JzG has a long history, dating back more than a decade, of uncivil behavior and abusing his powers as an administrator to gain an advantage in disputes. I, personally, have been on the receiving end of both uncivil comments and abuse of tools. (Personal attack removed) As I have come to learn, administrator noticeboards are insufficient to deal with this problem as they consider only the immediate incident without taking into account the overall pattern of conduct. In this case, the pattern is that JzG is uncivil, gets called out, is admonished, improves for a while, then slips back into incivility.

I have named as parties all those who have mentioned ArbCom as a remedy to me, either to suggest or caution against it, but history shows many more will be interested. In at least once instance, because a long discussion could not produce a consensus on what sort of penalty to impose upon JzG, none was. This seems to me to be exactly the type of situation where ArbCom should get involved: something needs to be done, but no one can agree what.

I have seen other editors sanctioned for much less, and rightfully so. I'm not sure why, especially as an administrator, JzG's chronic incivility has been tolerated for so long. He may improve after a warning, but it never seems to stick.

Statement by JzG

An identical complaint was just closed at ANI here as stale, based in no small part on the fact that interactions between Slugger and me are initiated by him and I am doing my best to avoid him.

The meat of the complaint is that I called him a Catholic, and did not notice that he had said he was not. I apologised. It was a reasonable inference from his edit history, which primarily consists of adding pro-Catholic content at a number of articles closely related to the Catholic church. Apparently he has said this at least once before but we both tend to the prolix so I missed it.

ArbCom is for intractable disputes, not for cases where someone doesn't get the answer they want, or refuses to accept another editor's expressed will to disengage. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit mystified by my supposed hostility to Christianity. At the risk of going all "my black friend", I have been a member of a church for most of my life, first Baptist, then Anglican, then Methodist, then Anglo-Catholic, then Anglican again. I practically grew up in St. Albans Abbey (my school was in an old Abbey building) and was in a Catholic church at my goddaughter's first communion when habemas papam was declared for Pope Francis, whom I admire greatly (though I confess to being no fan of his predecessor). I have sung the Exsultet as cantor, I've been on a Parochial Church Council and foundation governor of a church school, my wife is an organist and my best friend is a choirmaster at a church. As a choral singer I would be a bit stuffed if I was hostile to religion. Obviously I am not conservative, but I'm not as left-wing as Jesus either. And I'm not hostile to Americans. You hung my ancestor but I'm over it. Guy (help!) 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

I don't consider myself to be involved. However:

With this particular ANI [1], it was resolved because everyone who cared to ran over to the article talk page to engage in normal editing and consensus building. This can be seen in the closer's statement. I'm pretty sure this is the optimal sought after result with any similar thread. Everybody decides to go off and play well. Also, regarding the claim the JzG edit warred, well the closing statement notes that both editors engaged in slow motion edit warring.

Regarding abuse of tools, well that has been resolved and I see no reason for bringing this up here. As can be seen in the closer's statement [2] "JzG (Guy) made an erroneous admin action, reversed it."

In this ANI [3] I think Slugger had the mistaken impression that reviewing some of JzG's history going back quite awhile would be acceptable. This thread pretty much lacked direction and substance, imho. Also, in this thread, it seems any minor outstanding issues were resolved [4], [5].

I think Slugger received some valuable feedback in this recent request for a TBAN appeal [6].---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

I don't consider myself a party, other than commenting in one of the AN/I threads and recommending Slugger O'Toole to take a consideration at ArbCom if AN/I is unable to deal with chronic issues.

19 April 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Stop the Church
26 April 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Edit warring by JzG
4 May 2020 AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#JzG
2 June 2020 AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#TBAN appeal
6 June 2020 AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Years of incivility (permalink, not yet archived)

JzG's conduct has been inappropriate and ANI threads did not alter it. Personal attacks and battleground mentality included comments like [7][8][9]. In particular, the first diff that had the edit summary of Your obsession with the magic bread is becoming tiresome (referring to the Eucharist) was condemned by many users.

