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

Comments by Andy Mabbett

 * Please will a clerk remove . John doesn't speak for me; and nor does he present any evidence for the allegations he makes about me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt
Opabinia regalis once asked me to supply cat images to arb cases. Half that way, on Valentine's Day and Ash Wednesday, I come with a flower. I have watched infobox discussions from 2012, so don't know much about the background. Why can these harmless little pieces of information create so much heat?? I believe - spring cleanup - that the topic could be cured completely by applying lots of "assume good faith". An editor asking "where did the infobox go?" may of course be part of a brigade sent out to disturb the peace of our valuable content creators, but it could also just be the person who installed it years ago and wonders what happened. Try AGF. If it doesn't work, try 1RR and 2 comments max per discussion and editor. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone. - Thanks to Casliber who wrote Lenten rose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Example Cary Grant
An arb asked for evidence of edit-warring. I looked up just one article. No edit-warring, - if you have enough friends, you don't have to war. The following is an incomplete list of the ups and downs of the infobox for Cary Grant, which was stable from 2006 to 2016, and then removed per a Good article review.

See yourself. Just imagine how much debate could have been avoided if the little box could simply have stayed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No evidence
After some confusion about what evidence means: there is no evidence for some things alleged again and again:
 * I don't see any evidence for "infobox war" in 2017 and 2018, - and perhaps the arbs do well to focus on those years, not on the unhappy earlier years.
 * Looking at the users (see table above) who tried to add/restore the infobox, I don't see evidence for anything organized. AGF. They missed an infobox and added one. Several edit summaries of reverting them even say "Revert GF edit". There's no evidence of incivility in the edit summaries.
 * There's no evidence of adding an infobox happening as often as sometimes claimed. I count to 15 in two years in this article, - that seems not unusual for an article of high interest. I haven't checked how many users who were reverted actually went to the talk. It should be easy to find out, in case of interest. The discussions there, to which many edit summaries refer, are neatly archived. I leave for others to decide if any of them showed a consensus. I can't see it.
 * There is no evidence of any of these users "forcing" the infobox (whatever that may mean). The one who tried more often than twice met three reverters, always within minutes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I keep dreaming of a new discussion style
We start today. That's what I wrote in 2013, continued "I keep dreaming of a new discussion style in the future, instead of looking back at who made what mistake in the past." - What can we do to make the dream come true? A better discussion style should be something that could really be achieved. Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just gave myself a right giggle thinking about an ArbCom case regarding the discussion style in ArbCom cases. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The table in the 2013 case
Reading the former case again (see above) I saw that what was compiled then as evidence, a table of articles where infoboxes were reverted, is now a red link. I don't know how to proceed, - if perhaps a clerk can change the links in the old case to the archived version, which is of course a later version, of December 2014? We should probably not rely on the arbs finding that. - The project talk page was regarded as an attack page in 2016 and deleted, and I really had no time to fight that nonsense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify what you're asking? You'd like a clerk to update the old case to link to the archived version of a page? I'm not seeing any redlinks right now; am I missing something? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see several red links:
 * Comments from Gerda (a little up from We start today)
 * "50 other cases" = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (17 August)
 * "here" = Wikipedia talk:QAI/Infobox = redirect to the same (19 August)
 * "reverts of infoboxes" = Wikipedia talk:QAI/Infobox = redirect to the same (23 August)
 * Closing statement by Ched (further down)
 * User:Ched/RfC - Infobox, deleted by Ched
 * Assume clue, deleted in 2015 after discussion
 * several times persondata


 * More links to the first are listed here. I have no idea what to do, still unfamiliar with arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth
Briefly, I was looking at Pilot Officer Geoffrey Lloyd Wells Memorial Seat and thinking that the radio button options to show the maps at the bottom of the infobox (A or B or A+B) would be a really good way to give readers the option to hide or show bits of an infobox. It wouldn't solve all the problems, and I know collapsible infoboxes have been discussed before, but this is the best implementation of hiding and showing different parts of an infobox that I have seen. Slight problem, in that I can't work out how this is done. I presume some magic involving some template magic, but I can't track down what template is actually driving that option. I am sure someone here knows. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Reminder of the discussion history: 1, 2. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

On Cassianto "quitting"
On the question of Cassianto's habit of "quitting Wikipedia" when under scrutiny, only to return after the scrutiny has dissipated, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939, who nevertheless received a site-ban after "retiring" yet again in the same pattern. I.e, there is already a community consensus that this WP:SANCTIONGAMING ploy will not be taken seriously. The cases are remarkably similar on several levels, other than Cassianto doesn't show several of Elvey's WP:CIR issues (e.g. Cassianto understands what WP:CIVIL actually says and just chooses not to comply, while Elvey clearly just did not understand it at all). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On new accusations by SchroCat
SchroCat wrote:

I challenge SchroCat to prove his "stalking" accusation (and the "blatant lying" one on the Evidence talk page). ArbCom actually requires him to do so when he makes accusations like that in this venue. Just another example of SchroCat's "civility rules don't apply to me" behavior (and he does not appear to understand what they actually are ). It's the same "Stalking and lies! But I don't have any evidence ..." pattern being repeated here and now in ArbCom. So, this has been going on for years, in virtually identical terms. It's not a one-off, it's not a momentary loss of cool, it's a, maybe even a cultivated technique.
 * Incidentally, SchroCat has been making unsupported claims (in every venue that seems to come to mind) that I'm "stalking" and "harassing" him, since 26 June 2016 (see also "Going out of your way to spread your disruptive poison?"),,  (also includes another of his threats to take people to ANI for nothing ANI would actually take seriously). All because I disagreed with him about quote boxes and argued with his buddy.
 * SchroCat very quickly escalated into calling me a "bloody MoS nutter", "twattish", "obnoxious", etc. because I didn't agree with him that whoever wrote most of an article can ignore whatever guidelines they don't like.  I left him the standard  after he started being uncivil (again) in MoS-related discussions, and of course Mr. ANI Threats howled that a Ds/alert was a "threat". Cassianto predictably joined in; I don't think there's a single case of either of them posting to my talk page that is not followed immediately by the other doing so. It's like they're the same person, except they're clearly not socking.
 * Next, I was accused of "addressing everyone like we're worthless pieces of shit" and "personaliz[ing] the debate against [SchroCat] to a degree that is ... contentious and disruptive", etc., all in response to a calm and matter-of-fact post of mine that did none of these things.
 * This spate o' hate also included mischaracterizing my not agreeing with him as "a lie" and being "unable to comment on this matter honestly".
 * This was all after our first interaction that I know of

