Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. AGK
  2. Courcelles
  3. David Fuchs
  4. Newyorkbrad
  5. NuclearWarfare
  6. Salvio giuliano
  7. SilkTork
  8. Timotheus Canens
  9. Worm That Turned
  10. Carcharoth

Inactive:

  1. Roger Davies

Recused:

  1. Risker
  2. Kirill Lokshin

PD update

Giving a heads-up that at this point it's unlikely the PD will be posted tomorrow today. We'll keep you appraised of any other delays. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for that. We hope to have it ready soon. WormTT(talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a form of update, we've punted a working draft of the PD over to the committee as a whole. Giving ample time to wordsmith and fine-tune things, and in the spirit of under-promising I hope to have the full PD posted by early Saturday UTC if not sooner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take all the time you need - better to make the right decision than to rush, after all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit harsh to label the IP an "edit warrior" for one reversion when Pigsonthewing has ignored WP:BRD and reverted against the status quo twice... - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • see also, stay calm and factual, - forgive me for seeing a team at work, I must be biased, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am calm and factual, and yes, you are biased, as am I, but throwing around accusations of edit warring against people cranks up the tension in a debate, not defuses it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ched comment 1

  • First: I will be having some strongly worded comments on this PD in the near future.
  • Second: per "As Gerda has herself noted, she's been adding far more infoboxes as of late than Pigs; it hasn't been very constructive, especially when adding ones unilaterally is clearly going to create a kerfluffle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)" ... I would kindly request that David refrain to referring to the editor as "Pigs". I would suspect that Andy, or PotW would be acceptable, and I am familiar with the moniker that Andy has chosen; still, I think it is quite unbecoming to shorten the user name in the fashion that you have. Please make appropriate adjustments. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from removing | or |" ... I'm pretty sure Gerda will agree to refraining from removing infoboxes. typo? — Ched :  ?  02:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSky comment on the most one-sided decision ever

Hmm, let's see, you smack Andy and Gerda, the pro-box side, and leave the anti-box side, Klein and Smerus, totally alone? Do you guys realize it takes two sides to have a dispute, edit war, etc, and that Klein and Smerus deserve smacking far more than Gerda? This is the most one-sided decision ever. I'd ask if this PD was a joke, but nothing AC does anymore surprises me. I didn't think my opinion of AC could get lower but it just did. An editor with one-month wiki experience could have written a better decision. As far as I'm concerned, AC should be abolished; and in case you missed it, I've said that before onwiki. PumpkinSky talk 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal to sanction Gerda is ill-founded, even though I disagree with every infobox she's added at classical music-related bios. If she had been edit warring over infoboxes, yes, or if she'd repeatedly proposed infoboxes at the same article ad WP:IDHT, yes, but I've seen no evidence of such behaviour. Adding infoboxes to articles where it's likely to be controversial strikes me as bad practice, but I know of no policy it breaches. Sanctioning people for bad practice is not the way to go. Having said that, we do only have one arb currently supporting this sanction, and NYB seems to be questioning the FoF supporting the sanction, so this doesn't seem like a done deal. I hope the other arbs will read this and consider when voting. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I add here that I never added an infobox where I expected it to be controversial. I stand corrected in several cases, mostly operas where I still believe an infobox on the given works would be superior to a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox, illustrated in The Ban on Love. I don't recall adding any infobox to a classical music bio unless I wrote the article myself. I would not call "reignite" to point out that factually looking at The Rite of Spring might be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the AC proposal. It's the relentlessness which Gerda has shown in starting multiple infobox debates which is the problem. She's even tried to reignite some of the most contentious disputes (e.g. Rite of Spring, Georg Solti) while this Arb Case was open. --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to understand what you mean by reigniting. I used The Ban on Love as an example how consensus could be achieved (or - so far - not). Only after The Rite of Spring was mentioned in the discussion did I also show that one. As for Solti, I have no idea what you mean. I approached an author of a TFA with the proposal of an infobox, he wanted me to insert it and I asked him to do it himself as I could be banned for disrupting the TFA. Is that what you summarize as "reignite"? For the whole case, I hoped for more looking at the actual evidence, rather than going by such summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Georg Solti dispute had lain dormant since December 2012. You attempted to re-ignite the dispute on 2 August. You solicited an unsuspecting fellow editor to re-open the debate on the Georg Solti infobox: [1]. You must have known how inflammatory this was as this was one of the two pages which earned Pigsonthewing his topic ban on TFAs. Your comment even demonstrates you were aware of this. The other user went ahead, re-activating a debate which had been dormant for eight months: [2]. You then thanked him and tried to get him to do the same for Carmen [3]. --Folantin (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We use the very same diff, only you see it differently. I explained that I could not do add the box because of a danger that I illustrated, - the danger is what I was aware of. What he did was a complete surprise to me, unsolicited. I did not comment on Georg Solti, not then, not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you said "the editor who disrupted Georg Solti 25 July 2012 (mind the year!) is threatened to be banned." That's clearly Pigsonthewing, not you. --Folantin (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, meaning that I - if I disrupted the TFA of that day, Duino Elegies - might be treated the same way. Do I have a language problem? - How is that "reigniting" and "inflammatory"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense to me. It's clear from those comments you were pleased the Georg Solti debate had re-started and wanted the same to happen with Carmen. --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I invite everybody to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too invite neutral observers to look. --Folantin (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather inclined to agree with PSky on this. There is no sanction for those on the anti side, despite the principles explicitly rejecting tactics used by that side far more often than the pro side. The evidence shows that there is no way of telling in most cases what will be controversial until one of the anti people show up to a debate, making some proposed remedies unworkable in practice. Finally it sets up the classical music and opera projects as a walled garden where the normal rules of Wikipedia discussions about content do not apply, and you're banning Andy and Gerda to enforce it! This really is the most inappropriately one-sided outcome I've ever seen from ArbCom and I've been observing it for years. Please go back and try again. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Folantin, Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case so where's the difference? There is none. This is the worst AC group ever and I no longer recognize their legitimacy. @Thryduult, precisely, the only-pro-side sanctions violate the very walled garden principle they've posted because it sets up the anti-side as a walled garden just as you've said. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case". No they haven't. Kleinzach has barely edited Wikipedia during this case as you well know. --Folantin (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they have. Even if not, they most certainly did during the events leading to this, so again where's the difference? PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can back your accusations, you should stop repeating them. This case began on 17 July. Where have they been "starting multiple infobox debates" during that time? Kleinzach has made precisely five edits to Wikipedia during this period, two of them to your user talk page. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say whatever I want. And how convenient of you to ignore my last question. PumpkinSky talk 11:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of concern for factual accuracy is duly noted as is the fact you appear to be the founder of WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? And your clear bias and lack of concern for factual accuracy is also duly note; you did clearly ignore my question about their behavior leading to this case. We clearly won't agree so let's just move on. But also note the other two commenting here seem to agree with me. PumpkinSky talk 12:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no evidence for your claims. I'm going to supply some regarding Gerda Arendt during this case. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop? If you want to discuss about something not related to the case, like you've been doing in your latest four posts, there are more suitable places than the Proposed decision talk page. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to what David Fuchs says on the Proposed Decision here[4]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PunkinSky's surprise (while not agreeing with all points.) The AC felt the need to include the Levels of consensus principle. Did the committee miss that the very reason this needs to be asserted is the wholesale violation of the principle by many editors who invoked local consensus to remove infoboxes? Those removals, without citation of an actual policy, led to much frustration by Andy. While he did not handle it well, is it really the case that the committee finds nothing to say to any of the editors practicing it? Not a ban, not an admonition, not even a reminder?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Andy may have been frustrated by the non-policy removal of infoboxes that he added, so those on the other side were frustrated by the initial non-policy addition of the infoboxes. A wikiproject does not own an article, but likewise a group promoting infoboxes does not own the top-right corner of the page. Rather than relying on attrition, the proper procedure for anyone wanting to spread infoboxes would be to establish a policy that an infobox cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus

PumpkinSky has suggested that the committee is wrong not to bring findings and remedies against Kleinzach and Smerus. However, little or no evidence has been submitted against these editors. Therefore, if anybody knows of any such evidence, I would request that they (pithily) submit it below. Unless it is entirely unavoidable, a simple list of diffs followed by your signature will be sufficient. Thank you, AGK [•] 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".) I have supplied ample evidence for (!) an editor, Andy, and would like that to be considered. The shortest way is my list of "systematic" reverts/changes of infoboxes, most of them in 2013. I trusted that the arbs are able to read a version history such as Sparrow Mass. The latest revert was yesterday, BWV 71: an infobox that I added and Nikkimaria edited was reverted by Eusebeus, see talk and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have VERY limited time today, and limited internet access on weekends, but I will begin to go back through things. These two are subtle in their slaps, but the use of the old "with all due respect" phrasing should not keep folks from seeing the snide snaps and snarks going on here. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come as I have time. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To note that I plan on offering alternatives and/or new remedies and FoF this weekend. If you have any final comments I would make them soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are pandering Satan here by suggesting the things plainly seen are not even viewable unless restated here with a diff. It is much better to pardon the server load than to provide additional web hosting; for the sake of redundancy. This; compounded with intentions of an unwanted hammering sanction; in clear contrast of the community's desire, and indeed, her needs! We ask for guidance on protocols of civil discussion; expecting usable precedent to enhance our ability to move beyond impasse, with propriety to Wikipedia's institutional aims. We can agree to disagree (called no consensus), and close a discussion by default, to some neutral parameter; like the preference established by the earliest contributor, quite often the article's creator. This works for everything from the serial comma, to measuring time itself. Let me attempt to convey this in succinct candor; We don't really need sanctions here, we need authoritative guidance. If a sanction must levy; employ the "swift kick sanction"—that's the one where after self administering a swift kick in the ass, we see the light and get it right. :) John Cline (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support that view. I said so already in the workshop phase. Repeating in optimism some don't understand: We need to find a better way to discuss, and sometimes accept "no consensus", - not exclude excellent contributors with valid arguments from the discussion. I supply two diffs, both by uninvolved editors of this case, as food for thought:
  • Infoboxes are useful tools that should be encouraged in classical music articles. They sum up the main points of an article, allowing for readers of these articles (such as myself) access to some of the most commonly sought-after material. That they be in standard place in most articles would allow readers an easy go-to place for birth/death dates, places of occupation, and a general synoposis of the individual. I feel some in the classical music wikiproject get offended thinking that infoboxes encourage readers to skip over some admittedly great articles. But those who come here just to see a basic sketch of an individual aren't going to read the article from top to bottom. Those who do that will continue to do so whether or not there is an infobox present. Infoboxes, written correctly (omitting information that cannot be summarized, such as which "period" Beethoven belongs to), offer no drawbacks to an article and quite a few benefits. 10 August 2012
  • Consensus does not mean that stupidity and ignorance be given equal weight to common sense and knowledge. 22 August 2013
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only for this case, but the future, I started a list of frequently raised concerns against infoboxes and what I would answer. It seems not well known that Kleinzach, mentioned above, said "I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions," and initiated infobox orchestra. It is a myth that Classical music is against infoboxes, a myth that seems to be widely believed for no good reason. - I don't mind an occasional bollocks or bullshit, having a history of linking to one of these in some other editor's comment myself. - If I may have a final word here (while I will keep adding to the list): I looked at the discussion Talk:Sparrow Mass again and found no lack of dignity in Andy's contributions to it. Let's not continue The Ban on Love. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1

  • May I respectfully point out that the evidence for this arb case closed about two weeks ago? Arbs may wish to consider the consistent attempts of Montanabw, Rexss, PumpkinSky and Pigsonthewing to turn this investigation into their behaviour into an attack against others. I don't have time or inclination to respond to Montana's latest effusions, save to point out that virtually all the links she points out relating to me are repsonses to unprovoked, hostile and agressive comments from the four above mentioned editors. Gerda's optimism , which is what I clearly referred to, has been to me exactly as irritating as F-T's, although I am glad to say we are now cooperating with each other as per normal; I believe that Gerda and I understand very well each other's virtues and limitations and we don't need outsiders to kibitz on our Wikirelationship (Ahh.....). I am not at all ashamed of referring to the futile attempt of Pigsonthewing and Rexss to get an ANI judgement against me as 'bollocks' - which is exactly what it turned out to be. Unlike them, I am not a Wikilawyer, do not seek to build the encyclopaedia by vengeful attacks on fellow editors, and have not sought to escalate their war to these upper regions. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not an investigation of my behaviour. You need to take responsibility for your systematic reversions of the addition of inboxes inside your walled garden - without any justification beyond 'nobody asked your permission first'. Then you need to consider the effects of stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments. You count opinions on talk pages and call that a 'consensus'. At no point anywhere in this sorry business have you made any attempt whatsoever to look for consensus. You should be ashamed of the way in which you insulted and belittled one respected female editor and accused another one of libel. That's so far beyond the pale that any conclusion to this case that fails to acknowledge your central role in causing the problems will have simply given you a licence to continue bullying female editors and stifling any attempts at consensus. That has to stop if we are ever to move forward. Your lie above is plain: from the start, you have singled out Andy and Gerda as scapegoats, while I and others have deliberately refrained from mentioning your name in our evidence, as I would have preferred to have dealt with your behaviour as a general issue, not a personal one. It seems the Arbs would prefer to have it spelled out in detail and that's what those diffs above show. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to intercede here as a longstanding member of the WP:CM wikiproject. The description above by User:RexxS is simply histrionic. 1) We have discussed the use of infoboxes for classical music topics at WP:CM for a very long time now and have raised a number of arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane. That other users who do not edit classical music articles do not find them compelling may be true, but it is ridiculous to suggest that referencing and soliciting the opinion of interested editors through the relevant wikiproject is "stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments." This seems arrogant. (2) You describe an engagement between two editors which is mere fiction given how the two editors concerned on this very page have undertaken to describe their dynamic. You may see it as insulting and bullying, but you are not the editor being addressed. Who are you to take umbrage on someone else's behalf? This seems remarkably arrogant. (3) Andy has been singled out because Andy is problematic. This may offend your sense of justice because you happen to agree with him, but I don't see Smerus, Kleinzach or anyone else wading over to other wikiproject article series willy nilly to bray schoolmarmishly about how we are guilty of owning all these articles (that we create, edit and maintain) because we refuse to concede the value of his point of view. To suggest that our interest in maintaining the quality of articles under the project's umbrella is somehow "stifling attempt at consensus" is ridiculous and seems quite unbelievably arrogant. (4) We have engaged, repeatedly and extensively and in good faith the question of infoboxes for classical topics. We will do so again. There is no policy mandating infoboxes. Absent such a policy it is reasonable that the editors who have common interest in these articles, demonstrated by the fact that they have edited and maintained them, should offer their opinion and be solicited to do so. That you contribute to such debates is salutary. That you then insult the integrity, motivations and sincerity of those of us who labour hard over our wikiproject articles is, however, not. It seems, dare I say, exceptionally arrogant. Personally, I see nothing in the evidence that has been presented "against" Kleinzach or Smerus that in any way whatsoever compares to the longstanding, repeated disruptive history of User:PigsontheWing. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, please differentiate. Project Classical music has reservation concerning infoboxes for biographies, and I am willing to accept that. However, the project developed infoboxes for orchestras, Bach compositions and musical compositions, project opera developed an infobox for opera, all ready to be used. The fact that many of them were reverted and questioned brought us here. I don't want to point out evidence against any esteemed editor. Today I read again several interesting discussions, notably The Rite of Spring, Sparrow Mass and Don Carlos. I found no disruption by Andy in those discussions, instead an admirable hope for improving content: "One always hopes that fellow editors will raise issues with articles in order to improve them, rather than to try to score points in a different argument; perhaps disappointment should be expected. Nonetheless, if there is an error in the article, overlooked by those who have spent so many hours working on it and those who have subsequently reviewed it, it should be fixed sooner, rather than later. That said, if a term has been "employed by significant scholars in the field", then that, not your personal preference, has precedence. regarding your final question, you might like to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY." One always hopes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to inform you that the option of infobox opera, installed by Voceditenore in the project's Manual of Style, was just changed, in Voceditenore's absence and without a discussion. (It makes me think if "Infoboxes" is the right name for this case. It seems to grow more and more to a matter of ownership and protection of the status quo, here: the traditional side nabox. You can speak up at the project talk or at the example The Ban on Love.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore reverted and called for a discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] You refer to "arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane". What about the project members who do not; and who like infoboxes? Does Gerda not count? Have the rest, like User:GFHandel and User:Melodia, et al, been driven off by the intransigence of the remaining project members? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence

Like Gerda and RexxS, I was reluctant to pile on diffs of editor behaviour in my evidence, feeling that it would just fan the flames, rather than enable proper arbitration and the attainment of an an amicable resolution. But since you request them, I'll post some now. Noting your request for brevity (while giving necessary context, especially for long edits), and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' request for haste, this is still just a sample:

  • 10 March 2008 Kleinzach adds the words "non-classical" to the scope of {{Infobox musical artist}}, which includes an explicit classical_ensemble configuration and code.
    • 31 August 2009 I removed that caveat
    • 21 October 2009 Kleinzach comments on this, in a conversation in which I was not yet involved, detailing my blocklog and Arb history, in a clear ad hominem response.
    • In the poll which followed, Kleinzach accuses others (in edit sumamry) of a transparent attempt at splitting the consensus against using the box for 'classical' musicians.
  • 31 July 2011 In response to my making a suggestion to improve the accessibility of navboxes (since adopted for all navboxes on Wikipedia), Kleinzach's reply is Is this to do with microformats? There is at least four years of back history to this issue as searching the archives of WP:Composers will show [13]. The suggestion was nothing to do with microformats.
  • 16 April 2012 Kleinzach says I was dismayed to see Andy Mabbett's involvement; also false allegation of breaking an undertaking (which I never made).
    • 16 April Kleinzach declares AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst
    • 16 April 2012 Kleinzach partisan canvassing
  • 19 March 2013 Smerus refers to the insane proposals to weld all the world's knowledge into a virtual nugget amd attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere
  • 22 March 2013 Smerus opposes (on an article talk page) an infobox, citing WP:COMPOSERS policy and continues It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite to engage discussion at the project page. Remember that the composer's project's RfC concluded that consensus should be formed on article talk pages.
    • 23 March Kleinzach Closing an ongoing discussion, with a particularly biased summary, despite being an involved party. He was immediately reverted by User:GFHandel. Kleinzach then complained that his summary had been deleted in the reversion, rather than refactoring it as a general comment (i.e. removing phrases rendered nonsensical by the revert, like "I am now archiving this") and reposting it. Immediately after this, GFHandel, a long-standing editor in classical music realm (whose user name belies his interest); and a supporter of the use of infoboxes in such articles, retired from and ceased editing Wikipedia.
  • March 2013: Infobox orchestra is created, in draft. I add some fields to it, and
    • Despite the fact that the template is a draft, not used in any articles, Kleinzach objects that I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here. ("here" link updated to archive; diffs from that are in my earlier evidence. That whole discussion, and the template talk page, are worth reading for examples of Kleinzach objecting to (and often reverting) every change I made (most have been kept), and reporting every edit I make to the classical music project to canvass support).
    • During construction of the template, I made the observation: This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). At that time the CBSO article looked like this
    • Nonetheless Kleinzach proceeded to replace (seemingly) every instance of {{Infobox musical artist}} on an article about an orchestra - edits well into three figures, ignoring objections. In most cases, cited and otherwise undisputed information was lost from the infobox, as can be seen from the current state of the CBSO article. That's a Fait accompli, apparently.
  • 19 May Smerus places a Do not feed the trolls graphic on the Richard Wagner talk page, during discussion of a proposed infobox.
    • 22 May Smerus made a bogus attempt to claim that I was not allowed to edit the talk page of a TFA (Richard Wagner; the discussion has been listed in others' evidence). He pushed this repeatedly in later edits. In This he refers claims I am Wikipedia 'reductionists' lke Mr. Mabbett, who see WP as means of crystallising the world's information to an essential nucleus from which all can be extrapolated (rather like, as I have mentioned elsewhere in a debate on Mr. Mabbett's obsessions, the desire of Mr. Casaubon in 'Middlemarch' to construct a key to all mythologies),and 'expansionists' like myself who like to create and expand articles, thereby both misrepresenting my work on metadata and dismissing the considerable number of articles I have created and/ or expanded. (Both ANI and then AN later rebuffed the attempt.)
  • 8 July Kleinzach falsely asserts that an infobox must summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole, attempting to correct Gerda, who rightly points out that they are supposed to summarise key facts. (MOS:INFOBOX: 'to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears)
  • 8 July Kleinzach describes the addition of an infobox as "pretty close to vandalism"
  • 8 July Smerus describes infoboxes as the "end of civilization" and comaplins about Gerda doing so "without consulting on the relevant talk pages" while asking "whether it's "OK to revert these with a request for discussion on each talk page".
  • 8 July Kleinzach described the addition of an infobox as a WP:POINT attack
  • 9 July Kleinzach falsely accuses Gerda of going through my edits reverting them one after another
  • 11 July Kleinzach deletes an infobox which was part of Gerda's comment, from an article talk page.
  • 12 July Kleinzach attempts to pressure Gerda into falsely confirming that he did not delete part of her comment.
  • 11 July Kleinzach falsely claims As everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits He means me (see my earlier evidence for other examples from the period when he insisted on not using my name or user name). The diffs he gives are all pages I'd previously edited and are on my watchlist. He also accuses me of "hacking" (repeated in edit summary)
  • 12 July (and others) Kleinzach logging my edits

More may follow; or on request.

I repeat my comments in evidence and workshop that the "involved" projects include other editors, not yet named here (and some who have posted evidence or comments). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of thoughts

As I went active on this case rather late (after the workshop closed), I'm leaving some comments here. I've read through the evidence and workshop pages (and talk pages), and there are some interesting discussions and suggestions there. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that it is not possible (or desirable) for ArbCom to rule on the wider aspects of the matter, such as what infoboxes are for, and how they should be used and the various points related to metadata. Those sort of issues need well-ordered and widespread discussion by the editing community, while at the same time recognising existing practices and any inconsistencies in current editing practices.

Looking at the bigger picture here: many elements can be incorporated on the same Wikipedia article page (article text, lead section, tables, references, categories, navboxes, infoboxes, succession boxes, images and other media). Some of those elements are optional, others are found in all articles. How these sometimes disparate elements mesh together is part of the process of building and writing an article. Sometimes that requires discussion. If editors disagree over how an article should be written, and which of these elements should be used or how they should be used, then they need to discuss that. When editors fail to discuss (or edit war), or discussions fail, that is the point at which either wider input from the editorial community is needed, or formal dispute resolution.

