 May 2018 TBANed from ARBPIA for 6 months. 3 June 2018 Warning of TBAN violation. 6 July 2018 Blocked 31 hours for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard". If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:47, 23 May 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Many of these edits were performed by User:MShabazz - a confirmed alternate of Malik Shabazz, when looking through contributions both accounts should be examined. For the sake of limiting the amount of diffs, I did not list all of the edits to each article above. I ordered diffs by article. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 07:50, 29 July 2018 Additional comments by Icewhiz Linda Sarsour, the entire article, was placed under DS on 21 December 2017. This was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 4#Scope of article sanctions, including by Malik Shabazz here - 17:29, 27 December 2017 who said If Albert Einstein includes a section about his involvement in the Zionist movement or his opposition to the Revisionists, it absolutely is covered by ARBPIA., as well as [14] and [15]. Sarsour's support for BDS, views on Zionism incompatability with feminism, and criticism thereof are clearly ARBPIA (per Malik Shabazz also if it had not been tagged by an admin).Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz 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 Malik Shabazz I reject the overbroad interpretation of ARBPIA that Icewhiz likes to adopt concerning my editing, such as the notion that Religion in Israel and sources concerning the existence of the Second Temple are included within ARBPIA.[16] Today, Icewhiz argues that criticism of one American by another American is within ARBPIA and that discussion of an Israeli law that only affects Israeli citizens are within ARBPIA. I concede that editing Avera Mengistu was probably a violation of my topic ban. I merely did some clean-up to other editors' additions, but I didn't stop to think that he is an Israeli missing in Gaza, believed to be held by Hamas. I sincerely apologize for improving Wikipedia and promise I will never do that again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian These are all obviously topic-ban violations. I have latterly noticed many bitter comments from Malik Shabazz. I'll give some unsolicited advice: he should stay away from this topic on Wikipedia. Look at it this way: in none of the discussions would his absence have had made any difference to the final outcome. Wikipedia is not worth darkening your mood for. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Malik Shabazz This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. In my view, these are all topic ban violations, not only the edits regarding Avera Mengistu as acknowledged by Malik Shabazz . Linda Sarsour is an American notable in part for her position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as highlighted in her article's lead. While not all of the the article Israel is necessarily related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the talk page edits by Malik Shabazz are, because they deal with Malik Shabazz's assertion that Israel "has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens", which refers to the Arab citizens of Israel and the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which are topics very much related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as the respective articles indicate. As to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the article's lead indicates that it "has been a flashpoint in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". In addition, the complaint also includes evidence of incivility and personal attacks by Malik Shabazz. To prevent the reoccurrence of such topic ban violations and other misconduct, I am blocking Malik Shabazz for two weeks. Sandstein 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

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 Ceoil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions

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

1. 02:03 15 July 2018 Mentioning Crymeanocean's 179-edit history as reason for reversion and suspicion
2. 04:17 15 July 2018 Doubling down and bringing up rumours of sleeper accounts/sockpuppetry after being called out, but "I won't call for a check user or anything"
3. 05:52 15 July 2018 Again raising suspicions of sockpuppetry
4. 06:00 15 July 2018 Accusation of "faux naive guise"
5. 21:06 21 July 2018 Allusion to sockpuppetry and accounts which "lack enough edit history to earn suffrage" followed by a long off-topic rant about how infobox discussions usually go
6. 08:35 29 July 2018 Raising suspicions about Epinoia's 434-edit history and working knowledge of Arbcom
7. 11:15 29 July 2018 In response to a request to keep the discussion open: "are we advancing towards a solution or is there further canvassing/ signalling/ sock incarnations to be done."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 1 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In an ongoing infobox discussion at Talk:Ezra Pound, Ceoil has been persistent in their attempts to poison the well and draw the discussion away from content by raising vague accusations of sockpuppetry and sleeper accounts. As I pointed out at Ceoil's talk page 21:06 21 July 2018 and at article talk 22:37 21 July 2018, these accusations, even if well-supported, should be discussed at user talk or the appropriate noticeboard. This ongoing series of accusations only serves to impede the consensus-building process and cast unfounded suspicion on editors with whom they disagree. Please see the talk page permalink for context.

@Ceoil: I'd like to address a few of the links given by Ceoil:

[17] - This is Ceoil's revert of content added to the "Disinfoboxes" essay in 2012, completely unrelated to Ceoil's recent accusations of sockpuppetry.

[18] - This is a list of reasons to oppose an infobox proposal from 2012. Only one item in the list (place of birth) is applicable to the current proposal and, again, not related to the current accusations of sockpuppetry.

[19] - Part of a series of edits made over several hours, which combine to form this quite different version.

