Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 26 January 2018

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Joefromrandb		22 January 2018	14/0/0
Civility issues		24 January 2018	7/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Joefromrandb

Initiated by - Mr X 🖋 at 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MrX

I respectfully request that the Arbitration Committee examine evidence that Joefromrandb has exhibited an ongoing pattern of overtly-hostile editing characterized by repeated personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. There is compelling evidence that Joefromrandb views editors who disagree with his edits as enemies, and that he treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. His interaction with other editors are largely in opposition to the principle of the fourth pillar.

Joefromrandb's conduct was first brought to the committee's attention when a request for arbitration filed on October 20, 2017 by TomStar81. On November 8, 2017, the committee decline to intercede by seven to three, with two members recusing.

The day after the RFAR was declined, Joefromrandb resumed edit warring at talk:Kim Davis [2][3][4][5]. This was followed by bellicose talk page comments [6][7][8] in the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Two months later, he reverted an edit restoring the removal of a large amount of content. His response to my request to discuss the matter on the talk page was to delete my request with the edit summary "No-troll zone" it was only after admins El C and Floquenbeam intervened that Joefromrandb nominally joined the talk page discussion. There, he continued making personal attacks [9][10], including one directed at an admin.[11]

After the matter was brought to ANI, he continued to maintain that Prhartcom and I put lies in the article.[12][13][14] When asked to provide evidence to substantiate his accusation, by two admins and another editor, he said that he should be able to the next morning.[15] That was more than three days ago.

There has been at least one other recent incident involving edit warring in which he exhibited hostility toward another editor.

Evidence will show that this editor is unable or unwilling to follow our WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:EDITING policies, even after numerous warnings and blocks. It will also show that, in many case, if his edits are reverted, he becomes belligerent and uncooperative.

With the hope of preempting objections about swear words or subjective civility standards, this comment from the last request for arbitration sums it up nicely:

"No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase "fuck off" is inherently upsetting."
— Euryalus

Thank you for your consideration.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Kim Davis is a county clerk. If I recall, there was discussion at some point about whether the article fit into the realm of post-1932 American politics and the general feeling was that it does not. Joefromrandb's recent behavior also extends into diverse areas like Bernie Leadon, Mum (disambiguation), David Duke, WP:AFD, WP:MOS, The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi, and Australian rules football. Most of these are documented in the 'other steps in dispute resolution' section above, or on his own talk page.- Mr X 🖋 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joefromrandb

Statement by Floq

I was pinged in MrX's statement, but don't have much to say except:

I like and respect both MrX and Joe
It really depresses me that it's come to this
I agree things shouldn't keep going the way they are, but I'm at a loss for any further productive non-drastic suggestions
Sigh.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

What Floq says. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddst1

I said this in the last RFAR for this editor and it still applies: At this point, I feel Joefromrandb's chronic and epic incivility and battleground behavior is a strong net-negative on the project. It's not about profanity. The problem doesn't seem to be solvable other than through this channel. Toddst1 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Because AN/I does not seem to be able to resolve this issue, I think there's no choice except for the Committee to take up this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Three months ago User:TomStar81 first closed a thread at WP:ANI involving User:Joefromrandb and then posted a Request for Arbitration. I think that Tomstar81’s action was misunderstood. It was thought that he had first closed the thread and so resolved the matter, and then that he changed his mind. What I saw was that he had closed the thread as not resolvable by the community, and so a matter for ArbCom. It was also my understanding that Tom was not so much asking the ArbCom to sanction Joe as to give long serious quasi-judicial consideration to what to do not only about Joe but about editors who taunt and provoke Joe.

I noted that Joe had come to the attention of a community procedure four years ago, a Request for Comment on a User, a procedure that is no longer used, but was closed inconclusively with a reminder to all (not just to Joe) that Wikipedia is not a battleground. In response to the recent filing, User: Opabinia regalis, with the best of intentions, asked Joe whether he was willing to make one last effort to change his behavior and try editing collaboratively. The ArbCom then declined the case. Joe has not materially changed his behavior (and it may have been naively optimistic of the ArbCom to think that he would). It was clear that the ArbCom really really really didn’t want to take on a case that would have no winners and would leave no one really satisfied. However, there is a problem, that isn’t just Joe. Joe is one of a set of highly productive but combative users who have enemies and who are easily provoked (like poking a bear). I proposed that the ArbCom try to craft some sort of remedy for editors like Joe, but perhaps the ArbCom didn’t understand that I was asking them for a solution to a larger problem than Joe, or perhaps the ArbCom didn’t want to solve problems.

