Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:12, 18 February 2018

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

I would be particularly interested to see evidence related to edit-warring over infoboxes, if that is happening. I've seen a couple diffs here and there that suggest it may be a regular part of these disputes, but evidence showing a pattern (or demonstrating that no pattern exists) would be very relevant to addressing behavior here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Feuds and quarrels

Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocking policy

Editors who violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be blocked for periods of time, which may increase in the event of repeat offenses. Blocks are intended to be preventive and not punitive. However, in extreme cases, it may be decided that particular editors should be left blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Repeated behaviour

Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Net negatives and containment of damage

A few editors, while intending to contribute positively to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, have a net negative effect, doing more harm than good, typically because of combativeness. In such cases, it may be necessary to consider whether the damage done by these editors can be contained by topic-bans or similar restrictions, or whether it is necessary to ban them from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I only think this is necessary if the committee breaks with precedent and attempts to establish some kind of policy regarding infoboxes. Even a site-ban of Cassianto wouldn't be draconian given the long-term history of this editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flight before judgment

If an editor takes deliberate action that renders them incapable of participating in an ArbCom case, that action may be held against them, and, in any case, their self-inflicted inability to present a defense is not a mitigating circumstance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Appreciate others disagree, but may as well (again) express a personal view: Failure to participate is neither a negative or mitigation. This is a volunteer encyclopaedia; we can't force anyone to take part in a discussion if they prefer not to. We shouldn't attach any significance to someone's absence from a case - the editor may be distracted by real life; they may be refusing to take part because they're too stressed, too angry or too uncaring, or maybe they merely have nothing useful to say. Good luck to them whatever their circumstances: it seems reasonable to respect their choice and let the evidence and their edit history speak for itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree with this finding, and note that the closing of this ANI was influenced by self-requested block by one of the parties in this case, and this ANI by the "retirement" of two of the parties in this case. Agree that the self-requested block currently in force for Cassianto is consistent with his previous self-block and "retirement" and that this should be taken into consideration and not result in evading of sanctions. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law, and trying to impose a penalty on a productive volunteer who spends his time, effort and money on improving the encyclopaedia seems to be sending entirely the wrong message. - SchroCat (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

This case is the most recent in a long series of disputes over whether articles should have infoboxes. The committee has attempted in the past to address these disputes, with little apparent success. The committee has previously noted that these disputes are sometimes resolved as they should be, by collaborative discussion and by civil dispute resolution processes, but that these processes have sometimes broken down, and have been demoralizing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I know this is what you mean, but for clarity the proposal might say the locus is editor conduct in arguing about infoboxes. The case isn't part of the long series of disputes over whether an article should actually have an infobox - that's a different long series of disputes within which Arbcom plays no useful role. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of infoboxes

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors by appropriate WikiProjects or at each individual article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cassianto

Cassianto has been blocked 16 times. While some of these blocks have been reversed, the pattern is that the ArbCom finds that Cassianto is a combative editor who engages in personal attacks. The fact that 2 of the blocks were self-requested indicates that this is an editor who, while recognizing that his temper is problematic, is still an editor whose temper is problematic.

Cassianto’s failure to provide a defense due to a self-requested block will not be seen as a mitigating circumstance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See comment above concerning previous self-requested block and "retirement" during ANI by that person and another party to this case. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

Consensus on infoboxes (1)

WikiProjects may establish a local consensus that a particular type of infobox is standard for articles in a particular subject area within the scope of the WikiProject. In such a case, an article that has no infobox or an infobox that is contrary to local consensus may be changed to be consistent with local consensus. Once a consensus has been established, a Request for Comments may be used either to change the local consensus or to make an exception to the local consensus. Editing against an established local consensus, other than the use of RFCs, shall be considered disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems like establishing policy by fiat, which ArbCom cannot do. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can nonetheless recommend it. Possibly as an exceptional measure to reduce what is otherwise going to continue indefinitely, we can request the community to hold a binding referendum. on whether the rules should be a/uniform on WP, uniform obn all bios c/each project decides / or article by article. Our role, after all, is to prevent continuing disruption. I don;t see any other way of accomplishing it. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hell no, per WP:WIKIPROJECT: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. (emphasis mine) Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no per Mr rnddude/ BU Rob13. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no per all three above, and a slap to the OP for making a proposal stupid enough to provoke me into commenting on this trainwreck case. WikiProjects—most of which consist of only one or two people and don't even include most of the editors active in their subject area—have no authority to write policy, nor should they ever; in the unlikely event that any form of this proposal is accepted I have no intention of following it, will unblock anyone (on either side) who's blocked for violating it until I'm hauled off to Arbcom for desysopping, and encourage any other admin to do the same. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this doesn't seem crazy, although Arbcom may not be the appropriate people to set this up. Some wikiprojects do serve as a fairly effective forum for the most active editors in an area; others certainly don't. The current situation, where some editors feel entitled to ignore anything but a consensus individually established for each article, and only accept that after a good deal of wikilawyering and irritable discussion, is not healthy. I notice this is a one-way rachet, as drafted: projects can establish a local consensus to have an infobox, but apparently not to not have one. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose something else, then, or just leave the consensus at leaving the status quo alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this is a good or bad idea (hint: it's terrible) it literally cannot work: WikiProject A says that all articles within its scope should have infoboxes, WikiProject B says no articles within its scope should have infoboxes, Article C is within the scope of both projects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be an RfC, not an ARBCOM decision. However, don't start an RfC yet, this won't get consensus as-written. The current proposal is unworkable as per Thryduulf. Large projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) would have to be excluded, there'd have to be some way of assessing "priority" so WP:CRIC doesn't mandate an infobox on Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. The governance system necessary to establish such a rule will not find consensus with the largely anarchistic WP:NOTBURO editing crowd. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not the purpose of a Wikiproject. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on infoboxes (2)

