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

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)

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))

A case regarding infoboxes more widely may be necessary eventually. The case in 2013 at 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)

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. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
I closed the latest ANI thread about this situation. 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. --Neil N  talk to me 04:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
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. ). The preventative solution is a topic ban and a civility editing restriction.

Neither has received 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, Cassianto, around 700. Both treats WP:ARBINFOBOX as just some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part,.

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. See also and, 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 and doesn't care if he's taken to noticeboards, and this is reflected in his block log. Major WP:CIR problem.

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

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 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)
 * 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)


 * Followup: User-talk thread worth a review . 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)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Followup: Concur with 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 '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 "boxes 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  have an infobox, because [rationales]". It's about collegiality.


 * The third bullet point (behavior), among your three points quoted from the original ARBINFOBOX decision, is the key issue here. This case would not be open just because a type of dispute is protracted and recurrent, only because some people in the disputes become problematic for other editors, and it appears to be a temperament problem, as the same behavior occurs with the same parties in other areas of dispute (though usually also MoS- and OWN-related conflicts). If we can expect the uncivil parties to simply shift their vitriol to another focus, as DGG suggests, that's the problem to examine. (See also Cassianto's anti-collaborative comment about moving a draft to mainspace "for people to ruin", above.)
 * The second bullet is actually wrong (unless viewed as "it is not clear ..."), because WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:NOT, and WP:CONSENSUS policies (especially WP:CONLEVEL), the WP:MERCILESS meta-policy, and previous ArbCom decisions (including the original ARBINFOBOX) all make it very, very clear that being first on the scene to an article, the most-writing editor at an article, an alleged subject-matter expert, or a participant in a wikiproject that claims scope over an article give no one any kind of supervote at all, ever. [People may get this idea in their head because of poor wording at a few places like WP:CITEVAR misinterpreted by some to imply such a supervoting right; but reversion to the version of the first major contributor is a last-resort fallback action, and gives that person no extra power in current/future discussions.] This should be kept in mind as this proceeds, especially if this is going to be ARBINFOBOX2, instead of just a behavior examination without regard to topic.  A large percentage of the more heated MoS-related disputes arise from refusal of certain parties to accept this fact about our collaborative editing environment (and these range from attempts to ban or require features across entire categories of articles – usually within the scope of multiple wikiprojects – to a desire to "freeze" FAs as if in a time capsule and hold them immune from changes in guidelines over time (even a former Arb tried that with a "grandfathering" clause in the closure of the RfC about MOS:JR, a proviso the community ignored because we have no principle or mechanism by which the older an article is the more it is magically exempt from WP:POLICY changes).
 * The first bullet – lack of a default when consensus isn't clear – is a real problem but not an ArbCom one. It could probably be settled with a long-overdue RfC at WP:VPPRO.  Our general "revert to the status quo ante" principle doesn't really work here except for when someone's trying to remove or add an infobox at a long-standing article in which the presence or absence of one was stable for years; it doesn't work for recent (or recently-non-stub) articles, because articles hardly ever start with infoboxes, but get one after development (i.e., status quo ante would simply result in the elimination of most infoboxes, site-wide, on a technicality).
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the above also addresses your comments (as of this writing) to some extent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the above also addresses your comments (as of this writing) to some extent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * @ 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)

Statement by JJE
WRT infoboxes Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 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)
 * This interaction ban request is also related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 - Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes - 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)

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)
 * 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 '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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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". 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)
 * Removed - clerk action. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker - It appears from your example that some Encyclopedia Britannica articles do have infobox type things but some such as this one do not. Perhaps they use their "infoboxes" just for bios.Smeat75 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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"

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

jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. --M asem (t) 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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. --M asem (t) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also highly agree with, 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, &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to clerks: For the evidence behind my assertions please see the diffs provided by they more than show a perfect glimpse of what we and some others here are talking about. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Yngvadottir
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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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.

[deleted due to word limit]

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.

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.

Two More Comments
Since the ArbCom has properly said that infoboxes are optional, neither strongly encouraged nor strongly discouraged, but some editors continue to edit-war about them, I advise the ArbCom to impose a content dispute process as follows. First, if a WikiProject establishes a local consensus, the local consensus is binding. Second, if there is no local consensus, consensus for an article must be established by Request for Comments, the use of which should be required to end conflicts. Second, voluntarily requesting a block at the time that an ArbCom case is pending should be deprecated behavior. More generally, the ArbCom should hold failure to present a defense against an editor (even if that is not the rule in American courts). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)

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)

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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Indeed,, had 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 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.  >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The dangers of copy / paste, eh ;) It isn't.   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you or a colleague please refactor the bad faith, personal attacks, and blatent grudgery out 's post? Such a display of wanton venom has no place on this page.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note that 's figures re. IB-dicussion participation should not—pace, I'm sure unintentionally—be taken at absolutely face-value. To use precisely the same search parameters for (a random example!) User:Gerda Arendt, gives us a thousand such. Since they're perfectly civil in these discussions, I'm sure they don't need to be party to this case; but the statistics are indeed Wellingtonesque.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 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)

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).

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)

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)

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 &#124; talk 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

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)

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))

Statement by WBG
Can some clerk/arb kindly remove/ heavily refactor Serialjoepsycho's post which has got a functional equivalency of trolling,  struck in light of his posts on my t/p  esp. in light of this edit?Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
As someone who is neutral about infoboxes, and who opines on them (favoring or not favoring) yea or nay on a case-by-case and article-by-article basis, I completely agree that the conversation around infoboxes with these editors is highly uncivil and aggressive and that this definitely needs to stop. If certain editors, pro or con, cannot opine about or interact civilly about infoboxes per se or an infobox on any given article, then in my opinion they need to be topic banned from infoboxes, broadly construed. Frankly, in my opinion, there are pro-infobox editors who are also problematical, which I believe is how the "infobox warrior" came into being. Every time I see the pro and con infobox warriors endlessly warring, I suggest that a neutral RfC, with a sample infobox, be filed for the article in question, but that suggestion is routinely ignored because the warriors would rather fight than resolve the issue neutrally and calmly. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved 173.228.123.121
Maybe I'm missing something, but nobody seems to have mentioned this so I guess I will.

Several people have referred to infobox disagreements as content disputes, or have said BRD should apply to the addition or removal of infoboxes. On the other hand, several others have pointed to a place in the MOS where it says infoboxes are optional. So there's unclarity about whether box inclusion is a a content matter or a style matter.

If infoboxes are indeed under the purview of the MOS, then I'd expect MOS:STYLERET to apply to their inclusion/noninclusion, i.e. the opposite of BRD. That means fly-by additions and removals should stop, they should be reverted immediately when they happen, and editors who make them persistently should be sanctioned.

It does seem to me that in most of the articles that attract these disputes, they are primarily a style matter, which (keeping with MOS dispute tradition) might explain the intensity of the conflicts over them. In other sorts of articles like those about chemical elements, they're more properly content and sure enough, there are fewer disputes about their inclusion.

I do notice that quite a lot of britannica.com articles have boxes (someone said they didn't).

Disclosure: of the other statements here, I'm sympathetic to Dr. Blofeld's and similar ones. An arb case, if opened, should cover a fairly wide range. It can't be purely about Cassianto. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from uninvolved user: I have added the above comment assuming good faith on the part of of the IP user. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple
I first encountered Cassianto and other anti-infobox enthusiasts when a bot summoned me to an RFC on an infobox for Rod Steiger. To me it was a no-brainer. I was astonished not only by the passions that this technical issue caused but also by how the conversation deteriorated very quickly into ad hominem. Enough already. This is long overdue for arbcom, and editors engaged in tendentious editing and civility issues on infoboxes need to be given proper scrutiny and correct action needs to be taken, including blocks if warranted. I specifically agree with SMcCandlish about including SchroCat. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Also I feel this case should not be confined to infoboxes only. This edit summary does not relate to an infobox issue and I believe that incivility in general is a problem area. Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor task for a clerk
The tally of arbitrators' opinions on whether to hear this case is showing as "0/0/0" which is obviously incorrect and, although unlikely to actually cause confusion, is probably worth two minutes of a clerk's time to correct. 12:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
 * ✅. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Re Comments by Robert McClenon
These comments would have far greater impact if they were presented as proposals in the workshop. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * fixing ping. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon
This is a two-pronged case, being both about certain editors who engage in conflict about infoboxes, and about the persistent conflicts about the presence or absence of infoboxes in articles. I will first propose what I think should be the definitive method of resolution of infobox controversy, and then comment on editors.

Resolving an Infobox Controversy
Whether an article should have an infobox, and what infobox template should be used, is a type of content dispute, but it is a type of content dispute that the Wikipedia community has not succeeded in addressing. Like all content disputes, it should be addressed by consensus, but there is no global consensus. I recommend that a two-tier solution be mandated by ArbCom. First, if the article falls within the scope of a WikiProject that has selected (or designed) a particular infobox for use, it should be assumed that there is a local consensus for that infobox. Exceptions to a project local consensus should only be made by consensus by means of a Request for Comments. Second, if the article does not fall within the scope of a WikiProject, or if the WikiProject does not have a local consensus on infoboxes, the standard way of deciding whether an article should have an infobox should be the Request for Comments. Because infobox disputes should be settled by RFC, a rule of 1RR should apply to reverting and edit-warring over infoboxes, and administrators should act quickly to impose short blocks to control infobox edit wars.

ArbCom should mandate that RFCs rather than a protracted BRRRR or BRDRDRD process resolve infobox controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Editors
Two editors, User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat, have been named as parties. They and other editors have been disruptive in content disputes about infoboxes. ArbCom should ask which of these classes the parties and any other editors fall into. The first is editors who, in spite of having some negative effect, do more good than harm and should be accepted (with or without cautions). The second is editors who, at present, are net negatives to the project, but whose negative influence can be minimized by limited bans, such as topic-bans on infobox discussion and on the addition and removal of infoboxes. The third is editors who are net negatives to the project and whose negative influence cannot be contained, and who unfortunately must be site-banned.

It appears that several of the editors who urged the ArbCom to take this case think that the two parties should be topic-banned from discussion of and editing of (including deletion of) infoboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Flight from Judgment
I submit that an editor who, for whatever reason, requests an extended block as a case about them is decided is probably an editor whom Wikipedia is better off without. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to Add Party
User:Dr. Blofeld made a statement on my talk page responding to my comments on this case. I request that ArbCom add them as a party to the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC) User:BU Rob13 - This is a comment on my talk page taking issue with my comments:
 * A couple diffs supporting that they’re part of the matters under dispute would be helpful. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=824097185&oldid=824076333 Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply commenting on the case is irrelevant. To be a party, he’d need to be shown to be involved in a potentially problematic way in these infobox discussions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, I do not have evidence to that effect. Request dropped.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by The Gnome
For the record, the claim made above by Cassianto ("...constant stalking of my edits by...The Gnome...to every discussion I've ever took part in...") is factually untrue. I've taken part in a few discussions where Cassianto was involved but nothing more. This is serious hyperbole. As to the case for lack of civility put forward in the original message, I testify, for whatever it's worth, that in the few discussions about infoboxes in which I happened to find myself, the lack of civility was the most blatant attribute of all of them. Perhaps we should ban the word "infobox" from appearing in an RfC. :-) Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved from the main case page – for the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by {username}
Editors are free to make relevant comments on this page as necessary.

Comments by {username}
Editors are free to make relevant comments on this page as necessary.

Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions (May 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoldenRing at 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * [diff of notification Sandstein]
 * [diff of notification SchroCat]
 * [diff of notification Cassianto]

Statement by GoldenRing
This case introduced infobox probation, which restricts an editor subject to it from making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. A recent AE request has been closed with a sanction imposed on Cassianto because he commented three times in an infobox discussion on Mary Shelley (diff, diff, diff) and twice in an infobox discussion on Stanley Kubrick (diff, diff, diff).

Whether this closure is correct turns on whether "more than one comment in discussing the inclusion of exclusion of an infobox" means more than one comment in such a discussion, or more than one comment which directly addresses the inclusion or exclusion of such an infobox. I and another admin (Sandstein) have taken the former interpretation, but others have taken the latter and it does seem there is some ambiguity in the wording. It would therefore be useful if the committee could clarify what is the intent of this wording.

Statement by Sandstein
I interpreted the sanction the same way as GoldenRing above and Euryalus below. In this regard, it seems clear enough to me.  Sandstein  05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
As I stated at the AE request, this restriction really is poorly phrased. As it was written and voted on, Cassianto is "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".

