User talk:Cassianto/Archives/2018/May

Oh dear!

 * I do hope this isn't final. Thanks anyway for all your great articles over the years. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Our illustrious, fair, and well informed committee at ArbCom saw to that, unfortunately. I'll be about, just to annoy certain people, but that's about it. Wasting my time and money writing articles, only to be trolled and treated like shit, has come to an end. Best wishes to you, John.   Cassianto Talk  18:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need to say much. I've decided to leave the "do fuck all brigade" and when I'm here, do what I can. Here: Pyramid of Neferirkare. I got off my ass and wrote an FA. Yes. I am virtue signalling. :P Mr rnddude (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's you on borrowed time then. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like people who improve things, only those who go around and fuck it all up.   Cassianto Talk  18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly there's more than a grain of truth in that. Eric   Corbett  22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've experienced that first tinge of stupid content disputes. It is, unfortunately, easier to dispute details than to author content. I can hardly blame either of you, or anyone else, for giving up. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Sandstein, that's a shocking bad decision, considering Cassianto did not breach the restriction as it is currently written. Perhaps you should read through the comments thoroughly, (including the filer's inaccurate representation of what the restriction is) before you make your decision. - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cass, I have no doubt that whatever happens another stalker will misrepresent the restrictions in order for another poor decision to be twisted against you. It's no wonder that ArbCom is not considered a shining example of volunteer management if they can't even manage their own house properly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like the Universe, is now accelerating to its heat death. We're getting more and more hawkish monitors at AN and ANI, we're getting fewer and fewer content contributors, and like a snake eating its own tail, the project is doomed to fail because of individuals who do nothing more than police the place. It's like Rise of the Machines. Eventually, though, these Wiki-police will be replaced by AI-bots who will detect the quality of your contribution and summarily block you if you don't meet their threshold. The good news about that is that you know you're dealing with a 'bot, not these other individuals who claim to be human and who claim to be interested in a collaborative project and who claim to be motivated by improving Wikipedia, but manifestly do nothing of the sort other than attempt to govern it and enforce their petty Wiki-lawyering efforts on the few humans who are left to produce content. And, as any of you would know if you know anything about me, it's not even worth starting to discuss the facile and self-important, self-aggrandising, self-perpetuating nonsense known as Arbcom. Toothless, ball-less, hopeless. I think when God created the Norwegian coastline, he had to do something equal and opposite, yin and yang, so he created Arbcom. I know you know all this. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ha, elequently put, Rambler, and so true. The sheer level of incompetence shown by Mr Sandstain and the kangaroo court at ARBCOM illustrates perfectly why Wikipedia loses decent editors at a rate of knots.  I forget whose page I saw it on, but I saw a banner message saying that one day,   Not only were the committee (deliberately) ambiguous with regards to their awful writing at the ArbCom case with regards to "no more than one comment" bullshit, but perhaps the biggest fraud of it all was calling the case "civility in infobox discussions".  I would consider my recent comments to be very civil, which kind of contradicts the case title, yet this happens. Yet more evidence of this case being about me in all but name. The bungling incompetence of the committee, highlighted further by Mr Sandstein's own display of the same behaviour, above, is evident for all to see.   Cassianto Talk  23:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, like ARBCOM, it appears that Mr Sandstein can't even string a sentence together: A bit more article writing and a lot less pontificating may see a cure to that.   Cassianto Talk  23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions are fundamentally dishonest anyway. Their (usually unspoken) purpose is to silence dissenting voices, thus making it easier to claim some kind of empty consensus among those who are left. "First they came for the anti-infoboxers, and I did not speak out because I was not anti-infobox ... then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." I myself have a discretionary sanction in place, well two actually, that forbid me from being critical of the RfA process or making any comment about gender equality. God alone knows what carnage may have ensued had they not been in place! When the time of Wikipedia's inevitable heat death finally arrives it will be nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, and everything to do with the self-important individuals epitomised by Sandstein. Eric   Corbett  01:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The hilarious thing is, is that I've never been opposed to infoboxes on the whole, I've