Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Many editors are tired of the seemingly-perennial nature of infobox discussions

 * In an RfC started by me on infoboxes in biographies at Village pump (policy), several editors have voted with a variation of "drop the stick", including (Special:Diff/823176340) and  (Special:Diff/823135111). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox discussions are heated by possible sock-puppetry

 * The recent RfC at Talk:Cary Grant on infoboxes was started by an IP editor. (Special:Diff/815987933) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A recent discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick was started by in that user's sixth edit.  (Special:Diff/817586451) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of those discussions include accusations of sock-puppetry towards the initiator. (Kubrick: Special:Diff/817687525, Grant: Special:Diff/816007132) While there was no SPI case, at first glance the evidence is credible. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox discussions are usually focused on generic pro/anti-infobox arguments, not page-specific ones

 * The RfC at Talk:Cary Grant on infoboxes (closed at Special:Diff/821231946) contains about 35 different !votes. The support arguments are largely arguments in favor of infoboxes on all biographies (or an argument from consistency because most biographies have infoboxes).  The oppose arguments are largely arguments that apply to a large number of articles as well; the most common argument being that all of the information that would be in the infobox is already included in the lead section.  Some of the votes include:
 * Support Infoboxes benefit some, even if not all, readers. -
 * Oppose. I don't think an infobox is that useful here. It's oversimplifying -
 * Oppose infobox per all the good reasons above, as well as it looks classy without a cluttered infobox and a giant map ... -
 * Support infobox. They're useful in organizing information, and provide consistency to the encyclopedia. -
 * Some of the arguments presented are specific to actors, but I don't see a single argument that suggests why Cary Grant should be treated differently than Katharine Hepburn, John Travolta, or Wallace Beery. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto regularly makes hostile comments in infobox discussions

 * Diffs at Talk:Cary Grant (from around December 2017) include Special:Diff/817484571 (This is just another throwaway, unreliable, unattributed pile of stinking horseshit), Special:Diff/818350415, and Special:Diff/820805622.
 * Diffs at Talk:Stanley Kubrick (from around January 2017) include Special:Diff/757659784 (Why is the trouble surrounding Infoboxes always instigated, and then subsequently fuelled, by Yanks and Canucks?), Special:Diff/757786420 (Your grammar is frankly awful. Thank god you you're incapable of writing articles), Special:Diff/757820249, and Special:Diff/758275449.
 * power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussions and RfCs on infoboxes are frequently lengthy and fail to reach a consensus
See Noel Coward, Cary Grant, Stanley Kubrick, ISIl territorial claims, Gustav Holst (including one hatted section entitled "Off topic bear baiting"), Abkhazia, Rod Steiger, George Formby, Ian Fleming (significantly titled "Oh no - not the infobox debate again!") , Frankie Grande, Peggy Mount, Stanley Holloway, Kristen Stewart, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Josephine Butler and Kenneth Williams Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Opponents of infoboxes apparently have contempt for the consensus process
User:Dr. Blofeld posted the following at my talk page in response to my suggestion that RFCs be used more: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=824097185&oldid=824076333 “Hi, I'm disappointed to see that you think RFCs the ideal way to resolve disputes on infoboxes. The recent one for Cary Grant should have told you that they cause more harm than good and are a colossal waste of time. The inbox brigade will only continue to open an RFC on every article without one until they have a majority. I do not want to keep seeing month long disputes with RFCs.”

It isn’t clear what he thinks is a better way to decide on infoboxes, possibly edit-warring. If the so-called infobox brigade are able to command a majority on RFCs on every article, then it means that they are a majority in Wikipedia, which is a rough consensus.

