Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 08:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Case closed on 08:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 17:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

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)
• Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• gaioa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tronvillain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Calvin999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

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

• "Frankly, you're boring"
• "fuck off"
• obnoxiously ignores comment
• "filthy troll"
• "delusional bullshit"
• "Incapable of writing

• 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[reply]

Statement by We hope

• Interactions Cassianto and editor
• Interactions self and editor

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Sigh-more attacks by the complainant who doesn't realize he's muted. We hope (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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, [1] 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. [2]. Volvlogia, the same day, albeit 20hours later, then files this at ANI: [3]. 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: [4].

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:[5]

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[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[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:

• "This has been discussed at length quite recently. What is your purpose in bringing this up again?" with the edit summary of "yawn!" - I didn't know it had been raised before.
• "What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities?"
• "{u|Calvin999|Oh)) dear, the first signs of someone losing an argument is that old chestnut WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring and your time is better spent elsewhere." with the edit summary of "boring"
• "{u|Calvin999|Not)) all articles have info boxes, just so you know."
• "Well, you've had your say, no shut up and face the fact that the collapsed infobox is here to stay." - His response to it not being ownership, which it clearly was.
• And his harassing me on my talk page where he continued to be rude to me despite me asking him to not interact with me.

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

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

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[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[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[reply]
• @Robert McClenon: The arbitration policy currently holds: "Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation.". The Committee's current procedures mandate that "Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. [...] If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, or leaves Wikipedia just before or during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion: (i) dismiss the case either in its entirety or only insofar as that party is concerned; (ii) suspend the case; (iii) continue the case regardless; or (iv) close the case by motion." Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/0)

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[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[reply]
  • Just to clarify that I think comments above have made it clear that there is a broader issue about civility in discussions about infoboxes, not focused on Cassianto, so I think a case along those lines (but which allows evidence showing a broader pattern, not just during infobox discussions) could be useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
  • And just for the record, support going ahead with the case; if Cassianto does choose to participate he can always request an unblock. (Personally, I'd suggest doing so and at least posting evidence; it's always better for the committee to hear the perspective of everyone involved in a dispute.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
    • I see no reason to suspend the case due to a self-requested block. Any editor can choose not to participate in an arbitration case, even when it involves them. This is not held against them, but it also doesn't shut down the whole process. The fact that the editor chose not to participate by requesting a block doesn't change that for me. As for scope, I would like this to be a case focusing on behavior, not infoboxes. The Arbitration Committee cannot rule on content, so we cannot rule on whether infoboxes should or should not be in any particular article or class of articles, as some editors appear to be asking us to do. That's up to the community. We should examine the behavior of all editors who have participated in infobox discussions, broadly speaking, including any editors who they've been in conflict with. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

I am leaning towards accepting a wide scope and allowing the case to resolve what are important issues and what are not. This is only the request. We should be saving judgements and decisions for the final part of the case. We need a more thorough evidence and workshop process to determine what needs to be done to resolve the situation, which a case will provide. Mkdw ^talk 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
• Reviewing and will vote later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concerned comment: We now have eight arbitrators voting to accept and open this case, but I do not believe all of them are voting to open the same case. Some commenting editors, and voting arbs, want a case about whether Cassianto and perhaps some other editors abide by the norms of civility and NPA, not confined to the infoxbox area. (Actually, I shouldn't say that anyone "wants" such a case; I should say that these people think the advantages of taking such a case outweigh those of not taking it.) Others I think want us to open RfAr/Infoboxes 2, which would be a great idea if we could solve the infobox wars after all these years, but I'm not sure how we could. In the original Infoboxes case of 2013, I wrote a summary that found its way into the final decision, in which we said:

This case arises from a series of disputes concerning whether and when Wikipedia articles should include infoboxes. Because there is no project-wide policy governing when infoboxes should be used, disagreements concerning their inclusion arise with some regularity. These disagreements are sometimes resolved as they should be, through collegial discussion and consensus, but too often the consensus-building process has broken down, in a fashion that has been extremely demoralizing to many editors. Reasons for such breakdowns include:

*It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).

*It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.

*A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions.