just dared to challenge the unilateral adding of them on articles where I don't think they work. Obviously, this has aggravated the OCD sufferers among us whose noses have bled profusely at the thought of not having a vanilla-looking neighbourhood that is obsessionally consistent. Like ArbCom and it's gang of enforcers, the shockingly flawed RfA process allows for people like  to swag up and then go about like a kid in a candy shop, unilaterally sticking their size 10s into situations where they achieve maximum satisfaction at the detriment of others. Some go on to be very fair and extremely competent; others resign their common sense and fair opinion at the door marked "exit" and go on to operate in a megalomaniac and reckless way in order to achieve god-like status among their peers. Perhaps it's no big shock that a flawed and corrupt process, such as RfA, produces flawed and corrupt administrators. I kind of feel sorry for them, in a way, that they feel the need to assert such control and oppression over a bunch of volunteers over the internet. But I do think we should show particular solidarity for poor old  who failed to get the result he so craved, and that is to have me blocked on his and Wikipedia's terms rather than my own. So that'll be him crying into his lavender-scented comfort blanket for a few days. Every cloud and all that.   Cassianto Talk  05:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll say finally, without any attempt to save your blushes, that the tragedy of situations such as the one you find yourself in is that WP loses common-sense editors like you and retains OCD sufferers like ... well, you can surely guess who I'm thinking of. As has been suggested on my talkpage, the solution to this infobox stupidity is very simple: mandate them for certain categories of article where they work well, and deprecate them for those categories where they don't. Problem solved. Eric   Corbett  06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eric, that sounds like plain old common sense to me. More than can be said for edits such as this. Optimistic, certainly.  Cassianto Talk  07:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not edit closed AE threads
Cassianto, I've undone your edit to the closed AE thread. If you want other admins to look at the case, you can request that by appealing the sanction as per the instructions in the sanctions template above.  Sandstein  10:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you've done enough damage already? Eric   Corbett  10:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * funny; I thought appeals could be done at AE? Or is that more disingenuous bullshit from you? Try responding to me, as per your bunch of code on my talk page, rather than ignoring me.  Cassianto Talk  11:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, appeals can take place at AE, but they do not take place in the same thread as the one in which the sanction was imposed. That thread is preserved as a record of the sanction. Instead, to appeal the sanction, you should make a new thread by filling out the template Arbitration enforcement appeal, based on the text at Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, and posting it at WP:AE. This is also explained in the sanction template above.  Sandstein   11:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * noted. See you at AN then.  Cassianto Talk |

There's no point in arguing Cass. Even when an overly-aggressive admin makes a staggering poor decision that doesn't reflect the restrictions, just their own personal biases, they still can't let the discussion run its course, even when there is serious doubt in any neutral's mind. And don't expect any admin acknowledge that their poor actions create more heat than light. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a case recently at ARCA where an editor was also sanctioned under a poorly worded and confusing restriction. Despite pleas from numerous editors to improve the wording of the restriction, or simply clarify what the admin meant, the admin doubled down on enforcing the bad sanction, which ultimately lead to the editor leaving the project. This is a website composed of volunteers freely donating time, energy, and more for no other reason than wanting to contribute to the purpose of Wikipedia. I just simply can't understand this burning desire by admins to enforce sanctions on prolific, productive editors and insist that they've done the right thing. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm never surprised by the rather blinkered approach taken by those that wield some limited form of power. It takes only a little courage to admit to making an error - particularly when several people point it out, but even more stubbornness in digging ones heels in and repeating that it's all black and white with no shades of grey. Sometime I do wonder why I bother - the ineptitude of so many people is supported and praised, but when someone is good at doing what they do - like Cass - they line up and try and pull them into the gutter. Not one person at Arb, and only a very small selection of Admins actually know how to manage people or situations, and most crassly thrash about making matters so much worse than they need to be. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It stems from the fact that most of our hawkish admins do nothing other than police the site and have completely forgotten the main purpose, which is to create content for our readers. Some of them actually do nothing to improve content at all.  They get their buzz from killing off other, productive editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