Regardless of the nature of the content dispute or conduct of other editors, article talk is not the place to make these repeated accusations, and uninvestigated suspicions of sockpuppetry are not a reason to close a discussion or discount the opinions of other editors. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: The issue at hand is Ceoil's conduct which is unrelated to and not justified by other editors' conduct, however I do need to address a few parts of the statement.

Part of the discussion did end on July 17, at which time the article contained an infobox added by Victoriaearle on July 16. The box was removed by Ghirlandajo on July 21 with an edit summary of "rmv boxclutter" which is why I reopened the discussion on that day. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To the closing admins: Personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry are the sort of thing that's regularly sanctioned at ANI. It's understandable that longtime editors of the article are frustrated by the constant discussion, however I'm not sure how a history of sockpuppetry in this area is supposed to excuse the behavior. This was brought to AE because we have a lower tolerance for this behavior in DS areas. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning Ceoil

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 Ceoil

I welcome arb attention to ongoing issues of sock puppetry in infobox discussions, the methods of enabling and signalling, and the ongoing and often successful programmes of targeted baiting.[21][22][23][24][25]

This move by Dlthewave is to distract from the fact that consensus is against him at the the Ezra Pound talk page, and follows a series of attempted baitings effectively to take me out of the game. I stand over my arguments against the inclusion of a template on this article only, which comprise 90% of my recent postings there, while my concerns about sockpuppeting are based on observations of patterns and behaviours. Note in the recent discussion, the incumbent editors are forced to make the same points over and over,[26][27][28][29][30] to multiple deaf ears, in a short span of time, until, it seems we break.[31][32][33].

At the very least, as an ip wrote today, we should respect WP:Don't bludgeon the process, which seems to be a long standing technique. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, your replies miss several points and fail, again, to recognise core issues of sockpuppeting and signaling behaviour. I don't buy this placing of this "discussion event", and the individual diffs presented, as disconnected from the turning wiki world, out of the blue, and lacking any larger narrative or context. I am so tired of this, endless explaining, made worse of all these "hello world, shucks, I don't know much about anything, just an average reader, but nevertheless am an expert on the finer points of WP:OWN and at extracting selective readings from previous arb findings going back to 2010; can you explain all the previous arguments to me re this specific articles from the top again please :)" new accounts, that seem magnetically attracted to humanities infobox after a few months of 3 edits every few weeks, and then after, for some reason then expire in to the either from whence they came. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarahSV

Ceoil, a main author of Ezra Pound, appears not to have received a DS alert, and nothing he has said rises to the level of a sanction. Pound is one of the articles that have attracted pro-box discussions several times; the argument against is that he led a complex life that would be hard to summarize accurately. The current discussion has been ongoing since 15 July; two pro-box editors have been fairly aggressive and a third was clearly baiting. Ceoil is not alone in wondering about sockpuppetry. I have too, particularly Epinoia (talk · contribs · count) (436 edits in nine years). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, it would be extraordinarily unfair if Ceoil were topic-banned from Pound. He's been editing it since 2007 and helping to shape it on article talk and other talk pages. He was also one of the FA nominators. There is nothing here that rises to the level of a sanction. What would be extremely helpful is if an admin were to add an infobox-discussion restriction of the kind added here to Talk:Stanley Kubrick. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Victoriaearle

The discussion came to an end, then four days later Dlthewave inexplicably opened a new thread. What's happening there is excruciating, there's an insidious and systematic push to add a box, although consensus for a box hasn't been established in in eight years, despite many long discussions. There has been bad behavior all around, some more civil than others, (I think reopening a thread when a contentious discussions fades, is the definition of inciviliy) and yet Dlthewave chooses to report only Ceoil. If one editor is reported and sanctioned, then we should open reports on the behavior of the editors throughout. It would be even better for a trusted wiki elder or administrator to have the courage to close the discussion. What's happening there isn't healthy, neither for the editors involved or for the project as a whole. Should Ceoil be sanctioned, then I'd be happy to add diffs regarding Gerda's blatant canvassing, CurlyTurkey's comments to me that were far from the definition of civil, the edits from new editors, and the ongoing bludgeoning. Per FoF 2 of the original 2013 case, a box isn't required and the baiting there (which frankly has been ongoing for years) falls squarely into FoF 6 of the 2018 case. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Dlthewave, I never had any intention of keep that particular box. As an experiment I added it at 12:13, July 16, against consensus. Three edits were added in quick succession, I lost a bunch of work, in frustration I reverted myself at 12:24 and decided to try to sandbox it, then thought I'd give it another shot, put it back at 12:25, then another edit conflict and I took it down and decided to work on it in my sandbox or off wiki because I had to go offline. Later that night, after reading this comments, I put it back. Then someone else reverted removed it after lots of other intermediary edits all of which require discussion. Then, less than one hour later, you opened a new thread on the talk page. Which the brought us here. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Outriggr, as I explained, here, here, and here the caption is an issue. The subsequent suggestion to replace the free image with a non-free one is worrying. And indicative. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Tuckerresearch: I've never done what I've about to do (but I've never posted here either). Please take a look at this page. Given those stats, I believed this comment directed at me. Regardless of who you meant, it wasn't a good way to begin to a thread. You might believe Ceoil deserves a block and sanctions, but equally so do I given the heat in the discussion which has distressed me at a time when I really am not able to cope with it, yet I believe strongly in the comments I've posted there. That said, I'd not mind a block simply to get out from under the accusations. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Outriggr