Once again, I ask the ArbCom to accept this case, not just to sanction this editor, but to see if it is possible to craft a remedy for controversial editors, just as ArbCom has crafted a very effective remedy, discretionary sanctions, for controversial topics.

The community, which is seldom able to deal with divisive cases, just crafted an experimental remedy for contentious editors in the case of Darkness Shines and C.W. Gilmore, in which each editor leaves a Kelvin wake behind them that the other editor cannot trespass in. This illustrates that occasionally interesting remedies are available to reduce conflict in Wikipedia.

I ask the ArbCom to accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Thought

Regardless of whether some sort of expedited enforcement, such as discretionary sanctions, is appropriate for editors who are frequently provoked, ArbCom needs to recognize and address the problem of editors who are frequently and easily provoked. Both of the cases that ArbCom is in the process of accepting involve such editors, and something needs to be done about the toxicity resulting from those interactions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prhartcom

It is an honor to speak before this board. Joefromrandb first ventured onto the article this past summer. Their edits found errors and it was good that the article continued to improve. But with this user, the process was so painful. Their behavior was constantly rude and uncivil. I tried to plead to this user, but only insults and accusations were spit back. Lately, this person has offered this article only disruptive editing, shamlessly fanning flames of malcontent. From my observation, the cumulative edits this person has made are of not much substantive improvement to the article. Further, I recently challenged this person to actually edit the article to achieve what they were was so vehemently arguing about, and they pathetically refused. You see what I am saying: It doesn't matter if we permanently block this user: We are never going to see any real effort of work from this person. Like many others that I have seen come and go here, this person is mostly only able to argue and push the revert button. This person is not an editor. —Prhart com♥ 06:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328

In the recent discussion at ANI, Baseball Bugs asked for a list of the "lies", and I agreed, adding that an accusation that another editor "lied" needed to be accompanied by diffs, or that the accusation should be withdrawn. Joe committed to providing the evidence promptly but has not followed through although several days have passed. It is common that editors will disagree as to how a source should be summarized, and good faith disagreements of this type should not be characterized as "lies" in the lack of very solid evidence. Since behavior of this type is an ongoing problem with this editor, I support acceptance of this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

@OR&GR:--Joe has never been alerted about the USPOL DS either, per the edit-filter-logs.Winged Blades^Godric 12:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I comment only to address the issue of case scope, mostly in response to Robert McClenon's statement above, in which he asks the Committee to consider establishing a discretionary sanctions regime for "controversial editors". Should the Committee accept this case, I believe the case scope should be kept very narrow so as to preclude any such discretionary sanctions.

I say so not merely because of any number of standard objections there should be against the Committee encroaching upon matters nominally handled by the community at large, but also because I believe this would be a genuinely bad idea. One of the areas where the Committee has traditionally acted, and acted quite decently, from the very beginning is in holding full-dress cases to handle controversial, problematic editors that the community more generally could not handle. This is the Committee's wheelhouse, but there are longstanding checks in place to keep the Committee from becoming the general behavioral police on Wikipedia. The case request process, for instance, is precisely to ensure only the most serious problems are brought here, and that with lesser problems, the community needs to handle through community processes.

A general discretionary sanctions regime on "controversial editors"—however we define this—would also not do much substantively. At present, admins have broad discretionary powers to issue blocks for disruptive misconduct, which includes incivility and related problems. Moreover, AN/ANI can enact community sanctions, and though it often has difficulty doing so, that difficulty is in many ways a feature, protecting one of our core principles, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the most horrifying things I have seen in recent years has been calls to community ban people for being "time wasters". Fortunately, for the most part, the difficulty of establishing a consensus at AN/ANI usually stops such discussions from resulting in a ban.