When you have meta-philosophical disputes like this that have lasted years, one approach is to identify the productive community discussions that have taken place over the years and to identify the discussions that got widespread input from a large number of editors. And if those discussions haven't taken place, to try and encourage such discussions (after suitable planning and preparation).

One thing I have noticed recently is the large number of discussions taking place at WP:TFD, with infoboxes being discussed there. As far as I can tell, those discussions appear to be mostly aimed at merging infoboxes, but it is interesting to see the wide range of opinions expressed in those discussions. Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here, it is obvious that the wider issues still need fuller discussion. This is the sort of case where I'm tempted to say that those who disagree (as shown on the workshop page) should be instructed to write essays explaining their positions, and that a widely-advertised request for comment would then help form community-wide consensus on the best way to move forward. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided rulings in such cases never calm things down, they exacerbate the issue. You should know that by now. Not to mention making AC look ever worse. PumpkinSky talk 11:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is a response to my saying "Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here"? Fair enough, but that wasn't really the point of what I said and you are only responding to a very small part of what I said. Your comment seems to relate more to the section you started above (which I may comment on later). I'd be interested in constructive comments on the other things I said in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki has become completely dysfunctional as it is a reflection of the real world, which is also totally dysfunctional. These things can't be fixed. For example, you can't stop people from socking--the sock policy is joke as it's a total waste of time, AC is pointless anymore because their rulings are wildly inconsistent and contradictory--towit putting up a principle against walled gardens here and yet setting one up for the anti-box crowd by ignoring their actions, AC and other wiki DR efforts are pointless because you can't change people's nature, those in power in wiki and RL protect their own and crap all over other people. So, I think we should do away with AC and DR and just work on content. Nothing has changed in the almost 8 years I've been on wiki. It just gets worse every year. AC and DR is all pointless and taking sides in a case makes it even worse. PumpkinSky talk 11:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki has become completely dysfunctional - admins have been far, far too lenient with disruptive editors such as Pigsonthewing who have turned massive areas of the project into battlegrounds and driven away productive editors and this has been going on for years. Many people who could make valuable contributions do not want to spend their spare time volunteering to take part in an activity that involves constant arguing and participation in bitter feuds. I am an active blogger on opera, I have taught history of classical music professionally, I made a conscious decision several years ago not to edit in the area on WP for the very reason that I could see I would get involved in this long-running controversy on infoboxes and it would be an unproductive waste of time. I never commented on the issue until it came to arbcom. It looks like a good decision is shaping up here, the essential thing is that Pigsonthewing is permanently removed from any involvement in anything to do with infoboxes.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

2) About myself

You know Findings Gerda Arendt: Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles systematically and without prior discussion. The first link goes to works by Kafka, the day before he was TFA, - I am proud of it. The second link shows me adding one infobox to one opera which was a FA, right after the option of {{infobox opera}} became available, which I understood as an invitation to use it, whereas others regarded it as the end of civilisation. I was told that it was not wise to do so and have only suggested (not added) to Carmen. - I believe that adding infoboxes to operas, literature, compositions etc. don't require previous discussion. I would go further and say that no edit requires to first ask permission, - and who's permission?

For quite a while already, I am on a voluntary 1RR rule: if an added infobox is questioned I go to the talk page. I offered to find out how consensus can be achieved in two cases, The Ban on Love and The Rite of Spring, in an attempt to get from "I don't like it"-arguments to factual one. I invite everyone, arbitrators and watchers, to enter those discussions, to find a way how conflicts can be resolved in the future, rather than looking at errors of the past. There are some 50 other cases to look at. Note: not one of them is a composer where I added an infobox. For the infamous case Richard Wagner: I didn't even suggest to add an infobox to the article, only to show it on the talk, according to the advice from an arbitrator. Why the reaction was as if I had committed a sacrilege is beyond my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) About Andy

I still haven't seen any evidence of Andy editing disruptively in 2013. I found him always helpful, creative, open for suggestions and considerate of an editor's personal situation. Restrict such editors? What do you want to accomplish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) As said above, there are countless topics where infoboxes are quite normal. Why restrict Andy - of all people - from adding infoboxes there? (Same question for me, of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) As said above, where is the evidence for recent disruption? I see no reason to ban for something that was regarded disruptive in the past, if it is not repeated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I'm sorry to 'butt in' and contradict your defense of Andy. But only in the last day or so, not having had any previous dealings with Andy until I encountered him on the Peter Warlock article, I have personally found him aggressive, confrontational and quite oblivious to appeals to actually discuss an issue and collaborate. This can be seen here where, even as you and I are having a civil discussion about infoboxes, he butts in and tries (not for the first time, as you can see further up the talk page) to goad me into 'reporting' him after I'd called him out for breaching BRD - I can't help feeling as if to say "so you say - what are you going to do about it?". In short, he was behaving like a bully who's been caught out and has no intention of making amends but would rather turn this into an intractable confrontation, presumably in the hope that his 'opponent' will 'lose his cool'. Alfietucker (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3) About "remedies"

The term "not very constructive" has been used, - forgive me for finding all so-called remedies not very constructive. Nikkimaria and I not to add, revert, discuss infoboxes at all? Please see that only in a a very small field infoboxes are contentious, and these are not contentious because of Nikkimaria and me. I should not be permitted to add an infobox to a Bach cantata I write? ... to a church I find without one? Come on. - It's easy to ban an editor whose arguments you don't like. I don't see yet one factual (!) argument why "The Rite of Spring" should not have an infobox, - please join the discussion and give me one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your last comment is a very interesting point that should be clarified. If you create an article, you might be allowed to add an infobox, I think. However, there proposed remedies have yet to pass (or not). — ΛΧΣ21 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it complies with Wikipedia's content policies, then yes. The reverse should also apply: if you create an article (or provide the bulk of its content) then you shouldn't have to have an infobox imposed on it. For instance, on The Rite of Spring, the biggest contributor by far is Brian Boulton [14] and he's opposed to an infobox there. --Folantin (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you mention that here where we talk about me adding infoboxes? I didn't add one to "The Rite of Spring", nor did Andy, no infobox was "imposed" on it. Andy asked (!) why it doesn't have one, and that was the most "disruptive" edit I saw him making in 2013, - needless to say that I don't find it disruptive at all. - I am in friendly discussion with Brian on the infobox of another article, see Talk:Peter Warlock (again not added by Andy or me). One question is if an infobox is supposed to contain "the key facts" of an article or "key facts". Brian, who wrote an excellent Signpost article, is more open than you assume, and discussion, not banning and restricting, is the way forward that I hope for. - The agreement between Nikkimaria and me is that she doesn't revert infoboxes in "my" articles, I leave "hers" without one, - it's not a great agreement (a reader may wonder why some Bach cantatas have an infobox and other's don't, Nikkimaria's and Mathsci's), but is better than none. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I respect your content work and your Precious awards to build community here, and I think that you should be able to add infoboxes to articles you start. However, you seem at least a bit tone deaf when it comes to infoboxes. For example, when the discussion at Talk:The Rite of Spring had clearly reached consensus against adding an infobox to the article [15], you went ahead and added The Rite of Spring as an example in the Infobox musical composition documentation (diff). When there is a clear consensus against using an infobox, using it as an documentation example makes no sense, and invites well-meaning editors who are ignorant of the article's history to add it to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the sequence: It was not my choice of an example, I chose The Ban on Love above it. The Rite was mentioned there, I thought we better illustrate it for those who don't know. I still believe that we should not "vote" on infoboxes but find other ways of discussion, - I keep dreaming and searching, please help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Gerda, but I have no idea what you mean with your comments directly above this. I tried to "follow the sequence" by looking at your edit history. On June 1, 2013 at 19:10 you made your first edit in nearly six hours (to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to the thread ‎"Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox" with the edit summary That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled (diff)). Your next edit was at 19:21 to Talk:The Rite of Spring to the thread "‎‎Closing discussion?" with the edit summary some things can't be decided by voting (diff). Your next edit was at 19:36 to Template:Infobox musical composition/doc with the edit summary ‎‎Examples: add one where you added The Rite of Spring infobox as an example (diff). I looked at several of your other edits before and after these, but none of them mention the Ban on Love.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with proposing and showing examples of infoboxes on the talk page for the article where the box would be included.

