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 Thomas Meng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thomas Meng (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view (2007) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Neutral_point_of_view (2012) :

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

1. July 21, 02:36. Thomas Meng added "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" to the Background section, citing scholar Benjamin Penny. This was now the third time in the Persecution of Falun Gong article that these principles were mentioned. This was not the the general topic article about the Falun Gong which should, of course, discuss the group's moral teachings.
2. July 21, 02:45. Binksternet removed two of the three mentions, as off topic and promotional, leaving the instance where the moral principles were criticized, because it was relevant to the persecution topic.
3. July 21, 18:19. Thomas Meng restored challenged text, "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance", the three moral principles of Falun Gong, adding a partisan paid political statement as a citation.
4. July 21, 19:01. Binksternet started a talk page discussion about truthfulness as a moral principle.
5. July 21, 22:48. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Benjamin Penny affirms that Falun Gong adherents follow the moral principles, that they strive to be good people.
6. July 22, 23:31. Thomas Meng restored challenged text.
7. July 28, 20:25. Thomas Meng argues that WP:WEIGHT should determine how the Falun Gong moral principles are portrayed.
8. July 28, 20:34. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Heather Kavan should not be cited per WP:WEIGHT.
9. August 2, 00:03. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, adding citations for support.
10. August 3, 03:23. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removed the valid Kavan cite, and cast aspersions on James R. Lewis (scholar) by linking him to Wuhan U.
11. August 3, 03:28. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text.
12. August 4, 17:26. Thomas Meng violates Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources by casting aspersions on the cited scholar James R. Lewis (scholar).
13. August 5, 02:34. Thomas Meng says lack of further discussion affirms his POV, states his intention to restore the challenged text. Previously, Horse Eye Jack had said there was no consensus to do so.[1]
14. August 5, 17:30. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removing the Kavan citation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 18. Notice given to Thomas Meng about discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong articles.
2. July 23. AE block on Thomas Meng by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area.

In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[2] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[3] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification of Thomas Meng

Discussion concerning Thomas Meng

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 Thomas Meng

Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:

• [4]—I have pointed to the fact that Kavan's view lacks WP:WEIGHT (without dispute from other editors), since all 6 scholarship sources provided (+ [5]) contradict the content of Kavan's conference paper. Interestingly, Binksternet deleted all of this well-sourced content and replaced them with the Kavan source. More than that, he did not even present Kavan’s source with in-text attribution, and simply represented the content of that source as if they were facts.

• [6] [7]—I pointed to the fact that the James R. Lewis source does not meet WP:THIRDPARTY.

• However, I did not remove this source, or revert Binksternet’s edit as he did with mine. Instead, I had merely added a clarification that he works at Wuhan U. My edit was promptly deleted by Binksternet without any edit summary and without consensus. Note that none of my concerns about Lewis were addressed. Instead, Binksternet simply called my arguments baloney (without saying why) and accused me of having COI issues.

• [8] There were comments to the effect that mentioning FLG's three core principles is undue. I made a serious and thorough effort at addressing these concerns by citing many reliable sources that prove the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. After waiting for 1+ days without further objections, I proceeded to edit.

Binksternet claims that FLG's tenets are challenged texts, but they are widely supported by well-established scholarship. The only challenges come from 1. Lewis, a professor at Wuhan U, an institution under the persecuting party's leadership 2. Kavan's conference paper that runs counter to the WP:WEIGHT of academic opinion 3. Binksternet's anti-FLG POV as demonstrated in his edit summaries [9] and [10], which violate WP:ADVOCACY.

• [11]—I presented the relevance of this photo in this diff. Instead of disputing its relevance, Binksternet turned to arguing, without evidence, that the photo is "promotional".

• [12]—I  proved that the photo conforms to scholarly findings and that it's not "promotional". Binksternet was unable to prove otherwise, so simply asserted no promo photos, just no.

• [13][14]— I made detailed comments showing that the NBC article is not proper to cite in a BLP. Without engaging my comments, Binksternet simply dismissed my input, saying that it is not our problem, and that it's perfectly fine. 

• Despite Binksternet's bald assertion, I did not simply revert his edit. I left the NBC untouched, and instead, added a source from the WSJ, per  WP:RSOPINION, that presented a response to NBC's accusations, [15].

• Yet, [16] – Binksternet promptly removed the RS content, asserting that it is a ridiculous reply, even though WP:NPOV says that all major viewpoints should be represented, which include the target attacked by NBC. 