What a discretionary sanctions regime would do is shift a large number of complex behavioral cases to AE, where the consensus required for sanctions is different. It would also allow appeals through ARCA, which sidesteps the entire case request process, as well as the traditional Committee case proceeding. I find this very troubling, and I don't think it's within the Committee's power to do. Even if it is, I believe it is a very bad idea. As such, should the Committee take up this case, it should explicitly foreclose any possibility of a general conduct discretionary sanctions regime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Begoon

Notwithstanding Mendaliv's reasoned argument above, I would hate for the committee to lose sight of the most salient point made by RMC, which is that they should consider "what to do not only about Joe but about editors who taunt and provoke Joe", and, in my humble opinion, how much the latter part of that statement causes/mitigates the consideration of the first. There are, of course, two possible reasons that "the community has failed to handle an issue" - one being that there is a genuinely disruptive issue for which the community cannot agree upon a solution, the second being that the community has not acted because the vocal proponents of something being an issue requiring more action have failed to convince the community of the necessity of the further action they desire. They're not binary possibilities, though - and I can see elements of both here. -- Begoon 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Joefromrandb: Clerk notes

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

@Opabinia regalis: No. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <14/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting statements, especially from Joefromrandb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With some regret, joining the consensus to accept. With regard to scope, I agree in principle that we would like into any alleged improper conduct toward Joefromrandb as well as alleged conduct by him, but it's difficult to address things in those terms without a response from him, which I still hope he will provide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This case request feels premature, but I will wait for more statements also. I would like to request Joefromrandb's statement to include an update on this edit. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to accept. As I have expressed in the previous case request, I agree that the scope of this case should be beyond Joefromrandb's individual conduct. This time around there does not seem to be much evidence of provocation from other editors. Having discretionary sanction for "controversial" editors doesn't sound like the best idea, as many uncivil discussions are derived from content disputes, and without knowing the context, I cannot see how it can be effectively enforced; hopefully, this will be one of the topics. I support shortening the timeframe of the case also, given the amount of discussion that have already taken place. Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this was here, several arbitrators declined on the expectation that Joe would follow through with his plans to collaborate in a more collegial manner. If that has not happened and the issues continue to be unresolvable at community venues, then it is time to examine this in more detail in a case. Awaiting Joe’s statement, which I hope addresses how his behavior has changed since the previous case request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough here and at the October case request for this to be an accept. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And agree with Begoon, FWIW. It was suggested back in October that there were editors specifically looking to aggravate Joefromrandb, in the hopes of a reaction. That's also worth looking at. Unrelated point, if we did go ahead with a case we should again shorten the timeframe. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's time to accept yet, without a response from the main party - though *cough* it's not a good sign that Joe has made quite a few edits since this was filed. My question for Joe is what has or has not changed since October's request, the conclusion of which he surely realizes was a lucky break he should have taken advantage of. And for MrX, and others recommending that we accept the case: most of the recent dispute seems to be surrounding the Kim Davis article, which looks to me to be squarely in the American Politics topic area. Spare me the digging at AE - has this been raised there? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, what Floq said. I'm not actually that big on accepting this case, even now - it looks like a great argument for a topic ban from Kim Davis, but normally, for one specific user to need a case that isn't about admin tools, I'd be expecting to see blocks (but there's none since the disputed one in October), or some other significant formal action (but we've only got a 3RR warning for Bernie Leadon, and the ANI thread immediately preceding this request). On the other hand, this really does seem to be a recurring issue. So, reluctantly accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Add me to those who are waiting for Joe to respond to this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)~~ Seeing this edit, I now Accept this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Given Joe's response to the RFAR notice on his talk page and the fact that he's been editing since, I think it's fair to say he's not planning to respond. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Rick and PMC. Katie^talk 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Given that the behaviour has continued from the last case request which was filed I don't really see another way to go here, especially since Joe hasn't responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) .
Accept Last time I was on the accept side, and the behavior at the talkpage is a clear indication we need that road again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)g[reply]
Accept Doug Weller talk 06:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Mkdw ^talk 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept while noting my long standing preference that the case was not named after the user. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues

Initiated by Volvlogia (talk) at 02:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Volvlogia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
We hope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
gaioa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Tronvillain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
Calvin999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by filing party
SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), named here by SMcCandlish