However, I think that it makes absolutely no sense to show a specific article's infobox as an example in that box's documentation when the talk page for that article twice showed clear consensus against including any infobox. That is like using Mitt Romney or John Kerry as an example of a US President in {{Infobox officeholder}} (since there was pretty clear consensus against either of them actually becoming President).

I also think it makes absolutely no sense to show an unused infobox as an example anywhere outside the article's talk page (or a personal sandbox). The problem is that an uninvolved editor who sees the example box and finds it is not used in the article may well not read the article talk page. They may well think that the box should be included in the article, and add it despite consensus not to do so. It is a little like a leaving a loaded gun lying around unattended - it may lead to unexpected noise and injury.

I hope this explains my concern at your "tone deafness" when it comes to infoboxes more clearly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try to follow but think that we speak of different things- which doesn't make understanding easier. After the workshop closed, I installed The Ban on Love on its talk, side navbox vs. infobox, to "practise" with an example how consensus might be achieved, on 8 August. In the discussion The Rite was mentioned, therefore I added it 9 August. - I am a bit surprised to see an infobox compared to a gun ;) - If someone sees it and adds it, simply revert. - Decision by voting: I believe that to look at flaws and merits of a proposal is better than counting people who come with arguments such "Oppose any infobox" (yours), "An infobox is not needed" (well, of course not, it is never "needed"), "redundant to a properly-written first paragraph" (well, it has to be redundant by definition), and better than all these " infoboxes are contentious". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch: we spoke of different things, now I know. I was absorbed in the case, you spoke about the example in the infobox template. You were quite clear, I didn't get it, sorry. I replaced the example now by a Bruckner Symphony, which has an infobox since 2007. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the "Google should not be allowed to easily benefit from our work" argument that was sported at Jimbo's Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? — Ched :  ?  04:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above summary is mistaken. The discussion was here and concerned an essay expressing extreme frustration with the infobox wars, and particularly for one justification to include infoboxes, namely "Watson, SIRI, and Google all use the infobox data." The author objects to having their opinion that some infoboxes are not helpful subjugated by an imperative that data must be provided for Google (and inserting metadata into the article is not sufficient because editors won't keep hidden data updated, therefore an infobox must be present and visible). Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Watson" quote (though factually correct; and acceptable, as WTT points out elsewhere)) is a paraphrase of part of a much longer comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) in a November 2012 discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover/Archive 1. For the record, I posted only three short comments there, and one of those was to point out that the page had been refactored, changing the meaning of my other two comments. There is no "imperative", and noting is being done "for Google". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We start today

I keep dreaming of a new discussion style in the future, instead of looking back at who made what mistake in the past. My suggestions for arbitration:

  1. I restrict myself: I don't revert the revert of an infobox. (I started doing so a while ago.)
  2. Andy restricts himself: he doesn't make more than one comment per day in any given infobox discussion.
  3. Nikkimaria keeps doing what she does, follow our edits, and Wikipedia will be clean.
  4. Kleinzach restricts himself: he doesn't say again "The talk page is not the place for an info box".
  5. Smerus restricts himself: he doesn't mention "(mental) health" again in an infobox discussion.

We all don't start new discussions, but try to solve the open ones. I suggest Siegfried first, if you don't like The Ban on Love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite exactly where I have made any mention of health, mental or otherwise, in any infobox discussion? I do not recall any such occasion. I ask so that I can make apologies if appropriate if I have in any way transgressed the bounds of courtesy.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Siegfried, link above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I wrote there ' I join the plea for dignity and (mental) health'. This is not an imputation against anybody, it is a simple plea for sanity. This is the secondtime in a few days that you have made unwarranted imputations against against me, once by suggesting that I set up a tag-tema, and now by apparently implying that I made comments about the mental health of other editors. I suggest that the principle new start that can be made here is by editors refraining from making allegations against others and/or telling other editors what words they should or should not use in their general commemts, as long as those words are not insulting or vicious. I dream of such a day.--Smerus (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not. I have not made any imputation. I have not said that you set up a team-tag. I have not implied anything here, I have only asked you to not use the phrase in the future. Let's keep it simple, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I invite every arb (and everybody else interested) to visit one open discussion, perhaps even take part in it. You know where to find the choices on top of Verdi, Siegfried, The Ban on Love (mentioned in the case or above): here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month because no benefit would arise from adding further fuel at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea - I will stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month (as of now ;-) ). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly approve of this proposed moratorium. --Folantin (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the reader?

We can not ask "the readers" how they feel about the unspeakable things - let's call them "summary" for the moment. We can not ask them especially when they got reverted. But we all are readers. Please let me know if my "summary" serves you, compared to no summary. From the more than 50 cases (linked above) I chose an opera (o), a composition (c) and a person (p). Easy poll: if "with summary" (or without) is the same for all three cases, simply sign, if not the same for all three take the two initials for which you react the same way and sign those. I would love something playful today.

  1. opera: Fatinitza - with - without
  2. composition: Sparrow Mass - with - without
  3. person: Andreas Scholl - with - without

I prefer with summary

  1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer without summary

Feel free to discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This Arbcom case concerns the long-term disruption caused by a clash between two sets of editors—it is not relevant whether infoboxes are good or bad. Let's suppose some new arguments were produced to conclusively show that infoboxes must (or must not) be included in every article—would that resolve the problem? The answer is no because after all the bitterness of the infobox wars, neither side is going to accept a new opinion. It really would be best to stop talking about infoboxes—wait a couple of months, then if wanted, start a community-wide discussion to get a general consensus so future discussions can rely on a policy, or at least a guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think, about what this case concerns. Please note that I never said "must" or "must not", and never will. I use an option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This case is called "infoboxes", yes, but as someone who has watched the dispute for a couple of years without getting involved in it until now, I agree with Johnnuiq that it is not actually about infoboxes but more about one editor's (Pigsonthewing) obsession with "metadata" and his pushing of it onto unwilling editors in a highly argumentative way that alienates others. There are many examples where he has put an infobox into an article, or attempted to, and the people who have built the article say" that does not add anything", to which the all-purpose reply is "Yes, it does, it emits metadata", just for instance in this discussion [16].I can say for myself that I made a deliberate decision not to edit in the area of classical music because I could see it would involve me in this bitter feud, and I have better ways to spend my spare time.Smeat75 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smeat75 misquotes me. I was actually replying to Brianboulton, who said, addressing me, You obviously think that an infobox would enhance this article; let us have the arguments for this., and what I actually said was The benefits of an infobox in this article, as for the many thousands of other articles that include one, are that it summarises key information from elsewhere in the article, including material not suitable for the lede, for the convenience of readers wanting a quick overview, not least those accessing the collapsed view on mobile devices. It makes that information available as machine-readable metadata on the page; and for use in dbpedia. And it will, shortly, provide an interface with Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a link to the whole discussion, anybody can follow it to see exactly what you say.I find you a very intimidating and bullying presence and made a conscious decision to avoid any articles that might bring me into dispute with you.Smeat75 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have your view, I have mine (and this is my section of the discussion). I repeat from below: I find Andy not intimidating, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour (note: I did so already when I did not share his view). - I liked to enter his latest article to the DYK statistics. I like that he (of all participants in the Bach discussion) came to my talk when I mentioned that a friend died. - "Intimidating" is a difficult term, - would you have a link to something you would describe like that? - I am not intimidated, although I was warned. - "Obsession" is also a difficult term. I am for infoboxes without using the term metadata, and I don't feel that I am obsessed. - What this case should be about and is about are very different things. It should be about systematic reverts of infoboxes, latest example BWV 71, see discussion. - The way this case goes (so far) makes me think of a "deliberate decision" not to edit Wikipedia. I didn't want a case, but really hoped arbitration would look at recent evidence, not history, and reach for understanding. Recent evidence has it that Andy and I did the same things, so please treat us the same. I am not afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know what to do in the future

For the future, we need to know precisely "what is perceived to be some editors' aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion", as the SignPost summarized.

