Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:20, 24 January 2018

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Joefromrandb		22 January 2018	12/0/0
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P3 and WP:5P4\|Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P3 and WP:5P4]]		24 January 2018	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Joefromrandb

Initiated by - Mr X 🖋 at 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MrX

I respectfully request that the Arbitration Committee examine evidence that Joefromrandb has exhibited an ongoing pattern of overtly-hostile editing characterized by repeated personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. There is compelling evidence that Joefromrandb views editors who disagree with his edits as enemies, and that he treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. His interaction with other editors are largely in opposition to the principle of the fourth pillar.

Joefromrandb's conduct was first brought to the committee's attention when a request for arbitration filed on October 20, 2017 by TomStar81. On November 8, 2017, the committee decline to intercede by seven to three, with two members recusing.

The day after the RFAR was declined, Joefromrandb resumed edit warring at talk:Kim Davis [2][3][4][5]. This was followed by bellicose talk page comments [6][7][8] in the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Two months later, he reverted an edit restoring the removal of a large amount of content. His response to my request to discuss the matter on the talk page was to delete my request with the edit summary "No-troll zone" it was only after admins El C and Floquenbeam intervened that Joefromrandb nominally joined the talk page discussion. There, he continued making personal attacks [9][10], including one directed at an admin.[11]

After the matter was brought to ANI, he continued to maintain that Prhartcom and I put lies in the article.[12][13][14] When asked to provide evidence to substantiate his accusation, by two admins and another editor, he said that he should be able to the next morning.[15] That was more than three days ago.

There has been at least one other recent incident involving edit warring in which he exhibited hostility toward another editor.

Evidence will show that this editor is unable or unwilling to follow our WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:EDITING policies, even after numerous warnings and blocks. It will also show that, in many case, if his edits are reverted, he becomes belligerent and uncooperative.

With the hope of preempting objections about swear words or subjective civility standards, this comment from the last request for arbitration sums it up nicely:

"No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase "fuck off" is inherently upsetting."
— Euryalus

Thank you for your consideration.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Kim Davis is a county clerk. If I recall, there was discussion at some point about whether the article fit into the realm of post-1932 American politics and the general feeling was that it does not. Joefromrandb's recent behavior also extends into diverse areas like Bernie Leadon, Mum (disambiguation), David Duke, WP:AFD, WP:MOS, The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi, and Australian rules football. Most of these are documented in the 'other steps in dispute resolution' section above, or on his own talk page.- Mr X 🖋 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joefromrandb

Statement by Floq

I was pinged in MrX's statement, but don't have much to say except:

I like and respect both MrX and Joe
It really depresses me that it's come to this
I agree things shouldn't keep going the way they are, but I'm at a loss for any further productive non-drastic suggestions
Sigh.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

What Floq says. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddst1

I said this in the last RFAR for this editor and it still applies: At this point, I feel Joefromrandb's chronic and epic incivility and battleground behavior is a strong net-negative on the project. It's not about profanity. The problem doesn't seem to be solvable other than through this channel. Toddst1 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Because AN/I does not seem to be able to resolve this issue, I think there's no choice except for the Committee to take up this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Three months ago User:TomStar81 first closed a thread at WP:ANI involving User:Joefromrandb and then posted a Request for Arbitration. I think that Tomstar81’s action was misunderstood. It was thought that he had first closed the thread and so resolved the matter, and then that he changed his mind. What I saw was that he had closed the thread as not resolvable by the community, and so a matter for ArbCom. It was also my understanding that Tom was not so much asking the ArbCom to sanction Joe as to give long serious quasi-judicial consideration to what to do not only about Joe but about editors who taunt and provoke Joe.

I noted that Joe had come to the attention of a community procedure four years ago, a Request for Comment on a User, a procedure that is no longer used, but was closed inconclusively with a reminder to all (not just to Joe) that Wikipedia is not a battleground. In response to the recent filing, User: Opabinia regalis, with the best of intentions, asked Joe whether he was willing to make one last effort to change his behavior and try editing collaboratively. The ArbCom then declined the case. Joe has not materially changed his behavior (and it may have been naively optimistic of the ArbCom to think that he would). It was clear that the ArbCom really really really didn’t want to take on a case that would have no winners and would leave no one really satisfied. However, there is a problem, that isn’t just Joe. Joe is one of a set of highly productive but combative users who have enemies and who are easily provoked (like poking a bear). I proposed that the ArbCom try to craft some sort of remedy for editors like Joe, but perhaps the ArbCom didn’t understand that I was asking them for a solution to a larger problem than Joe, or perhaps the ArbCom didn’t want to solve problems.

Once again, I ask the ArbCom to accept this case, not just to sanction this editor, but to see if it is possible to craft a remedy for controversial editors, just as ArbCom has crafted a very effective remedy, discretionary sanctions, for controversial topics.

The community, which is seldom able to deal with divisive cases, just crafted an experimental remedy for contentious editors in the case of Darkness Shines and C.W. Gilmore, in which each editor leaves a Kelvin wake behind them that the other editor cannot trespass in. This illustrates that occasionally interesting remedies are available to reduce conflict in Wikipedia.

