Requests for arbitration

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

• January 2015
• June 2015
• August 2016
• March 2016
• March 2016
• August 2016
• January 2017
• July 2017
• January 2018

Statement by Volvlogia

User:Cassianto has engaged in many Talk Page conversations regarding whether or not infoboxes should be included on artistic figure' articles. 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. 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:

expanded per clerk request

• "Frankly, you're boring"
• "fuck off"
• obnoxiously ignores comment
• "filthy troll"
• "delusional bullshit"
• "Incapable of writing

• Comment erased.
• Then, he Restored, twice

• see below for more evidence

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.

I also want to present the AN post submitted by User:we hope on the January 24, in the midst of the ArbCom debate. Make of it what you will.

Also, there is this message Cassianto left on my talk page on Jan. 24, in which he calls the ArbCom report I filer "loony drama" prompted by "absolutely nothing".

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

Statement by We hope

• Interactions Cassianto and editor
• Interactions self and editor

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 Cassianto

Has the whole world gone mad? Has this case seriously been started by someone who I've never interacted with, Volvlogia, at least not under this name, [1] about historic issues of "incivility" that they've gone out to find by trawling my contributions? Are we in a situation where someone as culpable as Jcc, in diffs provided by We hope, is seen as a "victim" of my "incivility" but is as much to blame for the hostility on such discussions by his stalking, harassment, lies, and personal attacks?

This is the story: Volvlogia is reverted on Stanley Kubrick by Ian Rose. I played no part in that revert. [2]. Volvlogia, the same day, albeit 20hours later, then files this at ANI: [3]. I had no interaction with this person after the revert and before the filing of the ANI thread.

Volvlogia then pings everyone who I've had issues with in the past, so they can take part. Sure enough, this prompts one of them, Baseball Bugs, to make an appearance where he makes a serious PA against me, calling me a "fanatic" and preceeds in having a discussion that insinuates that I'm able and indeed, capable, of doing Volvlogia harm: [4].

I start to loose my cool, as any other normal person in this situation would, so I switch off for the night and neck off to bed. In the meantime, somebody called "Dlthewave", also who I have never interacted with, overnight, reverts the Kubrick box back in, but is quickly reverted by another user. Dlthewave, seemingly annoyed at me for not getting involved, then decides to open up another thread about my past at ANI on a thread directly below the first one one:[5]

Volvlogia is told that their thread, owing to a lack of...ahem...evidence about recent "issues", is about to be archived, which it is, and so they come to ARBCOM. They then canvasses more "enemies", having gone through my entire history, and names most of them as involved persons, here.

And then this blows up. Yes, that it. Sure I get annoyed sometimes, when provoked, and sure, sometimes, perhaps I shouldn't. But hey guess what. I'm human. And together with the various IP's who go about, daily, reverting every edit I do (ask NeilN) and the constant stalking of my edits by Jcc, The Gnome, and others, to every discussion I've ever took part in, is a recipe for such heated discussion. Every person who was pinged at ARBCOM, aside from Robert McLennon and KracotoaKatie, I've had problems with; and ALL of them have been pinged by Volvlogia.

I've even had private emails saying that I should stop deleting boxes for a while; but where in the rules does it say that IB should not be deleted, but can be added by the bucket load, on a daily basis? Why should I bullied into not conducting valid edits, according to the MoS? I thought the rules were clear about this? I have as much right to delete a sodding infobox as those do who add them. If not, the rules should change to say so. Why is it that just because of a few people who adore infoboxes, and who are ultimately the ones that turn infobox disputes "toxic", others who think differently to them, are not allowed to do differently? Why the need for a topic ban for one person who deletes them, but not one for those who systematically go about adding them? Surely, it is them who cause these arguments, as without their boxes, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen? I seem to be in a minority with regards to my use of Infobox Person. That does not make me wrong. It's funny: but no one has noticed the infoboxes I've added to articles in the past?

And still, no one has picked up on the fact that "my civility", which Volvlogia alludes to, is all historic; has all been dealt with by various closures or blocks, and which forms the basis of this case. Still, no one has addressed the non-reasons why this very case was filed. No one has pointed out that this has come out of nowhere or have mentioned my non-involvement with Volvlogia. People also seem confused about what kind of case it is. The reason the committee don't want an Infobox3 is because of the enormity of it. It's far easier to deal with someone's "civility issue", isn't it?

How can it be right that past blocks can be brought up at anytime, by people who I've never interacted with, who have virtually no experience at all? I wasn't aware we had a "two bites of a cherry" rule that means if someone's blocked for, say, civility, then the "behaviour" behind that block can, again, be opened back up again for public scrutiny? How can it also be right for ARBCOM to allow someone to go about canvassing people who are known to dislike me, yet no one says anything? This stinks of a complete stitch up and nobody is saying anything?