Please mark the following 2013 examples as "aggressive" if you perceive them so. (Note that I excluded operas, because we will deal with it on the project level, started already, after 17.000 words of discussion were archived.)

Added later: After Voceditenore's remark below, I change the question to: what is perceived to be problematic and should be avoided in the future? (Not using "aggressive", "tendentious", "disruptive", "detrimental to our content", "a nuisance".) All cases turned out to be controversial, to my surprise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a church (Cathedral of Blessed Mother Teresa in Pristina, St. Severin, Keitum)
  2. Revert of the same
  3. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to an orchestra (Russian Symphony Orchestra Society)
  4. Revert of the same
  5. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to an art work (Forsbrook Pendant)
  6. Revert of the same
  7. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a company (Renaissance Theatre Company)
  8. Revert of the same
  9. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a person not in classical music (Aspinwall)
  10. Revert of the same
  11. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a building (Holzhausenschlösschen)
  12. Revert of the same
  13. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a composition (Sparrow Mass, Cantata academica)
  14. Revert of the same
  15. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a Bach cantata (Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35, Gott ist mein König, BWV 71)
  16. Revert of the same
  17. Proposing an infobox for a composer (Handel)
  18. Addition of an infobox without prior discussion to a composer if you wrote the article (Planyavsky)
  19. Revert of the same
  20. Asking why an article doesn't have an infobox (The Rite of Spring)

Needless to say, as I am unaware that any of these actions (not even the reverts) are "aggressive", problematic, please clarify. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is a Signpost editor's individual take on the case. It has nothing to do with the proposed decisions in this case. You will note that nowhere in the proposed decision is the term "aggressive" used except in SilkTork's comment under Editorial process:
"Reverting of anything other than obvious vandalism or harm should be considered very carefully as reverting can often be perceived as an act of aggression which then provokes a negative response. Consideration, politeness and discussion go a long way to assisting everyone to build this encyclopaedia appropriately."
As for WikiProject Opera "starting already" on the discussion you propose here, I'm afraid you've rather missed the key thrust of my "17,000 words" comment there:
[...] Several members are so sick of these constant, fruitless, and at times personalised discussions dominating our project talk page that they've taken it off their watch lists. Lord knows how many prospective members we may have lost in the last few months after they've seen this talk page. It's quite clear that at the moment some editors have fairly entrenched positions and there is simply not sufficient common ground for us as a collective to come anywhere near an agreed "general recommendation". The world is not going to come to an end if we have to proceed without one for now. However, the relentless attempts to continue rehashing this may well be the death of this project. Can we please take a break from all this and revisit it in a few months (if anyone wants to) when people have had time to reflect on their positions and the dust has settled on the current arbitration proceedings and their aftermath. [...]
– Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I missed it, I responded that I will not add an infobox where a side navbox is in place, - adding here: I will not even suggest one in such a case, - five months were mentioned, fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that you responded with your five months offer, but since you have described your response as "starting" (yet another) discussion of how to proceed with infoboxes, well, I'm afraid you did rather miss my point. In any case, you can (and undoubtedly will) do what you think is best. Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start "yet another discussion", - I opened the discussion on The Ban on Love on 8 August, only moved it to the talk of the article on 26 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
??? What does Talk:Das Liebesverbot have to do with it? That is an individual talk page discussion, not a "project level" discussion and not carried out on the project talk page. Your statement: "Note that I excluded operas, because we will deal with it on the project level, started already, after 17.000 words of discussion were archived" (and your subsequent comment) implied pretty clearly to me that you considered Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#17,000 words and your response to it to be the "already started" new project-level discussion on how to proceed on infoboxes, when actually it was my individual plea to both sides for a project-level moratorium on the subject. Perhaps you don't see the damage these discussions have done to the project in terms of both productivity and our former collegial atmosphere, but I do, and so do the members who have taken the project talk page off their watchlists. Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't "damage" productivity and atmosphere anymore, leaving projects opera and classical music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw

I see several problems with the proposed decision.

  1. Klienzach and Smerus should be subject to - at a minimum - identical or parallel restrictions to those imposed on Nikki, Gerda and Andy. I will elaborate more on this below
  2. Andy needs to be evaluated on 2013, not 2006 or whenever. To the extent he made mistakes, he did his time, he's paid his debt to wikipedia society, and that should be water under the bridge. Drop the stick, look only at the present.
  3. Also, Andy clearly has an interest and passion for infoboxes and metadata, and that interest is not a bad thing; he provides a useful service to wikipedia and shouldn't have the thing he cares about most taken away. He has learned and grown from what has happened in the past, and I believe that the PD is basically giving him a life sentence for a misdemeanor. I think that if people are concerned, any proposed decision should be time-limited and narrowly targeted to specific, CURRENT concerns, perhaps only within the Classical Music project.
  4. Any restriction on Gerda of any sort makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has never violated one single policy or guideline on wiki and where she has ruffled feathers. she has apologized. In addition, most infoboxes she initially added were to INDIVIDUAL articles (which the PD says is OK) that she herself either created or did a 5x expansion on (I don't have time to correlate her DYK record to infobox additions, but I think I'm correct on this). Basically, all she has done was annoy the Old Guard "we don't want any infoboxes anywhere never lalalalala" clique at WP Opera.
  5. The proposed sanctions on Nikki seem about right, though perhaps definitely a time frame after which she can reapply for adminship (6 months, perhaps?) would be good so that we don't have a situation of the wiki life sentence that I have criticized above for Andy where a RfA would result in a chorus of "OMG! She was desysoped 10 years ago and how dare she return now? It's too soon!" and put her under a cloud forever.
  6. I am concerned that Nikki is being subjected to sanctions when Smerus and Klienzach aren't even mentioned, even though their behavior and attitudes are a very large part of why we are here in the first place. I am wondering if this is an example of the systemic bias against women that is a problem in parts of wiki. Nikki did overstep, but she also should not be the only person on the anti-infobox side (particularly where she isn't 100% anti-infobox anyway); in some ways, she showed more willingness to collaborate and work with Gerda than did Smerus or Klienzach.
  7. I think that if we are looking at levels of remedies, those imposed on Andy should parallel those on Nikki (save that he isn't an admin, but perhaps a discussion of appropriate but time-limited ( a month or so, maybe) editing restrictions would be in line.
  8. I believe that there should be some action taken against Kleinzach and Smerus for their behavior as the "old guard" and how UNBELIEVABLY unkind and incivil they have been to Gerda who, in my view, has always been nothing but civil. In particular, Kleinzach seems to be skipping off scott free because he simply has not responded here. Although Folantin and I personally reached a truce as to each other, I will note that I continue to be troubled by his attitude and responses here, it's one thing to defend his friend Smerus, but his tone has been problematic.
  9. Any restrictions on people adding or removing infoboxes should be confined mostly to the classical music topics, because this seems to be the only place where the existence of infoboxes themselves are the problem (most other disputes in other areas seem to be more over form than existence). To say that people cannot add ANY infobox anywhere is ludicrous; what if we have 10 new articles that need, say Infobox Mineral added - a wikiproject that strongly supports infoboxes in every article? Or if I ask Andy or Gerda to tune up or fix me up a fancy new infobox design for, say, the equine "biographies" where we have an infobox in all of them?

