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

Comments by Katie
As a reminder to all, and in answer to questions on the /Evidence page, the scope of this case is about conduct, not about infoboxes themselves. We're interested in diffs about the conduct of the users in disputes about infoboxes. Please read the scope of the case and provide diffs accordingly. Thanks. Katietalk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jcc
I'm pretty sure I'm over the word limit, and I've only looked at one of the parties. The instructions aren't all that clear as to how to go about getting an extension, so apologies if this isn't the right place to do so. Alternatively if you want me to leave it- that's fine too. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This should suffice as a starter. A guestimate on how many words your likely to need would be appreciated though. Amortias (T)(C) 15:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me get back to you on that, but briefly looking, I can't imagine it'd be that much more. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can give you an extension here if you can show a good reason, or you can contact one of us privately if you prefer. Your evidence so far seems thorough so I'd be inclined to grant one, though I'd remind you that it's important to be as concise as possible. Katietalk 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by GoodDay
Howdy, it would look more consistent & better fitting, if you would sign your Evidence posts :) GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat

 * 1,480 words from Mcandlish; he's not listed as a party, isn't the limit just 500? - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is and notification will be made shortly.Amortias (T)(C) 00:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Mcandlish: given your "evidence" at request phase was deeply misleading (per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence), and most of your current comments are either equally misleading or too historic to be reflective of current behaviour at IB discussions, don't you think it's time you dropped the stick? You may well have acquired some historical information through 'closely observing' me, but dropping it onto the evidence page (three times over the limit when you're not a party) just seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time. I'm still waiting for any evidence of wrong doing over the last year (or since October 2016, when ArbCom last turned down a request for an IB case). - SchroCat (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also looking through your (mcandlish) Request page statement, and I don't see your request to be considered a party. I must have missed it when I skimmed through: can you point out where it was? - SchroCat (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Still 658 words over a 500-word limit. Mcandlish isn't a party, and I can't find a diff for him requesting to be a party - I must have missed it somewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

More untruthful evidence
Can I ask the clerks or arbs what I can do when I see a straightforward lie in someone's evidence against me? I've already outlined a significant amount of untruthful nonsense, but it's getting more ridiculous now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SMcCandlish
Requesting extended comment limit. As I said on the Request page, I consider myself to be a party. Given that I sought to have SchroCat added as a party, and the primary source evidence about his behavior, I don't think it's procedurally possible for me to to not be party. Leaving me off the party list appears to be an oversight. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're discussing this now., for now, don't worry about reducing all the way down to 500 words, but whether or not we add you as a party, there are probably some things that can be cut out. In particular, infoboxes themselves are out of scope of this case, so commentary on a way forward for infobox disputes (while good comments for solving the content dispute) is probably unnecessary for this particular case. Feel free to move that to the talk page if you think it should be preserved but are willing to cut it out of Evidence. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It shall be so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not really about infoboxes
The behavior issues are not limited to that topic. ArbCom can't resolve the underlying infobox issue anyway; the community doesn't have a uniform view about them. There are a few narrow exceptions (e.g. a solid consensus to have a on every species article), not because WP:TOL or any other wikiproject says so (and the most frequent nexus of infobox dispute – FA – is a wikiproject within the meaning of WP:CONLEVEL), but simply because of a lack of controversy about those particular cases. Where non-trivial controversy remains, there's not a consensus, by definition. It unfortunately really does come down to a "Does an infobox help on this particular article?" analysis.

What the community probably do, with effort, is develop criteria to answer that question. We're good at that sort of thing (cf. WP:CRITERIA, WP:N, WP:CSD, WP:NOT, WP:AADD, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Moved by me, per suggestion above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence phase closure
Just wanted to let anyone interested know that the evidence phase will close at roughly 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC). Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by In Memoriam A.H.H.
Cassianto was uncivil in my pursuit for an infobox in the Mary Shelley. He said on my talk page that the writer can articles and that infoboxes bastardize articles.

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