What about the abuse I receive? What about the PA's levied at me by people like Baseball Bugs and a "concerned" and "frightened" Volvlogia who both, openly, had a discussion about the "physical harm I could not do to Volvlogia" yet Volvlogia goes on to quite happily baiting me and being uncivil from the sidelines during the last ANI? How sick is it to assume that a complete stranger who, perhaps lives thousands of miles away, might hunt them down to do physical harm to them? Where is their evidence to suggest I'd be this type of person? What about WP:AGF?

What about the daily harassment I receive as a result of innocent edits I undertake, including the recent, aspersions about my private life and perceived mental health problems, since redacted by John, but evidence of it can be found here?

What about breaches of policy with regards to talk page discussions and WP:TALKNEW? What about the breaches of WP:POLEMIC from the filing party here and here? No, I'm done. I've moved what I was doing with Frank Matcham and Theatres designed by Frank Matcham into main space for people to ruin; John Johnson (1807–1878) can also do one. I'm done. Cassianto^Talk 09:46, 25 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. (struck power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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. [6] 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, due to a years of essentially identical behavior and a history of WP:TAGTEAM with Cassianto (admins have commented on it before, e.g. [7]). The preventative solution is a topic ban and a civility editing restriction.

Neither has received {{Ds/alert}} for WP:ARBATC since 2016, but it is not remotely credible they are "unaware" of the DS that pertain. SchroCat shows up in around 800 infobox-related (MoS) discussions, as participant or behavior subject [8], Cassianto, around 700 [9]. Both treats WP:ARBINFOBOX as just some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part [10], [11].

Cassianto self-declares as someone who likes to get in the face of people who he thinks have crossed him, and is carrying this "throw your weight around threateningly" behavior into Wikipedia [12]. See also [13] and [14], further battleground and WP:OWN thinking. CIVIL and OWN are cited to Cassianto so frequently by other editors that he declares it cliché to ignore [15] and doesn't care if he's taken to noticeboards [16], and this is reflected in his block log. Major WP:CIR problem.

SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks) similarly dares people to do anything about him [17],[18]. Recent issues include: namecalling about required talkpage templates [19], [20]; battlegroundy mischaracterization of a neutral RfC as "crusading", etc. [21]; ingrained snideness [22]; unsupported accusations [23], then when asked to back it up or retract, just responded with more hostility [24]. Only looked for a couple of minutes into SchroCat's recent stuff; some older diffs: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].

This is just the tip of the diff iceberg (also covering tagteaming at articles, RfA, ANI, etc.; mutually-reinforcing WP:OWN / WP:VESTED patterns at various FAs; use of "idiotbox" to denigrate all editors and readers who like infoboxes). More diffs here. Both editors seem convinced their WP:FAC involvement provides immunity to any meaningful sanction. This isn't about infoboxes, but behavior. If DS aren't applicable (they should be per ARBATC, or add DS to ARBINFOBOX), and ANI and various blocks aren't working, that leaves ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC); revised for length, the gist of old replies collapsed into one post. 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75 and Yngvadottir: The point of the case request is to open a case, which has a full evidence phase (and no guarantee of a finding of wrongdoing). There just isn't room in a case-request page with 500-word limits to provide all pertinent details, including lots of proof of TAGTEAM (which is not about collaboration, but intimidation and WP:GAMING). Citation of previous admin concerns about tagteaming is sufficient at this stage. The civility and other diffs so far should already be sufficient for a case to open. C and S are accused of incivility not because there's some "pro-infobox" conspiracy out to get them, but because they are incivil as even the diffs so far (not just mine) have already proved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: User-talk thread worth a review [30]. SchroCat dumped a pile of undiffed accusations of "lying" on me, then brought an intimidation game (twice) along the lines of "I just sent a bunch of super-secret evidence to ArbCom in e-mail and you're in such big trouble now". This all really gets right to the heart of why I asked to add SchroCat to this case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Concur with Thryduulf on all points, though Cassianto's intent is actually irrelevant; "everyone else is off the hook since we have a martyr" is a result that wouldn't be useful even if just an accidental byproduct. I can't agree with Robert McClenon's idea that people be sanctioned for allegedly provoking the easily provokable (i.e. those exhibiting a WP:CIR) problem). It's not our job to try to read people's minds, nor to walk on eggshells around explosive personalities (who need to be shunted to topics where they are not explosive). Obvious provocation, that would provoke any reasonable person, is of course fair game for sanction.