The comments made on Shelley and Kubrick are not about "discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article", and so bringing measures against him for a supposed breach is a very poor step.

Now, if the aim of the committee was to make sure Cassianto made no more than one comment in an IB discussion, then the restriction is poorly phrased and should be ditched or re-written to actually say what you meant it to mean. Given the restriction wording is so imprecise, and given Cassianto has not breached that wording, I struggle to see how action can be taken against. Bad law leads to bad decisions, and that is just as true when it is an ArbCom restriction. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@ power~enwiki: while it may have been what the restriction was "supposed to address", it is atrociously written, if that is the case. When I first read the proposal, my first thought was as I have outlined: that it doesn't stop multiple comments, if those comments are not about the IB. It's nonsense to hang a man on such a spuriously phrased diktat, and if ArbCom can't hold their hands up and say 'yes, we screwed up on that, let's fix it' (and Euryalus' comments suggest at least one member can't), then I see nothing but the restrictions being twisted however someone wants it, rather than addressing the problem. @Euryalus: Well done on finally realising that one of the problems with IB discussions is the "reopening recently closed infobox debates": something that has been raised time after time, and something I emailed a couple of Arbs about directly, and they agreed it was a problem. What ArbCom did is to almost completely ignore the pushing, the ongoing grief time after time on the same articles (by the same individuals, many of whom were pushing for a pound of Cassianto's flesh here and at the case). It's something that is completely obvious to anyone who has looked at a couple of the threads and archives. It's a shame this simple step wasn't undertaken by ArbCom, because—as we've seen on a couple of articles already—it doesn't matter what ArbCom decided, there is still the ongoing ignoral of any consensus by users as long as the question is raised again and again and again (and yes, often with the use of IPs and sock puppets). And when people like Cass get frustrated at the ongoing pushing, it's the lazy and easy way to crucify him, rather than look at the root problem of the pushers. To be entirely honest, all the ArbCom decision has done, is to hand the pro-IB brigade an easier way to badger and push people to overstep a nebulous line and allow any of the more heavy-handed admins to put another notch on their block stick.

I suggest that you, and your colleagues, gather the strength to say that you messed up on the wording here ("indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" is crap and means two things – and you can't just say 'we didn't mean that, so we'll just hang anyone out to dry we don't like'. You should have done something like: "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in a discussion about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".)

Now I have pointed out one of the many errors in the original decision (there are others that I am sure I'll have to point out at later clarifications), and given you better wording, it's time for you to put your collective heads together, to lift the sanction on Cassianto, and implement the new wording, which is more than sufficient. I have no doubt that ArbCom will try and slither out of what is quite clear and obvious, but hope—while not springing eternal—does still flicker that you can do the right thing at last. – SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "endlessly reopening infobox discussions" isn't a content issue, any more than behaviour within those discussions is a content issue. The behaviour of constant disruptive re-opening of discussions on the same topic and ignoring a stated consensus is squarely within the behaviour side of things, which is something ArbCom should have looked into. Otherwise you're giving carte blanche to the status quo of users pushing over and over in order to push editors over the rather nebulous line of "acceptable" behaviour. ArbCom have enabled and supported such bad behaviour by putting all the onus into punishing people using rude words out of sheer frustration, rather than POV pushing while (just about) remaining within what someone else decides is "civil". - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll also add that this could have easily been headed off; the two pages where Cassianto didn't breach the restrictions as they are currently written are heavily watched (and it's fairly obvious that Cassianto's edits are "tracked" by a few people too) - yet when the "discussions" were initiated again and again, no admin, let alone Arb, thought to promptly step in and quieten it? Not even the issue of the friendly (read intimidating, we are waiting to block you) DS alerts to the 'new' editors? How many of the stalkers, admins and members of ArbCom thought of stepping in to threaten advise the POV pushers on those pages that they were being problematic? Or were the IB warriors and Cassianto-haters just sitting back, with their supply of popcorn at the ready, waiting for the moment when frustration at the endless pushing from socks and logged out editors reaches boiling point? And people wonder why I get cynical about this place and the behaviour of those who should know better. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * An RfC was attempted on this - See Village pump (policy), particularly "Discussion intervals", which was rejected by four opposes to one. The RfC is now moribund and awaiting closure. So we are still left with the ongoing disruption of POV pushers who are able to keep banging the drum time after time in a disruptive manner, while ArbCom wrings its collective hands and says "there's nothing we can do about the disruptive behaviour in opening a thread, but we'll create a shit-storm for anyone we deem gets frustrated about having to deal with the disruption over and over again.
 * Regardless of that, we're still left with the very poor wording that has led to a situation where an editor has had sanctions applied to him for not breaching a restriction as it is currently written. Worm, You may think "one comment is all they get if they're under probation. Not "one comment on topic", just "one comment"", but if that's what you wanted, you should have voted for it and pointed out that the restriction as it is written is capable of more than one interpretation by an honest reader. What you and your colleagues voted on is certainly not what you want it to be. If you want to turn a blind eye to such an egregious error, that's all well and good, but it does make even more of a mockery if you can't collectively hold your hand up and accept responsibility for your errors. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As it's not just me who has pointed out just how crap the wording is, I struggle to parse that with your use of "perfectly clear" when describing it: particularly true given the people who have said it's poorly written (including Euryalus who said the y"agree re the need for a rewording" and GoldenRing who has said that "there is some ambiguity in the wording"). I guess you're still only seeing what you want to see, or maybe you just can't see that there may be ambiguity – although several others have said that while the intent may have been one way, the crap wording is not as clear as you may want it. I'm not sure why you see the need to class an honest interpretation that differs from yours as a "willful misinterpretation" [sic] – perhaps you need to remind yourself of WP:AGF, even if you can't bring yourself to admit that the committee have made an honest mistake with the wording that they would be well advised to examine more closely. Such sloppiness only aids in the making of poor administrative actions. – SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Katie, it's not a question of "elegance", it's a question of clarity, which is what several people have questioned. As for "you all know what we're saying", obviously not - and the confusion your wording generates is something you really should take a little more seriously. I wouldn't sanction a dog on the basis of this wording, and it's shame we are seeing the wilful application of blinkers by the people who are simply reapplying what they thought they read when they voted on it, rather than an appreciation that you may have voted in a phrase so badly worded it does the opposite of what you wanted. The committee may be embarrassed about voting in such poor wording (and if you're not, you should be) but doubling down by re-confirming that wording is laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @SarekOfVulcan, Yes, we are having the discussion, because they mean two very different things. One misreading of the poorly written restriction has led to sanctions being levelled against an editor (and just imagine how you would feel if this supposedly august body were so slap-dash in their approach to passing something that had an effect on your volunteer time). Despite what the ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are trying to argue ('well, we meant something, and we don't really give a toss that we've fucked up, as it takes too much for us to acknowledge that we are only human and capable of making a mistake'), there is a problem with ArbCom refusing to face up to the responsibility of making a mistake. – SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for saying so,, but I find your presence at this whole case to have been rather.... curious (for want of a better word). Considering you are quite pro-IB, and went so far as to put in a rather spurious oppose at FAC because of an IB discussion (after arguing to the nth degree with two people who were named as parties in this case), then I'm really not sure why you did not recuse from this case, and from any subsequent discussions about it. I find your comment below ('feck it, let's string Cassianto up, regardless of the fact that the current mess is partly because we cocked up') rather distasteful, if I'm honest. I would be much happier if you did the decent thing and strike your comment and withdraw from further comment on someone who you have been in hot disagreement with on a subject where you are likely only to take one side. – SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , Given what I have said above, can you explain why you did not recuse? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (And, BU Rob, could you please not delete parts of your comment once others have commented: you have changed the thrust of your comment significantly with your subsequent edit. In future, as many people are aware, could you please strike your comment through if you have second thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC))
 * @BURob, I disagree. You don't just have to be separate from the problem, you have to be seen to be separate, and I don't think you are. I've been involved in a few IB discussions in my time, but there are only a very, very small number of people who have ever used the discussion as an excuse to try and sink an FAC. You should have recused at the beginning. Thank you, however, for the link to the point where I could have requested it. I make it a point to avoid ArbCom, AN and ANI whenever I can (I am not a ArbCom wannabe or peanut gallery member, posting walls of text on subjects I have only a partial grasp of), so I really know little about (and care much less) about the process of the star chamber. Given the very recent comment of one of your members, it's a body who has sunk even lower in my estimation, given that looks more like trolling than a well-judged comment that aids any situation, and that's rather shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "I just don't think the underlying complaint is serious" what horseshit. Thank you OR for proving just what a joke ArbCom are, and just how unseriously you take the things that are put in front of you. I suggest you read WP:AGF a minimum of three times., Next time, write shit like that on a scrap of paper and throw it in the bin before engaging your brain and writing something that makes sense. If you've been part of the process that hasn't actually dealt with the "infobox problem" in toto, and voted in favour of such a piss-poorly worded decision, then best to keep your involvement to a minimum, if you can't be useful. Fuck me - I thought Arbs were supposed to bring light to a process, rather than heat - this is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time, and that includes the dross I have to read from trolls, POV pushers and IB warriors. Still, at least you've made one editor happy (and one who posts most heavily on IB's, particularly as they make up 10% of all posts on to your talk page); they've recently managed to re-align all arguments to say "I wrote the article, it's my choice". It's nice to know that OWNership can be used to add an IB, but woe betide anyone who even hints it can be used to remove one that is superfluous. Good to see double standards from IB warriors and the sarcastic ramblings of a member of ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto
Incompetent, corrupt, malicious, and biased. The entire case summed up rather succinctly, I think.  Cassianto Talk  23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , ArbCom didn't deal with the infobox issue as it was too difficult to deal with. Sanctions could've been imposed on both sides of the argument. Instead, they name a case with the word "infobox" in it - presumably to kid themselves that they are dealing with it - vote that the case isn't about me, and then impose sanctions on the very person the case is not about, whilst at the same time ignoring the title of the case by not dealing with it. Also, whatever happened to the DS alerts? They seem to have died a death too. Or maybe, like infoboxes, they are also in the "too difficult" box.   Cassianto Talk  08:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Banedon, well arn't you a charming individual. So not only do I receive sanctions for a case that has nothing to do with me, but if you had your way, I'd also receive sanctions in case I break sanctions in the future. Do you have anything constructive to say, or are you here just to troll?  Cassianto Talk  09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

, a "poorly written remedy and a willful misinterpretation" often go hand in glove. If you and your friends had taken more care over the wording, this situation wouldn't have occurred. Can you prove it was willful? If not, I'd care for you to assume good faith. The wording says:. I've looked at the diffs above and I can't seem to find where this has occurred? Maybe you could point them out? Or maybe, like the rest of your chums, you'll find it easier to ignore me, just as you all did with my emails I've been sending to the committee email address.  Cassianto Talk  19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reported this rubbish to AN. For Krakatoa Katie to say "you all know what we're saying" is subjective, dismissive bollocks.  Cassianto Talk  21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

, how about "you are only allowed to make one comment in any one infobox discussion". Done. Simple. Precise. Intelligible. None of this smoke and mirror, licked finger in the air nonsense. Had the committee have answered me emails to them, rather than do what they usually do and take the easy option to ignore them - they seem to be quite good at taking the easy option - then this could all have been avoided.  Cassianto Talk  06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being ignored on email and here, I'll take the unuasual step to ping all of you, individually. ,, , , , , , , , , , in light of your eventual acknowledgement that the wording was below par, and this motion to now fix the ambiguaous wording, despite what you, KrakatoaKatie, rather pompously, assume to be easy enough for everyone to understand, I trust Sandstein's topic ban will now be lifted? As things stand now, not only would this whole new motion be counter productive, as I can't discuss infoboxes at all now, but the terrible way in which it was written - acknowledged by at least two of you over the last week or so - resulted in you all setting me up to fail. Secondly, my "offending" comments were not about "removal or adding" an infobox, but we're responses to other editors. For a committee that prides itself on fairness and impartiality, ignoring this, or allowing it to stand, would be wholly unfair and would only go some way in reinforcing people's perceptions that each and everyone one of you have been thoroughly dishonest.  Cassianto Talk  07:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

, don't bother, I'll do it:

2 April 2018 @ 09:55 "Now that the committee have managed to make the infobox situation even worse than it was before, maybe a representative from this joke of a committee can be so kind as to visit Stanley Kubrick and tell the troublesome (I doubt that I'm afforded "parliamentary privilege", so redact) person on the talk page, who's causing more trouble, to go away and do something else. SchroCat is introducing some very good arguments that are being disruptively ignored. It's also not fair on him having to wax lyrical with this person when it's ArbCom's incompetence to address the real problem that has caused all this."