When there is no local consensus established by an appropriate WikiProject for a particular article, the status quo shall be preserved, and the addition or deletion of an infobox is deprecated. The use of a Request for Comments is strongly encouraged as the means to resolve a content dispute over an infobox. Disruptive editing due to conflicts over whether to include an infobox shall be addressed with sanctions by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If the first principle on consensus on infoboxes is defeated, then this becomes standard for everything, and the addition or deletion of infoboxes is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on infoboxes (1a)

The status quo on the presence or absence of an infobox in an article shall be considered to be the consensus after the article is stable. The addition or deletion of an infobox is deprecated. The use of a Request for Comments as the means to resolve any content dispute over the presence or absence of an infobox is strongly encouraged. Disruptive editing due to conflicts over whether to include an infobox shall be addressed with sanctions by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary Sanctions

Standard discretionary sanctions shall apply to discussions about the addition or removal of an infobox and to edits adding or removing an infobox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems sensible. I think this is well within scope, even though we are not considering the content issue of infoboxes. This would directly target problematic behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As background, this ARCA from 2016 is worth skimming; that was the most recent (IIRC) serious consideration of DS for infoboxes or discussions about them. I had a couple of concerns, or at least unfinished trains of thought on the subject: 1) That's a pretty broad scope, and most discussions within that scope are really not components of "the infobox dispute" as played out in this case. 2) It's not really clear what a "good" discussion about an infobox should look like, because the partisans have deployed all of their arguments over and over again at this point, and I'm still unclear on the answers to the questions I posed in that ARCA about what regular participants in these conversations would consider convincing evidence that would lead them to change their mind on whether an infobox should or shouldn't be used on a particular article. 3) I'm concerned that displacing these arguments to AE would just result in ongoing efforts to pick off individual participants in these discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems sensible to me also. To address Opabinia regalis's very good points, 1) What do you think if we narrow the scope to discussion about infobox in general in "discussions about the addition or removal of an infobox and to edits adding or removing an infobox"? 2) I think there are enough examples to suggest that "good" discussion about an infobox is when the discussion is focused specifically on the discussed article; rather than the merits/non-merits of infobox in general 3) At the moment, I agree. But if it turns out there is consensus to impose some kind of restrictions over particularly problematic editors in this area, I am hoping that these participants would not appear at AE very often; if they do, then regretfully I suppose there is nothing else to be done. Alex Shih (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If we need this, we need this.

This doesn't apply to content disputes over the content of the infobox (unless the article is about a war zone such as the Balkans or American politics).

Bad idea as long as there are admins like User:Coffee who as I have already quoted on the evidence page, does not enforce the policy that infobox use " is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" but actually stated in an infobox discussion that In 2017, I honestly can't believe this is even still debatable[1]. No, an admin should not given the power to enforce "You are blocked for debating infobox use when There simply does not appear to be good cause to keep infoboxes off of Wikipedia articles, anymore than the Table of Contents" (same diff).Smeat75 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The committee should at least vote on DS for this case. Not sure what the scope should be or if it necessarily should pass, but I think there is enough discussion about creating them on the case request page to address the question in a proposed decision. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

Cassianto is banned from the English Wikipedia for at least six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:power~enwiki

Proposed findings of fact

Repetitive discussions

1) The current consensus regarding infoboxes relies on the good-faith of all editors to avoid starting unnecessary and repetitive infobox discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lack of consensus