I am concerned that the proposed ArbCom decision unfairly targets a user, Andy/Pigsonthewing, as a scapegoat, and lets two playground bullies, Klienzach and Smerus, off scott-free to continue their bullying and domination of WikiProject Opera and WikiProject classical music unabated. This situation illustrates the worst weakness of "teh wiki" - it never forgets and it never forgives. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm, others: I am quite concerned by the "disinclined to use infoboxes" tone of the comments below and the implication that, somehow, they are not a standard feature of wikipedia articles, or that the "pro-infobox" contingent is a minority. Infoboxes are pretty much standard operating procedure for many wikiprojects, and as far as I can tell most of the C-class and better biographies, most C-class and better animal articles, gem and mineral articles, health and disease articles, chemistry articles, movies, TV shows, popular music, and so on. I think in Andy's evidence he showed some links that at least HALF and maybe more of wikipedia's articles - and this counts stubs and everything - already have infoboxes. While there is plenty (I'd argue too much) "drahmahz" over the content and appearance of infoboxes, the rabid OMG NO! response to them is rather unique to the Classical music project. For that reason, I don't think it wise to view infoboxes as a "creation" issue nor am I confortable having their absence any kind of implied default position. Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEW: For anyone not thinking there is evidence of the behavior of Smerus that I think needs sanctions, he just posted this on the 16th (been ut of twon, haven't been following the drama chapter and verse for a while...): User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Team. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone takes this latest provocation seriously, I suggest they read the entire thread concerned.--Smerus (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. And I also strongly recommend reading Smerus' talk page as well. Don't start, my friend; WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw(talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

I'm very disappointed that the PD has failed to find any viable way forward in resolving these issues. The idea that simply banning a few editors from the dispute will solve the problems is akin to the concept of cutting off an arm to cure left-handedness. You have the ability and the encouragement to look for better means, but have spurned the opportunity.

There is clearly a principle missing as Silk Tork has hinted - something along the lines of:

  • Editors making bold, good-faith edits to articles or article talk pages that others consider contentious may be judged to be editing disruptively.

because without that, the FoF and remedy concerning Gerda are hung on a non-existent premise - one that I'm not at all sure has the consensus of the community. You won't put the above up for debate, of course, because you know it has no grounding in our current policies and guidelines.

You will know that I have collaborated with Andy on numerous technical issues over the last couple of years, not least the development of {{hlist}} and the improvements made to the accessibility of our articles, so you will expect me to be dismayed at the suggestion of banning Andy, thereby losing all of his hugely valuable contributions in so many areas - including classical music (how many of the regulars at WPCM can boast of having written a monthly column for a classical music magazine, as Andy can?). I accept that it would be better for Andy to step away from the conflicts over infoboxes, as they tend to bring out the worst in him, but why do you pick the bluntest of tools to do the job? "... indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes"? That implies a ban from any namespace, yet Andy is one of the small fraction of editors with the technical know-how to create and improve infoboxes, and you suggest removing him from that as well? Why? What does it accomplish besides damaging the encyclopedia? If you want to remove Andy from the conflict, then forbid him from adding or discussing infoboxes in mainspace; get him a mentor; look for some constructive, not destructive remedies.

I've known Nikki since she worked her socks off to save Geogre's Ormulum, and I've had both agreements and disagreements with her, but I've always found her willing to debate the issues and look for compromise - the last time she was blocked for edit-warring, I was able to successfully petition the blocking admin to unblock her as we had already made progress in resolving that particular issue. I know that she has regularly reached compromise with Gerda, and I'd point others to those interactions as one model of resolving differences. I do find her abbreviated edit summaries problematical, but I haven't seen any evidence of misuse of her admin tools. I therefore find the proposed desysop as unfounded, and I'd strongly suggest you look at ways of helping her contribute - why not 1RR and obligatory explanational edit summaries, as those are where the problems lie? The present drafting is reminiscent of curing headaches by decapitation.

Ok my rant is finished, and so am I. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Olive to the arbs

I have no experience with the info box debate. I am familiar with Gerda's work, although not with Pigsonthewing. I did attempt to talk to Nikki after watching what appeared to be on-going stalking. What struck me when reading this Arbitration case was that it seemed out of focus, blurred, and with no clarity. The remedies for the most part are those saved for the worst offenses and all of it was lopsided ignoring the work of multiple editors which should have been scrutinized.

I would like the arbs to consider a few general points:

There are two kinds of issues which seem to come to the arbs. Wikipedia is a designated collaborative community. Its legs are the family of editors the encyclopedia stands on. As in any family behaviours arise which make editing unpleasant. Still, those behaviours while unacceptable can be remedied usually, as in a family, with strategies that do not require that the family member be asked to leave and set up a tent down the street. Members of this community are valuable, take a long time to train and for the kind of issues that create unpleasantness but which do not undermine the very fabric of the community lesser remedies are always best.

The second kind of issue is that which eats away at the legs of the community, destroying, not making unpleasant, but destroying the fabric of Wikipedia. That kind of behaviour is directed directly at other editors, is thoughtful, premeditated and is meant to damage editors so they eventually will leave. I mean more specifically the creation of narratives that create a false sense of an editor, fatiguing them deliberately, harassment, retaliation, bullying, talk page lynchings, and the lack of basic values most of us agree allow communities to function optimally like honesty and integrity ... and the list goes on. I'd add that these tactics have been applied to both editors and arbs. wearying the arbs as well as the editor.

I do not see that a general over arching distinction has been made that separates problematic behaviour from behaviours that are meant to deliberately harm other editors, undermining Wikipedia in the long run, in part because the behaviours which truly undermine are hard to see, the cases, high profile, and all of it harder still to believe. And I do not think the arbs have made this distinction either. Maybe I'm wrong. Once behaviours have been placed in either the "bickering family" slot or the more serious "undermining the fabric of the collaborative community" slot, remedies are easier to apply.

In this arbitration what struck me was that the bickering family had been treated to remedies that belong to more serious transgressions like the eventual undermining of the community creating that immediate out of focus sense I had. I don't see in the list of concerns in the Pigsonthewing remedy that indicate he/she has deliberately causing the kind of damage that requires an indef ban, and Gerda seems to be relatively blameless so I have to ask, please reconsider the nature of the problems and into which of these two categories the editors named in this case belong. I know this is tough job, and I can't imagine what the arbs deal with so this is not an attack, just an attempt to analyze and define, should that make the arb job easier and the remedies more likely to be fair.(olive (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Closing statement by Ched

  • First: Being concise is not my strong suit.
  • Second: I must take responsibility for my lack of direction in my original request (as pointed out by User:Giano), my lack of participation in the evidence stage, and perhaps most regrettably in my lack of participation in the workshop stage. For these failings I do apologize to both the committee and the community. (Worm That Turned and 2 other wikipedians are aware of the specifics as to the "why", but the reasons are not germane to wikipedia). I would also offer apologies to Gerda and Andy; as well as Nikkimaria and the other named parties of the composer group in requesting their attention to this case. Still, it was something I saw as a problem, and I thought could only be resolved by a full case.
  • Third: Montanbw above summarizes my thoughts well in the sense that I fully agree with much of what PumpkinSky, Heimstern Läufer, Thryduulf, and others say in that this PD falls short of an optimal solution to the infobox debate. Still, perhaps it is best I speak my peace in my own words.


