She ran with the unoriginal "me and my friends already decided not to act" excuse, famously previously attempted by Black Kite, who like Bishonen, would simply rather AE was not a thing. After much whining, he had to settle for turning the AE noticeboard procedure into a sick parody of AN/I, but it did at least remind people like Sandstein that there isn't any need to actually use it at all, for AE actions.Bad idea
Sandstein, I think it was a bad idea to block Cassianto for this edit on my page. He wasn't "discussing infoboxes" but reporting what he thought bad behaviour on the part of a user who had uncollapsed a collapsed infobox, in defiance of a hidden edit notice and without even an edit summary, and asking me to tell that user it was disruptive. I wasn't around, but NeilN and RexxS who both watch my page, promptly took it in hand, by adding a more formal edit notice to the article (Neil), and giving the user in question a discretionary sanctions alert (RexxS). When I returned, I acted also, by writing a reproachful note on the user's page. So two admins and another user were concerned about the facts of Cassianto's report, and joined in dealing with them; I guess none of us thought of the report itself as a ban violation. I think your contention that it was, is rather fine-spun. What would you have had him do? Secret off-wiki e-mailing with admins? A warning would surely have been enough. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
I wasn't even thinking of Cassianto's topic ban, to be honest. I know there's some dispute about it, but haven't been following the proceedings. --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen, I understand your point, but Cassianto was subject to an infobox topic ban without exceptions for edits such as the one at issue here. WP:BANEX does not apply here. Indeed, the point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. Sandstein 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen's excuse is just that, a pathetic excuse, because as any fool can see, like NeilN at least is prepared to admit, she wasn't even aware of the topic ban, let alone deciding there and then not to act on the violation. She can deny it all she wants, but there is no evidence to the contrary, and she is well known for simply being clueless about proper procedure, as well as biased. She endlessly tries exactly this sort of rewriting of history just to get her protectees off the hook.
If she really was concerned about Sandstein stepping over the unspoken conclusions of these three admins to take no action, why then would she be happy with Sandstein just issuing a warning? And if she really believes the edit Sandstein pointed to does not represent a violation, why is she not addressing the other edits Cassianto has made, which are not what she seems to think are the protected act of making reports, but clear violations.
The answer of course, is that Bishonen is not interested in any of these things, her sole aim here is to ensure Cassianto is unblocked, and everyone gets the message that if they even think about blocking him to enforce this topic ban in the future, they will have her bullshit to deal with.
As a final point, where does she get off addressing a fellow admin with a header like that? She clearly thinks she is better than other admins, when the only differentiator is the amount of front she has.