• But I did not revert back, as our discussion carried over to another related article. Please refer to my talk page for the entire context of this dispute [17]

So, I'm not the tendentious editor here. In all my edits, I have tried assiduously to abide by all WP:PG's, including WP:BLP, and have logically addressed every concern from other editors. I invite everyone to thoroughly read our conversations on these talk pages.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:Additional comments by Thomas Meng in response to admin JzG's misunderstandings

Not promotional material

It is unclear what exactly is the information I've included that you consider "promotional". Assuming that you are referring to my addition of the central tenets of Falun Gong, "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance", I would disagree. Reliable sources overwhemingly agree that "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" are FLG's core principles. In my statement above, I have illustrated 7 of them, and there are more. 

Note that FLG's core tenets had been in the lead section since 2011 [18], and it was Binksternet who removed this RS material without consensus in July 2020 [19], and stopped me from adding it back.

I'm not the tendentious editor

It is not difficult to see that my edits consistently appeal to reason and RS content (e.g. [20][21]), while Binksternet's edits consistently appeal to his own opinion (e.g. [22][23]). My discussions are civil, while Binksternet's are dismissive. Below are a few typical comments made by Binksternet and me, and you can contrast them:

My comments concerning the image dispute, moral principles relevance dispute and NBC dispute

Binksrernet's comments concerning the image dispute, NBC dispute (Binksternet did not comment on FLG's principles' relevance to the persecution)

If you do not disagree with my reasons and my usage of the sources (you appear to at least concede that there are "merits" to the content), then there is no room for the assertion that my edits are tendentious.

If you agree with the simple fact that civil and rational discussion is preferred over personal opinions and derision, then there is no reason why you should be ignoring Binksternet's behaviour in its entirety. 

Not promotional image

The type of image of FLG practitioeners that Binksternet considered "promotional" is in fact an accurate portrayal of FLG based on scholarly findings on demographics. Please see all the RS references I made in that talk page discussion.  Please also note that this kind of image had been on the page since 2015 [24], and it was Binksternet who deleted it without consensus [25] in June 2020, and stopped me from adding it back.

Ultimately, there are two questions to be asked. First, if an editor's edits are supported by reliable sources that are accurately portrayed, should the editor be sanctioned just because another editor disagrees with the content of those edits or the sources? Second, if an article has contained certain well-cited information for years, and editor B comes in to remove that information without notice or discussion. Editor A undid that removal and explained his actions, but editor B disagrees. There is certainly a lack of consensus. But is Editor A the one who edited without consensus, rather than Editor B?

Admin JzG, if your answer is no to both questions, then you would have probably concluded differently on this enforcement request. 

@Ymblanter: I think it would be more meaningful if you could, after reviewing my explanations to admin JzG, state more specifically why my edits are not constructive, since I have illustrated quite well that my addition of what Binksternet considers "challenged texts" and "promotional" is supported by well-established scholarship (with 7+ reliable sources), and that such material had been in this article for years before Binksternet deleted it without consensus. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Falun Gong's moral principles "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" had been in the lead section since 2011, and Binksternet deleted it without consensus in 2020. I tried to restore for several times this well-cited information, and along the way, demonstrated on the talk page many reliable sources that all affirm the material's importance and relevance. So saying that I introduced POV is incorrect. Furthermore, Binksternet did not respond to my discussions about the reliable sources, but simply reverted my edits and reported me here. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Yulan article

This article is completely backed by reliable source coverage. In fact, those RS media focus primarily, if not entirely, in reporting Ni's arrests and imprisonment. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye Jack

On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note.

As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[26] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[27][28][29][30][31]

Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record:

As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV.

I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus.

I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him.

It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted.

However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:

At that point, I realized the futility of attempting to logically discuss with Binksternet by using WP policies and RS evidence, given his unrelenting anti-FLG agenda demonstrated in both discussions. So, on that same day, I went to Binksternet's talk page and gave him a warning, at the same time, back to the BLP article and removed the NBC hitpiece despite his objection.

Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop.

For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these.

One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI).

Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories.