If there were an i-ban, it should be one-way. I had no history of involvement (that I recall) with SchroCat until he intervened on Cassianto's behalf on 25 June 2016 and started all this mudslinging, just because I said that decorative quotation boxes in an FAC should be replaced with per MOS:BQ and I dared to ask Cassianto to stop making uncivil comments on my talk page. The whole thing seems silly to me – but it's not trivial. If everyone were subjected to this kind of abuse for opining in open discussion that guidelines and policies should be followed, WP would rapidly collapse. Afterward, the two of them have antagonized me repeatedly, as I've diffed already (though without focusing on them-vs.- incidents; the overall pattern of hounding other editors as a tagteam, usually but not always over infoboxes and almost always over FAs or FACs, is what brings me here and why I asked to make SchroCat a party along with Cassianto.

Given that I've studiously avoided any encounter of any kind with both editors, since September 2016 at WT:FAC until this stuff opened in January 2018, there's obviously no "stalking" on my part. I've essentially i-banned myself from both of them unless forced into dealing with them by their own actions. Speaking of which, no editor should feel essentially harangued and harried into avoiding all FA and FAC articles, and WP:FA itself and its other associated projectpages, by the incivility and doggedness of a tagteam, yet this has been the effect of their behavior on me. I can't even remember the last time I touched an FA, unless it was completely perfunctory like updating links to a moved article. I've also given up the idea of taking any of my handful of GAs, like William A. Spinks, to FAC. Not because FA is hard, but because SchroCat and Cassianto are there and clearly bear a lasting grudge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some additional stuff
Here's another tag-teaming example I ran across while diffing the above, and had forgotten about: SchroCat attempted to censor a post of mine he didn't like off of the Talk:Cary Grant page ; I restored it with a WP:TPO reminder, so Cassianto deleted it again for him (uncivilly, as usual). Par for the course with these two.

I'm not alone in receiving verbal abuse from SchroCat, as I've shown with some diffs already. Here's another of numerous examples I didn't use earlier:. It's grossly uncivil, not because it uses bad words or calls someone a name, but because it denigrates their right to have any input at all. I've seen more recent examples; this is just one I stumbled onto randomly. This OWN/VESTED tendency – a view that if you were not among the main authors of an article you have no editorial say over its future – is a common thread in Cassianto and SchroCat's approach, and closely tied to this entire festival of drama; it's their go-to argument for why so-and-so can't add an infobox to thus-and-such page.

The only reason I can think of that Cassianto and SchroCat exhibit this sort of behavior (all of it, not just the last bit), and that similar but lower-key hostility is common among the FA crowd, is that FAC is a stressy process and so is keeping FAs in FA condition. Numerous first-time FA hopefuls are resistant to various by-now-routine cleanup the FAC people want to do, and numerous new-ish editors want to make what they believe are improvements at FAs they encounter. Resultantly, the FA regulars have become tired of re-re-re-explaining and get very testy with people. If I'm right, it's essentially the same problem as lashing out against people who ask "why does this article have/not have an infobox?". I can even empathize with this as a WT:MOS regular, where we get the same questions and complaints over and over and over. I understand why it's annoying, but there's no excuse for treating people like garbage because you've heard it all before, and it's way beyond the pale to tagteam your hostility against them. (It's okay to point out that something's perennial rehash, but you still need to give them the answers and not be a WP:JERK about it.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Reminder
I have removed a section of threaded discussion. Participants here are reminded that comments should be made in your own sections (per the big notice at the top of the page). GoldenRing (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This comment by one of the parties should be moved to the appropriate section for involved persons., by a clerk I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just noticed I finally got added as a party; do I need to refactor all my Workshop stuff into the party blocks, or should I just leave them as-is in the "Comments by others" segments?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. You were only added as a party quite late in the process and I think everyone understands you weren't a party when making those comments.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hokay-dokay. It would be a bit tedious to refactor. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * doing tedious jobs like that is why we have clerks and why they get paid large amounts of money ;) Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Plus there's all the autograph seekers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The threaded discussion in the section reminding people not to do threaded discussions is a bit too ironic for my tastes. Please reply to others in your own sections. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Billhpike
Arbcom may want to consider an approach similar to what was used in WP:ARBMAC2. As part of the decision in that case, Arbcom initiated a central discussion on how Wikipedia should approach the Macedonia naming dispute. Arbcom appointed three uninvolved admins to oversee the discussion and assess the consensus, which was then documented as policy in Naming conventions (Macedonia). BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by BU Rob13
Hi all. The proposed decision date has been pushed back to March 7. The Arbitration Committee takes the community's concerns regarding delays in cases seriously, but in this case, the delay is mostly due to one of the drafting arbitrators experiencing health issues. As I'm sure you understand, health has to come first. We've generally gotten things done more quickly so far this term, and we look forward to continuing that going forward. If we can deliver the proposed decision earlier, we will. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)