I ask the ArbCom to accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prhartcom

It is an honor to speak before this board. Joefromrandb first ventured onto the article this past summer. Their edits found errors and it was good that the article continued to improve. But with this user, the process was so painful. Their behavior was constantly rude and uncivil. I tried to plead to this user, but only insults and accusations were spit back. Lately, this person has offered this article only disruptive editing, shamlessly fanning flames of malcontent. From my observation, the cumulative edits this person has made are of not much substantive improvement to the article. Further, I recently challenged this person to actually edit the article to achieve what they were was so vehemently arguing about, and they pathetically refused. You see what I am saying: It doesn't matter if we permanently block this user: We are never going to see any real effort of work from this person. Like many others that I have seen come and go here, this person is mostly only able to argue and push the revert button. This person is not an editor. —Prhart com♥ 06:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328

In the recent discussion at ANI, Baseball Bugs asked for a list of the "lies", and I agreed, adding that an accusation that another editor "lied" needed to be accompanied by diffs, or that the accusation should be withdrawn. Joe committed to providing the evidence promptly but has not followed through although several days have passed. It is common that editors will disagree as to how a source should be summarized, and good faith disagreements of this type should not be characterized as "lies" in the lack of very solid evidence. Since behavior of this type is an ongoing problem with this editor, I support acceptance of this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

@OR&GR:--Joe has never been alerted about the USPOL DS either, per the edit-filter-logs.Winged Blades^Godric 12:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I comment only to address the issue of case scope, mostly in response to Robert McClenon's statement above, in which he asks the Committee to consider establishing a discretionary sanctions regime for "controversial editors". Should the Committee accept this case, I believe the case scope should be kept very narrow so as to preclude any such discretionary sanctions.

I say so not merely because of any number of standard objections there should be against the Committee encroaching upon matters nominally handled by the community at large, but also because I believe this would be a genuinely bad idea. One of the areas where the Committee has traditionally acted, and acted quite decently, from the very beginning is in holding full-dress cases to handle controversial, problematic editors that the community more generally could not handle. This is the Committee's wheelhouse, but there are longstanding checks in place to keep the Committee from becoming the general behavioral police on Wikipedia. The case request process, for instance, is precisely to ensure only the most serious problems are brought here, and that with lesser problems, the community needs to handle through community processes.

A general discretionary sanctions regime on "controversial editors"—however we define this—would also not do much substantively. At present, admins have broad discretionary powers to issue blocks for disruptive misconduct, which includes incivility and related problems. Moreover, AN/ANI can enact community sanctions, and though it often has difficulty doing so, that difficulty is in many ways a feature, protecting one of our core principles, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the most horrifying things I have seen in recent years has been calls to community ban people for being "time wasters". Fortunately, for the most part, the difficulty of establishing a consensus at AN/ANI usually stops such discussions from resulting in a ban.

What a discretionary sanctions regime would do is shift a large number of complex behavioral cases to AE, where the consensus required for sanctions is different. It would also allow appeals through ARCA, which sidesteps the entire case request process, as well as the traditional Committee case proceeding. I find this very troubling, and I don't think it's within the Committee's power to do. Even if it is, I believe it is a very bad idea. As such, should the Committee take up this case, it should explicitly foreclose any possibility of a general conduct discretionary sanctions regime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Begoon

Notwithstanding Mendaliv's reasoned argument above, I would hate for the committee to lose sight of the most salient point made by RMC, which is that they should consider "what to do not only about Joe but about editors who taunt and provoke Joe", and, in my humble opinion, how much the latter part of that statement causes/mitigates the consideration of the first. There are, of course, two possible reasons that "the community has failed to handle an issue" - one being that there is a genuinely disruptive issue for which the community cannot agree upon a solution, the second being that the community has not acted because the vocal proponents of something being an issue requiring more action have failed to convince the community of the necessity of the further action they desire. They're not binary possibilities, though - and I can see elements of both here. -- Begoon 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clerk notes

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

@Opabinia regalis: No. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <12/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting statements, especially from Joefromrandb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This case request feels premature, but I will wait for more statements also. I would like to request Joefromrandb's statement to include an update on this edit. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to accept. As I have expressed in the previous case request, I agree that the scope of this case should be beyond Joefromrandb's individual conduct. This time around there does not seem to be much evidence of provocation from other editors. Having discretionary sanction for "controversial" editors doesn't sound like the best idea, as many uncivil discussions are derived from content disputes, and without knowing the context, I cannot see how it can be effectively enforced; hopefully, this will be one of the topics. I support shortening the timeframe of the case also, given the amount of discussion that have already taken place. Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this was here, several arbitrators declined on the expectation that Joe would follow through with his plans to collaborate in a more collegial manner. If that has not happened and the issues continue to be unresolvable at community venues, then it is time to examine this in more detail in a case. Awaiting Joe’s statement, which I hope addresses how his behavior has changed since the previous case request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough here and at the October case request for this to be an accept. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And agree with Begoon, FWIW. It was suggested back in October that there were editors specifically looking to aggravate Joefromrandb, in the hopes of a reaction. That's also worth looking at. Unrelated point, if we did go ahead with a case we should again shorten the timeframe. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's time to accept yet, without a response from the main party - though *cough* it's not a good sign that Joe has made quite a few edits since this was filed. My question for Joe is what has or has not changed since October's request, the conclusion of which he surely realizes was a lucky break he should have taken advantage of. And for MrX, and others recommending that we accept the case: most of the recent dispute seems to be surrounding the Kim Davis article, which looks to me to be squarely in the American Politics topic area. Spare me the digging at AE - has this been raised there? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, what Floq said. I'm not actually that big on accepting this case, even now - it looks like a great argument for a topic ban from Kim Davis, but normally, for one specific user to need a case that isn't about admin tools, I'd be expecting to see blocks (but there's none since the disputed one in October), or some other significant formal action (but we've only got a 3RR warning for Bernie Leadon, and the ANI thread immediately preceding this request). On the other hand, this really does seem to be a recurring issue. So, reluctantly accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Add me to those who are waiting for Joe to respond to this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)~~ Seeing this edit, I now Accept this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Given Joe's response to the RFAR notice on his talk page and the fact that he's been editing since, I think it's fair to say he's not planning to respond. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Rick and PMC. Katie^talk 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Given that the behaviour has continued from the last case request which was filed I don't really see another way to go here, especially since Joe hasn't responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) .
Accept Last time I was on the accept side, and the behavior at the talkpage is a clear indication we need that road again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)g[reply]
Accept Doug Weller talk 06:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Mkdw ^talk 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P3 and WP:5P4