30 April 2018 @ 08:38 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Kubrick&diff=838905735&oldid=834215524 Where are any one of you with your box of stupid DS alerts? Or was that just a flash in the pan? Maybe, seeing as the case was about me all along, and nothing to do with infoboxes or the behaviour of other editors, none of you can be arsed anymore as I'm no longer around? Job done guys and girls, well done. You've played a blinder and really sorted this problem out."

So, why no response or explaination for your dishonesty?  Cassianto Talk  09:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

, sorry to have to remind you, but this case, apparantly, was never about me. It was about civility on all sides. That is why this case, you, your colleagues, and the sanctions are all dishonest.  Cassianto Talk  19:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

, those at AN were there to grind axes and not to preside over the committee's sloppy writing. More dishonesty.  Cassianto Talk  19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

, incorrect. I was the only one to walk away with sanctions, one of which was not to delete infoboxes. Kindly, you allowed me to retain the right to add them, presumably, because the committee are biased when it comes to boxes. How about the disruption of continually starting sections on the talk pages, every few months, by people who delete hidden notices not to add infoboxes prior to consensus forming? How about the fraudulent way in which this case was filed? What makes you think Volvoglia gives a shiny shit about your silly "admonishment"? What about the harassment of content creators who regularly have to kowtow to a bunch of unknowns who have never even so much as fixed a punctuation error on the article they seem to care so much about? None of that was addressed. If I were to start section after section, RfC after RfC, in order to get my own way to delete a box on an article that had one, I would've been here in next to no time. I think you need to face the fact that your case has achieved nothing at all and has only aided more confusion for the future.  Cassianto Talk  19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

, please do tell me how naming a case "civility in infobox discussions" address' the issues infobox discussions have? Surely, it is arbcom's job to get to the root cause of civility in infobox discussions and not concentrate on the by-product of such discussions. I will put it to you that you are biased and dishonest in equal measures. But I take my hat off to you for engaging here; it seems the rest of your chums are conveniently ignoring the issues I've raised.  Cassianto Talk  22:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

,, , , , , , , , , , tell me, what does the committee think of edits, such as this, where a hidden notice is ignored and a box added regardless? look, it happened here, too. And here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here (with note deleted), and here, and here (added by the saintly Volvoglia). Or maybe you'd all like to offer a comment about this edit where the hidden note is edited to the contrary, and a box added? What about this, where the hidden note is deleted altogether? All this is from 2018...alone! How about we move onto Cary Grant, with this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, repeat ad infinitum. This is since July 2017, but goes back further. With as much disruption as that - and this is just on two of the many articles - is it any wonder sane, rational people like me lose their temper from time to time? But you did the right thing in imposing sanctions on me as clearly, I'm the real problem here.  Cassianto Talk  07:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

, you say: really? So how does this restriction cure the problem of the disruption occurring in the first place? As I've proved above, people are disruptively adding boxes, despite a consensus being in place. Oh, but wait, consensus can change, can't it, despite it not changing on the various attempts to shoe-horn in an infobox every week. Wikipedia's lame fucking attempt to half-acknowledge an infobox problem, but not actually deal with it, is the real reason I am subject to these sanctions. This is why, people, you are a lame duck; sitting there, pontificating over civility, whilst at the same time, avoiding the elephant in the room.  Cassianto Talk  08:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

, I think you'll find, as per my emails to you all, I was trying to report the disruption on Kubrick, which you all ignored. So don't give me all that old tosh. It's a reaction I've become oh too familiar with since this pantomime began.  Cassianto Talk  15:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TRM
I think this point of clarification sums up the futility and stupidity of the original ruling. The Committee seem quite incapable of pulling together unambiguous sanctions, and this has been the case for quite some time (i.e. many ex-committees managed to foul up sanction wordings too). I wonder if we should lodge a case against Arbcom for rendering such hopeless and badly-phrased sanctions. Perhaps some training in how to write such proposals would be a good idea (I have considerable experience of this, should Arbcom wish to solicit my advice). Write down, in bullet form if it makes it easier, precisely what this sanction means. Leave no room for ambiguity. Essentially Arbcom are writing laws, or at least diktats here, and they should be bullet-proof. Go back to the drawing board and relate to the five pillars, don't create a stupid "one comment only" ruling which is absurd and unhelpful to just about everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
The "One comment" rule is utterly stupid and should never have been added in the first place

We're basically saying "You cannot add, delete, restore or collapse infoboxes and you also cannot discuss it either"

It's one thing banning someone from infoboxes but it's another to also ban them from so much as discussing it either,

Delete the pointless rule, Untopic ban Cass and close this case. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Moxy

 * Perhaps best the wording is modified...dumbed-down if you will. Or a qualifier added. The current wording is lawyerish in nature and maybe confusing to some. Most will understand it's one comment per talk section about inclusion or exclusion. But there may be some that see it as one comment about the info box. ...and thus are free to post again about some other topic (for example claiming shock puppetry during the discussion). I am sure we all agree the spirt of the ruling is to suppress  this type of behavior .... not leave the door wide open to posts about  personal actions or behavior patterns.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
Maybe add an extra sentence at the end: "...making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. This includes the entire thread and all subthreads, even if they are not directly related to infoboxes."

Having said that I interpret Cassianto's statement above as implying that he will reoffend, in which case it might be time to change the sanction to something harsher. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If Arbcom likes this remedy, Arbcom could just fix the ambiguity. If there are more ambiguities that surface later, Arbcom could fix those too, until there are none left. I personally don't see what we are discussing. Arbcom has already made it clear what the intended meaning is. Amend it appropriately and we can move on. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
I have to wonder at what point Sandstein's contributions to AE are no longer useful. As seen many times before, Sandstein is quick on the trigger with a (usually) harsh sentence, without waiting for input from other admins. I thought best practice was to wait for input, especially with editors with as many valued contributions as Cassianto. It appears that Sandstein regularly receives so many questions about his AE actions that he had to create a FAQ. Surely this isn't the best we can do. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You say If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. but that is NOT what the restriction states. The restriction states more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion... (emphasis mine). To have the restriction mean what you says it mean it should read more than one comment in a discussion about.... As it currently stands, as long as Cassianto is not "discussing" the inclusion or exclusion, which the diffs prove he was not, then there is no need for sanctions. I don't get the rush to enforce unclear or confusing restrictions, instead of simply improving or clarifying the restrictions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since some of the arbs do seem to agree the wording was a bit unclear, I expect the sanction from the old restriction will be lifted shortly? Also I do not think including the word “substantially” in the proposed motion would help. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
I agree with TRM that "infobox probation" is needlessly complicated; particularly compared to the alternative of a straight TBAN from infoboxes. While I found the wording of "one comment" fairly clear, apparently others did not; I have no suggestions as to how to improve that wording.

The problem of Cassianto over-reacting to (potentially bad-faith) new users discussing infoboxes was EXACTLY what the recent case was supposed to address; regardless of the exact wording of "infobox probation", imposing a topic ban under Discretionary Sanctions is a reasonable action here.

The ability for admins to make unilateral actions is the very essence of discretionary sanction as currently written; I'd advise those editors upset with that to suggest replacements for the wholesale replacement of DS, rather than making (IMO spurious) complaints about the specific action here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Ernie that Sandstein's involvement in these discretionary sanctions is a negative and unduly harsh one, and in this particular case I find his interpretation of what is certainly a poorly worded sanction to be completely without merit. Mixing trigger-happy administrators and incompetently worded sanctions is a recipe for disaster. I too have suffered from this kind of stupidity, enabled by the infamous "broadly construed" catch all. What the hell is that supposed to mean? How broadly? Eric  Corbett  09:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple
The wording was clear, but if you want to change it? Sure, go ahead. This is just the beginning. There will be more of this wikilawyering and hair-splitting going forward because Arbcom failed to act effectively by issuing a ban though it was more than warranted, and showed compassion in the face of contempt.. So get used to it. Whatever you decide will be tested further. Nothing ever will be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
We do need an Rfc on the infobox matter. Be willing to begin one, if anybody can suggest a location & the wording of the Rfc question. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that the wording of the Arbcom decision is being clarified. Would it not be allowable to return to AN & see if the community would agree to lifting Cassianto's current t-ban? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude
Oh, how I loathe these proceedings. Y'all can work this out amongst yourselves, I'm here to correct some bad grammar (morphology?).
 * making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. That bolded bit should read in a discussion about if your intent was to restrict comments "in discussions" rather than comments "discussing".

Oh, I see I'm not the only one who noticed that issue. I very much back what Mr Ernie is saying (about enforcement, I have no comment on Sandstein). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Guys, the proposed reword is even worse then what was there before. where that discussion is substantially - what qualifies as substantial? is it one comment in a discussion? five comments? >50% of all comments? Call this advice, but heed it: Don't add more qualifiers to sanctions. Write the most concise, and least subjectively interpret-able sanction possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
Honestly? We're trying to distinguish between "discussing" and "a discussion"? This is not a useful debate to have. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
Just a note that I have closed the appeal at AN of the sanction in question as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I agree the wording could use some clarification, even if the intent really is to keep someone subject to the restriction entirely out of these discussions after their initial comment due to a history of disruptiveness in such discussions. And that may well really be the intent. I don't particularly prefer that, and would rather see it be narrowed to infobox-related comments. Simple illustration of why: If someone posts "I think this should have an infobox. Oh, and were's the source for the claim that this subject was born in Botswana?", and someone subject to the restriction answers with "Infoboxes are stupid", then later answers with "PS: On the sourcing question, see [link to RS here]", the second isn't a response that should be actionable, since it wasn't about i-boxes and it was [at least potentially] helpful. My only concern, given the party in question and the real reason for the RfArb that lead to this result, is that such a tweak to the wording should not be gameable to engage in hostile pot-shots at other editors for infobox-related reasons while cleverly avoiding actually mentioning infoboxes explicitly; that would be WP:SANCTIONGAMING. So, the wording will need to be mulled over carefully. (That said, it is true that the broader interpretation is simpler, and a regular topic-ban would have been even more so.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

PS, to : What you characterize as "utterly stupid" is actually just a standard topic ban, but made narrower and less restrictive than usual. The more usual approach is to just ban people from all discussions and other edits involving the topic (infoboxes in this case), broadly construed. So, yes, "don't change it and don't talk about it" of a topic ban, which is instituted when a particular party seems constitutionally incapable or defiantly unwilling to not be disruptive when a particular topic is under discussion (or being edited directly). This special topic restriction – a topic ban but with a "you get one comment" escape valve – was narrowly crafted to be less of a blunderbuss, and that's the furthest thing from "utterly stupid". It just needs to be worded a bit more clearly (hopefully in the even narrower direction).