AE appeal
Just as a note, I've closed your appeal to the administrators noticeboard of your arbitration enforcement sanction as declining to lift the topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * -fives all round at the ArbCom mess then. Sterling work, all of you.  Cassianto Talk  18:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Too many of the peanut gallery disliking someone who knows which way their arse points. No great surprises, given ArbCom don't have the backbone to acknowledge they've fucked up, even when at least one member and the clerk acknowledges there is enough ambiguity in the fuck up of something they voted on themselves. It is an embarrassment that they don't have enough backbone, character, or honesty to acknowledge that they have collectively fucked up once again, even if single cell amoeba can see its not "perfectly clear" what other sheep may think. – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been through each and every one of the committee's contributions, of late, and not surprisingly, I have failed to see any actual writing going on. It's all deleting people's new articles, interfering with categories, page moving, virtue signalling on dramah boards and talk pages, arbitration related shite, fluffy welcome messages to IP's followed, rather embarrassingly, by bollockings to the same new user. It does make you wonder if Wikipedia would be here at all without the lot of them...and my guess is, it probably would.  Cassianto Talk  20:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those that can, do; those that can't... -SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...still do, but do it badly.  Cassianto Talk  21:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ouch... that's woeful! - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Taking a bit of a risk
You're taking a bit of a risk with the new heading you've just added. Have I ever told you that I was once blocked for using the word sycophantic? Eric  Corbett  08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, no you hadn't, but why doesn't that surprise me. It's borrowed from elsewhere; I knew I'd seen it, but couldn't quite remember where. I thought at the time how relevant it was, but I never got round to fully plagiarising it.  Did I ever tell you that I've been blocked for becoming angry for being baselessly accused of being homophobic; for removing a personal attack against me on 2 December 2017, which, rather embarrassingly for the blocking admin, was quickly rescinded;  and doing the same here. None of that, however, beats the time  was blocked for calling a section "Coward" on another editor's talk page when talking about Noel Coward. I laughed for days over the incompetence shown on that one.   Cassianto Talk  10:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a peek at my block log. You'd swear that during those lovely years, I was the Charles Manson of Wikipedia. Even one editor chimed in back then, that I had psychological problems. Scrutiny jumps to extreme levels, when one is topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good grief,, I had no idea you were so "disruptive". There's some right old gems in there.  Cassianto Talk  14:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Took me quite a while after I was allowed to return to Wikipedia, to get my 2 t-bans lifted as well. Even had to serve probation for about a year, in each situation. Anyways, fight through the storms & never retire. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I have no intention of fighting anything. It's pretty clear to everyone who has had input in this that ArbCom are corrupt and incompetent. And there's no point in fighting that.  Cassianto Talk  19:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion
The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion which relates to you. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * they'd care to lift Sandstein's rather desperate sanction on me then seeing as they have now, at last, acknowledged their own incompetence.  Cassianto Talk  19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked this very question on the case page. Based on the Arb participation there so far, I’m having a hard time understanding how people are supposed to respect the committee. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't fight to try and understand an unsolvable puzzle, . I've seen them fuck up on too many occasions, from TRM to Eric, and I am just next on the list. They think they're great, and that's all they care about.  Cassianto Talk  22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions re infoboxes
Hi, Cassianto. I read your comment here with interest. The number of diffs is a bit overwhelming, though; when I clicked on a random sample, they turned out to be months old. Was there anything recent hiding in there? As in, from the last few days? I'd be prepared to warn, and possibly sanction, people who indulge in such practices, but I can't do it if the issue is stale. Please feel free to alert me on my page if you should see new infobox discussions being started where there's already a recent consensus, or if you see people adding an infobox in defiance of a topnote such as the one on Stanley Kubrick. Incidentally, about that topnote; it refers to a pretty old consensus, from 2015. Isn't there anything newer? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC).