Initiated by Volvlogia (talk) at 02:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Volvlogia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
We hope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
gaioa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Tronvillain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Calvin999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by SMcCandlish

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Cassianto notified by Volvlogia
we hope notified by Volvlogia
gaioa notified by Volvlogia
Insertcleverphrasehere notified by Volvlogia
Tronvillain notified by Volvlogia
Calvin999 notified by Volvlogia
SchroCat notified by SMcCandlsish

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Volvlogia

User:Cassianto has engaged in many Talk Page conversations regarding whether or not infoboxes should be included on artistic figure' articles ([1], [2], [3]). During these interactions, Cassianto has frequently and consistently used insulting and abusive language, behaved dismissively to anyone who disagreed with his declared consensus and made effort speedily shut down any discussion (disregarding the possibility of changing consensus). He has flagrantly defied WP:5P4; acting rudely and condescendingly bullying others into giving into his position out of fatigue. His domineering behavior has stunted discussion. In addition to WP:5P4, his actions violate WP:5P3, acting as though his position is the only relevant one to any Infobox discussion without regard for others' views. His behavior is frustrating, obstructive, and demoralizing; when I brought the behavior (which I witnessed on Talk pages but did not participate in, as to not be browbeated online), he was dismissive once more and did not respond to my main point, only dismissing anything I said. All my evidence I will add to any eventual evidence pages, but most of it can be seen on my report on the AN board. During the following discussion, frustration at Cassianto and We hope admittedly caused me respond with snark, which I apologize for, but I think that pales in comparison to Cassianto's consistent pattern of bad behavior. I was referred to ArbCom as my last avenue by an Admin, and I seek a solution that will end Cassianto's untenable behavior.

As the initiator of the case, my issue is not with the infobox debate (although I'm pro-infobox and Cassianto is anti-infobox, that has no bearing on my issues with his behavior). Cassianto has shamelessly and consistently violated the 9-0-0 decision that civility should be used in infobox discussions.

He has violated all of these consistently and repeatedly, emblematic excerpts ranging from rude to vicious include:

A (to Gaioa)
B (to Insertcleverphrasehere)
C (to Tronvillain)
Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere." (to Calvin999)

It's not his position on the infobox that's the problem, it's how he constantly disregards and disrespects anyone who disagrees. There is more evidence, but that is all while maintaining reasonable length. I've notified Gaioa, Insertcleverphrasehere, Tronvillain, Calvin999 now that they've been named. The reason it's come to this is that Cassianto's domineering attitude in Talk Pages has made any real dialogue impossible, it requires a mediator.

For transparency I removed dialogue with We hope (who by the way also insulted me and another editor involved in the AN discussion on a user/talk page) to maintain the <500 word count, that can be found in edit log.

@Opabinia regalis:, while the issues have been instigated over Cassianto's views on infoboxes, both my opinion and intentions in filing this have nothing to do with the boxes, instead they have to do with the consistently toxic and domineering behavior displayed by Cassianto that has been thus far impossible to be stopped with simple AN notices, as seen in above. The results of all inquiries with various levels of evidence and outcomes, all of which have made no long-term change to Cassianto's behavior. As an admin pointed out on a previous discussion, the AN noticeboards have consistently been dragged down into pettery name calling and recapitulations. It requires mediation to end the vitriol Cassianto has inflicted on those he disagrees with.

@We hope:, I simply want to point out that your statement following your gripe with jcc's >500 word statement was 606 words.

I would like it to be known that Cassianto has apparently formally declined to respond or make an official statement.(A, B) I had glanced at the case above and saw that his lack of response was found to be relevant. I don't know the significance of Cassianto's silence is, but I thought it should be noted.

I also want to note some of Cassianto's actions today , for your consideration. He threatened to fight for a user to be blocked for his comments on AN. He, in lieu of making an official statement, left a message on an Arbitrator's page, in which he cited two same-day edits (this and this) as proof that "If you notice on the ANI thread, he [me Volvlogia] played the victim and stated that he's worried "about me", even though we've never met on here. I [Cassianto] have no reason to dislike him and, if you check my contributions, I'm approachable to everyone who I meet for the first time, here and even here.". Both the instances he cited took place on January 24, today, the same day he left his informal statement on the Arb's talk page, which to me appears to be blatantly phony evidence manufactured well after he realized his actions were being scrutinized.