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
Something troubles me about this restriction and how its worded: Those who are opposed to including an infobox in an article are at a disadvantage from the start. Take an article like Stanley Kubrick where an editorial decision was made not to have an infobox. We have people buzzing by practically once a month re-starting this debate. An RFC just closed on April 4 and on April 30 someone is already in there asking about it again. The effect on someone who's opposed to the infobox is mentally exhausting. It costs nothing to drive by and go, "How about an infobox?" but it costs a lot to continually monitor and participate in these debates if you're against the proposal. Comically enough, through all the discussion on the wording of this remedy, it's still not clear to me if the sanctioned party is allowed to state their preference each time someone re-opens the discussion or if they're supposed to state it once and force everyone to presume that's their position on it for eternity. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse obviously. GoldenRing (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The aim of the restriction is to prevent those on "infobox probation" from endlessly re-engaging in the debate and helping turn it into a slugging match. So yes, the restriction has been breached in this case - Cassianto should have commented once in these discussions, at whatever length, and then left it to others to carry it forward. Separately, is this a good and popular sanction as written? No - but the alternatives of outright blocks or bans were worse and there were no other very useful proposals on the table. Worth noting that while the case had remedies for individual editor conduct re infobox discussions, regrettably it didn't have anything on what to do when editors breach the second sentence of WP:CCC by reopening recently closed infobox debates, as we're seeing on some of these pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, agree re the need for a rewording. The aim is to prevent more than one contribution to any infobox discussion. No need to parse the content of comments: those with the restriction should post once in the entire discussion (comprising the thread and any subthreads), share their views on anything and everything they think relevant, then leave it alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. I imagine the simplest remedy for infobox warfare would be: a) a rigid civility standard in infobox discussions, enforced by blocks, and b) a ban on relitigating consensus for or against any article's infobox for a period of (say) twelve months after the previous discussion closed. That'd bring the current nonsense to an end, but the first would also cost Wikipedia some excellent content contributors and the second is outside Arbcom's authority. So we're left with this current somewhat tortured outcome. As always, alternative proposals welcome, and if they're any good let's put them in place of what we have. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbcom didn't impose a ban on endlessly reopening infobox discussions because it's a content issue and Arbcom isn't authorised to decide it. It's my personal view that the community should impose exactly that restriction, to stop the current pointless nonsense of new editors wearing everyone out by proposing exactly the same infobox inclusion or removal as the person two weeks before them. If someone proposed this restriction in an RfC I reckon there'd be strong support. It's a major missing piece in resolving the infobox conflict - it just needs the community to get it under way. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. See the comment immediately above this one, which was in response to the same thing. Personally, I've added an infobox to every article I've created, but unlike some I recognise they're entirely optional and shouldn't be forced onto pages where other major contributors to that article disagree. So I agree with you that there should not be an endless reopening of infobox discussions, and wish the community would impose just such a restriction by amending either wp:cons or wp:infoboxuse, as a content decision. In addition, Arbcom has authorised discretionary sanctions re infoboxes so it's open to any admin to exercise their discretion and stop people from seeking to subvert consensus in the way you describe, if they feel anyone's actions are genuinely disruptive to the editing environment. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of moving individuals away from the discussion, one comment is all they get if they're under probation. Not "one comment on topic", just "one comment". Both of the examples given were more than one. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely concur with everything Euryalus is saying. Arbcom can't restrict discussion of content, that's a content decision. We have recommended time and again that an RfC happens, and the idea of stopping repeated discussions of infoboxes is definitely something that the community could enforce and an RfC could decide. Arbcom has a different remit, and what we can do is to move individuals away from the discussion.
 * , I disagree, I believe it's perfectly clear what the wording says, making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. If the discussion is about inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, then they only get one comment. They don't get to refute other people's arguments, make comments about the contributors, or whatever else they may want to do in that discussion, they get one comment to state their view and they're done. I'm always willing to hold my hands up and say that my writing of decisions is sub-par, and I'm especially aware as I wrote the first draft of the probation - but there's a difference between a poorly written remedy and a willful misinterpretation. However, we're at a clarification page, and I believe Euryalus and I have clarified. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 18:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Worm and Euryalus. Maybe the language could have been more elegant, but you all know what we're saying – one comment, period. Not one per subsection, not one per paragraph. Just one. I greatly prefer this remedy over blocks and outright topic bans. And as Euryalus said, if there are alternatives, propose them. I'm open to ideas. Katietalk 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With regards to lifting the topic ban now: the community has already declined to reverse the sanction at AN. I see no reason to go against the community now and lift it just because we've decided to clarify the wording for the future. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice you haven't reported any of the possible violations you have mentioned here to AE for discussion and enforcement. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion
Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is substantially primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposing a slightly modified version of SchroCat's alternative wording, to clarify that the "one comment" restriction is per discussion and is regardless of the content of the comment. Also noting here for clarity that the one-comment-per-discussion restriction would cover subthreads of the same discussion as well as substantive rewordings of that single comment if made in a subsequent edit. Put more simply, when an infobox-related discussion is under way, those on infobox probation should comment once, in one edit and in one place, and then move away from the discussion and leave it to others to resolve. Other views welcome, as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Good and clear clarification, I hope. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that this was our original intent; it seems to me that the original wording was clear enough, but since it has been questioned, I support the change to make it even less ambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) I am not generally a fan of this particular type of restriction and hope it will seldom have to be imposed, but I certainly prefer it to outright blocks or bans where they can be avoided. The revised wording is consistent with what was intended in the decision, so I'll support the motion. But, per Alex's vote comment below, I'd support changing "substantially" to "primarily." Alternatively, if a discussion is partly about infoboxes and partly about something else (say, a GA or FA review of an article), I'd support an interpretation that allows one comment about the infobox but doesn't restrict comments about other aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure how it should be worded, but I'd support the version Nyb suggests., can you come up with a suitable wording? Doug Weller  talk 15:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Our intent was very clear during the case. We wanted people to stop being toxic in infobox discussions, and the sniping by Cassianto in the provided diffs certainly doesn't accomplish that. That behavior alone would be worth discretionary sanctions whether or not a specific restriction on number of comments was in place, since such snide and unproductive remarks contribute heavily to the overall issues in this topic area. For those reasons, I don't see our clarification here as affecting Cassianto's topic ban, which is warranted under discretionary sanctions. We can clarify this if it will reduce future issues, but if Cassianto continues to push the boundaries of his specific restrictions, he should expect to face escalating discretionary sanctions consistent with his behavior. (I prefer "primarily", as an aside.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Also prefer 'primarily' per Alex, but this is an improvement. Katietalk 21:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) This motion will pass, so I would like to morally oppose for two reasons: 1) The addition of "substantial" is going to be subjective, which was also noted by 2) The revised wording also does not really cover the tendency of re-litigating Infobox discussions by persistently opening new threads without addressing any previous opposing arguments (opening a new thread can be "discussing", but is it a "discussion"?). My concluding thoughts is that any amendment at this stage is not going to be ideal, but if it is going to provide more clarity for administrators working at AE to impose necessary sanctions, then I suppose it is the only option. Alex Shih (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) I don't oppose this - the new wording is perfectly fine - but I doubt its effectiveness, because it takes the "confusing" line at face value and I just don't think the underlying complaint is serious. People who are making a genuine effort to follow the rules ask for clarification, people who are trying to push boundaries choose to follow whatever interpretation they find most favorable to themselves and then are shocked, shocked, shocked!! to find that others disagree with their creative reinterpretation of what "one" means. The behavior that led to this request is the equivalent of seeing something you think might stick to the wall, throwing it, and then wondering why those lame, incompetent arbs can't even keep the floor clean around here. I mean, I can't be too judgey about that behavior - if I were subject to an arbcom sanction, and for some reason, despite months to years of consistent feedback, nevertheless continued to believe in the rectitude of my cause - I'd look for ways to thumb my nose at the arbs too. But recognizing the pattern doesn't mean I have to play along. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * thanks for the additional comment. I suppose it's possible to wikilawyer almost anything, so application of this or any other wording will require a degree of "plain English" interpretation. There's always a balance between wording that is clear and simple but leaves loopholes, and wording that is wildly lengthy and tries to cover every possible creative interpretation. In this specific case not everyone seems to agree that there was actually a need for clarification, but to the extent there was it's hopefully addressed in the above. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sanction was appealed to AN, and that discussion closed around a day ago. It doesn't look like the participants in that discussion had difficulty interpreting the remedy wording, but if you disagree please discuss with the closing admin. Arbcom is unlikely to unilaterally overrule a legitimate community appeal process, and nor should it. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording to "primarily," based on comments above. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * for the sake of transparency and because it might help others understand the context of our failure to reply to your emails, may we copy them here? Of course I'll understand if you don't want others to see them. Doug Weller  talk 08:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, and your conduct is a part of the whole – the only part that continued after the case was over, to my knowledge. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are restricted from adding infoboxes, actually. We went based off of the evidence presented. Very little evidence was presented of systematic wrongdoing since the previous case by those other than you, but nevertheless, we put in place discretionary sanctions so anyone else behaving disruptively can be sanctioned appropriately. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Participation in a single RfC about a single infobox years ago makes me no more involved than anyone who has created an article with an infobox. I thought that particular infobox was beneficial at that time, but that doesn't mean I have a broad opinion on infoboxes. To be a bit blunt, I have better things to worry about. Recusal is reserved for matters where an arbitrator feels they cannot be impartial about an issue. I didn't even recall the discussion when the case started, so that is not an issue. It was mentioned at one point during the case, and I saw my brief participation when I read through it. I queried other arbitrators about whether they felt I should recuse at that time, but they did not. I agreed with their assessment. It's worth noting that the community reviewed my participation in that RfC at my RfA, and they saw nothing concerning or even partisan there. The overwhelming consensus was that my comments were appropriate and that I attempted repeatedly to de-escalate the situation. You appear to be claiming I'm somehow biased, but my voting record on the case doesn't back that up. I was the first to oppose sanctions for yourself. I was one of only a few arbitrators who opposed suggesting a project-wide RfC on infoboxes, one that would be far more likely to enshrine infoboxes in policy than favor the removal of infoboxes. I proposed the admonishment of the case filer for canvassing. I opposed all of the more draconian sanctions proposed against Cassianto (1RR in the proposed decision, a civility restriction in the workshop). My voting record is more "anti-infobox" than average on the Committee, if anything, which contradicts a claimed "pro-infobox" bias. If you believed me to be biased, the time to ask for my recusal would have been months ago, when the case was getting started. You were silent. Requests for recusals usually aren't considered after a case enters the voting stage, and we're well past that, given the case is closed entirely. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Civility in infobox discussions (May 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SchroCat at 15:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Sandstein notification
 * Cassianto notification

Statement by SchroCat
As the committee is aware, Cassianto has been put under sanctions by Sandstein (in this edit). The wording he has put together is "you may not edit discussions about anything related to infoboxes, either as regards their use in specific articles or in the abstract". I've looked through the ArbCom decision and I cannot see any restriction in the DS that stops involvement in a discussion "in the abstract"; this means that Cassianto is unable even mention IBs in any forum, or even to vote in the Wikidata RfC.

There is no part of the ArbCom ruling or in DS that justifies the addition of the words "or in the abstract". This additional restriction steps over what was voted upon by the committee and clarification is needed to establish that this is beyond the scope of the probation. – SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As I am asking for clarification, rather than appealing anything, this seems an unnecessarily bureaucratic way to avoid looking into another flaw in the way this case has run, but so be it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * nope. I've made it very clear that I am asking for clarification. This is the second time that I have seen wiki-lawyering by the committee to avoid admitting there is fault, and it is an unedifying spectacle. Unfortunately it's not really a great surprise either. Now: can you provide clarification as to whether "or in the abstract" is beyond the scope of the DS or the ruling? Once we get to that point, Cassianto will then be able to appeal against the additional unwarranted wording. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How big of you Sandstein. Burob, I said before you should have recused from this case, considering your previous actions at an idiotbox discussion and an FAC: you were disruptive then, and your views are obviously affecting your decision making process here. Mind you, given the response at the last discussion where the committee deciding evasion pointy near-trolling comments were the order of the day, I remain unsurprised that you couldn't actually arbitrate your way out of a wet paper bag. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And while you're all fucking about wasting time looking through Cassianto's history, did you not think it worth to spin through the thread? How about an editor re-opening a discussion less than 24 hours after another discussion had been closed, then adding the box back after 11 days, while the RfC is still open? Excellent news that ArbCom managed to "sort" all that messy IB nonsense out then. Good work: give yourselves a big pat on the back for a job well done complete fuck up that missed the point and has no effect. More and more proof (not that this was needed) that this case wasn't about "sorting out" the IB question, just in punishing Cassianto. If the (linked) re-litigating and edit warring had been to remove the box, rather than force it back in, all hell would have broken out and it would have been ANI, blocks or ArbCom to ensure punishment was meted out. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
As BU Rob13 notes below, only the sanctioned users themselves may appeal a discretionary sanction.  Sandstein  16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If anybody cares, a previous appeal by Cassianto at AN was rejected, and I have now noticed a recent topic ban violation by Cassianto, and blocked them in response.  Sandstein   17:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Query by Iridescent
BU Rob13, where are you getting Cassianto will need to be the one to bring any appeal from? This is a clarification request, not an appeal; the motion you're presumably citing says that only the sanctioned party can appeal a sanction, but there's nothing in either the motion or WP:ARBPOL to say that a third party can't query Arbcom as to whether a particular action taken at WP:AE is in line with what the committee intended when a sanction was issued. Asking "Hey, Arbcom, what did you actually mean when you said this?" is exactly what this particular board is for. This is "Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment", not "Arbitration/Appeals", and SchroCat's query is fairly explicitly a request for clarification, not a request for amendment. &#8209; Iridescent 2 16:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
As a clarification, the case allows for "standard discretionary sanctions", which are "broadly construed". Discussions of infoboxes "in the abstract" seem to fit in this. I also remind SchroCat that Comments that are uncivil or intended to provoke a negative reaction are unhelpful.