Finally, in the upcoming larger examination, which should be broad (including the allegations of pro-infobox sock/meat activity), it's important to not engage in false equivalence when infobox disputes are under examination. There's a major difference between "This article should have an infobox, because [rationales]", and "idiotboxes are are for people who can't write and for lazy readers" (plus much worse ad hominem). No one has been ANIed or RfArbed for "This article should not have an infobox, because [rationales]". It's about collegiality.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 26 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]

I appreciate Blofeld producing the list of the clique I referred to in the previous paragraph, who share a common scorn for Wikipedia's readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 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]

@Masem I don't see how DS would impact on anyone at all unless they are behaving badly. Which does seem to be the case here. No need for a free pass... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 25 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]

This interaction ban request is also related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 25 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Doug Weller or the simpler solution would be to unblock so that they have the option of taking part in a case (or restore TPA and make it clear to them that all they have to do is ask and they will be unblocked). It was a self-requested block while a case request was ongoing and pretty obviously going to be accepted. I understand Bishonen's self-block conditions, but this has happened before with this user, and the enforced wiki-break does not seem to have solved whatever problem some of the community sees with them (I am unfamiliar, so I don't really have an opinion on who is right and wrong in the disputes). If a party does not want to take part in an ArbCom case, they don't have to, but they should not be able to delay the case or try to get out of it all together by asking another admin to block them. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 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]

@Smeat75: A bit off topic, but I was just looking at a Britannica article for checking on something related to another Wikipedia article, and I noticed an "infobox" type thing. Are you thinking of some other source? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 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" [31]. 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]

Removed - clerk action. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker - It appears from your example that some Encyclopedia Britannica articles do have infobox type things but some such as this one [32] do not. Perhaps they use their "infoboxes" just for bios.Smeat75 (talk) 00:05, 25 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:

• "This has been discussed at length quite recently. What is your purpose in bringing this up again?" with the edit summary of "yawn!" - I didn't know it had been raised before.
• "What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities?"
• "{u|Calvin999|Oh}} dear, the first signs of someone losing an argument is that old chestnut WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring and your time is better spent elsewhere." with the edit summary of "boring"
• "{u|Calvin999|Not}} all articles have info boxes, just so you know."
• "Well, you've had your say, no shut up and face the fact that the collapsed infobox is here to stay." - His response to it not being ownership, which it clearly was.
• And his harassing me on my talk page where he continued to be rude to me despite me asking him to not interact with me.

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

@Coffee: Yes, and the others come to attack you as well.  — Calvin999 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75: Yes, because a 10 word sentence reply constitutes as a nice, friendly chat. Please. Am I not allowed to agree with what someone else says? I'm not sure why I'm even being mentioned by you in an indirect, sarcastic fashion despite knowing I'll see it. I don't even know you. If you have something to say to me, be bold and be direct here or post on my user talk.  — Calvin999 09:48, 25 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.

• "I'm afraid I'm about to end your sexual arousal by withdrawing from the edit war; please, carry on at your lesuire, the article is shit and not worth defending"
• "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is."
• "Is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the Führer of?"
• "Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer so others didn't think you were foolish. Unfortunately, you've lived up to that now. As I've said previously, you're views here are worth nothing and are as flawed as one-legged arse kicking competion. When you have as many FAs as I do, young boy, I'll ask you to "oblige me"; until then, toddle off and conduct some more brilliant edits, like this"

• 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]

A comment on applying DS to the Infobox area: the problem stems from the fact that these will imbalance towards regular editors like Cassianto. Most problems with infobox comes from a well-meaning IP or new editor, seeing a page that lacks an infobox, decide to add one without reviewing talk pages or heeding invisible comments or other messages. There is no way a DS is going to stop that from happening. And from what I've seen, if a new editor finds that there's is staunch opposition to the infobox, they tend to either let it drop and move on (making the DS pointless) or they rile up issues on the talk page, which creates more problems and which become the only point that DS could be useful. Instead, DS would be disproportionally applied to Cassianto and the like which is not a good thing, barring further review of Arbcom by their actions. So I don't think its simply a matter of saying that DS apply to Infobox articles since the situation here is unique. --Masem (t) 23:48, 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]
    • @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]

Statement by Yngvadottir

Smeat75 has said much of what I wished to say, more eloquently. Arbcom has in the past very wisely ruled that infoboxes are neither required nor discouraged, yet for some editors their presence should be the default. Cassianto and others who disagree are accused of rudeness partly because they do not accept this premise, and because of a confusion between ownership and stewardship. Some of the cited diffs are attributable to this difference in viewpoint. I also find the history of User:Volvlogia indicative of a combative attitude that suggests the filing may be unduly personal. I urge the committee not to accept this case but to reaffirm its earlier ruling on infoboxes requiring good faith discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

