Requests for arbitration

Initiated by - MrX 🖋 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

• January 18, 2018
• October 7, 2017
• July 1, 2017
• June 7, 2017
• January 30, 2014
• December 30, 2013
• November 26, 2013
• August 7, 2013

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.- MrX 🖋 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.- MrX 🖋 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]

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. —Prhartcom♥ 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.

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 <9/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting statements, especially from Joefromrandb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 22 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]
• 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]
• 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]

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Cassianto
• we hope
• gaioa
• Insertcleverphrasehere
• Tronvillain
• Calvin999

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The toxicity of Cassianto and his bullying tactics

Statement by Volvlogia

Especially in recent months, but with instances going back years, User:Cassianto has engaged in many Talk Page conversations regarding whether or not infoboxes should be included on artistic figure' articles ([1], [2], [3]). 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. All my evidence I will add to any eventual evidence pages, but most of it can be seen on my report on the AN board. 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:

• A (to Gaioa)
• B (to Insertcleverphrasehere)
• C (to Tronvillain)
• Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere." (to Calvin999)

It's not his position on the infobox that's the problem, it's how he constantly disregards and disrespects anyone who disagrees. There is more evidence, but that is all while maintaining reasonable length. I've notified Gaioa, Insertcleverphrasehere, Tronvillain, Calvin999 now that they've been named. The reason it's come to this is that Cassianto's domineering attitude in Talk Pages has made any real dialogue impossible, it requires a mediator.

For transparency I removed dialogue with We hope (who by the way also insulted me and another editor involved in the AN discussion on a user/talk page) to maintain the >500 word count, that can be found in edit log.

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]

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]

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]

Comment by GoodDay

FWIW, I've begun an Rfc at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals), concerning infoboxes :) GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that lasted long. My RFC-in-question got snow-closed :( GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 24 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.

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. [16] 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 Insertcleverphrasehere

Cas has certainly been abrasive, even rude, in his discussions on this topic, as well as entirely dismissive of any opinion other than his own. However, I do not think this is something that Arbcom needs to deal with at this point and can be discussed at much lower levels before needing to be brought here (Per Davey2010). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

SchroCat (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) should also be named as a party (and my saying so presumably also makes me one), due to a years-long essentially identical pattern and – importantly – a history of WP:TAGTEAM with Cassianto (admins have commented on it before, e.g. [17]). It's high time for a topic ban. I was prepared to open a WP:RFARB about both of them back in 2016, but both "quit Wikipedia" in a huff over style and infobox disputes the very day I was going to open the case, and took a long enough break it seemed stale. I was going to let this lie, and have avoided both editors for a long time, but a review of their behavior indicates that their battlegrounding has not slacked up in the intervening time period. SchroCat started revert-warring at WP:MOS yesterday, and the tagteam behavior has resumed.

As far as I know, neither of them have received {{Ds/alert}} for either of the WP:ARBATC or WP:ARBINFOBOX ArbCom cases (in which neither were named parties) since 2016, but it is not remotely credible they are "unaware" of the discretionary sanctions that pertain. SchroCat shows up in somewhere around 800 infobox-related discussions, as a participant or a behavior subject [18]; for Cassianto, it's around 700 [19]. SchroCat treats ARBINFOBOX as some kind of "error" on ArbCom's part [20], so he doesn't seem to think it applies. Cassianto mirrors this view [21], in a post suggesting that civility is just some game being played on the basis of ArbCom's "error" (his dim view of civility is apparent in the rest of that discussion).

Looking into Cassianto's recent edits, I see him again hounding Gerda Arendt (he and SchroCat have been devoting especial hostility to her for many years at her talk page and in article talk, e.g. at articles on Laurence Olivier, Cary Grant, Josephine Butler, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Pierre Boulez, etc., and it most often is about infoboxes); stumbling across that WP:HARASS behavior is what first brought them to my attention. I think this post clearly sums up Cassianto's attitude [22]: he self-declares as someone who likes to get in the face of people, in person, who he thinks have crossed him, and is carrying this "throw your weight around threateningly" behavior into Wikipedia. See also [23] and [24], further battleground and WP:OWN / WP:VESTED thinking.

CIVIL and OWN are cited to Cassianto so frequently by other editors that he declares the citations a cliché, and also mistakes the CIVIL policy for an essay he can ignore [25]. This is a WP:1AM and WP:CIR problem. He states outright he does not care if civility-related noticeboard action is taken against him [26], and this is reflected in his civility-related block log. Since he will not learn from such actions and scoffs at them, the preventative thing to do is remove him from topics in which he will not remain civil.

SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks) exhibits essentially the same pattern; he likes to dare people to do anything about him [27],[28], and some recent issues include: calling people "idiot" [29] and "tiresome little man" [30] for leaving required talk page notices; battlegroundy mischaracterization of a neutral RfC as "crusading", "pointless", and "knee-jerk" [31]; ingrained snideness [32]; and unsupported aspersions and accusations [33], then when asked to back it up or retract, just responded with more hostility and dismissal [34]. I only looked for a couple of minutes into SchroCat's recent stuff. Some older diffs: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC); updated 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Coincidentally, I diffed more highlights of the long-running issue (including resumption of tagteaming, use of "idiotbox" to denigrate all editors and readers, also labeled "lazy", who like infoboxes) at User talk:TonyBallioni today (permalink), shortly before this ARCA was opened. This may need to be an RfArb; this is just the tip of the diff iceberg (also covering tagteaming at RfA, ANI, etc., and mutually-reinforcing WP:OWN / WP:VESTED patterns at various FAs and FA candidate articles); I'm not sure an "amendment" or "clarification" is really at issue here. My overall impression is that both editors are convinced that their involvement in WP:FAC makes them effectively immune to any meaningful censure or sanction. It is clear that ANI and various blocks have not been effective, and this is not some recent issue, but very long-term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 24 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]

Statement by Gaioa

Oh dear, I am a witness at the supreme court of Wikipedia? Well, I didn't really want to get involved in this affair too much, but I don't wanna be rude and ignore a filing of my name.
My only experience with Cassianto comes from an infobox discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I can agree that the discussion became very heated and that C was continually trying to control and own the discussion. I put my opinion in along with a humorous infobox, trying to spread some good cheer while speaking for my side, whereupon C replied to me/everyone by saying "[E]nough of this fucking bullshit" along with threats about ANI. I tried to be civil and simply leave the discussion after just one more reply, but apparently the issue is bigger that that.
All of this is just my side of events, and hearing that C was already disliked probably instilled me with confirmation bias against him. But still, I clearly acknowledge that C was behaving rather badly in that discussion. Whether or not it warrants an AC case is not for me to decide. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 06:37, 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]

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.

Clerk notes

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

Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

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]
• 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]