As a straight appeal, I don't see the value in preventing Cassianto from discussing infoboxes outside of article or talk space. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude
Just so we're clear: this is the edit Cassianto has received a block for. Going to a neutral third party admin for assistance (specifically one that came in to save the day after the shitshow that was the last ARCA) in response to this bit of editing. There's a big DS notice when you edit the article, and there's a short instructional note to "PLEASE DO NOT UNCOLLAPSE THE INFOBOX WITHOUT SEEKING A CONSENSUS FIRST ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE" (the allcaps, is not mine, that's actually in the article). Their justification for ignoring the notices? "... I thought that it [the collapsed infobox] was quite useless". *sigh*, directly, the intervention of ArbCom here has been a failure in what it tried to achieve, and a success in what its proponents wanted to achieve. That is, you failed to even lessen the issue, but succeeded in kicking Cassianto to the ground. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: No, I'm not asking for the block or TBAN to be removed. No, I am not adding to an appeal. No, I'm not even addressing the ARCA. I'm dropping you the exact edits that have led to this here. You work out if your intervention looks successful to anyone not interested in punishing Cass. For me the answer is: No. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I think many of you will know my strongly pro-infobox views, but I have had a good relationship with Cassianto since he started editing, and like Brad, I'd love to find ways to have him return to making his prolific contributions without running into conflict over what is really an unimportant issue when viewed dispassionately. The collapsed infobox that sparked this off was a hard-fought compromise that both sides of the infobox dispute could live with. Neither side saw it as ideal, but both agreed that it would be acceptable. That explains the ALL-CAPS notice within a comment, asking that the box not be uncollapsed. It is delicate compromises like these that I had hoped the ArbCom decisions would help stabilise. Nevertheless, I think that anyone could appreciate that Cassianto might well be justified in being upset by the change to the infobox.

I believe the purpose of the ArbCom remedy was to keep Cassianto out of further on-wiki conflict concerning infoboxes. Its intent was laudable, but its effect was also to muzzle him from reporting what he must have seen as a flagrant breach of the circumscribed editing environment now in place around infoboxes. Instead of tackling the editor who caused him upset, he went to Bishonen to seek assistance. Lots of editors do, and for good reason; you usually get a sensible, humane resolution to your concerns. It's much better than ANI for any reasonable editor. The result is that he's blocked for a week. I have to ask, was that really the intention of ArbCom when they placed his restriction?

I've already suggested to Sandstein that I'll happily listen to Cassianto off-wiki if he has concerns in future, and I'll do my best to help him resolve them. Naturally, Sandstein only sees that an attempt on my part to "circumvent the ban", but I suppose I was foolish to expect anything else. Hopefully, with good will all-around (and just a bit less process-wonkery), we can get Cassianto back to contributing productively soon. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
May we have something more clearly worded? How about a list of where an editor can & can't post or edit about infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If this includes not being able to contact administrators about infobox concerns, then that's rather harsh, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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


 * Because the ARCA was closed a bit soon, I am reopening the ARCA now for 36 hours, after which the ARCA will not be reopened. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I hate to focus on procedural issues, but Cassianto will need to be the one to bring any appeal. Other editors cannot appeal on his behalf. If he notes here that he wants this to be his appeal, then we can do that to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, but otherwise, this will need to be closed without Committee comment. This is actually important because, if we were to decline an appeal, Cassianto would be barred from raising the appeal at AN or AE. He must be the one to choose if he wants to raise the issue here so he can decide if he wants to forego appeals elsewhere. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "I'm asking for clarification that this sanction is impermissible under the arbitration remedy" is equivalent to saying "I'm appealing". ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any discussion about infoboxes is included in the discretionary sanctions. Nothing restricts the remedy to just discussions about a specific infobox. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The discretionary sanctions were how we dealt with the issues in this topic area. Where did you give that editor a DS notice? Where did you file a report at AE? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For a topic banned editor, that list consists of all pages on-wiki. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does include contacting administrators about the topic area, and that is harsh. Topic bans are usually placed due to severe disruption that could not be curbed with lesser sanctions. They are an attempt to avoid a block by removing the editor from a topic area completely. It’s important to note the years of conflict here, as well as the attempt to restrict Cassianto in a much lesser way. He did not abide by that restriction, leading to a topic ban that removes him from the topic of infoboxes entirely. I hope that he will be able to return to that area soon, but he’ll first need to convince admins that he’s able to abide by his lesser ArbCom restriction. The current topic ban violations are not doing a great job of showing that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern that this "clarification request" actually serves as an appeal by someone other than the sanctioned editor. Such disguised appeals by others are usually disallowed, partly because they may be a poor use of time if the sanctioned editor doesn't actually wish to appeal, and partly because the request may not put the sanctioned editor's best foot forward. Having said that, in this instance the dispute remains an open sore in the community and there can be little doubt of Cassianto's point of view, so I'll address the merits. Remedy 2 in the Civility in infobox discussions decision provides: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. (emphasis added). This is very broadly worded and I don't see anything to prevent an admin, in a proper case, from barring an editor from discussing infoboxes abstractly as well as specifically. Whether imposing that broad a topic-ban on Cassianto and blocking him under it were proportionate is a different question not currently before us. I will add this: it is sad when a quality content-creator stops contributing content, voluntarily or involuntarily, over a relatively peripheral issue such as infoboxes. I wish I had a suggestion for steering Cassianto away from the point that, according to the infobox information in the box on the top of his talkpage, he says he has reached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the notion that infoboxes themselves are steering away content-creators from contributing content; my understanding of the frustration, from a wider perspective that I believe has been implied by myself and others in the past, is that for these editors, when they try to calmly explain their editorial viewpoint in regards to content, frequently they get non-argument responses that soon turns into accusations of biting and ownership on their part. This is incredibly restricting knowing that anything content you write can be immediately dismissed, and any attempt at a civil discourse will likely be futile as all opinions, whether or not they are valid, are presumably treated equally. While in principle, all editors should be treated equally across the project, but I have a strong feeling that sometimes we are giving far too much leniency to supposedly new editors without considering whether or not they are/were really here to become legitimate contributors, or do not consistently reprimand editors who do not communicate properly in the acceptable standards of this community. I am not dismissing that being uncivil and overprotective of certain articles is not an serious issue for some of these seasoned content-creators, but I think it should be highlighted that one of the key reasons in my opinion that pushed these editors to these behaviours is the declining mutual respect between parties and declining notion of common sense and decency in these interactions.Back to the clarification request, I will echo the thoughts expressed by ; imposing the discretionary sanction in this case was perfectly fine as it was what was authorised by the remedy, and the interpretation was within the scope in the broad sense I suppose (even though I do not support this particular interpretation as proportionate, but like Newyorkbrad said this is for another discussion). However, I believe the purpose of any remedies is to seek improvement, and I thought Cassianto's post to Bishonen's talk page was certainly an improvement on their approach to the infoboxes issue. While it may have been a violation of the wording described in the topic ban that was imposed, I did not think the block was necessarily constructive. Alex Shih (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As above - yes, you can ask for clarification of another editor's sanctions here, though it is kind of confusing and unnecessary given the now-realized possibility that they will appeal in their own right. On the substance, yep, you can get topic-banned from infoboxes "in the abstract" (read: "broadly construed") if you're already restricted in the input you can offer and then it turns out you're unwilling to work within those limits. As is often the case with AE sanctions and their follow-up blocks, I don't know that I would have personally implemented these, but that doesn't really matter; they're within the normal range of administrative discretion. I hate to say it, because it sounds so procedure-y, but I think more commentary than that from arbcom would start to risk crossing the streams with the still-outstanding AE appeal, which may yet end up back here. (But, you know, hopefully not. Listen to long-term sane people like RexxS and Bishonen.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For all those who are always suspecting arbcom of various elaborate conspiracies: as usual, poor coordination is more likely than successful conspiracy execution. This was closed and reopened because another arb noted, correctly, that the answer was clear and that having this open was potentially a distraction from the AE thread, and asked the clerks to archive it. My inattentive self then came along and made the highly original observation above that the answer is clear and that having this open is potentially a distraction from the AE thread. The case clerk came along a bit later and closed it, as requested. Trying to read too much into who closed it or when isn't going to get you anything except a headache. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the topic ban is within the scope of the remedy. That's not to say it was justified in this instance - that's a matter for the admin who imposed it, and for the current AE appeal. In passing, agree this ARCA seems to have closed a bit early. Pleased it was reopened and apologies to a)the clerks for the contrary directions they received, and b) to any editor who wanted to comment and didn't previously get the chance. The outcome seems pretty clear given the comments already received in this section, but more input welcome as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by El cid, el campeador at 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) You must not start an infobox discussion here


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=846057026


 * Information about amendment request
 * You must not start an infobox discussion here
 * Delete

Statement by El cid, el campeador
Currently, there is a discretionary sanctions notice on the Stanley Kubrick talk page, alerting users not to add an infobox. That, I understand. But, there is also a notice to not discuss infoboxes on the talk page. To me, this goes against everything that WP is built upon, namely robust discussion and consensus-building. The intended purpose of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the articles. Issuing a gag order on discussion doesn't seem right. Therefore, I propose removing that part of the DS notice.

Statement by Bishonen
The reason I added the sanction at all was mainly the disruption on the talkpage, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again, draining the energy of everybody who felt constrained to weigh in yet again in order to have their opinion counted. See my full rationale, and support from uninvolved admins, including two arbitrators, in this AE discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 06:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric
Just no.WP seems to have a quite-proficient cottage-industry (esp. in this area) wherein there's a tendency to throw the same shit at the same wall, until some of it sticks.Any measure to counteract such activities ought be appreciated.And, time has shown that the infobox discussion(s) over the particular page are nothing but acrimonious and only lead to a hostile atmosphere, with zero development to the content.

Statement by Johnuniq
An edit war is easily handled with protection or blocks. It is the talk talk talk that corrodes the community. The wiki way would be to brawl for another three months, but discretionary sanctions are provided to prevent such unproductive fights. No RfC has found that infoboxes are required so there is no reason to worry that people won't be able to argue until 10 September 2018 when the discretionary sanctions expire. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
We can wait until September 2018. In the meantime, our planet will continue to rotate. GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
It's pretty common for a community consensus to come up with a moratorium on re-re-re-discussing that which was just discussed to death again at the same page. It appears to be within WP:AC/DS parameters for an admin to apply a similar anti-disruption remedy as a discretionary sanction, especially since it's not targeted at anyone in particular, but just puts up a temporary forcefield around two combatant sides so the rest of the peeps are not caught in the continual crossfire and can get on with the real work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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



Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Considering the full support at Arbitration Enforcement and the 8-2 consensus on the talkpage... I'm not seeing any good reason to modify this. I also don't see an appeal made to AE, not that one is required. If a view can be presenting that this is actually harmful to Wikipedia's goals, then we can look at it. If we want to talk about the five pillars and how the fourth is to discuss issues, the community has fought that out already way too often and is why the Arbitration case exists to begin with. If we move on to the fifth pillar, it notes So I see this as a very valid interpretation of the pillars and principles of Wikipedia. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus building isn't happening, so the discussions are endless. I have no problem with this discretionary sanction in this instance, it's clearly defined and does not stop any other discussion on the talk page. It can be appealed in the future, but absolutely, this is the right solution for this article now and I thank the admins (especially Bishonen) for using discretionary sanctions well. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with the above. The talk page was being inundated with constant RfCs and discussions re-hashing the infobox issue for that article, wasting our most precious resources: the time and patience of editors. In the absence of a strong indication that the disruption won't flare right up again, I can't see a reason to remove this restriction. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For the above reasons, no. Doug Weller  talk 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely no, for reasons already stated. Alex Shih (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this request should be closed without action. The wiki way allows open discussion, but that doesn't mean that every issue must be under continuous discussion every day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. It's been said enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions (September 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 22:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1)
 * 2) Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * HAL333
 * Cassianto
 * Mclay1
 * SchroCat
 * JzG
 * Vanamonde93
 * Guerillero


 * Information about amendment request
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
 * Whether discrestionary sanctions should be enacted against editors other than I-82


 * Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement
 * Whether discretionary sanctions were correctly utilized based on the consensus of uninvolved administrators when the AE request was closed (clause from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement)

Statement by Barkeep49
On September 1, Ritchie filed an AE request for about an Infobox RfC at Frank Sinatra. In subsequent discussion, diffs were brought forward concerning the actions of HAL333, Mclay1, Cassianto, and SchroCat. On September 4 issued a Checkuser block against I-82-I for disruptive editing while logged out. On September 5, Cassianto opened a thread at ANI accusing Hal of harassment. Approximately four hours later, JzG closed the AE thread with an infobox Topic Ban on I-82-I. Prior to that close, 9 uninvolved administrators (including myself and JzG but not counting Tony) had participated in the discussion. At least three administrators, myself, Vanamonde, and Guerillero had supported sanctions against some of the other editors. A fourth, Ealdgyth, indicated that she saw incivility but did not wish to deal with the people involved. The other uninvolved administrators had not commented on these sanctions pro or con - one administrator feeling that sanctions should not only be applied to one side and two of the uninvolved administrators were participating in a discussion about whether Guerillero's use of "Ok boomer" towards Cassianto was a slur and not Infobox Civility itself. Subsequent discussion with JzG clarified that he had indeed closed the thread as no sanction against any other editors. As this seems to fly in the face of the considered consensus of multiple uninvolved administrators, with ArbCom being the only place to apply an AE decision, and given the sprawling nature of this conflict (which also includes, at minimum, and ), I am filing this appeal in regards to both Infobox editor conduct and JzG's close of the AE thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * according to a previous ArbCom case, the decision to close at AE with no sanction is is a decision that can only be appealed to ArbCom. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement. As such those of us who felt other sanctions shouldbe levied cannot apply those sanctions.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am glad Vanamonde replied first because they said my feelings better than I would have. Pinging you to formalize what I am looking for from ArbCom here and why I think in the name of comity we don't just move on. I think this gets at what you were asking also . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the people I had mentioned were Mclay1, HAL, Cassianto, and Schrocat (who I know is gone but I have hope might return one day even if under a slightly different account name owing to a password scramble). HAL, Cassianto, and Schrocat have all been a part of Infobox disputes before. So their promise to "stay away" from Sinatra is good - I mean that sincerely - but the sanctions in my mind were more about whatever the next Infobox skirmish is going to be as it is Sinatra. So the only one I would be willing to reconsider in light of a kept promise to stay away is Mclay1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that clear. What isn't clear is the ability of an editor to unilaterally shutdown a conversation of colleagues about whether sanction is appropriate currently rather than in the future. You seem to be telling me that it is appropriate which is a reasonable outcome. That will inform my choice to try and get involved in thorny AE discussions in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what is saying is that if there were new misconduct the old conduct could still be considered when forming a sanction. So essentially no editor could be sanctioned for anything that happened at Sinatra (or previously) but if there is misconduct again at the next infobox front then Sinatra and earlier could be considered when responding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As to bradv's suggestion that a full case could be beneficial, maybe? I mean we have two different administrators whose actions have been criticized by a range of editors. We also have Cassianto feeling that the ANI thread did not offer him from the harassment he was perceiving from HAL and which wasn't really being discussed at AE. However, I'm not sure, as evidenced by the desire of many people here for this to go away (I mean I got more than one good laugh when I explained to some people close to me what DS is and that we have DS for things like American Politics, Palestine/Israel, Race & Intellegence, and Infoboxes) that a full case is going to bring things forward that an ARCA would not. Now if the structure of a case would be helpful in dealing with these desperate parts then sure go for a case. Just don't expect it to turn into too much more than what has already been presented here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC
 * I had formally notified everyone but Cassianto who had indicated to me such a notification was unnecessary. I agree with you that such notification is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by HAL333
I am so thoroughly tired of this. The original ArbCom request was against I-82 and no one else. That editor retired, abused IP accounts, and was then CU blocked. Case closed. Additionally, SchroCat retired due to this whole ordeal. Can we please just stop here and not lose anymore editors.

Since being warned of the sanctions, I have not responded to a single opposing editor on that thread. I only asked an editor who supported the proposal to clarify his statement. Beyond that, I reverted edits by, who was repeatedly closing the RFC and claiming that there was a consensus to uncollapse the infobox (which they did and I reverted). I reported them for vandalism, and they were banned. A diehard pro-infoboxer (Which I'm not - I've gotten several of my works up to featured status without an IB) would have sat back and watched gleefully. I have agreed with SchroCat and Cassianto before, siding with them at Dispute Resolution and have even opposed the addition of an infobox with them.

Regarding the ANI discussion opened against me, here was my defense: Earlier today, Cassianto referred to me, LEPRICAVARK, and two administrators as "messers". I was not familiar with this term: Cassianto often uses British slang. Oxford's Lexico defines it as "A person who makes a mess, or who messes about; a muddler, a bungler." According to Urban Dict, it is "Irish slang for a sloppy or messy person; someone who fails to take things seriously; a hopeless amateur, a gobdaw." Wiktionary defines it as "someone who messes". Accordingly, I respectfully asked Cassianto to strike through this personal attack. Cassianto was annoyed by my pinging him (which plenty of other people were doing at arbcom) and left a message claiming that I was harassing him. I responded courteously, without a ping. Cassianto then corrects the personal attack to "messrs", which, according to Google, is "used as a title to refer formally to more than one man simultaneously, or in names of companies." I found this a clever solution and it actually made me laugh. The barnstar of good humor was an expression of good faith. I was being genuine and met no ill will. I figured it would ease up tensions, but here we are....
 * Note I have previously given Cassianto a barnstar after a disagreement, and it seemed to have improved our relations. I was trying to do the same thing again and assumed he would respond similarly to last time.

Everyone has moved on. I have not revisited any infobox discussions. There is no reason that we can't just let sleeping dogs lie. ~ HAL  333  22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Genuine confusion This enforcement request was brought because people were edit warring over collapsing a section of the RFC (I was not involved in that). That has been resolved. Why is this continuing? Also, why is SchroCat included in this? He has scrambled his password and no longer edits on Wikipedia. Any sanctions or penalties directed to him would be ineffectual and for image only. Sysops have expressed that they would want to penalize the supposed pro- and anti-infoboxers equally. Cassianto has already been placed under sanctions. How can this be impartial if sanctions would just be applied to two "pro"-infoboxers? Furthermore, other editors commented just as much (and perhaps were much more uncivil) as I did in the RFC: just look at the discussion. (I should note that my colorful signature doesn't help lol) Why am I being singled out? ~ HAL  333  02:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mclay1
This whole thing seems pointless. The issue is over. I was not aware at the time of any specific rules about infobox discussions (which I'm still not clear on) and only made a few comments. I got into a very short and very mild disagreement with SchroCat, who was being quite rude to a number of people, but that conversation is long over and he's retired, so it's no longer an issue. My involvement in the discussion was not in any way unusual for a discussion on Wikipedia. As soon as I was informed of the infobox discussion rules (long before the ArbCom in question), I stopped commenting. I don't care about it anymore and have no need for sanctions. I have no intention of continuing the argument. I agree with HAL333. MClay1 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
An AE was opened against I-82-I. That user subsequently used logged-out editing to evade scrutiny and was indefinitely blocked. Others used the AE filing as a vehicle for discussing (eentirely valid) long-standing issues with other editors who were not, I think, originally notified of the AE filing.

It seems to me that the subject of the original filing is effectively complete with the indefinite block of I-82-I. I have no strong view of what dispute resolution processes should be undertaken in respect of other editors discussed in the thread, other than that there should be some, but it seems to me that an AE on an obvious bad actor should not morph into sanctions discussions on long-standing good-faith editors without at least some effort to de-escalate or resolve the dispute. This would be my view regardless of the personalities involved.

As I said at the time and subsequently, if anyone wants to undo the close or spin out the separate discussions they are welcome to do so. I have no beef with any of the other parties here, admin or otherwise. I closed the AE in good faith because the outcome in respect of the original subject was clear, and it seems to me that AE discussions should be narrowly focused (because enforcement). I could be wrong. I am happy to leave this to others to decide because my views on the secondary parties are not strong, and because of a sudden worsening of C7 radiculopathy which means I am as of yesterday in too much pain to deal with this any further. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience, friends, the pain has subsided over the last couple of days.
 * I have proposed a change to the admin guidance at WT:AE. This entire thing comes from two groups of people looking at the same facts from different bases. I closed the AE because the result for I-82-I was obvious, and he was the named party. I took insufficient note of the way the thread had morphed, partly because I was viewing it in the context of a request against I-82-I. This was probably naive. That said, I think there is a basic fairness issue about sanctioning other parties without the formal notification requirement, and I hope that I am not alone in this.
 * If we look at WP:RFAR, there is a process for adding parties. At WP:AE, there is not. I'd internalised the idea that parties have to be formally added in arbitration, and I recognise that this may be incorrect in this context - and whether it's right or wrong, others may see it differently or may be viewing this through an arc that intersects with AE but is not solely AE (Vanamonde has made some good points here and recently pointed out to me some precedent for not viewing AE as I have always viewed it). Guy (help! - typo?)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Infoboxes)
I will not rehash the summary Barkeep49 has provided, but just add the following points. First, editors who are parties to a dispute brought to AE are explicitly also subject to sanctions, assuming they have been appropriately notified, which isn't in question here. Second, in this AE report, there was agreement among at least three administrators as to sanctions against editors other than the one being reported. Third, JzG's closure, while made in good faith, clearly does not represent the consensus of administrators at AE. Fourth, the issue has been discussed with JzG, and he has stated that he has no objections to further discussions about the other editors, but not that he was willing to reconsider the closure of this discussion. ARBCOM has previously rules that a single admin may overrule a consensus of other admins recommending no action to take an action at AE; does this now mean that a single admin can overrule a consensus of other admins recomending action, to prevent any action from being taken? In other words, if I (or Barkeep49, or Guerillero) wish to implement the actions we agreed upon, are we prevented from doing so by the minutiae of procedure? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, I'd agree with JzG that a report against someone editing in bad faith shouldn't result in widespread sanctions. In this case, most of the problematic behavior I found occurred before the bad-faith editor even appeared on the scene, and so the subsequent block of I-82-I does not affect my assessment of anything; and I don't see why it should affect anyone else's. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone wants the AE opened again, but if that would be the only was for sanctions to be applied against the other editors involved, then what you are in effect saying is that any administrator can overrule a consensus of their colleagues to prevent discretionary sanctions from being placed on any problematic editor. If that's not what you mean, then any administrator still has the ability to impose sanctions for the behavior discussed at AE; which is the clarity I am looking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At this moment, I would not impose a sanction, because the principle participants have walked away from the conflict. I am firmly of the opinion that at the time the AE discussion was closed, the proposed sanctions were necessary, and that any willingness to step back on the part of the participants was because of the unfavorable attention they received here and at ANI. This feud went on for months, despite several attempts by uninvolved participants to calm things down. I would be very unsurprised to see further disruption, and if that occurs, any sanctions would need to take the episode discussed at AE into account to be useful. As things stand, it seems as though any sanctions cannot be levied on the basis of the behavior examined at AE already. There is also the issue of precendent; going forward, I would be much less inclined to engage with a contentious AE report, knowing that even a consensus among me and my colleagues could be overruled by a single admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's obvious, based on the wording of previous rulings about AE; whether the closure applied to other editors or not was also not clarified until we came here (JzG have since discussed the matter and are no longer at loggerheads over this, but he didn't actually answer my request to clarify this before the ARCA request was filed). Other users on JzG's talk page also argued that an admin placing a sanction on the other users from AE would be in violation of an ARBCOM decision. So, I appreciate your clarification, but I do think it was necessary to come here for that clarification. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I was disagreeing more with the second part of what NYB said, in that there did seem to be serious disagreement as to what the conclusion of the first AE meant, and it was not clarified till we got here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather to my own surprise, I think a full case may not be the worst idea. A situation like this shouldn't need a full case. There's no substantively new behavioral issue here; AE can deal with it, but only if the discretionary sanctions are allowed to operate as they should. Unfortunately, as with many of our previous civility-related cases (GGTF; TRM) this has just exposed the deep-running rift among administrators with respect to how interactions between editors are perceived and responded to, and that has led to the enforcement of ARBCOM sanctions being hamstrung. If, in dealing with this sort of dispute, individual administrators face difficulties not only with the editors whose behavior is being investigated but also their fellow administrators, it's unsurprising that the dispute seems intractable, and is going to end up in ARBCOM's lap. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither SchroCat nor Cassianto meets the formal requirements for a RTV; SchroCat's actions were being discussed here, and Cassianto is under infobox probation. I would be fine with IAR RTV, if that is implemented with the understanding that they are truly leaving, and would explicitly not be eligible for a clean start. SchroCat's use of an IP suggests this isn't really the case, and that's unsurprising to me; if you've been invested in this community for as long as SC has, walking away isn't easy. And for the record, I do not want either of them to leave; they're fine writers, and will be missed. But we should not be letting them "walk away" in a manner that may make things worse in the future because they cannot resist the temptation to return, but aren't able to do so in a legitimate way; at the very least, we need to make it clear that if they were to return, they would have to create an account and disclose the connection publicly. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
My only thought is that JzG's close ran in the face of the consensus of the admins there. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this rises to the level of a whole case -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * there was also the review in 2016 -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this would be easier to believe if one of them wasn't editing as an IP within hours of vanishing. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can one of the arbs collect the CU data for both SchroCat and Cassianto and either post it to ArbWiki or CUWiki so they can be identified in the future? SchroCat is already a double clean start and was IP socking. I CU blocked Cassianto about 5 years ago for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin
In my opinion (as a mere observer of info-box disagreements for more than a decade), any debate on info-boxes should be ignored by the entire community of editors. In most cases, the relevance of including or omitting an info-box is low. Good editors are wasting time and energy on something insignificant, but that doesn't mean they need to be punished for their exasperation. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Wehwalt and Davey2010's comments. Was this really worth it? ---Sluzzelin talk  20:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Moneytrees
I'll wait for other statements before I get into deeper specifics, but this has been a rather aggressive, tense dispute with many noticeboard visits over the past few months. I highly encourage arbcom to look into it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 23:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this does rise to the level of a full case. This has been an issue that the community has not been able to resolve through discussion and AE, and I think these disputes will continue even if this one had died down a bit. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Barkeep49, it's not really clear from your initial comments, but what is the issue being presented here that needs ArbCom? JzG closed the AE because the main subject was blocked and made no other sanctions that would have to be "overridden". If any admin felt someone else involved needed to be sanctioned through DS, they simply just need to do so and do not need AE consensus to do that. If anyone felt more discussion was needed to fine-tune a specific sanction on another editor, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from opening another AE focused on the editor(s), and that's probably a better more focused option anyways to piece apart multi-editor issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Barkeep49, to be more clear, I'm wondering why you feel that principle applies here (and hopefully give arbs something even more pointed to address)? That might apply if the close dealt with more than the named subject of the AE or if I-82-I wasn't sanctioned and you thought they should be. Right now, only I-82-I sanctions would fall under the dismissing principle if that had happened. No one else's behavior was the subject of the close. At least from my read of the comments, it looks like you inadvertently set yourself down a slippery slope thinking you couldn't act. JzG's close looked pretty standard in the sense of the named editor has been sanctioned, other issues in the subject can be dealt with separately if warranted. That's how AE has always worked when multi-party issues come up that don't get a sanction all at the same time, which is why I'm finding some logic presented here at odds with how AE normally works.