--Volvlogia (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by We hope

There have been no interactions with this editor until the filing of the ANI complaint. The editor kept a copy of this on his user page. with the statement "Saved for posterity and pride:" I removed this as WP:POLEMIC saying take me to ANI if you like. The editor responded with this post to my talk. His user page "Censorship, served hot and fresh by we hope!"-just blatantly replacing one polemic for another; it was removed by an administrator. When the editor continued refactoring my ANI comments, I posted this to his talk The response was "You are a hypocrite." This was also posted at ANI "WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange." Disgusted with the complainant's behavior, but not "scared".

The editor has proceeded to canvass other editors who have had past disagreements with Cassianto: editor 1, editor 2, editor 3, editor 4 before he was stopped. He has now gamed the system by posting this to "name" other editors so they can be notified to make statements here.

This is turning into a mockery and the complainant is the one who is doing this to try to punish someone he never interacted with until posting the complaint at ANI. This should be closed because the complainant is trying to stuff the ballot box in his favor come hell or high water. We hope (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, he has now notified editor 5, editor 6, editor 7, editor 8 as a result of his posting the names mentioned above. Again, the matter should be dropped because the complainant is bent on settling this his way-but with ArbCom as a "front" for it. We hope (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to complainant This is the diff of my heading removal here as it was being attributed to Callanecc. I used no templates, and I entered my own name here. My edit summary after you posted notice is here "Too late". So that's criticism? You were cautioned not to continue canvassing here but posted those names after you were advised about canvassing. We hope (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn that silence can be golden sometimes. Regardless of your accusations, it still doesn't give you the right to post polemic attacks against either of us on your user page. I removed the first which you seem to think was wrong. You were so pleased to inform me I was a hypocrite, you posted the information to my talk page; that was removed by an admin. Your behavior in the matter will win no awards so it's amazing you can judge someone else. We hope (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question We're all to limit comments to 500 words; even the complainant ~~has~~ realized this at one time. Why is one uninvolved editor writing a FA here? We hope (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jcc Calling another editor "attack dog against me whilst Cassianto's on his best behaviour?", stalking my edits and asking what I was trying to pull, "pulling stunts" doesn't qualify you for civility king. Asking whether the other editor deserved "attack dog", your reply was "The reply was a personal attack that focused on the contributor (me),"; not an answer to the direct question. Nothing was done about it when it occurred despite efforts to right the wrong. It looks like it's fine for you to be as uncivil as you wish, but not someone else. We hope (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a female editor an "attack dog" seems to leave but one step to another word, sorry that neither jcc nor the complainant is able to see this. We hope (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff is here re: a solution to the issue. I am not willing to apologize as suggested since the PAs began with you and the "attack dog" comment; I entered the converstaion with you after that comment was made. My talk page. So it's not as you contend it was. request for help at Mary Shelley.We hope (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh-more attacks by the complainant who doesn't realize he's muted. We hope (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I’m sorry to say it, but if this case is accepted Arbcom will need to revisit the Infobox topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I don't see a good reason presented for a case based solely on Cassianto's behavior at this time.

A case regarding infoboxes more widely may be necessary eventually. The case in 2013 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes doesn't make any binding statements that would need to be addressed by ARBCOM, so a community RfC should be able to handle the situation, and I don't believe that has been attempted recently (excluding Goodday's RfC at WP:VPPR, which appears to not be acceptable to any faction).

I feel the current status is that most biographical articles have infoboxes, but not all; and that a minority of editors continue to be vehemently opposed to infoboxes. The discussions at Talk:Cary Grant may be edifying as to current opinions on the matter.

Additionally, the possibility of Wikidata-based infoboxes (and the yet-to-be-conducted RfC on that matter) adds controversy and uncertainty to the matter. I doubt ARBCOM can contribute constructively at this time on infoboxes without creating policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

If discussions with Cass all but failed then the next best place is the article talkpage, If that fails then we have DRN, RFC, 30, Personally I think this all could be resolved on article talkpages without Arbcom needing to be involved. –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

I closed the latest ANI thread about this situation. [16] In the time it was open, it had already begun to degenerate. The last major ANI thread (that I could find) on the same matter is here and if anyone could find consensus in that discussion I'd like to hear what it was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

SchroCat (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) should also be named as a party (and my saying so presumably also makes me one), due to a years-long essentially identical pattern and – importantly – a history of WP:TAGTEAM with Cassianto (admins have commented on it before, e.g. [17]). It's high time for a topic ban. I was prepared to open a WP:RFARB about both of them back in 2016, but both "quit Wikipedia" in a huff over style and infobox disputes the very day I was going to open the case, and took a long enough break it seemed stale. I was going to let this lie, and have avoided both editors for a long time, but a review of their behavior indicates that their battlegrounding has not slacked up in the intervening time period. SchroCat started revert-warring at WP:MOS yesterday, and the tagteam behavior has resumed.