Then after the AN/I thread, JzG made a further personal attack which he himself rev-deleted (deletion log). This is detailed in the 4 May AN/I thread. JzG was lucky that he had the time to undo the rev-deletion himself, as Guerillero commented that the action is firm grounds for a de-sysoping at arbcom. This ANI thread was closed by Lourdes with the statement that JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. But as it stands, this voluntary promise didn't last for very long.

FWIW, AlmostFrancis, who was a party to the medicine ArbCom case and has been tailing JzG since his first edits in December 2018, now seems to be following Slugger O'Toole to articles he has edited. AlmostFrancis removed Slugger O'Toole's messsage about hounding concerns with the edit summary of "LOL".

JzG has multiple previous ArbCom admonishments and back in the day there was a whole RFC/U about his incivility. --Pudeo (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

Statement by Mr Ernie

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Slugger's statement about JzG being "infamous ... off-wiki" is out of order here and, frankly, an actionable personal attack. Any editor or admin who has become involved in controversial issues has been and will be criticized, attacked, harassed, doxed, etc. by their opponents on any number of off-wiki platforms. That fact should have absolutely zero bearing on a case before the Arbitration Committee. Slugger's clearly-intended implication that it should have some sort of relevance indicates their case is based on sort of "guilt by harassment" mentality. If Slugger's argument boils down to "Internet trolls are angry at JzG, therefore he must be punished!" then this calls for BOOMERANG sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

This report should have included a link to the most-recent ANI, filed by Slugger, which closed two days ago. [10] In that June report, Slugger wrote that since the prior May report (linked above), JzG responded on all three [threads started by Slugger], sometimes more than once, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly). If JzG's interactions since the May ANI thread were, by Slugger's own admission, civil, then there is no reason to take JzG to ANI, or to Arbcom. If a user is warned, and then the user does not repeat the conduct that they were warned about, the user can't be taken to a noticeboard again over the same conduct, as it's already been dealt with and there hasn't been a repeat. If there are no recent diffs of incivility, then that means the warning issued in May worked. (Congratulations, ANI, another dispute resolved!) Unless there are some new diffs to look at since May, this case request should be declined. Ongoing unaddressed incivility is only ongoing unaddressed incivility if it's ongoing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 54129

Some up to date evidence would be nice, and that not cherrypicked to death. Two of those ARB-cases are from a decade (and more) ago. Of the ANI cases, all but one were filed by Slugger in a (failed, by their nature) attempt at sanctioning JzG. The common motif here is Slugger. Suggest a one-way I-ban on them against JzG. That should prevent the appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point of WP:HARASSment. And of course, if JzG is egregiously out of order any time soon, it's not as if there's not quite a few independent admin eyes watching him, so Slugger's particular talents in this area would be unnecessary anyway. ——Serial^# 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the comment ClerkCameron removed tells us, I suggest, more than we need to know about Slugger's methods. Off-wiki research into opponents? I seem to remember a recent arbcase where that ended poorly. ——Serial^# 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Binksternet

If the main complaint here is that Guy said Slugger was Catholic, then the request for arbitration should be thrown out. Slugger has marched in a pro-life protest with the Knights of Columbus who are Catholic, he uploads tons of stuff related to Catholics, and he's a huge contributor to the Catholic University of America page. He has acted as an agent for CUA by uploading images "courtesy of" Catholic University of America.[11][12] His first username was Briancua, the "cua" standing for Catholic University of America. Any statement that he's not Catholic would have to be an obfuscation. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Binksternet doesn't go far enough; SO'T hasn't just marched with the Knights of Columbus, he explicitly declared himself to be a member of the Knights of Columbus, a group whose membership is explicitly limited to Catholics. If the only fresh complaint here is "JzG said I was Catholic", this is about as tendentious as tendentious editing gets. ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I can understand that an editor who is a member of a religion might not want to be identified in that manner on Wikipedia, but when the evidence of membership is so strong, it is a eminently forgivable error for another editor to do so. In this case, Guy has been told that SOT does not want to be identified that way, has apologized for identifying him in that manner in the past, and has pledged not to do so in the future. No harm, no foul -- so why are we here? I would suggest that the Committee decline this case, and perhaps even admonish the OP for bringing a frivolous action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