Provocation should be taken into account
I request that ArbCom take into account my essay on Problematic Editors and conduct a sufficiently thorough quasi-judicial inquiry that both easily provoked editors and editors who provoke such editors be dealt with effectively. Civility is a two-way street. Other editors may provide appropriate evidence to the ArbCom (although maybe they won't, since evidence seems to be in short supply). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's about behavior
Cassianto's well-diffed. I'll focus on SchroCat.
 * Calls me "idiot" for leaving him a required 3RR notice
 * "he wants the edit warring and an attempt to drive away those with a more flexible mindset, simply to get an idiotbox into every article"
 * "the usual and predictable nonsense. Looking forward to the whole IB flash mob turning up yet again"
 * Aspersion-casting and fight-baiting over infoboxes should be read in its entirety:
 * "You really are not a very good editor, are you. .... your tendentious and disruptive approach is disgusting, and the delegates will see your petty and vindictive oppose here as little more than it is: a shabby attempt at retaining OWNership ... I am getting close to dropping you into ANI for your utterly unconstructive approach and sub standard behaviour."
 * "have a look at the tendentious and obstructive balls he's been trying to put over on the talk page. ... FFS, and I've never come across such an unconstructive editor before. ... is too arrogant ... and wants to be as disruptive as he can ... massive signs of OWNership throughout the discussion, and it boils down to him being unhappy ..." . This string of invective was added after SchroCat was criticized for the one quoted just above this.  WP:ICANTHEARYOU.
 * "Given your recent tendentious baiting, you really aren't worth the effort"
 * "spot the trolling ... Cyberpower678, please move this tendentious baiting to the rubbish bin or talk page"
 * Engages in editwarring (sometimes beyond 3RR), but calls his opponents editwarring:, , , etc.
 * The pattern of projecting the label "tendentious" onto others (more examples:, , , ) while he's being tendentious is habitual with SchroCat. Likewise accuses others of WP:OWN behavior while engaging in it himself (e.g., "It may be best for you to step away from [this] article and develop something yourself" ; "Do not tell me how to edit. ... I stand by all the changes I made in that edit. Whether you like them or not is not my concern." ).
 * SchroCat and Cassianto share the idiolect use of "idiotbox" for "infobox", a WP:SANCTIONGAMING way to mass-label as idiots anyone (editor or reader) preferring an infobox at an article. Examples:, , , etc. Some more recent ones where diffed in the Request stage of this case.  This is not a new habit; cf. Cassianto's 2013 statement that infoboxes "cater for the lazy reader" .  Demonizing our readers and making articles less easy to use on purpose to force readers to do more work is WP:NOTHERE.

Tagteaming
SchroCat backs up Cassianto (see above, and ), and Cassianto defends SchroCat (,, (follow embedded link); here, Cassianto leaves me a tit-for-tat, inapplicable  in retaliation for my having left a legitimate one at User talk:SchroCat ). I'm not the first question this as tagteaming.  There's no excuse for these sorts of behavior; it's anti-collaborative antagonism aimed at WP:WINNING. The alleged "baiting" of SchroCat and Cassianto is simply not agreeing with them, and having the temerity to ask them to explain themselves and stop verbally attacking people. SchroCat, like Cassianto, likes to dare people to do anything about his behavior , — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC); trimmed 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If Cassianto's in an infobox dispute, SchroCat tends to turn up shortly and vice versa (e.g. here & here, and here & here, and various FAs or FACs). This sometimes spills over into other areas; they co-WP:BLUDGEONed an ANI thread about an infobox.
 * Editor Interaction Analyzer shows mutual-overlap activity.
 * Example: Editor supports infobox for clearly explained reasons . Second criticizes Cassianto's oppose as just a general position against infoboxes, not about this particular article . SchroCat sarcastically and incorrectly tries to turn the 2nd's comments into a criticism of the support by the 1st . First reiterates that it's specific: "infobox here will provide a clear, concise summary of the biographical article ..." . Cassianto immediately leaps in to defend SchroCat's sarcasm by projecting it onto that other editor: "Quit bullshit snark and talk about the fucking infobox on this article, and projecting his own lack of focus onto others: "What is it with people not understanding the question asked of them in this RfC".
 * Another: ScroCat forum-shopped an "anti-RfC" to overturn a just-closed infobox RfC that didn't go his way . Before it closed, Cassianto intentionally deleted someone else's comment objecting to the forum-shopping . They do this to others' comments with unusual frequency (I have not saved up a diff pile of these, but here's Cassianto doing it again, and SchroCat , who was also criticized by an admin for doing this at RfA.
 * They also followed around to interfere with him (enough he felt compelled to self-impose an IBAN to get away from them) ); Cassianto takes over the hostilities for SchroCat . Both made uncivil comments about Light_show, sometimes with extreme hostility.
 * Similar activity also directed at . labeled it outright WP:GRIEFING., . Examples: , , . SchroCat was boomeranged at AE for trying to bait Gerda into violating her 2-comment limit on infoboxes.
 * RfA: Cassianto opposed a candidate over a disagreement with SchroCat ; hostilely refused to provide a rationale. SchroCat opposed on same unclear basis  (thread at FAC  in which SchroCat badgered the later-candidate  delaying an FAC to resolve open dispute); also reacted with hostile refusal to clarify rationale ; called the request "trolling" and "tendetious baiting ... rubbish" . ANI later observed their claims against the candidate remain unsubstantiated.