2) Discussions regarding the inclusion of infoboxes often end without any clear consensus. This is particularly prominent on biographies of people whose primary notability is related to entertainment or the arts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cassianto topic-banned

1) Cassianto is indefinitely topic-banned from discussing infoboxes. This includes a prohibition on adding or removing infoboxes from any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this is absolutely necessary if the committee does not feel that his immense block record, absence of participation in this case and recidivism warrant an indefinite block. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although the behavior by Cassianto is in my opinion so blatant as to warrant a ban rather than a restriction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on infobox RfCs

2) Only users who are extended-confirmed or are a primary contributor to an article may start an RfC on the inclusion or removal of an infobox in an article. Any editor in good standing may speedily close a discussion created in violation of this guideline. When sock-puppetry is reasonably suspected in an infobox discussion, the RfC should occur on a sub-page of the talk page, and extended-confirmed-protection should be applied for the duration of the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Can you show examples where a new editor or IP started an infobox RfC? The only example in your evidence is Cary Grant, which was exceptional in that it was plastered all over AN for a good period of time. New editors (unsurprisingly) don't start RfCs on infoboxes- it's normally a good faith "hey, why doesn't this article have an infobox". Jayron32 wrote a great mini-essay on why they are entitled to that's worth a read. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on infobox discussions

3) When a discussion on whether to include an infobox in an article has no consensus, discussion closers are instructed to give additional weight to the opinions of the editors who have made the most significant contributions to that article. If there is still no consensus, the default should be to include an infobox on the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may be more reasonably an RfC than an ARBCOM decision. The fundamental problem is that when the usual suspects are involved in a discussion, there will never be a consensus. I feel that a process that expects and encourages a lack of consensus is anathema to the principles of Wikipedia. This gives some guidelines that make it more likely that some consensus will be obtained, rather than relying on a largely-arbitrary status quo. The Page History tool can aid closers in determining who the most active contributors are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have a "default" of inclusion, any more than a default of exclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The motivation is that (I have not presented evidence for this though if necessary I feel I can) a majority of articles of this type include infoboxes, and, with a lack of consensus, the argument from consistency should prevail. power~enwiki (π, ν)

Proposals by User:Jcc

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civility, a pillar of Wikipedia and a binding policy applies to all editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, I mean, the last time I checked it didn't have "you don't have to follow this if you write an FA or two" on it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

2) Long standing infoboxes should not be removed without consensus to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Applicable policies and essays: WP:STATUSQUO, WP:SILENCE, the last ArbCom case, but really, it's more that the community at large seems to think the removal of long standing infoboxes is the bold edit in the BRD cycle- as seen in the diffs in the evidence I provided. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITCONSENSUS is also applicable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A long-standing absence of an IB should also require a consensus to add, under the same logic. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground behaviour

3) Replying to every single opposing comment in a discussion, or waging an ideological battle is inappropriate, presents a bad image and drives away helpful contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See the Stanley Kubrick RfC, which is linked to in my evidence, as an example of Cassianto badgering every single opposing editor, going to ANI three times and going into (temporary) retirement as the prime example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if there is only one comment? Or just two or three? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Jesus, I didn't sign up for this. I'm not a wiki-lawyer, that's not where my specialisms lie. If you want someone who can work out ways to weasel out of an i-ban on a technicality, debate over the meaning of a legal threat or work out if someone's been adequately warned or not before a general sanctions ban, that's not me. What I'm trying to get here is the general idea- there's no way in a million years this is suitably "ArbCom style" worded, like Robert McClenon's suggestions above are- but the spirit behind this is clearly that "incivility/bludgeoning discussions is a bad thing". jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going round in circles

4) Sanctions may have to be imposed on editors who simply don't abide by policies time and time again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm trying to refer to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here, and Cassianto's extensive block log. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Cassianto

1) Cassianto has degraded the quality of discussions about infoboxes, systematically removed longstanding infoboxes from articles and editwarred to keep his changes in place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Main evidence: his block log and the 19 ANI discussions. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New editors

2) It should not be considered surprising that new editors question why no infobox exists on a certain article, given the proliferation of them around Wikipedia. They should be treated with respect, and be told of the existing consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

...and definitely not get "YOU'RE A SOCK" screamed at them. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found where I got the idea of this from- and it's worth a read. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cassianto restricted

1) Cassianto is restricted from making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He is also restricted from removing infoboxes from articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gerda has said that a similar restriction, but in the opposite vein, has worked well for her. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the evidence that you have provided points more to a topic ban from infoboxes entirely or an indefinite block. Coretheapple (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: I'm not sure what more a topic ban would do, but yeah, I'd support one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think something more draconian is necessary, and I submit that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. The block log speaks for itself, as does this case, as does his non-participation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto is subject to a civility restriction