As far as I know, neither of them have received {{Ds/alert}} for either of the WP:ARBATC or WP:ARBINFOBOX ArbCom cases (in which neither were named parties) since 2016, but it is not remotely credible they are "unaware" of the discretionary sanctions that pertain. SchroCat shows up in somewhere around 800 infobox-related discussions, as a participant or a behavior subject [18]; for Cassianto, it's around 700 [19]. SchroCat treats ARBINFOBOX as some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part [20], so he doesn't seem to think it applies. Cassianto mirrors this view [21], in a post suggesting that civility is just some game being played on the basis of ArbCom's "error" (his dim view of civility is apparent in the rest of that discussion).

Looking into Cassianto's recent edits, I see him again hounding Gerda Arendt (he and SchroCat have been devoting especial hostility to her for many years at her talk page and in article talk, e.g. at articles on Laurence Olivier, Cary Grant, Josephine Butler, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Pierre Boulez, etc., and it most often is about infoboxes); stumbling across that WP:HARASS behavior is what first brought them to my attention. I think this post clearly sums up Cassianto's attitude [22]: he self-declares as someone who likes to get in the face of people, in person, who he thinks have crossed him, and is carrying this "throw your weight around threateningly" behavior into Wikipedia. See also [23] and [24], further battleground and WP:OWN / WP:VESTED thinking.

CIVIL and OWN are cited to Cassianto so frequently by other editors that he declares the citations a cliché, and also mistakes the CIVIL policy for an essay he can ignore [25]. This is a WP:1AM and WP:CIR problem. He states outright he does not care if civility-related noticeboard action is taken against him [26], and this is reflected in his civility-related block log. Since he will not learn from such actions and scoffs at them, the preventative thing to do is remove him from topics in which he will not remain civil.

SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks) exhibits essentially the same pattern; he likes to dare people to do anything about him [27],[28], and some recent issues include: calling people "idiot" [29] and "tiresome little man" [30] for leaving required talk page notices; battlegroundy mischaracterization of a neutral RfC as "crusading", "pointless", and "knee-jerk" [31]; ingrained snideness [32]; and unsupported aspersions and accusations [33], then when asked to back it up or retract, just responded with more hostility and dismissal [34]. I only looked for a couple of minutes into SchroCat's recent stuff. Some older diffs: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC); updated 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Coincidentally, I diffed more highlights of the long-running issue (including resumption of tagteaming, use of "idiotbox" to denigrate all editors and readers, also labeled "lazy", who like infoboxes) at User talk:TonyBallioni today (permalink), shortly before this ARCA was opened. This may need to be an RfArb; this is just the tip of the diff iceberg (also covering tagteaming at RfA, ANI, etc., and mutually-reinforcing WP:OWN / WP:VESTED patterns at various FAs and FA candidate articles); I'm not sure an "amendment" or "clarification" is really at issue here. My overall impression is that both editors are convinced that their involvement in WP:FAC makes them effectively immune to any meaningful censure or sanction. It is clear that ANI and various blocks have not been effective, and this is not some recent issue, but very long-term. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: This isn't about infoboxes in particular at all, but about editor behavior; they just happen to most commonly explode on people about infoboxes. In my case, it was over something else (but still WP:ARBATC), namely following MOS:BQ and replacing decorative quotation boxes with the standard {{Quote}} template. After defying him on that "issue" put me on Cassianto's shitlist, a series of ca. 26 June 2016 outbursts from SchroCat, also all about MoS matters, inspired me to drop off the prescribed {{Ds/alert|mos}} template at his talk page; Cassianto immediately showed up at my talk page to accuse me of "creepy" "stalking" [40] for having done so, and things got worse from there. I leave it others to decide what the creepy stalking is and what direction it comes from. Anyone have diffs of me attacking people for leaving Ds/alerts on others' pages? Didn't think so. This wasn't a one-off; Cassianto did it again today after I left SchroCat a {{3RR}} (Cassianto left me a tit-for-tat copy of the same template on SchroCat's behalf, even though I had done no reverts) [41]. This kind of nonsense is a habitual tagteam intimidation routine with these two. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I think the above would also address your initial comment. Summary: this isn't about infoboxes but about long-term behavior, with infoboxes as a coincidental often-not-always nexus of the behavior. If DS aren't applicable (I support Spartaz's idea to make it applicable), and ANI has failed to resolve the issue, that would appear to leave ArbCom. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Baseball Bugs

I have long found Cassianto and his little clique to be very difficult to deal with, and luckily I am able to avoid them most of the time. I don't understand this perpetual obsession with deleting infoboxes. I often look stuff up in Wikipedia, and if an article doesn't have a summary box, I am apt to look elsewhere on the internet. I have no clue why this little gang has such contempt for the readers, nor do I realistically expect anything to be done about it. But I do sometimes comment on it when an opportunity arises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

The RFAR for infoboxes does not provide discretionary sanctions for editors failing to behave appropriately around boxes. I am confident that were the committee to pass a motion providing DS for this area that AE would be more than capable to reining in poor behaviour for Cassianto and others. Clearly the community can't deal with him as his clique are too vocal/ The committe have 3 choices:- either kick the can down the path and come back in 6m (unless the editors being abused get browbeaten off the project); take a nasty personality based case or pass a quick motion authorisng DS and let AE do its job. I know which one makes most sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJE

WRT infoboxes Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request (October 2016) was the last time they came up on the Arbcom doorstep if memory serves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