It's not really about infoboxes
[Moved to talk page.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a policy on infobox use which is not enforced
In a previous case in 2013 the committee ruled that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." These same words are used in the Manual of Style re infobox use. But there are a number of editors who are either unaware of, or do not accept, this policy and think that every article should have an infobox, it goes without saying and no discussion is necessary. The most egregious example of this very frequent attitude I have seen recently came from an admin, User:Coffee, on the Cary Grant article talk page. I request arbs to read this whole passage, civility is not only limited to the use of "cuss" words. Coffee, who I realise, like Cassianto, is on a self-imposed "break" from WP and therefore unable to participate here, but if we can discuss Cassianto we can discuss Coffee also, doesn't think there should be any discussion, 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 it "there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep them off articles besides that their presence irritates some of our editors", " As a sysop, they have been widely known to be utilized by our readers". I was so outraged by this that I lost my cool and called his behaviour "disgusting"  and asked him what the hell he meant by posting his opinion "as a sysop", which I do believe is the one and only time I have ever used profanity in six years of editing WP, so I guess I am reporting myself for incivility. Coffee has also left a note on at least one article that it "needs infobox", which it does not, he is trying to enforce a policy that does not exist, it needs, if anything, a discussion of whether an infobox is needed or not, according to policy.

Solution
Although attempts have been made to change policy so that infoboxes are mandatory, or mandatory on certain articles such as biographies, these have failed. The current policy that infoboxes are optional and their use must be decided by discussion at each article, is the only viable one. We need admins who will step into these discussions and make this clear.Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Refusal to set pan-wiki standards has encouraged contention
In the vast majority of biography articles, it is accepted without question or discussion that there will be an infobox, but wherever someone has decided that a particular article will not have one, there are contentious arguments because, after all, the implied consensus of all the other articles provides the natural start for an argument; but the "we don't have rules for infoboxes" contrary consensus justifies the other side.

The same thing has come up when projects have tried to standardize naming for articles. For example, the Lighthouse Wikiproject, with essentially no argument, decided to use "Wherever Light" rather than "Wherever Lighthouse" because that's how the USCG named them from almost the beginning. This brought on a conflict with the NRHP project because lots of lighthouses are on the register, and they used the names from the submissions, which had no particular pattern. This got worked in several directions (there were also issues fitting infoboxing together). But the "most commonly used name" anti-standard was invoked here and there by someone or another who would insist that "most people call it Wherever Lighthouse", and these people tended to prevail because it tended to come down to the article creator being the only person watching the article, and I personally lost my interest in what seemed to be to be imponderable debates as to which name was used more. Therefore almost all of Talk:Sabine Pass Lighthouse is devoted to this argument, and it's not at Sabine Pass Light at least in part because, after one knock-down, drag-out fight, I was not up to a second.