Wow, you folk have an opportunity to revisit civility and/or infoboxes. How can you pass that up? I know I could.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

Life is short as they say. What a waste. The real issue is infobox enforcement and the army of trolls/sockpuppets emerging who almost every day try to enforce an infobox upon an article written by Cassianto, SchroCat, myself and a few others. Deal with the wider issue please and update the ruling and introduce sanctions for those who can't respect consensus. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Brad. I understand that you don't want to reopen the infobox case, it is such a tedious bore to discuss of course. But you've got to acknowledge that most of the offensive behaviour you profess to see would disappear if the drive by culture of infobox enforcement ceased to exist. A small group of editors are being targetted here, editors are using socks and communications offwiki to target target a small group of articles which is disruptive. If sanctions were imposed on editors who try to impose infoboxes where there is a consensus to exclude one I think you'd largely resolve the problems which you see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

There appear to be two aspects to this case, and I urge ArbCom to consider both of them. The first aspect of this case is two more polarizing uncivil editors. The second aspect of this case is - - yet again - - infoboxes.

I will observe that the block log of User:Cassianto is even longer than that of another editor who is about to be the subject of an ArbCom case, and a history of having talk page access revoked while blocked. The ArbCom acts as a final binding decision-maker in cases which the community is unable to resolve, and this would again be a textbook case of inability to resolve conflict if there were a textbook. They are not a straightforward case of not here to maintain the encyclopedia, because they are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but they cause inordinate conflict and divide the community.

Infoboxes continue to be a contentious topic. Some editors love them. Some editors hate them. Some editors like the fact that they “emit data” for use by other tools. Some editors dislike them because they provide oversimplified data to other tools. Cassianto appears to belong to the anti-infobox camp. It doesn’t really matter, in that editors who are too combative in either camp are destructive.

Some editors, including User:Ritchie333, have previously urged that ArbCom discretionary sanctions should apply to article-level disputes involving infoboxes, and I concur. Editors who are persistently disruptive either in favor of or against infoboxes should be topic-banned from all infobox edits and discussions. WP:ANI isn’t a feasible forum for topic-bans; Arbitration Enforcement is so much more efficiently draconian when draconian measures are needed.

As to Cassianto, I think that it is clear that they should be topic-banned from infobox edits and discussions. I ask the ArbCom to consider one question really. That is whether the damage done by Cassianto can be contained by a topic-ban, or whether they are as disruptive elsewhere as with infoboxes. If the damage can be contained, topic-ban them. If the damage cannot be contained, a site-ban is necessary.

Some editors have said that specific questions about infoboxes are a content issue that need not be addressed by the ArbCom. I respectfully disagree, in that it has long been established that editors whose conduct makes resolution of content issues, whether Israel and Palestine, or American politics, or a few other areas, can be sanctioned, and infoboxes are such an area.

I urge the ArbCom to consider this case in order to impose discretionary sanctions on infoboxes, and to consider whether Cassianto should be allowed to continue to edit otherwise.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added Thoughts

I concur with User:Thryduulf that discretionary sanctions are in particular appropriate for uncivil discussions of infoboxes and for edit-warring the addition and removal of infoboxes.

I concur with User:Cassianto that abuse that they have received should be considered, and that sanctions for the provoking of easily provoked users are needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Civility issues)

I urge the committee to accept a case to look into the conduct of Cassianto, SchroCat and those that are frequently part of the same disputes. There is a wealth of evidence presented above that there are frequently instances of discussions that end up as shouting matches and accusations of OWNership, and other civility problems. Until the behaviour issues are resolved there is no hope that the content disputes (and there isn't just one topic) can be resolved. The community is demonstrably unable to solve these issues which have been ongoing for about 4-5 years, possibly longer.

All the Committee needs to do with regards infoboxes themselves is reaffirm that:

• There is no global consensus regarding infoboxes - there is no presumption that an article should or should not have one.
• The presence or absence of an infobox on article is subject to the usual WP:BRD process, discussion should happen on article talk pages.
• Editors who are unable or unwilling to discuss infoboxes civilly and with good faith may, and should, be sanctioned.
• Positive contributions in one area of the encyclopaedia do not excuse problematic conduct in another area.