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Cassianto notified by Volvlogia
we hope notified by Volvlogia
gaioa notified by Volvlogia
Insertcleverphrasehere notified by Volvlogia
Tronvillain notified by Volvlogia
Calvin999 notified by Volvlogia
SchroCat notified by SMcCandlsish

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Volvlogia

User:Cassianto has engaged in many Talk Page conversations regarding whether or not infoboxes should be included on artistic figure' articles. During these interactions, Cassianto has frequently and consistently used insulting and abusive language, behaved dismissively to anyone who disagreed with his declared consensus and made effort speedily shut down any discussion (disregarding the possibility of changing consensus). He has flagrantly defied WP:5P4; acting rudely and condescendingly bullying others into giving into his position out of fatigue. His domineering behavior has stunted discussion. In addition to WP:5P4, his actions violate WP:5P3, acting as though his position is the only relevant one to any Infobox discussion without regard for others' views. His behavior is frustrating, obstructive, and demoralizing; when I brought the behavior (which I witnessed on Talk pages but did not participate in, as to not be browbeated online), he was dismissive once more and did not respond to my main point, only dismissing anything I said. During the following discussion, frustration at Cassianto and We hope admittedly caused me respond with snark, which I apologize for, but I think that pales in comparison to Cassianto's consistent pattern of bad behavior. I was referred to ArbCom as my last avenue by an Admin, and I seek a solution that will end Cassianto's untenable behavior.

As the initiator of the case, my issue is not with the infobox debate (although I'm pro-infobox and Cassianto is anti-infobox, that has no bearing on my issues with his behavior). Cassianto has shamelessly and consistently violated the 9-0-0 decision that civility should be used in infobox discussions.

He has violated all of these consistently and repeatedly, emblematic excerpts ranging from rude to vicious include:

expanded per clerk request

Comment erased.
Then, he Restored, twice

see below for more evidence

I also want to note some of Cassianto's actions today , for your consideration. He threatened to fight for a user to be blocked for his comments on AN. He, in lieu of making an official statement, left a message on an Arbitrator's page, in which he cited two same-day edits (this and this) as proof that "If you notice on the ANI thread, he [me Volvlogia] played the victim and stated that he's worried "about me", even though we've never met on here. I [Cassianto] have no reason to dislike him and, if you check my contributions, I'm approachable to everyone who I meet for the first time, here and even here.". Both the instances he cited took place on January 24, today, the same day he left his informal statement on the Arb's talk page, which to me appears to be blatantly phony evidence manufactured well after he realized his actions were being scrutinized.

I also want to present the AN post submitted by User:we hope on the January 24, in the midst of the ArbCom debate. Make of it what you will.

Also, there is this message Cassianto left on my talk page on Jan. 24, in which he calls the ArbCom report I filer "loony drama" prompted by "absolutely nothing".

--Volvlogia (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by We hope

There have been no interactions with this editor until the filing of the ANI complaint. The editor kept a copy of this on his user page. with the statement "Saved for posterity and pride:" I removed this as WP:POLEMIC saying take me to ANI if you like. The editor responded with this post to my talk. His user page "Censorship, served hot and fresh by we hope!"-just blatantly replacing one polemic for another; it was removed by an administrator. When the editor continued refactoring my ANI comments, I posted this to his talk The response was "You are a hypocrite." This was also posted at ANI "WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange." Disgusted with the complainant's behavior, but not "scared".

The editor has proceeded to canvass other editors who have had past disagreements with Cassianto: editor 1, editor 2, editor 3, editor 4 before he was stopped. He has now gamed the system by posting this to "name" other editors so they can be notified to make statements here.