WP:COMMONNAME isn't a real standard, but only an invitation to a fight; the current infobox supposed consensus is a repudiation of standardization, and therefore all but demands a contentious fight because the actual, comprehensive consensus is shown by the ubiquity of infoboxes. It would help matters immensely if Arbcom were to recognize that and not defend a relatively limited argument by a much smaller number of people. Mangoe (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cryptic
Remedies to the effect that "the community should discuss project-wide policy about " are common in this sort of case (example: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes). Such discussion has already been attempted during the case, at the following closed proposals currently at WP:VPP (Special:Permalink/824973708): —Cryptic 19:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy)
 * Village pump (policy)

Cassianto's problems stem from his novel interpretation of BRD.

 * Cassianto goes around removing infoboxes on articles with long standing existing infoboxes. [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ] [5 ] [6 ] [7 ] [8 ] [9 ] [10 ] [11 ] [12 ]
 * When challenged, he states that BRD entitles him to remove infoboxes, no matter how long they have been on the article. [1 ] [2 ]
 * He uses this to claim that his edit is therefore not bold, and reverts and becomes uncivil when challenged on this point, or edit wars to keep it removed. [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ]

No-one else agrees with Cassianto's novel interpretation, not even himself.

 * The community disagrees with his interpretation of BRD, which has been called "novel", and he has ignored corrections that his removal of longstanding infoboxes is in fact the bold edit- in one case, calling it "bullshit".
 * Here's 10 people telling Cassianto that BRD doesn't work the way he thinks it does. [1 ] [2 ][3 ] [4 ] [5 ] [6 ] [7 ] [8 ] [9 ] [10 ]
 * Another excuse he has used is that "we should respect the wishes of the author", during one removal. All good and well, apart from on this article or this article where despite the author including an infobox on their first edit, Cassianto editwars- even though the author's wishes are pointed out to him- to remove it anyway. Hypocrisy- or perhaps a sign that he just uses any old excuse to forward his anti-infobox viewpoint.

It's possible to be civil whilst opposing infoboxes...

 * These editors all manage to: [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ]

...but Cassianto can't manage it.

 * "thank god you're incapable of writing articles"
 * "your perversion in wanting an infobox"
 * "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?"
 * "What a lot of delusional bullshit. "
 * "With bated breath, and with an almost unexplained quiver of excitement in my gentleman's area at the prospect of such a discussion, I now open up the floor to others. "
 * "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"
 * "You are either stupid or know nothing about how to collaborate like an adult"
 * "You, unfortunately, are a nobody."
 * I see you've done the grand total of fuck all in improving this article.
 * You seem to plagiarise the views of a moron
 * "You go ahead and bastardise all their hard work. I see you're from California; tell me, why is it always the Americans who seem to be even more obsessed over Infoboxes than anyone else"
 * "allow me to just blow my fucking trumpet"
 * "you are talking horse shit".
 * "go fuck yourselves to the bad guys"
 * 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

Evidence presented by Dank
This is a response to SMcCandlish above; on the question of whether FAC as a whole is partially to blame for all this mess, he doesn't offer evidence, only a suggestion, so I won't offer evidence either. But I'm prepared to offer evidence if that claim is made during the evidentiary period. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto believes that WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CCC are just three silly guidelines
thrown at those wishing to delete an infobox in order to support their rather lame arguments for wanting to keep one, per his essay on infoboxes – at least he did until he blanked this page last year. wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ceoil
Unsupported assertions removed here. GoldenRing (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Arbcom needs to set this in the context of why there is an effort, and collateral damage be damned, to increase the use of infoboxes from 99.1% to 99.100005%, which is about the coverage of this case. Inversely, Cassianto has nominasted about 1.7% of FAs, and reviewed or sheepherder a great many more. I don't think its a matter of invested interests, though there is that, so much as it is now a sport to just wind him up and see what happens. Ceoil (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