 * The diffs, in-terms of their volume, don't even scratch the surface, . I only stopped because I became bored and I had to go and dye the grey bits in my once black beard, that I had when I woke up this morning. The diffs I provided on Kubrick were all conducted during the case, bar a few of the earlier ones which prompted Ian Rose to revert Volvoglia's edit. The committee ignored my emails on Kubrick, all except  who did his best but failed to administer anything more than a Dear John note on the user's talk page.  I would put money on it that the committee knew of these infoboxes, and chose not to do anything as they nurse a bias towards them. The fact is, not one of them recognised that it was this disruption that caused this level of "incivility". That, of course, would mean Infobox 3 at Arbitration, but they are not up to the job to solve such a thing.  Instead, they pick on me, and allow not only a troublemaker to file the case, but also allow them to canvass all my haters, thus undermining the case and making it all about me in all but name.   That is why I'm so pissed off.  Aside from that injustice, thank you for the offer and I'll happily ping you across an offender's name should it happen from now...there you go Gerda, "offender", there's another one to tell Opabinia Regalis on her talk page when you get there.   Cassianto Talk  18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , , , , Appropriate? the header of the Wall Street Journal certainly isn't. Sure, I'm pretty pissed at all of you, and of the people who start these arguments, but never for a minute have I wanted to kill one of them.  Cassianto Talk  18:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My feelings about infoboxes are on my userpage, but I don't think I've ever deleted any (changed them sometimes when they're inappropriate though). I'm not clear why you haven't taken the Kubrick one to AE. The WSJ header was pretty - trivial? stupid? banal?. Doug Weller  talk 19:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know how to approach lot as I tended to spend most of my time writing content than fucking about with Wikipedia's politics.  Try "offensive". I've deleted it, and I shall delete the one at Cary Grant, too, after I've finished here. I would request that you not virtue signal on behalf of those who are not offended by this and rather, back me up should the adding editor try to war on this.  I don't think that's asking too much, do you?   Cassianto Talk  19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article has had a variety of different headlines in the print and electronic editions, but none of the arbitrators are responsible for any of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were.  Cassianto Talk  20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you pinged us all here with a link because...? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , foolishly, I thought one of you might do something about it. Silly old me.  Cassianto Talk  19:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

,, , , , , , , , , -guess what your case has generated? I trust a sanction or two will now be handed out?  Cassianto Talk  01:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will repeat, for the hard of understanding: disruptively relitigating the same point over and over and over is  NOT  a 'content' thing, it's a BEHAVIOUR thing. Your remedy has solved nothing, and this will continue to be a problem and a thorn in people's sides, regardless of how much you try and wash your hands of it. – SchroCat (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisions on whether an article should or shouldn't have an infobox are content issues, and can't be decided by Arbcom motion. Contant reopening of infobox straw polls - even in good faith - can eventually get a bit disruptive in terms of editor conduct, and are covered by the remedy imposing standard discretionary sanctions in infobox discusisons. To which end I've sent a DS alert to Siliconred, as an ordinary admin action -- Euryalus (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisions are content issues yes, but that's not what I said. Disruptively relitigating the same point over and over and over is not a 'content' thing, it's a BEHAVIOUR thing. – SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence the DS alert. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither the DS alert, nor the remedies, say anything about the constant pushing of the point in new threads. Yes, an editor under sanction may only make one comment, but that could just as well be a comment to open a thread in a page that has seen too much discussion. You and your colleagues did not even bother to discuss the point, despite it coming up in the case. I can guarantee that if the question of an IB's removal was pushed so disruptively, we would have been dragged to various forums and been dealt with harshly. Again: you only dealt with the effect of a problem, and not the cause; I know it matters not - you and your colleagues are happy to brush the problem under the carpet as having been "dealt" with, regardless of the cost of editors. The Star Chamber really is a very poor way to manage volunteers trying to improve something, and you will have made the situation here much easier for the IB warriors, stalkers and trolls. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, but I think it might confuse "infobox probation" with discretionary sanctions, both of which are authorised regarding infoboxes. Discretionary sanctions offer a wider range of responses to disruptive editing than just a "one comment" restriction. Details are at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will guarantee that not a single person is brought to book for constantly pushing the point, or for the ongoing drive-by addition of IB's by IPs. It's difficult when it's an IP, (if it is actually an IP): T-T and Steiger from the last 24 hours alone, or re-starting threads by "new" users. Again: you have not addressed the cause of the problem, just one of its effects. – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, doubt those are really first-time editors. Appropriately reverted. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , Can you see just how frustrating it is to have to deal with this sort of nonsense? Can you see that this isn't just about the content, but about the behaviour of the people behind those IP addresses and "new" accounts? This is one of the reasons I am angry: that this opportunity to examine the problem hasn't been solved at all. has pointed this out before as a problem (and I think he may have raised it during the case), as did a few others, but every time it's been raised, it's been ignored. No surprises from most of us - this was never about 'solving' the IB question, and most of your colleagues are happy to ignore the point, (or make fatuous comments to amuse their friends, in one case). - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes, I can see exactly why it's frustrating. As I've said a couple of times, the endless reopening of infobox discussions can cross the line into disruptive conduct. Arbcom can't manadate a policy change, but we did authorise discretionary sanctions to help deal with exactly this. I presently have the dubious honour of being the only person to issue a DS alert to an editor on these grounds. And of course there's Bishonen's proposal to apply DS to the Kubrick page, which might also address that particular hotspot. I reckon the gradual implementation of infobox DS will have a beneficial effect, but let's see. On a related point, if you have a theory as to who these two recent IP editors might be, let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing concrete on which to base any suspicions. That they are some form of logged out editor, or that this is part of a co-ordinated push is obvious (just see how many of these there have been since the close of the case - or look at the history of this page and see how may now-revdeled trolls have been poking Cass to nudge him over a civility 'line'). Some of us have had to deal with these sorts of tactics for years, and with scant attention or protection from anyone, and it's unsurprising that we're haemorrhaging good editors because of the ongoing conflict which yet another ArbCom case has failed to adequately deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

-- -- No such thing. That is a complete oxymoron.  Cassianto Talk  02:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, but whatever: the outcome is the same. Apologies for the typo. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only outcome is more dickish behaviour from disruptive people who claim to be acting in good faith. All aided and abetted by you and the rest of the kangaroo court.  Cassianto Talk  02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, Cassianto, and Euryalus, I'm planning a page restriction regarding infoboxes at Stanley Kubrick. Presumably that's within my discretion, but I don't quite have the chutzpah to set it in stone without first soliciting advice from fellow admins, so I've put it on WP:AE. BTW Euryalus, nothing to do with this, but did my ping at the RFAR page a couple of days ago work? Bishonen &#124; talk 08:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
 * A DS-related page restriction would be a good idea, in my view. Obviously subject to whatever AE thinks of it but hopefully they agree. And yes, the ping worked - sorry I haven't replied yet, I've been thinking on how best to formally propose it. Not a discussion for this page, perhaps, but it would address what I see as the fundamental problem with the case request and would increase the prospect of there being any effective outcomes. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you, that is the most helpful and productive thing anyone has ever done for this article for this article., , , , , , , , , , , you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves and very embarrassed that it's taken you all three months to achieve absolutely nothing, whereas Bishonen has literally thought up a constructive way forward for this problem overnight. Terrible. Oh, and by the way, more disruption is due to start.  Cassianto Talk  12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like my suggestion, Cass, but there's no logic in using it to attack arbcom. It's only because the committee decided to set discretionary sanctions for infobox matters that I'm able to set a page restriction for Stanley Kubrick. Recently I've seen various arbs saying, and hinting, all over the place that they wish administrators would use the infobox discretionary sanctions already. That's how I was inspired to think "Aha, a page restriction for the poor abused Kubrick page!" And you urgently need to stop pinging them all in the way you do. Please don't treat people you're angry with as they were automatons with no feelings. The mass pinging is just harassment. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