This is turning into a mockery and the complainant is the one who is doing this to try to punish someone he never interacted with until posting the complaint at ANI. This should be closed because the complainant is trying to stuff the ballot box in his favor come hell or high water. We hope (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, he has now notified editor 5, editor 6, editor 7, editor 8 as a result of his posting the names mentioned above. Again, the matter should be dropped because the complainant is bent on settling this his way-but with ArbCom as a "front" for it. We hope (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to complainant This is the diff of my heading removal here as it was being attributed to Callanecc. I used no templates, and I entered my own name here. My edit summary after you posted notice is here "Too late". So that's criticism? You were cautioned not to continue canvassing here but posted those names after you were advised about canvassing. We hope (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn that silence can be golden sometimes. Regardless of your accusations, it still doesn't give you the right to post polemic attacks against either of us on your user page. I removed the first which you seem to think was wrong. You were so pleased to inform me I was a hypocrite, you posted the information to my talk page; that was removed by an admin. Your behavior in the matter will win no awards so it's amazing you can judge someone else. We hope (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question We're all to limit comments to 500 words; even the complainant ~~has~~ realized this at one time. Why is one uninvolved editor writing a FA here? We hope (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jcc Calling another editor "attack dog against me whilst Cassianto's on his best behaviour?", stalking my edits and asking what I was trying to pull, "pulling stunts" doesn't qualify you for civility king. Asking whether the other editor deserved "attack dog", your reply was "The reply was a personal attack that focused on the contributor (me),"; not an answer to the direct question. Nothing was done about it when it occurred despite efforts to right the wrong. It looks like it's fine for you to be as uncivil as you wish, but not someone else. We hope (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a female editor an "attack dog" seems to leave but one step to another word, sorry that neither jcc nor the complainant is able to see this. We hope (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff is here re: a solution to the issue. I am not willing to apologize as suggested since the PAs began with you and the "attack dog" comment; I entered the converstaion with you after that comment was made. My talk page. So it's not as you contend it was. request for help at Mary Shelley.We hope (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh-more attacks by the complainant who doesn't realize he's muted. We hope (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Cassianto

Has the whole world gone mad? Has this case seriously been started by someone who I've never interacted with, Volvlogia, at least not under this name, [16] about historic issues of "incivility" that they've gone out to find by trawling my contributions? Are we in a situation where someone as culpable as Jcc, in diffs provided by We hope, is seen as a "victim" of my "incivility" but is as much to blame for the hostility on such discussions by his stalking, harassment, lies, and personal attacks?

This is the story: Volvlogia is reverted on Stanley Kubrick by Ian Rose. I played no part in that revert. [17]. Volvlogia, the same day, albeit 20hours later, then files this at ANI: [18]. I had no interaction with this person after the revert and before the filing of the ANI thread.

Volvlogia then pings everyone who I've had issues with in the past, so they can take part. Sure enough, this prompts one of them, Baseball Bugs, to make an appearance where he makes a serious PA against me, calling me a "fanatic" and preceeds in having a discussion that insinuates that I'm able and indeed, capable, of doing Volvlogia harm: [19].

I start to loose my cool, as any other normal person in this situation would, so I switch off for the night and neck off to bed. In the meantime, somebody called "Dlthewave", also who I have never interacted with, overnight, reverts the Kubrick box back in, but is quickly reverted by another user. Dlthewave, seemingly annoyed at me for not getting involved, then decides to open up another thread about my past at ANI on a thread directly below the first one one:[20]

Volvlogia is told that their thread, owing to a lack of...ahem...evidence about recent "issues", is about to be archived, which it is, and so they come to ARBCOM. They then canvasses more "enemies", having gone through my entire history, and names most of them as involved persons, here.

And then this blows up. Yes, that it. Sure I get annoyed sometimes, when provoked, and sure, sometimes, perhaps I shouldn't. But hey guess what. I'm human. And together with the various IP's who go about, daily, reverting every edit I do (ask NeilN) and the constant stalking of my edits by Jcc, The Gnome, and others, to every discussion I've ever took part in, is a recipe for such heated discussion. Every person who was pinged at ARBCOM, aside from Robert McLennon and KracotoaKatie, I've had problems with; and ALL of them have been pinged by Volvlogia.

I've even had private emails saying that I should stop deleting boxes for a while; but where in the rules does it say that IB should not be deleted, but can be added by the bucket load, on a daily basis? Why should I bullied into not conducting valid edits, according to the MoS? I thought the rules were clear about this? I have as much right to delete a sodding infobox as those do who add them. If not, the rules should change to say so. Why is it that just because of a few people who adore infoboxes, and who are ultimately the ones that turn infobox disputes "toxic", others who think differently to them, are not allowed to do differently? Why the need for a topic ban for one person who deletes them, but not one for those who systematically go about adding them? Surely, it is them who cause these arguments, as without their boxes, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen? I seem to be in a minority with regards to my use of Infobox Person. That does not make me wrong. It's funny: but no one has noticed the infoboxes I've added to articles in the past?