All of these things are still true. We concluded that decision with a suggestion that the community conduct an RfC to address some of the open policy points, which did not happen. At this point, we have some editors suggesting that only ArbCom can help at this stage, but we have others opining that opening this case, especially without a clear scope, will precipitate the war of all against all. I see that there is now a majority to open some sort of a case, and I understand the sentiment and there may be no better answer, but historically this is not the type of problem that this Committee's decisions have been best suited to solve. As always I would be happy to be proved wrong Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Accept with my long standing preference that the case not be named after the user. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As an update, since there's more commentary after I accepted the case - I'm still for accepting the case, with a wide scope regarding the behaviour of editors involved in infobox discussions. We are not going to be able to resolve how people feel about infoboxes, we are not going to make a decision on whether infoboxes should be on Wikipedia or not, beyond what we already have - "Infoboxes are a decision on a per article basis and consensus should be made there". We recommended an RfC to bottom things out further and Arbcom cannot force things beyond that. However, I do believe there's a behavioural issue highlighted here. If it were focussed on Cassianto, I would agree with suspending the case, but I would rather we heard evidence on all editors involved. We can have a case without Cassianto - he can email the committee or others can state his case. It won't be the first time an editor was involved in a case while they were blocked. Worm^TT(talk) 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Accept per Rob. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I'm with Brad about uncertainty what case is being voted on. We have I believe 4 editors accepting the case based on JCC's comment, but I believe that a Cassianto based case should be accepted and suspended for the duration of the block. If the other 5 want something different focused on infoboxes, we don't really have a majority yet. I'd prefer to hold off opening this until we can come to a consensus. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:TonyBallioni Indeed we can go ahead whether or not he's blocked. I'd still like to have a clearer scope before I vote. I've learned that from previous experience. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Accept for infoboxes only The present BRD method is not working, and is unlikely to work between two entrenched groups. I can think of conduct rules that might: for example, a limitation of each person to one remark in a discussion of the infobox on any one article.

It was also commented above that the issues would disappear if people did not not to force infoboxes. They would also disappear if there were a consensus to have infoboxes on all applicable articles, or not to have them. This is going beyond the arb com concern with conduct, Otherwise, we have here an example of where the conduct dispute is unlikely to be solved unless some way is found to deal with the underlying issue. Just as a suggestion, instead of relying on the process of case-by-case consensus, the community could be encouraged to decide to have a definite numerical vote and let the consensus be to accept the result as binding. People who want to fight will find other things to fight about, to be sure but at least they won't be fighting about this. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Passed 9 to 2 with 1 abstention at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) This case is the most recent in a long series of disputes about infoboxes. The committee has attempted in the past to address these disputes, recommending community discussion which did not occur. 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes

2) An infobox, providing readers with a capsule description of the subject, is frequently an element of a Wikipedia article. Expectation of an infobox at a given article varies from high to low, depending on subject area, level of article development and detail, and the utility or relevance of the infobox content. The existence of the feature is accepted by the community in general, but no single interpretation of how to use it is widely accepted.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox discussions have been difficult

3) Discussions regarding the addition of an infobox to an article are often lengthy and do not necessarily reach consensus.[6] [7] Many of the points raised can be applied to multiple articles, or even across all articles, making the discussions repetitive.[8] This in turn has led to frustration and poor behaviour from some editors, making it difficult to reach consensus.

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto

4) Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of edit warring to remove infoboxes from articles. He often exhibits battleground behavior on talk pages in discussions about the addition or deletion of an infobox, and has frequently been uncivil in their interactions with other editors. These conflicts have resulted in repeated ANI threads and blocks for personal attacks and incivility. ([9],[10],[11], [12], block log)

Passed 13 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Baiting behavior

6) Multiple editors, including IPs, have engaged in baiting and goading behavior surrounding the addition of infoboxes. ([13], [14], [15], Oversighted content)

Passed 12 to 0 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto did not participate

7) Cassianto did not participate in this arbitration case, and requested a block shortly after the case was requested. (statement, block log)

Passed 7 to 6 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

8) During the case request stage, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) sent talk page messages to several editors who have had conflicts with Cassianto (talk · contribs). [16] [17] [18] These messages violated the guideline on canvassing due to their non-neutral content and choice of targets.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

Infobox probation (II)

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a contentious topic restriction per remedy 2. That user will be indefinitely restricted from:

• adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes;
• restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or
• making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For clarity, an editor under probation is permitted to edit an already existing infobox, but should be cautious of giving the appearance that they are attempting to game their probation as this may lead to more contentious topic sanctions.

They may, if they wish, add an infobox in the same edit or series of edits when they:

• create a new article; or
• convert an article from a redirect.

The user under probation may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 17:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation

2) All discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassianto and infoboxes (II)

4) Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

Passed 9 to 3 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Community discussion recommended

9) The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.

Passed 10 to 3 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors reminded

10) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

Passed 12 to 1 at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Volvlogia admonished

11) For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Passed 10 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion (May 2018)

Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstention by motion at 17:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.