 * I'm not attacking them, I'm pointing out their failings to deal with this matter; but then I'm just one of many. And when I say "them", I mean them as a committee, and not individually. Re the pings, well I disagree. Other than Euryalus, everyone else has been silent on this subject and not only do I still require answers, but more infoboxes are being added, and discussions being started, post case closure. It would be reasonable of me to think that the fact they've been silent here means they are not watching this page. I have no way of proving that, of course. I would hate to be accused of complaining behind people's backs, so I ping. Not one of them has told me that they find my pings "harassing", and for me to reasonably know I'm harassing, according to the official wording, I ought to know that what I'm doing amounts to harassment. I don't, as they've not said so. Now, if they did say, and I went onto ping again, that would be harassment, in my opinion.  Cassianto Talk  15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , By way of clarification (and to show that despite everything, people will always try and find a way), do you see this as reasonable or disruptive, given the thread just above it, and the move towards trying to dampen down ongoing disruption on that page? It's not about content: it's about behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Me personally? I don't think merely using the word "infobox" is disruptive; in context it probably would be if it was followed by an attempt to open yet another RFC, straw poll or in depth discussion on the topic on this page, so soon after the previous one. That's something the DS notification aims to prevent. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But to the extent it is unclear, I've added another note on the talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , So opening a thread under a different title, but pointedly referring to the absence of an infobox is OK? Leaving the bait for others to jump in (either in support or refuting the point), isn't disruptive, particularly given the threads above it? Jeez... it's no real wonder that you haven't taken some of the complaints seriously if you can't acknowledge the POV pushing when it's this blatant. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mildly, I don't think that's a reasonable characterisation of my response, or of the reminder I just added on the article talkpage for everyone to give infobox mentions a rest during the DS period. But my view on your question has no more weight than any other admin, so having posted extensively here in the last few days I'll give it a rest myself and let others offer views. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to parse it differently, I'm afraid. It must be my clumsy comprehension, as we seem to have crossed wires on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the out-of-scope addition to the restrictions against you...
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, and hopefully this should bring some acknowledgement of a step too far... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your infobox topic ban, your appeal against which was rejected, with this edit of 14 May, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * , thanks for this, and I shall do just that. If Sandstain thinks he's prevented me from reporting such matters in the future, he's very much mistaken. Clearly, transparency doesn't count around here so I shall now "game" my restrictions and send off-wiki emails instead to report such disruptions in the future.   Cassianto Talk  21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Came here after noticing the discussion on Bish's talk and noticed the appeal template below. You appear to still be editing it, but feel free to ping me when you want it copied over. An oddity of the AE appeal process is that the appeal needs to be copied over, but it doesn't get noticed unless you use the standard unblock template as well, so thought I'd make the offer. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * been too many of these bloody discussions so I'm getting mixed up with what article is what and who is who, but I think I'm there now.  Cassianto Talk  22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Copied to AE . TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cassianto
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : –   Cassianto Talk  22:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Block of one week


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Cassianto
This was a report of disruptive behaviour, on a contentious article, to an on their talk page. was also present and between them they brought calm back to Sinatra and one of the committee's coverted DS notice was dished out by the ever so helpful. I was not "discussing" infoboxes and the use of them. To have a "discussion" about Infoboxes would require at least two people to...erm... discuss them, and a discussion, in its literal sense, would require at least two comments from either side. I am fully aware of my limitations, as per here. I was trying to be transparent by reporting this over wiki and seeing as this case was "not about Cassianto", then you should all be thankful that I'm helping to fight this problem rather than aid it. Both Bishonen and NeilN have stated that it never even occurred to them that my report was in breach of this clumsily written sanction. Clearly, this is just another example of someone with tools not able to write a clear and coherent instruction; quite what Sandstain's use of "abstract" means is beyond me. But if the committee really want to force me underground to email people off-wiki about such matters, then fine, I will, and none of you will be able to prove otherwise.

, please copy this to the AE page: Re Sandstein:  -- I did, on 's talk page. This is wholly contradictory, bearing in mind, according to you, I'm banned "in the abstract". How else would you propose that I let Bish know...by the power of positive thought?  Cassianto Talk  10:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, I think might be getting his beauty sleep right now  :p  so I too the liberty of doing so.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 11:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. How can he possibly miss out on all this fun!   Cassianto Talk  11:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sleeping in is quite fun, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Cassianto

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