Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/Arbitration report
Joefromrandb and others – recapping from the previous issue of The Signpost: a number of behaviors were cited including hostile editing in the form of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. The evidence phase closed 11 February and arbs moved to accept (14/0/1). No evidence was provided by non-parties nor from Joefromrandb himself. Does this mean the charges of incivility will be taken on face value? Arb Newyorkbrad said "it's difficult to address things ... without a response from him, which I still hope he will provide".
Civility in infobox discussions, formerly titled "Civility issues", concerns incivility surrounding discussions of infoboxes for artists. The evidence phase closed 19 February with no evidence provided by non-parties. The respondent Cassianto is still on a self-imposed block set to expire in about 60 days. Will Arbcom create new policy for this apparently volatile area? Probably not if Opabinia regalis's comment is any guide: "This seems like a poor foundation on which to build the widely perceived as inevitable Infoboxes 2 case", echoed by Newyorkbrad: "historically this [unresolved policy question] is not the type of problem that this Committee's decisions have been best suited to solve". Does it sound like hard cases make bad law to anyone else?
A case Gatoclass against Fram on 5 February was declined. Both users are administrators. The case involved behavior around Did you know nominations, and other editors requested that it be handled locally; one commenter stated that the "dispute, which is storm/teacuppy, seems to have come to arbitration unnecessarily".by