And still, no one has picked up on the fact that "my civility", which Volvlogia alludes to, is all historic; has all been dealt with by various closures or blocks, and which forms the basis of this case. Still, no one has addressed the non-reasons why this very case was filed. No one has pointed out that this has come out of nowhere or have mentioned my non-involvement with Volvlogia. People also seem confused about what kind of case it is. The reason the committee don't want an Infobox3 is because of the enormity of it. It's far easier to deal with someone's "civility issue", isn't it?

How can it be right that past blocks can be brought up at anytime, by people who I've never interacted with, who have virtually no experience at all? I wasn't aware we had a "two bites of a cherry" rule that means if someone's blocked for, say, civility, then the "behaviour" behind that block can, again, be opened back up again for public scrutiny? How can it also be right for ARBCOM to allow someone to go about canvassing people who are known to dislike me, yet no one says anything? This stinks of a complete stitch up and nobody is saying anything?

What about the abuse I receive? What about the PA's levied at me by people like Baseball Bugs and a "concerned" and "frightened" Volvlogia who both, openly, had a discussion about the "physical harm I could not do to Volvlogia" yet Volvlogia goes on to quite happily baiting me and being uncivil from the sidelines during the last ANI? How sick is it to assume that a complete stranger who, perhaps lives thousands of miles away, might hunt them down to do physical harm to them? Where is their evidence to suggest I'd be this type of person? What about WP:AGF?

What about the daily harassment I receive as a result of innocent edits I undertake, including the recent, aspersions about my private life and perceived mental health problems, since redacted by John, but evidence of it can be found here?

What about breaches of policy with regards to talk page discussions and WP:TALKNEW? What about the breaches of WP:POLEMIC from the filing party here and here? No, I'm done. I've moved what I was doing with Frank Matcham and Theatres designed by Frank Matcham into main space for people to ruin; John Johnson (1807–1878) can also do one. I'm done. Cassianto^Talk 09:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

A case regarding infoboxes more widely may be necessary eventually. The case in 2013 at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

I closed the latest ANI thread about this situation. [21] 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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

SchroCat (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) 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. [22]). The preventative solution is a topic ban and a civility editing restriction.

Neither has received {{Ds/alert}} 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 [23], Cassianto, around 700 [24]. Both treats WP:ARBINFOBOX as just some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part [25], [26].

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 [27]. See also [28] and [29], 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 [30] and doesn't care if he's taken to noticeboards [31], and this is reflected in his block log. Major WP:CIR problem.

SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks) similarly dares people to do anything about him [32],[33]. Recent issues include: namecalling about required talkpage templates [34], [35]; battlegroundy mischaracterization of a neutral RfC as "crusading", etc. [36]; ingrained snideness [37]; unsupported accusations [38], then when asked to back it up or retract, just responded with more hostility [39]. Only looked for a couple of minutes into SchroCat's recent stuff; some older diffs: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44].

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 about 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)[reply]

@Smeat75 and Yngvadottir: 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)[reply]

User-talk thread worth a review: SchroCat dumped a pile of undiffed accusations of "lying" on me, then brought an intimidation game 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". [45] This all really gets right to the heart of why I asked to add SchroCat to this case, and why he was going to be the primary party, with Cassianto secondary, in the RfArb I was preparing myself, for the same kind of inveterate, unconstructive hostility, centered usually on the same infoboxes drama (though I repeat this isn't intrinsically about infoboxes at all; it could have been any topic). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Masem 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)[reply]

Statement by JJE

WRT infoboxes Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request (October 2016) 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)[reply]

This interaction ban request is also related. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Using_infoboxes_in_articles - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Smeat75: 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)[reply]

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" [46]. 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)[reply]

Removed - clerk action. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker - It appears from your example that some Encyclopedia Britannica articles do have infobox type things but some such as this one [47] do not. Perhaps they use their "infoboxes" just for bios.Smeat75 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calvin999