Placing the topic of inboxes under discretionary sanctions has been rejected previously, on the grounds that it affects potentially every article and is thus overbroad. However I would encourage the committee to consider authorising discretionary sanctions for discussions about infoboxes and reverting the addition or removal of an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: The crux of the issue I think is your last point in green. These editors have been standing in the way of resolution of the other issues (intentionally or otherwise) regarding infoboxes and (some of) the same editors are also behaving poorly in other areas too. I think the best way forward at this point is:
  1. Open a case to examine the conduct of Cassianto, the others named, and any others who frequently participate in the problematic discussions, identify the editors who are causing the problems (I don't believe that Cassianto is wholly responsible for the whole mess, as SMcCandlish notes in their section, and also why I don't believe that Cassianto's self-requested blocking should impact this case - I don't know that he wants to be a fall guy to let others with similar points of view off the hook or not, but it would not surprise me), across all topic areas where this behaviour is exhibited. If there are examples of similar discussions that conclude amicably without any civility issues then these may be useful for comparison of participants, topics and/or style.
  2. Craft a remedy to separate the problematic editors (of all viewpoints) from the topic areas in which they are causing problems (which is not necessarily going to be the same set of topics for all editors) and/or from the type of discussions in which they are causing problems (again this might not be the same in all cases). Interaction bans should also be considered if user:A problematic only when user:B is also involved in the discussion (and vice versa) - I haven't done enough analysis of the evidence to date to say whether this is the case or not.
  3. Let the dust settle and anyone who wants to vent about the outcome get it out of their system and wait to see if the other problems require ArbCom's input at that point (hopefully not!).
• I don't know whether this case can resolve all the issues, but I do not believe they can be resolved without it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

There is more than enough evidence on this page to skip right past the evidence phase and start the workshop phase. Infoboxes may be the catalyst, but it is glaringly obvious who the users are at the center of this multi-year/multi-ANI/multi-block/multi-insult drama. In an online community without moderators, we should expect and tolerate occasional lapses of civility, but too many of the examples listed here are unambiguously-hostile, if not outright bullying. An Arbcom case should also examine any civil, tendentious editing on the other side of the disputes. Finally, it should also examine how ANI is often hamstrung as a venue for resolving issues by admins who prematurely close discussions, after only a few hours, when editors in the reported party's clique have dominated the discussion. In some cases, the closing admins may have COI with respect to the reported parties. These closes, whether innocent or WP:INVOLVED, rob the community of the opportunity to settle disputes without Arbcom intervention.

Arbcom may find that the solution is as simple as topic banning a few editors, but I very much doubt that discretionary sanctions would reduce the volume of drama. Good luck to all.- MrX 🖋 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I encourage ArbCom to accept this case, which involves chronic behavioral problems by a small but highly active group of editors, along with an intractable content dispute about infoboxes. Rather than rehashing the details of matter, I will say that I believe that the previous comments by SMcCandlish, Baseball Bugs, Spartaz, Tony Ballioni, Robert McClenon and Thryduulf are perceptive and identify the major issues quite clearly. This is a festering problem, and we need a decisive solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serial Number 54129

I've effectively been brought here by the filing editor, who pissed all over WP:OWNTALK with this edit, in which User:Volvlogia removed a comment by User:We hope* from my own talk page, WP:POINTy behaviour to say the least, as an administrator noted in their reprimand to them. Regardless of their ignorance of what WP:POLEMIC actually means, their outrageously astounding lack of good faith appears to be precisely the behavioural pattern they are accusing someone else of.

On the case itself, I do wonder if a fundamental criterion of the committee accepting a case has actually been met? Viz, that it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Indeed,, had all other reasonable means actually failed? I note that the case was opened at 23:27, 23 January 2018, and Volvlogia's last edit to it made at 02:08, 24 January, less than three hours later. I'm not sure that really constitutes the level of thoroughness we expect before arbcom; although I do not that they were advised such by an admin. But either way. This case is one of tow things. It is either about infoboxes, in which case we hold IB3 ("The Horror Returns," no?), and everyone involved is named as a party (which is far more than the few named here); or it is behavioural, in which case, all parties' behaviour is considered. And my opening remarks here today can be considered my opinion on that of the filer's. This may well be merely the product of inexperience—after all, whatever tenure says, they have only been editing solidly since October last year. I can only echo much of what Yngvadottir said above, particularly regarding the potentially personal nature of the filing and their advice that, on consideration, arbcom is not the place for what in many cases frankly seems rarely to rise above the level of brusqueness. Any such brusqueness can only be amplified by the environment it is made in, and as many contributors here have already pointed out, that environment is fundamentally toxic. And it is toxic because there are so many (not just one or two) conflicting editing philosophies involved, not because (n both sides) editors occasionally vent. Thank you. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The background to this, if required, is that my latest GA review was possibly foundering on the lack of alternative text for the images. Well: I'd never heard of WP:ALTTEXT, but without asking, We hope—with whom I can barely recall interacting directly with—very kindly sorted all three out for me, for which I thanked them and left a barnstar. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• @Worm That Turned: The dangers of copy / paste, eh  ;) It isn't. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

I have blocked User:We hope for 24 hours here. The block and actions proceeding it are directly related to this ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Fuck... I was planning on waiting till tomorrow to post my thoughts when I'd properly collated them, but, this has escalated to a point where watching silently is no longer an option. Not least of all since blocks are now being handed out.