Here we go again ... looking down the ANI archives I can see this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this (at least two of which I personally closed as "a waste of time") - it's a perennial feud that shows no sign of ending. However, it takes two to argue and if the Committee are to take the case, it needs to be about conduct around infoboxes generally from all sides. I'll repeat what I said in 2016 : "Firstly, if an admin really thought saying "fuck off" was bad enough, somebody would have been blocked for it. Secondly, the debate over infoboxes is contentious enough to have been an Arbcom case, and as disputes don't seem to ever easily resolve them, I would recommend going to WP:AE and see if some sort of discretionary sanctions can be placed on infoboxes. If that's not possible then I fear we're going to have to have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2. Seriously, that's about the only way this issue is going to stop, and prolonged dialogue at ANI is not going to do anything." And also "Perhaps it's because spring is in the air, or that I've drunk the Gerda kool-aid too much, but the project will be a whole lot better if you BOTH drop this right now and agree to go your separate ways. There are 5 million articles on this encyclopedia, most of which are at start class, and I'm sure you can both do good one work on one of those without getting in the way of each other. And I would really, really like it if editors told each other to fuck off a bit less." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber

In my time, I have written mostly biology, astronomy, football and geography articles, where infobox use is noncontroversial and a clear way to present simple facts. However, some article subjects, such as folkloric creatures, had infoboxes that were useless to the point of being misleading. So having noted this, I suspect that there are a few similar subjects for which the same holds. The infobox page - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Using_infoboxes_in_articles - completely dodges the issue with a lame, "well folks'll just discuss it and come to consensus!" And the last infobox case merely paraphrased this, which is a shame, as the lack of an algorithm could lead to dustups elsewhere, particularly as the 'pedia becomes more uniform and 'professional' looking.

Statement by TonyBallioni

The case request was really poorly presented by an editor who doesn't have that much experience, and who doesn't appear to be that familiar with ArbCom (and they seemed to use my explaining the process to them as an excuse to ignore my advice about parties and add anyone they thought would be on their side.) At the same time, I think there is some case here: I'm not sure if it should be a behavioral case on one or two editors like the Joe case above Infoboxes 2 or Infoboxes and MOS. I'm not involved with any of these disputes, and honestly find the infobox question a bit silly to the point where I don't have any opinion at all on it. My rule of thumb is that when most people who couldn't care less about the answer to a question are aware that something is very contentious and that there are behavioral issues where you can't really tell who is at fault without an in-depth assessment of diffs over time, it is likely that it would benefit from an ArbCom case. I also think if a case is accepted, the Committee should explicitly look at whether or not discretionary sanctions should be authorized for infoboxes and whether the MOS DS should be extended from policy disputes to article level disputes (which is where most of the disruption seems to have moved). TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Less concern about individuals & more concern about getting this add/remove infoboxes dispute resolved, would be the better route. The current setup (deciding on an article-by-article basis) is repetitiously frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scope creep

I urge the Arbcom to take this case against Cassianto, and specifically look at the use and benefit of use of Infoboxes to Wikipedia. Infoboxes are used everywhere in the world to provide a succinct subset of information about a subject, so why are they not used everywhere on Wikipedia. The argument to use or not use Infoboxes, has been discussed in multiple locations in Wikipedia almost since I joined. Often it is an egregious discussion, with both sides holding intransigent views, leading to no consensus. This does a disservice to the reader, the people we serve, and needs to be addressed once and for all. Research has shown that people principally now read Wikipedia on mobile devices, the figure is now about 67% (2 year old figure), which use different form factors, i.e. Sizes of screen. And on laptop and pc’s as well, but it is mostly smartphones, and that group is getting bigger. Research has also shown that readers often don’t want to read a whole article, but merely to get the facts, quickly and moving onto something else. That is the primary purpose of Infoboxes, to enable a person to get facts at a glance. So why are Infoboxes being removed from Wikipedia, when the functionality they provide is so useful to the average reader? The Infobox template was explicitly designed to address that need. It makes no sense to remove them from Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It's a serious problem if we throw-up our hands and contend our WP:CONSENSUS policy cannot work. I have no doubt that most Wikipedians including this ctte don't want to get involved, but that itself is a CONSENSUS problem, and yes long-term impediments to CONSENSUS are right in the committee's wheelhouse. I would not recommend DS before deeply looking at the matters as they exist today, even if you're 'sure' that you will do so, after an intensive review. It's actually very likely to come back to you, even with DS, but less so, if you have deeply done the groundwork. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeat75