2) Cassianto is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. (taken from the TRM case)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see evidence that Cassianto has engaged in the activities that would be prohibited here, and so I don't see much value in this specific prohibition. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: Those sound like straight-up personal attacks, not reflections on general competence. I won't comment on what led to the TRM prohibition, as I'd rather not get into a TRM-related squabble here, but the behavior was very different than blatant personal attacks. I'm not saying no remedy is needed, by any means, but I don't know that this remedy is needed. I think there are better ways to address that behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: “Not a good wikilawyer” is almost certainly a good thing. I agree with your sentiment, surely, and value your input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rob here. No one should have to be a good wikilawyer. Your input is valued and appreciated, and you can always reword your proposal to address the issue. :-) Katie^talk 01:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per the TRM case. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the evidence that you presented, combined with his immense block record, speaks to an indefinite block of this editor, not a civility restriction and the other steps you suggest. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Over at the evidence page, I've listed diffs of Cassianto calling someone "an insufferable little prick", "the Fuhrer" of infoboxes and questioned whether someone else was "drunk or on drugs". If that doesn't qualifies as questioning a fellow editor's "general competence", then I don't know what does. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the points. I think it was a mistake posting here. As I just wrote above, I'm not a wiki-lawyer, that's not where my specialisms lie, and I'll go insane if I continue to debate over wording here. The spirit of this (more important than my definitely not legalese wording) is "Cassianto should be stopped from making personal attacks". I took the wording from TRM because I felt it applied here too, but if there are consequential differences that I haven't noticed, well I guess that's why you're the Arb and I'm not ;) jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of disputes

3) Adminstrators are encouraged to fully protect articles where an infobox dispute is taking place, to prevent an edit war. The importance of locking to the right version is considered particularly important to understand what a "no consensus" result should default to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a bit ironic; the whole point of the page you link is to explain administrators should not take a side in content disputes by selecting a "right" version and poke fun at those who insist they've got the "wrong" version. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as always, is determining the right version. Editors have argued all sorts of things about what version is the "right version" for infoboxes, including that not having an infobox is always the right version, barring a discussion that concludes otherwise. If we were to emphasize a correct version, we'd have to say what that version is, and I'd be against the Committee taking any such stand on content matters. That's a job for the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This already happens, but not frequently enough- and the wrong version can also be protected, meaning that a scenario can occur where someone removes an infobox from an article that has had one for 10+ years, an admin locks to the wrong version, the discussion results in no consensus, and the article ends up with no infobox. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any kind of protection will cause the article to "end up" in any particular way, unless you assume the admin will fullprotect it indefinitely (they won't). A suggestion to protect to the right version is unlikely to ever get any traction — the whole protection policy would have to be reconsidered first. And, from the way you piped your link, you seem to be aware that the the right version ultimately redirects to m:The Wrong Version, which is, ahem, a joke. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that was intentional. I disagree though with your first sentence- over at the evidence page, I've outlined why the right or wrong version does play a part in deciding how no consensus discussions are enacted. Cassianto certainly seems to put a lot of emphasis on it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No--What Bish said.That would need a change in protection policy and is just unworkable.IMO, it shall be the responsibility of the closer of the discussion to gauge the long-standing-version,in case of a NC.At worst, we will have the wrong-version for around 30 days and it won't damn affect anything.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for the unnecessarily strong tone of your comment, and by the way, if you're going to be insulting, "it won't change a damn thing" is the expression you're looking for. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I've removed the piped link, yes it was intentional- to point out that whilst I know this would go against the humorous essay, I thought (and still think) that it is important. As I've pointed out, Cassianto thinks so too, so perhaps we agree here. I've removed the link since it seems to cause too much confusion. If no one else agrees with me, then that's fine. I'm not an arb, and this is a workshop, not the final decision.jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 222: / Line 222: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 ::Agree with this finding, and note that the closing of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Incivility_and_abuse_by_Cassianto this ANI] was influenced by self-requested block by one of the parties in this case, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive934#User:Cassianto_Violating_Civility_Policy this ANI] by the "retirement" of two of the parties in this case. Agree  that the self-requested block currently in force for Cassianto is consistent with his previous self-block and "retirement" and that this should be taken into consideration and not result in evading of sanctions. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 13:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
+::This isn't a court of law, and trying to impose a penalty on a productive volunteer who spends his time, effort and money on improving the encyclopaedia seems to be sending entirely the wrong message. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 ===Findings of fact===