The facts that bring us here: Volvlogia opened an AN/I thread which was so poorly presented that the only reasonable action was to close it without any (or boomerang). Not only was the evidence lacking, they spent most of it casting aspersions and personal attacks with little to no substantiation of them. Not to mention the behaviour of others there was equally poor. Frankly I thought Baseball Bugs was... trolling^[a] originally. Turns out their comments were supposed to be taken seriously. If you need evidence, go look at the collapsed section of the thread.
Some issues:

• Examples once more of Cassianto being rude and personally insulting, attacking a person not their argument. Pure ad hominem. and "I'm asserting nothing. I'm telling you they do make articles look childish and amateurish. If you find that insulting, that's your problem." (also once more hypocritically asserting his opinion as relevant while discounting others). - Not an ad hominem, but, given their wanton attribution of that term to half the examples provided in the report, I'm not surprised. Effectively, though, this is an aspersion.
• "... Example of Cassianto's practical messiah complex and self-aggrandizement, while implicitly admitting to personally insulting editors - Cassianto didn't write Mary Shelley, Awadewit and qp10qp did. So this statement is both absurd and another personal attack.
• "Thankfully I don't share this distorted view and would request that you don't start the same monotonous thread seen on so many articles so many times.".From Talk:Joseph_Grimaldi#Infoboxes - This was claimed to be abusive behaviour... Seriously?!?! Please read that thread, it's still there. I defy you to call it abuse. Also, aspersion.
• I don't know what the solution should be to solve the problem, that's up to you, the admins, but I can't stay quiet any more about the disgusting and disheartening behavior of Cassianto. - This is suspect. Volvlogia has never interacted with Cassianto, so they have nothing to be quiet about any more. This is either hyperbole or ... well... nothing pleasant.
• Couple all that with the evidence presented by SerialNumber above in their first paragraph too. Unfortunately, this forum allows everybody to air grievances all at once. Snowball effect. This is the outcome. For the OP to pull that stunt at AN/I and then forumshop this here, is an issue. I do not accept Volvlogia's proposed motives, and neither, frankly, should you.

As to this case, I think you'll need to decide what the scope is first. A conduct case won't address the IB issue, and an IB case won't address the grievances of some here (the validity of which is now up to you). I haven't much more to say, except that this is a poor foundation for an ARBCOM case. It is a shame that this will open up in this manner. That is all. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, all of this comes off the back of a really odd issue Cassianto had only a short while ago. A random editor, PhoenixDev, struck out at Cassianto with a series of personal attacks and provocations that culminated in an AN report. I can't help but note that that editor claimed victimhood while simultaneously posting attacks in every comment they wrote. In fact, that covers most of their contributions. I also note that Volvlogia has tried canvassing them as well. With a disingenuous summary of the events to boot. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One other thing I noticed (I caught on to it when I walked by PhoenixDev's TP to see if they were still active), just by skimming about, was that Volvlogia continued to canvass editors to this case after they were expressly warned by Floquenbeam not to. Diffs: Warning at 02:48 January 24, Acknowledgement of received warning about fifteen minutes later, confirmation that canvassing is not acceptable only two minutes after that and then that is followed up less than an hour later with not one, not two, not even three, but four separate canvassing messages. I called it incompetence before... that is no longer the case. Well, it is, because the OP is incriminating themselves as hard as possible, but, this isn't accidental it's targeted behaviour. The OP was expressly aware that their behaviour was not acceptable, and they continued with it. I hope that ARBCOM intends to do something about the editor who has cast numerous aspersions and personal attacks (only a couple which I've listed above), harassed We hope on SN's talk page (refer SN's evidence and note that they followed We hope to SN's talk page), and has now canvassed editors after being aware that this is not acceptable behaviour to the case they incited. Oh, how sneaky, one more thing, and this is crucial, the editors canvassed were not listed as involved parties at the time of the warning. They were added an hour afterwards to avoid inspection (there's a better word for it, but, I can't think of it right now). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

It looks like this case will be accepted for now, which is a good thing. The user conduct in this particular area is out of control and soaking up too much valuable volunteer time. I would urge that the committee makes sure that the scope of the case is broader than just Cassianto, as there is plenty of disruptive conduct from plenty of users, on both sides of this conflict, to go around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Moxy