I agree with Opabinia regalis "the topic of Cassianto's behavior, as presented" is not in need of a case. I think it is unfair of SMcCandlish to accuse Cassianto and SchroCat of operating a tagteam, they work together and collaborate on bringing articles up to featured level, naturally they are going to follow what each other are doing. The arbcom case in 2013 arose out of conflicts about infoboxes in the classical music/opera field, that has calmed down since then, there are less "outsiders" who neither know nor care anything whatsoever about classical music or opera trying to force infoboxes into the articles and the main "pro-infobox" editor in the area has become more willing to work with those of us who do not share this taste. Obviously there are more editors interested in Frank Sinatra than Mozart or Verdi and a lot of the problems arise from editors who are either unaware of or do not accept arbcom's ruling in 2013 that infoboxes are optional, it is a common attitude "Infoboxes are the cool modern thing to have,every article should have one" for instance on this page Scope creep says Infoboxes are used everywhere in the world to provide a succinct subset of information about a subject, so why are they not used everywhere on Wikipedia. This is wrong, Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, does not use infoboxes. User:Coffee, in the RfC on an infobox on the Cary Grant article also displayed this attitude "there is no more reason not to have an infobox than there is not to have a table of contents, why are we even talking about this, I'm a sysop and I can tell you that readers love infoboxes" [42]. If the committee revisits the infobox case, I don't see what else they can do except reiterate that infoboxes are optional and whether to have one or not must be decided on a case by case basis. Surely it is not up to this committee to pronounce that infoboxes are way cool and every article should have one and putting articles with or without infoboxes under discretionary sanctions would mean all of WP would fall under DS.Smeat75 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see Calvin999 and User:Coffee having a friendly little chit chat about the beastliness of unnamed editors in Coffee's section here. Calvin999 does not appear to have read the big bold notice that appears at the top of the page when you click on "edit" here -"You must comment only in your own section. To respond to a statement or remark by another editor, do so at the bottom of your section." Speaking of not reading things, Coffee (a sysop, as s/he proudly informs us) does not appear to have read the ruling arbcom made on infoboxes in 2013, that they are optional and deciding whether to have an inofobox or not on any particular article must be decided on a case by case basis. Coffee doesn't think the subject needs discussion, as in the diff I already posted [43] In 2017, I honestly can't believe this is even still debatable. As far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep them [infoboxes] off articles. No wonder people lose their temper.Smeat75 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calvin999

A message was left on my page about this, with a link to where the accused spoke to me on Talk:Frank Sinatra. The accused user tried to completely shut me down from his first comment, and proceeded to not want to talk about the issue I had raised without even explaining why, telling me to shut up and generally being rude, abrasive and superior in a child like fashion. It was nearly two years ago and I had forgotten about it but clearly judging by the multiple statements of condemnation above, I felt I should comment about my experience too. — Calvin999 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed my sentence about the other editors who were rude to me in thread, as was told to by Goldenring. Why this has been removed again I don't know, so I'm adding it back with this note. I have linked to the thread in question whereby Cassianto was rude to me, and the initiator Volvlogia has provided quotes of Cassianto's language to me in his statement above. I don't see the point in my copying and pasting it here too. How am I supposed to comment here if I'm not allowed to comment because 'clerks removal of comments cannot be undone'. But here are the diffs I have found regardless:

— Calvin999 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jcc

When an editor is dragged to ANI every few weeks, there's normally a problem. This is not the first time we've been here. Or the second. Or the third. His lack of civility is a persistent issue that won't just "go away". To demonstrate how deep rooted this issue is, I'll present some facts below:

He often resorts to sarcasm and insults in discussions. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
He rudely dismisses concerns about his civility and lashes out towards others.9, 10, 11, 12
He has been reported to ANI over nineteen times, showing that this issue is persistent and deep rooted.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Yep- that's right. Every single link above is to someone complaining about him on ANI.
Despite being blocked over a dozen times, his language continues to be inflammatory and uncivil, but worst of all, totally unnecessary. Here's just a few examples from last time.

The civility issues appear to manifest around infobox discussions. For example, during the course of just one RfC, Cassianto was reported to ANI four times by four different editors, almost got banned, and went into retirement. 1, 2, 3, 4
ANI has proven unable to deal with Cassianto's civility again and again. As I said at the start, when an editor is dragged to ANI once- sure, it might not be a problem- but over nineteen times? It's clear that ANI can't decide what to do. An ArbCom case of whatever sort is needed here, and given the polarising views and the fact that this is tied directly into one of the most contentious issues on Wikipedia, a full case is needed to fully examine the issues from all sides.

Attribution note: I've used the same format as Mike V at the TRM case- which of course resulted in civility sanctions.

jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being told by an admin they're misrepresenting the situation, and told no action was needed by another, We hope continues to slander, stalk and personally attack me above. Clerks- remove please. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I don't think the content issue (whether or not to use infoboxes) is something that Arbcom can take up. The only aspect of this to note is that the suggestion Arbcom made in the last Infobox case, about a community discussion, never seemed to materialize, leaving us at the state that we still don't have any consensus whether they are required, not required, or soemthing akin to WP:DATERET. As it seems now, it still is "consensus to be developed for keeping or omitting infobox on a page-by-page", which itself seems fine. Other options like collapsed infoboxes have been discussed but there's no type of consensus yet, but again, ARBCOM put onus on the community to develop something, and we haven't done that yet, as best I know.