A message was left on my page about this, with a link to where the accused spoke to me on Talk:Frank Sinatra. The accused user tried to completely shut me down from his first comment, and proceeded to not want to talk about the issue I had raised without even explaining why, telling me to shut up and generally being rude, abrasive and superior in a child like fashion. It was nearly two years ago and I had forgotten about it but clearly judging by the multiple statements of condemnation above, I felt I should comment about my experience too. — Calvin999 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed my sentence about the other editors who were rude to me in thread, as was told to by Goldenring. Why this has been removed again I don't know, so I'm adding it back with this note. I have linked to the thread in question whereby Cassianto was rude to me, and the initiator Volvlogia has provided quotes of Cassianto's language to me in his statement above. I don't see the point in my copying and pasting it here too. How am I supposed to comment here if I'm not allowed to comment because 'clerks removal of comments cannot be undone'. But here are the diffs I have found regardless:

— Calvin999 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Yes, and the others come to attack you as well. — Calvin999 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75: Yes, because a 10 word sentence reply constitutes as a nice, friendly chat. Please. Am I not allowed to agree with what someone else says? I'm not sure why I'm even being mentioned by you in an indirect, sarcastic fashion despite knowing I'll see it. I don't even know you. If you have something to say to me, be bold and be direct here or post on my user talk. — Calvin999 09:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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

jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Masem (t) 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Masem (t) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also highly agree with SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), SchroCat 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, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to clerks: For the evidence behind my assertions please see the diffs provided by @Calvin999, SMcCandlish, and Jcc: they more than show a perfect glimpse of what we and some others here are talking about. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Calvin999: 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

Smeat75 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Some editors, including User:Ritchie333, have previously urged that ArbCom discretionary sanctions should apply to article-level disputes involving infoboxes, and I concur. Editors who are persistently disruptive either in favor of or against infoboxes should be topic-banned from all infobox edits and discussions. WP:ANI isn’t a feasible forum for topic-bans; Arbitration Enforcement is so much more efficiently draconian when draconian measures are needed.

As to Cassianto, I think that it is clear that they should be topic-banned from infobox edits and discussions. I ask the ArbCom to consider one question really. That is whether the damage done by Cassianto can be contained by a topic-ban, or whether they are as disruptive elsewhere as with infoboxes. If the damage can be contained, topic-ban them. If the damage cannot be contained, a site-ban is necessary.

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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.- Mr X 🖋 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Indeed,, had all other reasonable means 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 Yngvadottir 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. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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^[a] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ I don't have a more appropriate term for it.

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).[reply]

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.) 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 year 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)[reply]

Statement by (other editor)