Simply a toxic environment when you bump heads with this "click" of editors that Doc outlines. They have a great ability to bring out the worst in people ( I myself have said some heated things that I regret saying a year ago.) Tag team is a great way to put the problem that leads to civility problem on all sides. As presented above the problem is not them being harassed by socks or some trolling group for years...but years of individuals having the same problem as a whole. That's not to say they have not pissed off many because of their approach, that do harass them by way of socks...but that's few and far between. Is clear that they create great content and know the ins and outs of the politics here.....as this behavior would not be tolerated by a less prolific/knowledgeable group. I do not believe sections against one will impact the behavioral problem of the group. I do believe that the info box question is at the heart of most problems and should be an area to look into for a solution. --Moxy (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (L3X1)

I think the Committee should keep in mind the ways some have provoked Cassianto. While I am aware "they drove me to it" won't hold up in any court of law, I don't think he behaves because he enjoys it. I don't find much of his behavior towards other editors acceptable or useful, but I have observed some "do unto others as they have done unto you" being enacted by his opponents. I won't comment on my negative interactions with Cassianto, as I was to blame and I think they are just a small representative portion, and my bad behavior provoked the response I received. No comment on infoboxes for the time being. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write)

Statement by Black Kite

Ah, the lynching of Cassianto. I'm surprised it's taken this long. Still, I hope that this ArbCom is wise enough to take the behaviour of all parties into account (some of those on the "we want infoboxes" side has been as bad, if not worse), though I have to admit I'm not hopeful. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I've blocked Cassianto for three months at his own request, with tpa and e-mail revoked. I'm sorry if this creates problems for ArbCom. Well, I'm sure it does create some problems, but I hope they're not insurmountable. He just needed a break. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Lot of people bringing up the behaviour of other editors in defense of Cassianto; seems more reason to have an Arbcom case to look into behaviour in relation to infoboxes, as it appears to be too complicated for the community to handle (and also seeing from the 19 ANI reports). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

This cannot be solved by sanctioning editors for incivility; this is a more complex issue than that. I'm always for saving editors and dealing with underling causes for problems if possible, not the easiest solution but arguably the longest lived. Maybe that's naive but incivility is a matter of changing individual behavior and asking why people are uncivil rather than punishing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I'm looking thru half of this and alot of it looks like USDA Choice grade A BS. There exist a reason to ban Cass or not. An admin will have the call to do so or not. This takes one admin to do so. After which there may be the matter of whether the ban was a good call or rather meeting policy.

There's one thing here that raises my concern. The reports that Cass may have a gaggle of goons running into the rescue at the drop of a hat. TAGTEAM as it's been described. Which would to me also suggest WP:MEAT may be going on. Do we have a organized group coming together to sing Lake of Fire (song)? IDK. In what ever case you choose to review I hope you'll consider reviewing this. Hollow iVotes can pad an RFC but they shouldn't be used to form a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other editor)

Civility issues: 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]
• This case request has been renamed to Civility issues, which will be reviewed if the case is accepted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/0>

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]
  • Accept a case to look at Cassianto's conduct as well as the conduct of other editors in relation to Infoboxes/discussion with or about Cassianto. I was waiting for Cassianto to comment but given this that is no longer necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify that I think comments above have made it clear that there is a broader issue about civility in discussions about infoboxes, not focused on Cassianto, so I think a case along those lines (but which allows evidence showing a broader pattern, not just during infobox discussions) could be useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:10, 26 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]
  • Moving to accept along the lines of looking into conduct of involved editors, and reviewing a possible motion to introduce discretionary sanctions in discussions about infobox. Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 25 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]
  • A few thoughts, which I was about to post this morning when I got interrupted:
    • This is a bit of an unusual request. While it's not uncommon for the filing party to be an observer rather than a participant in a dispute, it's certainly rare for a relatively inexperienced editor to file a personal-conduct case about a person they've never had any substantive interactions with. Based on the ANI thread preceding this request, I feel like somebody has to remind commenters, including Volvlogia, that a case necessarily examines the behavior of all parties, and that baiting, goading, and other types of manipulative behavior intended to provoke a reaction are uncivil and inappropriate.
    • Comments on this case request so far have often been... disappointing. Experienced editors should not be posting stuff like "I don't need to bother finding evidence because it's just so obvious" - you should all know better. We also do not need speculation about socks (if you think there is an "army of sockpuppets" posting about infoboxes, WP:SPI is thataway). If we actually do have a case, I swear I'm going to start replacing people's evidence sections with this picture if there are any claims in them that lack, um, evidence. Similarly - and I can't use enough text formatting here - this request and any case that follows IS NOT THE PLACE TO ARGUE FOR YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT INFOBOXES. Seriously. Don't make me break out the blink tag.
    • I was initially hesitant to accept this case, in part as a result of its unusual beginnings - we've never had a concept of having "standing" to file a case, but when a filer has no relevant history with the dispute, it's easy to see how a case might get off on the wrong foot even when the substance of the matter does need investigation. The canvassing, in particular, is troubling, even if done just out of lack of awareness of how things work in this venue, because it can give a false impression of the scale of the problem. I can appreciate that people might feel ambushed (or get the idea in their head to ambush others) if there's no expectation that the filer themselves has ever been involved with, attempted to resolve, or even closely observed the dispute being arbitrated. All that being said, the volume and nature of comments here does suggest there is an issue.
    • I think we need to think carefully about what kind of case we're accepting. I do not see anything useful coming of a narrow case about Cassianto in particular. Virtually all of the disputed behavior is occurring in the context of infobox-related discussions. Conversely, we have evidence that others behave very similarly in the same discussions, so singling out Cassianto seems both unfair and unlikely to solve the problem. With great reluctance - as in, I almost chickened out on the bold vote part - I think we're at the point of needing a scope along the lines of "behavior in infobox discussions". So, accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 26 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]
  • Accept a case based on Cassianto's conduct. Jcc's section above makes clear this doesn't have to do only with infoboxes, and I think we can have a case looking at editor conduct without wading back into the infobox disputes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason to suspend the case due to a self-requested block. Any editor can choose not to participate in an arbitration case, even when it involves them. This is not held against them, but it also doesn't shut down the whole process. The fact that the editor chose not to participate by requesting a block doesn't change that for me. As for scope, I would like this to be a case focusing on behavior, not infoboxes. The Arbitration Committee cannot rule on content, so we cannot rule on whether infoboxes should or should not be in any particular article or class of articles, as some editors appear to be asking us to do. That's up to the community. We should examine the behavior of all editors who have participated in infobox discussions, broadly speaking, including any editors who they've been in conflict with. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:53, 29 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]