My word count is already near 500... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Thomas Meng started editing in April 2020 and made less than 500 edits in the project [32], a lot of them about music and other noncontroversial topics. I do not see his case would be in any way ripe/appropriate for the Arbcom. Quickly looking at his edits in the article in question [33], one can say that his edits are sufficiently well sourced, hence this not an obvious case of WP:RGW. Yes, he does appear to POV-push on certain issues. But I do not see this as rising to the level of an immediate topic ban. This seems to be more a matter of insufficient experience at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Thomas Meng

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

• I think it is time for arbcom. There aren't enough interested admins willing to get involved in the FG topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Justice delayed is justice denied. On the face of it, Thomas Meng should be sanctioned for repeatedly adding promotional material without consensus. In practice these are some of the lesser POV-pushes on this topic lately, and we haven't fixed it yet. So maybe it is time for a third ArbCom, or, failing that, a logged warning. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JzG: I can't be the only AE admin working in this topic area. If other admins don't want to get involved, arbcom is the only shot --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, I agree, the problem is that pretty much none of the requests are simple and obvious: behaviourally I would say this falls squarely into tendentious editing / POV-pushing / whatever, but there are complicating issue of the merits of the content that make it a tough call, otherwise I'd have chipped in before. I have been looking at this for days thinking "wtf do we do with this?". It's not just FG related. Look at Ni Yulan, largely written by Thomas Meng. There is outrage screaming from every line. This is a WP:RGW case where the wrongs are indeed great. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest a topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed. It looks like the editor is not capable to edit constructively in this area.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry Thomas Meng, but I do not find your explanations in the least convincing. Any independent observer would see a relatively new user who introduced POV into articles on a certain topic and when challenged starts edit-warring. This is a textbook definition of disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Zarcademan123456

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zarcademan123456 (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:A/I/PIA :

• topic banned for 3 months 09:44, 21 June 2020

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

1. 19:07, 11 August 2020 clear violation of topic ban on Ni'lin
2. 01:37, 21 August 2020 clear violation of topic ban on Hassan Nasrallah

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• last blocked in Dec. 2019

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

• topic banned for 3 months 09:44, 21 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I asked Zarcademan123456 to "Please undo your edit to Ni'lin, or risk a report to WP:AE"(link), this he did not do, instead he commits another topic ban violation on Hassan Nasrallah, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My 2 cents: I much rather see Zarcademan123456's topic-ban be extended, than seeing him blocked. His contributions in the IP area have been, IMO, quite disruptive: (even pro-Israeli editors admit as much). If Zarcademan123456 learned/was forced to contribute to areas outside the IP area for an extended period, perhaps he would would learn to co-operate more? Huldra (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456

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 Zarcademan123456

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zarcademan123456

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

• Clear topic ban violation. Recommend sanctions in the form of a short block — or, at the very least, a logged warning. El_C 22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear violation. I believe this user should be blocked for it and the topic ban should be lengthened. Salvio 11:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Serial Number 54129

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Unnamed anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Serial Number 54129 (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:BRD WP:GF and MOS:PLOT:

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

1. 18:07, 18 January 2020 1st mass removal of content. Makes claims that the content removed are fancruft and original research.

1. 20:07, 18 January 2020 Content removed again without discussion despite it being previously reverted.

1. 17:03, 22 February 2020 Content removed again. Page is temporarily protected later.

1. 16:45, 23 May 2020 Contrnt is manually removed, with the claim that the content is fancruft, despite attempts to remove fancruft, which were completely ignored. This is the version that Serial Number will keep reverting to later on.

1. 20:50, 08 July 2020 Content is removed again.

1. 20:50, 8 July 2020‎ content is reverted to the same version again.

1. 12:17 2 August 2020‎ Content is reverted to the same version again. Later Serial Number 54129 requests the page be protected. It gets protected.

1. 06:57, 24 August 2020 Content is reverted again despite a discussion on the talk page that the content is allowed per MOS:PLOT.

1. 02:18, 26 August 2020‎ Content is reverted again despite not only an ongoing discussion, but also a DRN thread that Serial Number completely ignored. Discussion also has another user mention that the claims that the content is OR or fancruft are not supported by Wikipedia policies and that there is no 2nd R in BRD.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• last blocked in Dec. 2019

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

• 22:09, 11 August 2020

• 18:53, 25 August 2020

• 02:37, 26 August 2020‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to breaking BRD and not following advice that their edits break MOS:PLOT and that their claims that the content removed was fancruft or original research are not supported by Wikipedia policy, they have also assumed bad faith and casted aspersions.

Discussion concerning Serial Number 54129

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 Serial Number 54129

Can somebody just block this guy and save all our ears? This WP:FORUMSHOPing comes hot on the heels of a talk page discussion and a DR page opened a few hours ago. They're clearly not going to give up, and, as for aspersions, well; I guess accusations of trolling and an entire section of their DR request that had to be collapsed as one big PA. ——Serial 03:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Serial Number 54129

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