• Request: Would an administrator please add an infobox discussion restriction to the Ezra Pound article of the type that Bishonen added to Talk:Stanley Kubrick in May. While such a restriction may feel a bit paternal, it's a very healthy and practical response to the worst of the infobox debates. I had planned to request this when the discussion was closed (which itself may have needed a request), but we're here now.
• Observation: Infobox debates seem to be rarer now, mostly as a result of long-term editors on both sides chilling a bit, or more than a bit. (Including me. I shifted my position as a proposal on that page, probably ruining my relationship with a few people ;-), while internally still Not Getting Why Anyone Cares So Much About Adding A Box With Two Dates That Are In The Lead And Reiterating "Occupation".) This particular debate shows that they do still exist, however, and that they can still be surprisingly damaging, personal, and time-consuming. Going forward, any further debate of this type is almost certain to happen on pages that have already had the debate at least once, which itself poisons the new discussion as seen here. I believe the discussion-prevention remedy should be used as liberally as needed. Because the malignant discussions are so infrequent, localised and repetitious of themselves, it is less damaging to freeze a few discussions than it is to sanction editors of any stripe. Outriggr (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Victoria, I think you took the opposite meaning of what I intended to say. I intended to say that the minimal infobox, which I supported with amendment, adds very little to the article!—and I don't know why having it added is seen as such a positive outcome by some editors—as the minimal IB is highly repetitious of the article's opening lines. Sorry. Outriggr (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Modernist

Although I was not a participant in the discussion currently being discussed; I am a long standing editor on the Ezra Pound article and I have participated in countless discussions regarding whether or not to include an infobox in the Pound article. Pound's complicated life as pointed out by Victoriaearle and others make including an infobox a difficult proposition. I have worked with Ceoil and others on the article and in my opinion Ceoil is an important, knowledgeable and informed editor who has successfully brought the Ezra Pound article to Featured status. Everything that I observed Ceoil add regarding the current discussion seemed both reasonable and intelligent. In my opinion the discussion should be closed, and no infobox added...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TuckerResearch

(1) User:Ceoil shows clear ownership behavior on this article, even his allies note that he is a "main author of Ezra Pound." (2) But what is worse, I think, is his sheer incivility to editors he disagrees with about having an infobox on this page. Much evidence can be found on archived versions of the talkpage, such as Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 2 (I don't have the time to go back and pick out diffs there). But here I offer some diffs from the current Talk:Ezra Pound page to illustrate Ceoil's untoward behavior to fellow editors, and his complete failure to assume good faith in his fellow editors:

• Ceoil says someone with 179 edits should not edit the page.
• Ceoil accusing someone of edit warring.
• Ceoil calling someone's arguments "shallow, and wholly lacking any reading or understanding of previous debates on this talk."
• Ceoil accusing people who disagree with him of being sockpuppets.
• Ceoil accusing people of being bad at creating sockpuppets.
• Ceoil says someone who is trying to discuss things is merely "stoking the fires."
• Ceoil calling someone he disagrees with, someone who wants to further the discussion, an "agitator."
• Ceoil calls that user's tactics "cheap."
• Ceoil accuses more people of sockpuppetry and threatens them with investigations.
• Ceoil says people who disagree with him do so with "utter nonsense."
• Ceoil deletes a talkpage comment he doesn't like with the comment "prick"! That's right: Ceoil deleted a talkpage comment by a user he doesn't like or agree with and called him a "prick" in the process!
• Ceoil accuses an editor he disagrees with of being a sockpuppet, again, and anyone that wants an infobox must be "passive aggressive" who can't grasp his "subtle reasons."
• Ceoil has the gall to say that he gets to decide when people have a right to vote on an infobox for this article, saying that the people he disagrees with: "Typically they lack enough edit history to earn suffrage."
• Ceoil's first attack on me, calling me a "drive by" editor with a "non-thinking for 'whatever reason' line of thinking." He also condescendingly tells me to "read up before casting 'openion.'" [sic]
• Ceoil fails to assume good faith in his fellow editors claiming they haven't read the article, that they are merely "agitating," and are thus not "aware of how complex... this bio is."
• Ceoil fails to assume good faith in his fellow editors, saying his detractors are just "encroaching" and displaying "irresponsible intent."
• Ceoil's second attack on me. Since he can't say I'm a sockpuppet, instead he says I am so dumb I am "missing the point, and not for the first time" and I am merely "professing knowledge in areas which you clearly have none."
• Ceoil says someone with just 434 edits must be a sockpuppet for someone else. This is not the first time Ceoil accuses people of being a sockpuppet just because they disagree with him.
• Ceoil's third attack on me. He says my opinions, on a subjective matter of Wikipedia editing (not, say an objective matter of facts, like a date of birth) are "are weak, ill informed, and don't stack up." Furthermore, he says I have not performed a requisite, his requisite, amount of "due diligence before wading in" to this topic. He concludes that I "lack both the depth of knowledge and any intellectual curiosity to have credibility in this discussion." In essence, since he can't dismiss me as a sockpuppet (I've been an editor for 12 years, 10 months and 22 days), he just says I'm too stupid to comment.
• Ceoil says people who disagree with his position on an infobox for this page are just "angled towards baiting and blocks."
• Ceoil, after all of his belligerence, has the temerity to call for closing the discussion on an infobox because of "increasing belligerence." He furthermore accuses everyone else of "baiting and nonsense" and again attributes much of the opposition to his views to "activity from sleeper accounts."
• Ceoil rudely tells an editor to "put up or shut up now."
• Ceoil says another editor "has blood on his hands."
• Ceoil accuses an editor of lacking "conviction and character."
• Ceoil claims again that "newcomers" should not have a say on the infobox, or, I'm assuming, the Pound page.
• Ceoil calls someone a sockpuppet again.

The guy may be a good editor. In fact, I think the Ezra Pound article is pretty good. But User:Ceoil's uncivil behavior towards editors who disagree with him on the infobox issue should not go unnoticed. It is off-putting to both rookie and experienced editors and, I believe, violates Wikipedia policy. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: that diff you pointed out above was not directed at you. It was merely a warning to some of the people on the talkpage and those who were pinged (like me). You are a good editor, and you are quite civil on the talk page. (I'll admit that I am not always so civil.) But this is about Ceoil, who obviously has a pattern of such incivility: Block log-User:Ceoil. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Ceoil

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

• The evidence provided in the complaint and by Tuckerresearch does indicate a pattern of WP:OWNership and battleground-like behavior by Ceoil. I am considering a ban from editing the article Ezra Pound and its talk page, and welcome the input of other administrators. Sandstein 09:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm looking through the talk page and looking at the diffs indicated and their context. There's definitely a need to caution Ceoil on presuming bad faith against newer accounts, though history of infoboxes have shown that they do tent to get socks in other situations, so it is fair to be aware of the broad issue, just not appropriate to accuse others directly w/o evidence. I also agree there's a bit of OWNership here. But if we consider Cassianto's behavior reviewed by the Infobox Arbcom case as the point where the line needs to be drawn, I'm not seeing that line being crossed, just getting close to it. Civility wise, I'm just not seeing something needed admin action, yet. A firm caution to avoid OWNership (their !vote has no special weight over any other even if they contributed 90% to the article) and to avoid bad faith assumptions towards editors. Everything else seems to be just inherent problems of the infobox wars that the community hasn't resolved yet, so nothing that one can pin to one editor in one specific situation. I would likely also support a short-term block if others feel stronger action is needed, but context doesn't seem to suggest a full topic ban is needed yet. --Masem (t) 14:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• That I would agree with Masem sure is something. False or as yet unfounded accusations of socking are a violation of AGF, sure (as are snide and uncivil remarks), and OWNership should be discouraged, but this is frequently the kind of issue that our content editors run into: editors with a low count and few contributions either to the article(s) at hand or to the general business of infoboxes. A perusal of the three archived talk pages shows there certainly is no consensus whatsoever to include one, and the more substantive of those discussions indicate to me that there is consensus to not have one. So, if a "new" editor comes by and scratches the scab off it should not be surprised that some of the old-timers, who've danced this dance before (on this and other articles) and are probably dead-tired of it, are miffed: sure, one shouldn't "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it and have, we can surmise, some expertise.

  In short, I do not see any reason for a sanction under these guidelines, though other aspects of editorial behavior may warrant some comments--but there also I see nothing really extraordinary. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)