The behavior problem though is disconcerting. It speaks to article ownership when editors like Cassianto insist that an established consensus to omit infoboxes cannot be challenged, disrupt discussions about adding an infobox claiming consensus was set, and deriding editors that are asking about including an infobox. I agree it is disruptive for too-frequently repeated discussions about infoboxes when there's recent consensus to include or not include them, and I can understand the frustration editors might have with this. But not all cases of Cassianto's behavior above are necessarily due to fatigue with fighting attempts to change consensus too frequently. There definitely seem to be a few cases of valid re-assessment of consensus of having an infobox or not in some cases that Cassianto and others seem to try to stall or disrupt, and that needs to be addressed. This leaves the question of whether we should consider this a new case or something addressable by the "Editors Reminded" remedy of the original case at AE. But I do encourage Arbcom to look only at the behavioral issues, and if the case is taken, remind the community they need to figure out what they want to do with infoboxes, and not make that part of Arbcom's decision. --Masem (t) 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

I would comb through Cassianto's history to show where he has severe civility issues time, and time again. But, realistically every single member of ArbCom (or at least the vast majority of you) already knows just how poorly he acts in content disputes and on threads on ANI. He is allowed to cast aspersions constantly, and no admin is willing to handle it because they're all afraid of having the crew of editors that protect him attack them and turn the messenger into the story. If ArbCom truly needs diffs to see this, I'll take the time to provide them. But, I find it hard to believe you all haven't seen how corrosive he acts towards anyone who doesn't agree with him in discussions (especially already controversial ones). It would be a good sign of faith if ArbCom finally becomes willing to handle some of the toxicity on this site and actually takes this case (and doesn't just focus on infoboxes alone, which also have their own issues as we all know), especially when our editor retention rates continue to decline, and especially when so many retirements can be attributed to this editor's behavior. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also highly agree with SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), SchroCat should be looked at as Cassianto's "side-kick" if you will... someone who throws insults, antagonizes discussions, and constantly without any consequence casts aspersions and attacks at other editors/admins who they don't agree with. They've both been known to harass editors/admins as well, by jumping into threads that don't involve them in order to stir up anger towards whomever their target is. This has gone on for far, far too long. I hope you listen to our plea and open a case on both of these editors behavior. ANI, AN or any other community forum will simply not be able to solve this. This is in your hands now, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to clerks: For the evidence behind my assertions please see the diffs provided by @Calvin999, SMcCandlish, and Jcc: they more than show a perfect glimpse of what we and some others here are talking about. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and the the others come to attack you as well. — Calvin999 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Calvin999: Completely true, I have no need to name them either... they'll show themselves during this case I'm sure. Hopefully the Committee pays attention to those actions as well during the course of this (hopefully accepted) case. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

If the community were capable of dealing with this problem, it would have dealt with it years ago.

This is not how to treat fellow editors, and it is the antithesis of collaborative behavior. If we forgive it we might as well just throw out 5P4 because it doesn't get much worse than this. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be a dumping ground for editors' serious anger issues. If this is the wrong time and place for such a general comment, someone please tell me the correct time and place; I'm happy to say that I'm not well versed in ArbCom processes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

This looks like a close parallel with the TRM case of a couple of years ago. The case request looks focused almost entirely on civility, in which case ANI yelling matches are not going to be able to resolve it. I suggest Arbcom accept the case. Arbcom does not have to look at infoboxes - that's a content dispute after all - and can focus on the conduct issues. Accepting a case doesn't indicate guilt or necessitate sanctions (as many current arbitrators said during the elections). If after looking at the evidence, Arbcom concludes that any of the parties have done nothing wrong, that's also a result. Banedon (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Participants in this arbitration case request are reminded that any statement about any editor must be accompanied by sufficient diffs to support the statement. Arbitration proceedings are highly sensitive for all involved and editors are asked to avoid escalating any situation in this case beyond the point strictly necessary for the Arbitration Committee to fairly decide this case request. Any material submitted in contravention of WP:NPA or other Wikipedia policies may be removed without warning at the discretion of a clerk. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. (Gun control principle 8). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several statements, including a large portion of the statement by the requester, because they make accusations of other editors without evidence. I have notified these editors and invited them to re-add their statements with links to evidence. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I'm taking from this request that it's designed to be mainly about Cassianto rather than revisiting WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes? I'd appreciate statements which explain why the community is unable to address Cassianto's alleged behaviour or why, more generally, an Infoboxes 2 case is needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd also appreciate more specific statements about the inability of the community to resolve the alleged behaviours of Cassianto and/or SchroCat. I am not convinced that a case against individual editors is necessary at the moment based on the evidences presented here, but I am open to the possibility of re-visiting the Infobox dispute if much of the incivility are derived from there. Alex Shih (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor foundation on which to build the widely perceived as inevitable Infoboxes 2 case, and I'm as yet unconvinced that the topic of Cassianto's behavior, as presented, is either a) in need of a case, or b) effectively separable from the infobox issue. I'd like to hear Cassianto's views here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we not just authorizing DS in infobox-related discussions? The basic facts here regarding how poorly most infobox discussions go are not under dispute, and so I wonder whether a case will actually accomplish anything. I'd rather just take the suggestion of Spartaz and see if AE can handle this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to hear from Cassianto on this case request before making a decision. Mkdw ^talk 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 *This seems like a poor foundation on which to build the widely perceived as inevitable Infoboxes 2 case, and I'm as yet unconvinced that the topic of Cassianto's behavior, as presented, is either a) in need of a case, or b) effectively separable from the infobox issue. I'd like to hear Cassianto's views here. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 09:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 *Why are we not just authorizing DS in infobox-related discussions? The basic facts here regarding how poorly most infobox discussions go are not under dispute, and so I wonder whether a case will actually accomplish anything. I'd rather just take the suggestion of Spartaz and see if AE can handle this. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
+*I would also like to hear from {{u|Cassianto}} on this case request before making a decision. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)