jcc's claim that "Cassianto goes around removing infoboxes"
No he does not and this is a widely propagated meme. All of jcc's cited examples are either from specific articles in Cassianto's narrowly defined wiki interest in early 20th century theater and music hall, or in one case the FA of a wiki friend, so misses the reality of what is happening here - there are people, not naming names, but, who choose to zone in on either Cassianto's articles or subject interest and "put them there for him to remove". The rest, including all this, is circus. Frankly I think infoboxes are only drama these days to those that want to use them as a tool to take out Cassianto, for whatever reason. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Moxy's dispersion do not live up to fact
A Q&A removed by a clerk, but revealing. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eric Corbett
I find it most distasteful, yet quite typical of what often happens here, that what ought to have been a straightforward confirmation of the status quo with regard to infoboxes should slide so easily into yet another tedious discussion of what is laughably considered to be civility/incivility on WP. It can surely not have escaped anyone's attention that there are indeed, as Ceoil suggests, certain editors who go out of their way to needle other editors into making a comment that they can go running off to Mummy with, hoping for punishment to be brought down upon the heads of those they've taken a dislike to. And sad to say, not a few of those obnoxious editors are administrators; it's very noticeable how they continue to get away with it without charges of incivility being brought against them.

This case ought never to have been accepted, just like so many other of Arbcom's unproductive timesinks. Eric  Corbett  10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Things quickly get out of hand
Things quickly get out of hand when those engaged in talk page arguments (which should be discussions) concerning infoboxes and continuously antagonize and attack everyone and anyone who disagrees with the position that infoboxes must appear everywhere. Everyone deserves an opinion including those editors like Cassianto who oppose infobox use. I agree that this case should not be accepted...Modernist (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion as party
I was included as a party on the basis of a post by SMcandlish; no-one else has posted diffs about me. His claims are not backed up by closer examination. Based on this version:


 * " )" Not a comment on tag teaming: "You tend to defend Cassianto regardless of the legitimacy of the situation so perhaps you should consider that you may be too close to the situation" – it's a comment on a lack of perspective, not tag-teaming. (see below re TT).
 * "" (not Mcandlish's first incomplete "explanation"). Not in a huff: I gave two months notice; I made clear my enjoyment levels had dropped because of ongoing unpleasant behaviour including people stalking me and being a pain.
 * " " This shows 890 "connections", including conversations about IB contents, GA noms to discuss content and sourcing, etc, etc. Mcandlish has over 2,350 "infobox-related discussions".
 * Readers should try their themselves to see their "score" – some commentators on this case have over 3,000. Such raw numbers are misleading.


 * ", ". Nope. The "error" I see in ARBINFOBOX is that an infobox is a matter solely of content: I (and many others) still consider IBs are a matter of content and style. No-one insists that people unthinkingly agree with every aspect of ArbCom's words: we only expect people to act within its decisions or restrictions.
 * "" so untrue that he didn't even bother with diffs.
 * "". In reality, one only (seen by two Admins as being problematic). Another block, quickly lifted by the blocking admin ( from unconnected parties, showing his error). Unthinkingly I opened a thread about Noel Coward as "Coward", mistaken as a PA, which it wasn't).
 * "" (unconnected to IBs) Examine the context:
 * Mcandlish removed an MoS talk page post. I reverted, he threatened "If this is restored again, I will make a noticeboard matter of it." I advised him to go ahead; that's not "daring" people to ANI – it's him threatening and baiting to get a specific response.


 * "   " (unconnected to IBs) Not "people", just him. He has carried a grudge against me for some time and makes numerous false comments about me, I'll stand by having to refute them as tiresome and petty.

The subsequent diffs, nearly all are unconnected with IBs, are misleading by being entirely out of context.

Current situation
The last rejection by ArbCom of an IB case was in October 2016. I took a break of seven months from September 2016 to June 2017 because enjoyment levels were low. Since returning I've avoided most IB discussions, only being involved in six:


 * Jeanne d'Arc (I made one comment)
 * Ziegler (One comment)
 * Lauder (Three comments)
 * Koshy (Seven comments; explaining that if there is no IB, there has to be a reason to add one. Pointy, but not uncivil)
 * Pixelbook (Five comments, including opening the discussion; pointing to BRD and STATUS QUO to stop edit warring)
 * Grant (11 comments – Nine dealing with unfounded comments regarding OWNership from —where he was using his position in a content matter—"As a sysop..." (same diff). I was wrongly accused of an ad hominem comment, gaslighting, etc. Two comments were correcting an impression had: "as far as I can tell, this is the only biography of a prominent person that doesn't have an infobox" – our uncontroversial interaction.