It almost seems like we have drifted into Nineteen Eighty-Four territory here. Slugger O'Toole openly self-identified on Wikipedia as a member of the Knights of Columbus over 14 years ago and that is a group that limits its membership to Roman Catholics. Slugger engaged in such tenacious pro-Catholic POV pushing at Knights of Columbus that he received a topic ban on that article. Slugger has also engaged in pro-Catholic POV pushing at articles about other Catholic topics for years. Slugger recently appealed the topic ban, which several other editors including JzG opposed, and the ban stands. Since, Slugger has spent lots of time on various attempts to get JzG sanctioned, and contends that it is unacceptable to mention that a Knights of Columbus member is a Catholic. Slugger is so upset at what he sees as JzG's personal attack that he himself engages in a personal attack on JzG. So, here we are. No evidence has been presented of recent incivility by JzG. As a matter of fact and as others have pointed out, Slugger said at ANI that JzG "addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly)". So, JzG has been civil to Slugger recently, and yet here we are, trying to wrap our heads around the claim that JzG needs to be punished for incivility even though he has been civil recently. So bizarre. Perhaps some people think that the normal standards of logic and reason no longer apply in 2020. I disagree and recommend that the committee decline this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

This doesn't look like a "he called me a Catholic and I'm mad" complaint. The prior dispute resolution section cites arbcom cases dating back over a decade, as well as ANI cases dating to earlier this year. The complaint is long-term incivility that hasn't improved; if "he called me a Catholic and I'm mad" matters at all, it's only as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I am slightly concerned at many of the statements here, since they all focus on the recent event and not the previous ones or the alleged long-term pattern. Showing that JzG was justified in calling Slugger O'Toole a Catholic doesn't resolve the case request then. No comment on the merits of the complaint, however.

It seems all (?) the ANI threads were started by Slugger O'Toole. That doesn't seem like strong grounds for a case then, since it implies that only one person is troubled by JzG's behavior.

Banedon (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I don’t see anything worth having a case over here. I support Guy. Not sure if that matters much, but might as well state it. I’ve never publicly declared my religion on Wikipedia, unlike SO’T, but people assume it because I edit Catholic topics. It can be frustrating because the Catholic Church is arguably the most studied religion in the world from an academic perspective, but I get why people might make that assumption. He’s stated he’s a member of the KoC. If he doesn’t want you calling him Catholic, probably best not to, but Guy has done nothing wrong here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Xxanthippe

(Personal attack removed)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

JzG: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Clerk Note I've removed a comment from Slugger O'Toole's section as a personal attack. It had already been struck through but its best not to leave these things standing. As a reminder to all participants you are expected to remain civil and abstain from personal attacks in arbitration space. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline. The ANI was closed as stale, and absent any concerns more recent than that, none of which have been provided, I don't see where there's enough for a case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 ===Statement by uninvolved Xxanthippe===
+{{rpa}}
-My observation of the edits of JzG/Guy over the years is that, like those of his erstwhile ally Jytdog, they contain a high degree of incivility, aggression, battleground mentality, bullying and intolerance. I leave a more detailed accounting of this undesirable conduct to the several editors who have commented already, particularly Pudeo. My attention was caught recently by his remark in an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Davis (theologian)|AfD]] that "19 Christian books is about equivalent to 4 normal books". The comment was completely gratuitous without any argument or source. I wonder if he applies this same view to the books of the New Testament, the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther or other creators of the western canon? This, by itself, is indeed no hanging offence, but such behavior might be expected from a high school newbie editor not from an administrator, who is expected to behave better than the average editor. Although JzG/Guy claims to be a member of a Christian church, his editing shows little sign of Christian forbearance. One aspect of his editing that I find to be distasteful is his use of two edit signatures Jzg and Guy. Although not disguised, it gives to me an impression of duplicity in trying to give the appearance that more people support his views. I suggest that Arbcom accept this case but expand it to take in historical behavior. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC).
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===