I've read the message, User talk:Opabinia regalis#ArbCom. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have passed the necessary threshold required to determine a case should go forward, and therefore accept the case request. Mkdw ^talk 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards accepting a wide scope and allowing the case to resolve what are important issues and what are not. This is only the request. We should be saving judgements and decisions for the final part of the case. We need a more thorough evidence and workshop process to determine what needs to be done to resolve the situation, which a case will provide. Mkdw ^talk 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This morning I was leaning decline, but based on Jcc's well-formatted section, I accept to review Cassianto's conduct and the conduct of others surrounding infobox discussions. Katie^talk 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Jcc's section makes it clear that this isn't just about infoboxes, and that the community has tried and failed to solve this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept based on among other things Jcc's section above. This isn't just about infoboxes anymore, there's a much wider issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviewing and will vote later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned comment: We now have eight arbitrators voting to accept and open this case, but I do not believe all of them are voting to open the same case. Some commenting editors, and voting arbs, want a case about whether Cassianto and perhaps some other editors abide by the norms of civility and NPA, not confined to the infoxbox area. (Actually, I shouldn't say that anyone "wants" such a case; I should say that these people think the advantages of taking such a case outweigh those of not taking it.) Others I think want us to open RfAr/Infoboxes 2, which would be a great idea if we could solve the infobox wars after all these years, but I'm not sure how we could. In the original Infoboxes case of 2013, I wrote a summary that found its way into the final decision, in which we said:

This case arises from a series of disputes concerning whether and when Wikipedia articles should include infoboxes. Because there is no project-wide policy governing when infoboxes should be used, disagreements concerning their inclusion arise with some regularity. These disagreements are sometimes resolved as they should be, through collegial discussion and consensus, but too often the consensus-building process has broken down, in a fashion that has been extremely demoralizing to many editors. Reasons for such breakdowns include:

*It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).

*It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.

*A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions.

All of these things are still true. We concluded that decision with a suggestion that the community conduct an RfC to address some of the open policy points, which did not happen. At this point, we have some editors suggesting that only ArbCom can help at this stage, but we have others opining that opening this case, especially without a clear scope, will precipitate the war of all against all. I see that there is now a majority to open some sort of a case, and I understand the sentiment and there may be no better answer, but historically this is not the type of problem that this Committee's decisions have been best suited to solve. As always I would be happy to be proved wrong Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept with my long standing preference that the case not be named after the user. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Rob. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm with Brad about uncertainty what case is being voted on. We have I believe 4 editors accepting the case based on JCC's comment, but I believe that a Cassianto based case should be accepted and suspended for the duration of the block. If the other 5 want something different focused on infoboxes, we don't really have a majority yet. I'd prefer to hold off opening this until we can come to a consensus. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TonyBallioni Indeed we can go ahead whether or not he's blocked. I'd still like to have a clearer scope before I vote. I've learned that from previous experience. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]