False accusations of tag-teaming
Cassianto and I have been involved in several discussions; we have written several articles together (7 FAs and 7 FLs) and our interests overlap, so we have also reviewed each others work. He is an excellent writer and researcher and a fine Wikifriend. However, in the six IB discussions in which I have been involved since my return, Cassianto was not involved in three (Ziegler, Koshy and Pixelbook) - no evidence of tag-teaming.

I was aware of IB discussions at the following, but not involved in them, although Cass was in some:
 * Fleming (May 2017)
 * Jeanne d'Arc (June 2017; thread opened following canvassing). I did open the thread immediately  above in order to bring an end to the edit warring by an IP.
 * Olivier (June and November 2017)
 * Duruflé 1, 2 and 3 (July to August 2017)
 * Bard (November to December 2017)
 * Williams (Dec '17 to Jan '18)
 * Chopin (Dec 2017)
 * Kubrick (Dec '17 to Jan '18)
 * Shelley 1 and 2 (both January 2018)
 * Opera project where described Gerda's continued pressing for IBs as "constant passive-aggression and passive-aggressive canvassing". (December 2017) The thread is an interesting read.

Despite claims, there is no "tag-teaming".

Misc points
I am over my word count, but other problems surrounding IBs that involve (diffs available):
 * 'Soft' canvassing to advertise IB discussions;
 * Miraculous appearances of 'flashmobs' of supporters to a thread (partly from 'soft' canvassing)
 * Incivility, including:
 * "The tone of your assertions here and elsewhere demonstrates bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism. You urgently need to get a sense of perspective about this. To read your comments, anybody would think that an infobox is a fundamental subversion of Wikipedia. Honestly, to an outsider, it's like reading the ramblings of an antivaxxer". (This from an admin who ignored a consensus to make a close based on his own POV.)
 * Fleming—I was accused of underhand behaviour ("seems like a way to get around consensus") three years after I opened a discussion about removing the IB
 * "it was deleted without consensus as part of someone's anti-infobox WP:GREATWRONGS campaigning, in defiance of WP:ARBINFOBOX". oft-repeated and untrue slur
 * "what is horrible is the Wikipedia:Griefing....not sue why this gang hates Gerda Arendt". Undiffed and untrue, as subsequent comments show
 * "Reductio ad absurdum just makes you look like a fool".

Despite an oft-repeated claim that I am "anti-infobox", "my" two most recent FAs, current FAC, next PR and most recently created article all carry an IB. – SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Moxy, your 'admission of wrongdoing' was 1 January 2017. That September you said at Lauder "I'm sure there's some sort of medication that can help you with your problem". - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Re:mcandlish. I've already demonstrated how misleading much of his "evidence" is, but his over-long post is too historical, unconnected with IBs, riddled with aspersions and misleading. I'm out of wordcount (and patience) to deal with long-term stalking, but it's really not reflective of the truth. Committee: could you consider an IBAN? - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Moxy
Editor Interaction Analyses Cassianto - SchroCat. All we are looking for is just a little acknowledgement that there needs to be a change from the parties named here. We need admittance there is a problem by all involved vs running away and hiding when confronted by the community. I have been involved in about 5-6 talks over half a decade with them and they all degraded to non-constructive battles eg.. I have admitted my wrongdoing and have corrected my behaviour.(as seen above not always successfully)....just need them and all to man-up (be here take responsibility) and  corrective actions to help sovle the problem.--Moxy (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion removed here. GoldenRing (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:SchroCat above. I have not been perfect by any means. My apologies again.--Moxy (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.