 * Simply because the behavior of others was mentioned (and how often is it not?) in an AE request, that does not mean a request being closed against the primary named editor gives immunity to those other potential problem editors in the subject that were not addressed in the close. Editors just need to a bring a separate case focused on the specific editor if they feel DS enforcement is warranted. The infobox drama is foreign to me, but I agree it looks like there are problems outside of I-82-I. If that is dismissed, then the principle applies there for reopening. Otherwise, this approach is setting up problem editors to say their behavior was already "dismissed" at AE citing an early tangential request not focused on them where they were discussed.


 * Also, none of the above matters if you personally feel as an admin DS should be enacted as AE isn't needed to do that. Even if a request was closed as no action, you can later look at the (assumedly) partial evidence on the other editor(s) there while taking in other background information to place a sanction. "No action" is the default of every admin the moment they are made aware of a potential issue, so there's nothing to really override there (kind of a null hypothesis problem). The dismissing principle seems to be focused on reopening requests rather than making a no action decision on periphery editors (relative to the AE request) prevent future placing of sanctions. If arbs really do intend the latter, especially when it's not the main subject of a request, then it would be good to clarify. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Gerda
Please offer a minute of silence, and think about if anything of this matters. Jerome and I were friends from 2010. We disagreed on infoboxes about composers (not about compositions), but always respectfully. Amendment request: let's forget about sanctions, and imagine any comment came from a friend who has good intentions. I believe that if we all did, these unholy wars were over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I reinstate the comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
The AE report-in-question had morphed into something it wasn't suppose to be. The individual who was the topic of that report, was blocked. PS - Can't we get back to the ongoing RFC at old Blue Eyes? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Am I being too bold in recommending that this ARCA request be rejected? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, so now two editors have retired over this infobox stuff. I hope they return or un-vanish soon, which ever name they choose to reappear under. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes/AE)
With regards to the general issue of consensus at AE would be to establish a principle that while a consensus is not required to act, administrators may not unilaterally act contrary to a consensus if one does exist, nor close a discussion in a manner that prevents other administrators from acting in accordance with that consensus (e.g. closing as "no action" if there is a consensus for action, or closing as "action" when there is consensus that no action is required). This would not compel admins to act - if they disagree with a consensus they may express their view in the discussion or simply leave it for some other admin. (I am explicitly not opining here on how this relates to the specific discussion in question). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
In case anyone is interested, I have been contacted off-wiki by SchroCat and Cassianto, who have both decided to quit the project and courtesy vanish, which I have enacted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I reject the suggestion that vanishing can be used to avoid scrutiny; to that end I have blocked the IP in the section below for blatant sockpuppetry. Furthermore, in my view Cassianto and SchroCat should now be considered de-facto banned, and I will support any admin who feels the need to enforce that view with blocks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your concerns entirely, but I keep coming back to this seminal piece of work : "One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia." Specifically, while I have tried to work with Cassianto, I am utterly sick and tired of the way he dishes out personal attacks to other people yet complains vociferously when somebody does the same to him, and really wish he could just ignore people. Furthermore, I once blocked Cassianto for edit-warring and personal attacks; I got abuse heaped on my head and the block reversed by another admin about three hours later. So, you might think I haven't maybe taken as strong as action as I could have done in order to keep the peace and avoid being called an "abusive admin", but I feel in this instance, blocks and sanctions seem to cause more problems than they solve. As Vanamonde has said, and as you suggest here, increasing temperature and sanctions at WP:ARBINFOBOX2 doesn't seem to have done any good, and the community in general is at a complete loss for how to proceed. The RTV was a way of trying to remove them from the project with the minimum of fuss and with their full agreement; it was never intended to be a "get out of Arbcom free" card, and if they think this is a mechanism for them to "lie low" for a bit and come back editing as if nothing had happened without anyone's concerns being addressed, well more fool them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As per User:Ritchie333 : "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it." Do you want me to revert the RTVs? As I understand it, both Cassianto and SchroCat have scrambled their passwords and won't be using those accounts again (though I can't prove this). By "good standing" I simply mean they were not blocked or banned at the point the action was taken. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I won’t be able to get to this until probably Tuesday; I’m away for a long weekend at the mo and need an hour in front of the computer with no distractions so I don’t mess up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't revert the vanishing of SchroCat, as it complains the name clashes with (note the lower case 'c'). Can you (or anyone else) offer further advice? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I've reverted the RTV on SchroCat. I'm currently working on the assumption there is no consensus to RTV SchroCat (as two Arbs have objected) and there is a possible consensus to RTV Cassianto (as one Arb has objected but one has not). Before doing anything else, I think it would be helpful if more Arbs gave their opinion on this so the action taken has a more accurate reflection of what would be considered best for the encyclopedia. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng
I have to say I was surprised by the vanishing given they are named parties in this, with one being considered specifically for sanctions. Also I think the deletion of their talk pages are probably inappropriate as well. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Ritchie I am going to quote parts of WP:RTV with some bolding and will leave it to you to justify the amazingly stupid decision to RTV two editors currently involved in an arbitration request.


 * "A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return"
 * "for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits"
 * "When there is no administrative need to retain the information, a permanently departing user"
 * "It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions."
 * "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention"

So you have extended vanishing to two people who RTV explicitly calls out as not being eligible for the courtesy. You have deliberately made it harder to identify their contributions in the middle of an arbitration request, which is nothing short of disruptive and a disgustingly offensive slap in the face to editors who have been on the recieving end of their past actions which led to this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
Am I the only one getting some weird Déjà vu here? It's kind of freaky. Either way...

Cassianto had a significant editing restriction placed against him. While SchroCat was also restricted, I can see a charitable interpretation may say he was in good standing as it was only a pretty weak account restriction which only requires him to disclose future accounts. Cassianto, though? In this economy?

Users here were actively looking at his behavoir. Whether that was justified or not is another story, but at the very least made a somewhat substantial accusations against him here. Looking at the AE request, it would seem other accusations were made against a lot of people (including SchroCat). At this point, I think it's pretty dang clear that Administrative response to this contentious area was utterly poor. You have: Unsurprisingly, I don't think these two are the only ones at fault. While Guy and Richie are well known exceptional admins on this project, I'm not a fan of this kind of thing. Clearly if even our best admins are capable of messing up this poorly, then Arbcom needs to rethink its approach to Civility in the infobox disputes and arbitration enforcement. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Richie333
 * 1) Richie333 warning SchroCat about incivility but admitting he wouldn't take any action because it'd help ensure a no consensus RFC close and if he blocked anyone else he'd also have to block SchroCat for the obvious incivility.
 * 2) Richie333 filing a report against I-82-I who was in a dispute with SchroCat and Cassianto.
 * 3) Richie333 making this comment clearly stating he didn't want to deal with the drama of blocking Cassianto again and that he is involved.
 * 4) Richie333 courtesy vanishing Cassianto and SchroCat despite being involved (thus inadvertently allowing them to avoid scrutiny).
 * JzG
 * 1) Guy commenting that he felt: [t]he trajectory of the dispute is towards sanctionable behaviour but it's not there yet
 * 2) Guy replying to Masem with a soft anti-infobox editorial position.
 * 3) Guy closing the AE report with a one-sided sanction over the concerns of the other commenting admins.
 * For what it's worth, I disagree with Richie's conclusion they are de facto banned. I find that would be incredibly unfair to both Cassianto and SchroCat and against the spirit of our banning policy. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what you describe is a problem systematic on Wiki and that it wasn't right for a user to essentially complain and bully his way towards forcing you into unfortunate positions. I hope that makes more sense? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 's proposed addition to WP:AE seems like a good way forward. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
I disagree that an editor who has chosen to vanish can be considered to be de-facto banned, even if they return. A request to vanish is a voluntary request to superficially disassociate the requestor's edits from their user name. The remedy for returning is to reassociate their edits. Sanctions may or may not be warranted for other reasons, such as evasion of scrutiny or previously imposed restrictions, but this has to be determined by community consensus or through its delegated authority (such as via enacted policy). isaacl (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

what you're describing is a clean start. Vanishing is about disassociating oneself from all previous edits, and isn't necessary to perform a clean start. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by We hope
The last 2 infobox cases really only scratched the surface of the issues. They did nothing permanent (restrictions lifted) about those who believe infoboxes are necessary to respiration, leaving those who believe life without them is possible to fend for themselves. The pressure produced pushback but it seems as though those who need to push back are viewed as the villians most of the time; those who instigate the issues don't seem to receive their rightful designation.

I began cutting back work here in 2016 because of the disruptive nature of the disputes. At the time of the last case, I no longer did text work and dumped hundreds of bookmarks for expanding & beginning articles. My only mainspace work since 2018 has been as favors to editor friends since I have no interest in working in an environment where only one side holds sway.

Two of those friends have now vanished. One was unjustly accused of editing thereafter (an apology would be nice). The other has been revived for some obscure reason; no longer here ought to be enough.