Civility issues: Clerk notes

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

Participants in this arbitration case request are reminded that any statement about any editor must be accompanied by sufficient diffs to support the statement. Arbitration proceedings are highly sensitive for all involved and editors are asked to avoid escalating any situation in this case beyond the point strictly necessary for the Arbitration Committee to fairly decide this case request. Any material submitted in contravention of WP:NPA or other Wikipedia policies may be removed without warning at the discretion of a clerk. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. (Gun control principle 8). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several statements, including a large portion of the statement by the requester, because they make accusations of other editors without evidence. I have notified these editors and invited them to re-add their statements with links to evidence. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This case request has been renamed to Civility issues, which will be reviewed if the case is accepted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I'm taking from this request that it's designed to be mainly about Cassianto rather than revisiting WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes? I'd appreciate statements which explain why the community is unable to address Cassianto's alleged behaviour or why, more generally, an Infoboxes 2 case is needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept a case to look at Cassianto's conduct as well as the conduct of other editors in relation to Infoboxes/discussion with or about Cassianto. I was waiting for Cassianto to comment but given this that is no longer necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd also appreciate more specific statements about the inability of the community to resolve the alleged behaviours of Cassianto and/or SchroCat. I am not convinced that a case against individual editors is necessary at the moment based on the evidences presented here, but I am open to the possibility of re-visiting the Infobox dispute if much of the incivility are derived from there. Alex Shih (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to accept along the lines of looking into conduct of involved editors, and reviewing a possible motion to introduce discretionary sanctions in discussions about infobox. Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor foundation on which to build the widely perceived as inevitable Infoboxes 2 case, and I'm as yet unconvinced that the topic of Cassianto's behavior, as presented, is either a) in need of a case, or b) effectively separable from the infobox issue. I'd like to hear Cassianto's views here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A few thoughts, which I was about to post this morning when I got interrupted:
  - This is a bit of an unusual request. While it's not uncommon for the filing party to be an observer rather than a participant in a dispute, it's certainly rare for a relatively inexperienced editor to file a personal-conduct case about a person they've never had any substantive interactions with. Based on the ANI thread preceding this request, I feel like somebody has to remind commenters, including Volvlogia, that a case necessarily examines the behavior of all parties, and that baiting, goading, and other types of manipulative behavior intended to provoke a reaction are uncivil and inappropriate.
  - Comments on this case request so far have often been... disappointing. Experienced editors should not be posting stuff like "I don't need to bother finding evidence because it's just so obvious" - you should all know better. We also do not need speculation about socks (if you think there is an "army of sockpuppets" posting about infoboxes, WP:SPI is thataway). If we actually do have a case, I swear I'm going to start replacing people's evidence sections with this picture if there are any claims in them that lack, um, evidence. Similarly - and I can't use enough text formatting here - this request and any case that follows IS NOT THE PLACE TO ARGUE FOR YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT INFOBOXES. Seriously. Don't make me break out the blink tag.
  - I was initially hesitant to accept this case, in part as a result of its unusual beginnings - we've never had a concept of having "standing" to file a case, but when a filer has no relevant history with the dispute, it's easy to see how a case might get off on the wrong foot even when the substance of the matter does need investigation. The canvassing, in particular, is troubling, even if done just out of lack of awareness of how things work in this venue, because it can give a false impression of the scale of the problem. I can appreciate that people might feel ambushed (or get the idea in their head to ambush others) if there's no expectation that the filer themselves has ever been involved with, attempted to resolve, or even closely observed the dispute being arbitrated. All that being said, the volume and nature of comments here does suggest there is an issue.
  - I think we need to think carefully about what kind of case we're accepting. I do not see anything useful coming of a narrow case about Cassianto in particular. Virtually all of the disputed behavior is occurring in the context of infobox-related discussions. Conversely, we have evidence that others behave very similarly in the same discussions, so singling out Cassianto seems both unfair and unlikely to solve the problem. With great reluctance - as in, I almost chickened out on the bold vote part - I think we're at the point of needing a scope along the lines of "behavior in infobox discussions". So, accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we not just authorizing DS in infobox-related discussions? The basic facts here regarding how poorly most infobox discussions go are not under dispute, and so I wonder whether a case will actually accomplish anything. I'd rather just take the suggestion of Spartaz and see if AE can handle this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept a case based on Cassianto's conduct. Jcc's section above makes clear this doesn't have to do only with infoboxes, and I think we can have a case looking at editor conduct without wading back into the infobox disputes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to hear from Cassianto on this case request before making a decision. Mkdw ^talk 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the message, User talk:Opabinia regalis#ArbCom. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have passed the necessary threshold required to determine a case should go forward, and therefore accept the case request. Mkdw ^talk 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I was leaning decline, but based on Jcc's well-formatted section, I accept to review Cassianto's conduct and the conduct of others surrounding infobox discussions. Katie^talk 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jcc's section makes it clear that this isn't just about infoboxes, and that the community has tried and failed to solve this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept based on among other things Jcc's section above. This isn't just about infoboxes anymore, there's a much wider issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing and will vote later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[fn1-1] I don't have a more appropriate term for it.

[a]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 *{{re|Opabinia regalis}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Joefromrandb+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&searchToken=1ybc1wuj0m28nkz7q9xzraa9p No].  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
-=== Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <13/0/0> ===
+=== Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <14/0/0> ===
 {{anchor|1=Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
 *Awaiting statements, especially from Joefromrandb. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 * '''Accept''' [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 06:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * '''Accept''' '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
+* '''Accept''' while noting my long standing preference that the case was not named after the user. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 == Civility issues ==