The infobox problem can be solved in one of two ways-the editors can leave-in ways other than being blocked or banned-saying "to hell with this place"-or enough decision-making people can obtain sufficient backbone to come up with a ruling which fully recognizes more than the pro-box side. We hope (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
To take one example, one of my complaints about SchroCat was the (ab)use of OneClickArchiver to shut down a thread. Cassianto's last edit was using OneClickArchiver in this manner. While vanishing might be out of process because both editors are parties to this ARCA, I think I agree with Ritchie and WP:OWB: vanishing resolves the issue. As new accounts, if they use OneClickArchiver in this manner, they will be sanctioned quickly; no one will defend them or ignore it. So if they come back as new users and are disruptive, that'll be easily dispatched; if they come back as new users and are not disruptive, then it's win-win. Either way, problem solved, with little or no further editor time needed from arbs, admin, or anyone else. Lev!vich 17:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dave
We've lost 2 fantastic editors who have done nothing but put hard work into our articles, Wikipedia will now be worse off without them. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt
As usual staying out of the merits of any infobox discussion, but I will say this. SchroCat and Cassianto have earned the right to leave in the way that they desire, if that is how it is going to be. People casting around for reasons to deny them this, when one doesn't pan out going to another, doesn't have the best appearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 22:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Recuse -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion
As for the underlying dispute, it does appear to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, with some explicitly problematic features. I'm not sure that a full case per bradv is needed, and I'm sick to the back teeth of infoboxes - but I'm certainly willing to consider it. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I'll do my best to refresh myself with the situation and respond presently, but I will just note that one thing does stand out to me and that is 's "Ok, Boomer" comment. That was not Ok, especially for an admin who is dealing with a case as uninvolved, in an area that has a specific Arbcom case titled "Civility in [the area]". <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I simply haven't had the time for Wikipedia recently and so have let a few things slide. I just want to note publicly the unpopular opinion that I agree with RTV being offered to these editors. I can extol for a while about why RTV is such an important part of any online community, it is a fundamental right to be able to leave something that is not good for you. However, invoking "RTV" and then instantly returning as an IP address is not vanishing and only goes to erode people's confidence in such an important right. I would fully support undoing the vanishing in such cases.
 * I understand why this request has been filed, and I suppose that in principle it is possible to appeal from an AE closure that didn't sanction one or more editors. That being said, I can't recall any time when we've granted that type of appeal, and I'm not sure this is a sensible place to start. I followed the discussion on the collapsed Sinatra infobox, and one thing that seems to have collapsed there, hopefully temporarily, is the level of civility. However, the logical remedy if this appeal were to be granted would be to direct that the AE thread be reopened. With the temperature on Talk:Frank Sinatra having cooled, and several of the disputants having stepped away, I think that could be counterproductive. If problematic infobox-discussion-related behavior resumes, on that page or elsewhere, a new AE request can be filed and the past behavior can be considered in the context of any ongoing issues. I hope this will not be necessary&mdash;and I hope that this hope is not ... hopeless. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I note JzG's comment above, which I read to mean that he wouldn't object to someone imposing sanctions against one or more of the other editors who were being discussed before the AE thread was closed. But, if you felt authorized to do so, what sanctions would you seek to impose at this point and against whom? In considering this with respect to any specific editor, you might wish to consider, among other things, whether the editor promised to step away from the dispute several days ago, and whether the editor has kept that promise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear about one thing, the fact that an editor isn't sanctioned in one AE discussion doesn't mean that that behavior can't be taken into account as part of a pattern if there is a later discussion. Maybe that would be true if the discussion concluded "these editors are absolutely innocent," but that was hardly the conclusion anyone reached here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AE is intended as a place to request intervention from an uninvolved administrator. While consensus discussions certainly happen on that page, it is not a forum designed to settle disputes between administrators, and so it is appropriate that this matter has been brought here. With regards to the underlying dispute, I am considering whether to propose a new case to investigate the conduct which led to the AE request, the conduct at the AE thread, as well as this related ANI thread, or whether we can solve this with a couple of motions. Given the level of disagreement that exists between enforcing administrators on how best to handle this, I am leaning toward the former. – bradv  🍁  15:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second Joe's request that these two accounts be unvanished, as they have both been caught editing logged out after their disappearance. I'm also disappointed that their requests to vanish were granted unilaterally, given that they both have active ArbCom sanctions and were being discussed here. As for my ideas above about opening another case or set of motions, we can probably put them on hold at this time. – bradv  🍁  15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appear to have been mistaken about Cassianto. Technical evidence has revealed that Cassianto has not been caught editing logged out, and that the edits in question actually belong to a different logged-out editor. Please just reverse the vanish of SchroCat, not Cassianto. – bradv  🍁  01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad that it would be perhaps odd to grant an appeal on whether to overturn a lack of sanctions. I'm uncertain on whether we need a case. My first reading of the request and surrounding pages was that there was a lot of disagreement between enforcing admins and overall an atmosphere that could charitably be described as trainwreck. That said, should we open a case, it would be third (or fourth if counting review) on infoboxes since 2013, and I'm not sure if that would do much good. I have a few questions:
 * Both infoboxes cases (1,2) each recommended a community wide discussion on infoboxes. Did this happen? (I'm unable to find anything, but perhaps it's because I'm trying to search for something on the scale of WP:AHRFC.)
 * Are the current remedies effective and/or readily enforceable at AE? From the 2013 case, the restrictions, which were only individual editors, have been rescinded. From 2018, we generally have infobox probation and a DS regime.
 * If a case were to be opened, I'm not sure what alternatives we would have if "bespoke"-type sanctions are ineffective or difficult to enforce. While I can only speak for myself, the best alternative I can thinking of is a modified infobox probation but more as a topic ban from any infobox-related (no discussions, no adding/removing, only exception is to add an infobox when first creating an article), imposed on named parties to such a third case.  Maxim (talk)  19:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if this continues to be disruptive, and the community declines a discussion, that we reopen the case, and see if one of the other suggested remedies can get a majority. The panel of arbs is different, and I can imagine a few possible alternatives.  DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of an enforcement request that covers the behaviour of multiple parties, a "no action taken" result for one or more parties, where deliberate, should be explicitly mentioned in the closure rather than remaining silent on others mentioned. This is to make it clearer that the closer adequately reviewed the behaviour those parties and specifically chose not to take an action, while also signalling the closer felt sufficiently uninvolved to decide not to take a action against any given party. Alternatively, they may have not taken an action because they felt involved with respect to any given party (that should be particularly noted as well). The proposed handling changes to make it clearer when an enforcement request extends to look into the behaviour of other parties, or to allow an administrator to implement a partial action (severed from the discussion of other parties) look appropriate as well. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think those vanishing were a good idea. Apart from this ARCA, both SchroCat and Cassianto have active editing restrictions and a long history of blocks for disruption. I don't see how either can be considered "users in good standing". SchroCat's should definitely be reversed per WP:RTV, since they haven't actually left the project. But I would also suggest Cassianto's is too. These are accounts and talk pages that the community needs unobfuscated access to, even if they have ostensibly stopped editing, to monitor further disruption. It will be unnecessarily difficult to enforce your de facto ban otherwise. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind reversing both, yes I think we should, since Cassianto has also now returned to editing as an IP and invalidated the good faith assumption behind WP:RTV . I can also do it myself, but I've never done a vanishing before so might mess up some of the technicalities. As you prefer. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the apparent Cassianto IP-sock was someone else. I still think his RTV should be reversed, though, on the basis that he really wasn't eligible for it to begin with . –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that what we have here is a lack of consensus about Cassianto's vanishing. But I also don't think it's particularly an ArbCom matter, so maybe the best thing to do is to ask for outside opinions at WP:AN? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really opposed to the RTVs of either user; if this is what helps them disengage, particularly from conflict areas, then the vanishing does more good than harm. Ritchie333, if you do intend to reverse a vanishing, you need to override AntiSpoof, which you should be able to do as a global renamer. If you still intend to reverse either vanishing, let me know which one(s) and I can attempt it myself.  Maxim (talk)  12:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Civility in infobox discussions (October 2023)

 * Original discussion

Support:
 * 1) Has never been used. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Abstain:
 * 1) Leaving this as a valid editor restriction is appropriate to me. Izno (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Izno. I'd support this only incidentally to repealing the overall infoboxes CT designation (if that would be appropriate). Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Kevin, Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Per L235 and the feedback below. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Primefac (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a note I have expanded somewhat (by request) my thoughts on the matter, see this permalink. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions (Civility in infobox discussions)

 * I have to think on this, as infobox issues still seem to crop up. It might have died down enough to rescind, though, so I would like to see opinions on that matter. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that this has never been used feels really important. But I am waiting on this for community feedback. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this motion:
 * No longer explicitly listing infobox probation as one of the CT restrictions available; or
 * Explicitly removing infobox probation from the CT restrictions palette?
 * I think the distinction matters. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cabayi: Removing it from the set of tools we are giving admins. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank for clarifying. Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Community discussion (Civility in infobox discussions)

 * Infoboxes are still a disputed issue, in my opinion. I believe the overhanging threat of this restriction is valuable in preventing editors on both sides of the question from adding or removing infoboxes rapidly or thoughtlessly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Espresso Addict. I see several contentious infobox discussions per year where some participants are clearly holding themselves back because they know about this, and those are just the ones I happen across. It could get much worse if the guardrails are removed. --RL0919 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am involved having argued that it is not productive to harangue those who develop quality articles when there is no central mandate requiring infoboxes. I'm sure that the above comments are correct in that people are only restrained because they know about this restriction. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (I was pointed to this discussion on my talk, where I replied in more detail.) While I think that yes, infoboxes are still a disputed topic, I have not seen incivility in these discussions in years. See Laurence Olivier and Mozart, for examples. I ask those who claim "several contentious discussions per year", such as RL0919, to substantiate such claim by being more specific. I haven't seen a single one in the years 2019, 2020, 2021, for example, and the 2022 and 2023 discussions remained mostly civil, while lack of civility was the only concern of the arbcase in question. Where, Espresso Addict, have you seen an infobox being added or removed thoughtlessly? I don't think, Johnuniq, that people are restrained by knowing this admin tool, - I believe that most editors don't even know about it. I'd go further: I don't think that most users who came here after 2018 even know that an infobox dispute even existed. I asked last year's candidates if they thought that we still have infobox wars, and they said no. Most users adding infoboxes these days just miss what they normally see in an article, and many are quite astonished to learn about the back story. - If you ask me, I believe the community has spoken, both in number of comments as in quality of arguments, for Mozart, and we might just close a sad chapter of a past, saying that infoboxes are not a CT anymore. We can handle discussions by normal editing processes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There were two logged enforcement actions in 2019, one in 2020, one in 2021, and two in 2022. (Apparently there are two different headers used for logging these? Sometimes they are under "Civility in infobox discussions" and sometimes they are under "Infoboxes". Both headers link to the same case.) This topic does have a much lower volume of dispute than something like American politics or Israel-Palestine, but for the relatively narrow set of people who are passionate about it and articles where it produces conflict, the sanction is still helpful. In any case, five arbs have already stated positions against removing it, so further discussion here may be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about moot or not, because - as I remember from the first infoboxes case - arbitrators can change their minds. In 2023, we so far had six RfCs, Felix Mendelssohn (closed 11 Aug, RfC still on talk, as for most others), Richard Wagner (5 Aug), Colleen Ballinger (17 May), Rod Steiger (31 March), Mozart (30 March) and Jenny Lind (25 January), all in favour of an infobox, therefore I believe that the topic is no longer contentious in the sense of WP:CT, and at this point removal seems a disruption rather than adding one. Arbitration may take some more time to accept that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * would a clerk mind changing them to one heading (probably "Civility in infobox discussions")? Thanks! KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to Gerda's list ... Talk:Georges Feydeau and Talk:Georges Feydeau, which to my eyes seems to argue for keeping the remedies active. If that's what is civil while the remedies are in force, I think we still need the remedies. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that example. I had unwatched the article, and forgotten. Background: Feydeau was TFA on 26 September, and an editor who was new to me had added an infobox that I saw when I woke up. I watch every TFA during its time on the Main page, and so noticed that hours later, it was reverted, edit summary: "Let's just go back to the PR/FAC version - the talk page awaits if people disagree". I disagreed, and went to the talk page. After the next comment, I unwatched, and gave the article a navbox later that day (which I had missed first thing in the morning). I see now that arguments and edit-war developed. Imagine it had not been reverted, imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO Talk:Stanley Holloway and the following section Talk:Stanley Holloway also demonstrate that incivility in infobox discussions is not solely a thing of the past. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely think there is actionable behavior in the Feydeau conversation. In fact I started to action it before deciding I didn't have the time or energy to do so properly. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)