  • To say that I am disappointed in this PD would be an understatement. I was hoping for a fair and equatable disposition to all sides. This is not it. It may well chill any discussions or inclusions of infoboxes in the near future; I would certainly hesitate to add an infobox to ANY musician, let alone "composer" after reading our ruling body's suggestions to a solution. In fact, I won't be the least bit surprised if infoboxes now begin to disappear from articles such as Paul McCartney, Tupac Shakur, Andy Williams, and others. Fortunately while our own article fails to offer certain amenities, Google does provide an "infobox" of sorts to things like Bach, in that quick date and place of birth, date and place of death, compositions, children, and spouses can be found without having to read an en.wp page.
I'm not attempting to commit wikicide by Arbcom, but I must say that frankly: After reading the original posting I must wonder if the Arbs even bothered to look at any links, comprehensively review any background, and actually follow through with clicking on "diffs" to determine a full picture of the forest. Often I see a "recidivism" statement, and I wonder if even the very basics were reviewed in this case. I do not dispute that this has been a "wp:battle" on wiki, but I remind all that it takes TWO sides to have a battle - one does not have battles on their own. Quite frankly this looks like a case of: "Hmmm .. there's 5 people in the composer project opposed to infoboxes (actually there are 25 regulars), and 2 people supporting infoboxes. Let's go with the bigger number, and hopefully that will translate to 'votes' in December". I apologize for the WP:ABF - and I'm not actually making that accusation, but the thought did cross my mind.
As far as specifics, the PD does mention in the FoF 2 blocks acquired by Nikkimaria for edit wars. Sorry .. but the actuall number is 3. Also, while "stalking" is a term that's fallen out of favor, here, still the harassment #hounding is not even addressed. (I also feel that addressing Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team could have benefited the project here) Added to that the lack of any inclusion or mention of Kleinzach and Smerus, who's postings have been every bit as inflamitory and confrontational as Andy's, from this PD is somewhat puzzling. Indeed I would say that the committee is well on its way to declaring a "WINNER" in this debate. And no I would not support a permenant removal of Nikkimaria's tools absent evidence of misuse of those tools; however, I would support a time limited removal to recover the understanding of what the non-superuser editors must labor under. I understand there are members of the committee who do not favor this as it can be viewed as punitive; however, having worked under those very circumstances, I can say that it can be enlightening.
After long consideration I can now say that I suppose I felt that some sort of 1RR restriction on composer and infobox items would have been my preferred way forward here. I would also mention that Dave and David may want to add a "recidivisim" clause to the PD as it is often done in other cases. I'll also say that while I don't fully understand the "wikidata, metadata, microdata, what.ever.data" .. I do wonder if it positions Wikipedia better in the future of search engines. I also appreciate the Levels of consensus principle, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to explain the three levels. 1. Community 2. Group/Project 3. Article I feel that there's enough ambiguity there to further muddy the waters, and feel that further clarification would be of benefit.
Now, having berated the committee - I must also mention a few things that I found to be positive. I very much appreciate that both Dave and David were responsive to concerns, and communicated well with us. I also commend the lack of "legalese" in the PD - much easier to understand that way. While I have and do find many faults with the committee as a whole, there is not a single member of the committee that I do not respect both as wikipedians and as people. My own view is that the committee has grown far to large (and by extension: diverse) to be efficient, consistent, and productive; but I do appreciate the effort that all of you put in here. I know it's a tough job with little reward beyond the title.
Question: I have two pages I'd like to either delete or move to a public area:
  • User:Ched/RfC - Infobox - as this is a discussion with multiple people, it should likely be preserved - suggestions welcome.
  • This page should definitely be preserved and there is absolutely no reason why the discussion there shouldn't be continued, though you will need a strong guiding hand to produce an end result. If you read my comments up above and elsewhere, and those of some of my fellow arbitrators, you will see that there is very definitely a recognition of a need for such discussions to take place, even after this case has ended. The true resolution to meta-philosophical disputes such as this arise from widespread and well-planned community discussions, not from arbitration cases. The community need to continue discussing things and moving forward on this and other issues. But the discussion needs to be better planned than what took place there, and more widely advertised. Have a look at the 2010 RfC on microformats that is mentioned on the PD page for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Ched/infoboxes - a page I was working on to organize evidence, unless prohibited I will do a "user requested deletion" upon case closure.
Finally, Thanks to all. Apologies to all. Hopefully if/when I feel the desire to return to editing I will never hear the word "infobox" again. I will also be avoiding any of the Admin. related drama boards if/when I return. (at least for the foreseeable future) Cheers. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


suggestions

  • "5) Wikipedia's mission is to built an encyclopedia" ... should this not be "build"? Built is a past tense. — Ched :  ?  21:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2) There is no general rule on infoboxes, meaning there are regularly debates regarding the use of infoboxes on articles. The debates are overwhelmed by a number of editors, who have been listed as parties on this case.". Very much a nit-pick, but I personally would say " ... some of whom have been listed in this case." I say this because I don't believe, in fact I know that not everyone involved was listed as a party here. — Ched :  ?  22:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[12] and without prior discussion.[13]" I think you are getting dangerously close to choosing one essay over the other, and I suspect a "remedy" outside some clear and documented "warnings" falls well outside Arbcom remit. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of User:Pigsonthewing's possible Conflict of Interest?

Pigsonthewing self-identifies as Andy Mabbett. On his User Page, Pigsonthewing links to his interests page: User:Pigsonthewing/interests. On that page he writes "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example and links to this page, where a short biography of Andy Mabbett includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." When I asked him if he had a WP:Conflict of Interest, Pigsonthewing twice referred me to this Interests page (diff), but would not say if he has a COI.

I raised this possible COI in my evidence, and it was mentioned by Smeat 75 in their evidence, and mentioned by Riggr Mortis. Despite the fact that Pigsonthewing and his defenders wrote at length in the Evidence and Workshop and associated talk pages, no one else mentioned this apparent COI. To me this at least meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion, and I assumed that ArbCom would address this issue in some way.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in Resolute's evidence, they stated " I think Ruhrfisch's questions about potential COI and his relationship with those organizations are valid, and should be answered". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Choess

As an uninvolved party who's watched this with some interest, I think the PD is generally shaping up along reasonable lines. A few thoughts:

  1. If ArbCom is looking to restrict Andy in a closely tailored fashion to prevent disruption, I think the language of Remedy 1.1 is sufficient. Perhaps amending it to "adding infoboxes to articles or their talk pages or discussing the addition of infoboxes to articles or classes of articles" would make the scope clear. As I read it, this would not prevent him from developing new infobox templates or suggesting changes to existing ones, but their acceptance by the community would determine whether they were actually added to articles.
  2. I'm not convinced Remedy 1.2 should be off the table. Looking back at ArbCom's dealings with Jack Merridew/Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit and Rich Farmbrough, in both cases, ArbCom attempted to impose carefully tailored restrictions on technically talented contributors who engaged in disruptive behavior, hoping to retain their contributions. The subsequent history of both editors suggests that this approach may not be entirely fruitful.
  3. Contra Carcharoth, I think there's a very clear line between Andy's second RfArb and the current case. While the ad hominem conduct evident in the first RfArb and to some extent in the second has largely been replaced by parliamentary tactics, a quick perusal of the evidence in the second case will show the same essential problems (battleground behavior, inability to acknowledge adverse consensus), occurring in substantially the same topics (classical music, composers, opera) now before ArbCom.
  4. I tend to agree that the conduct of other parties rises to the level of admonishment at worst, but Gerda's recent statement that "To ban Andy is no solution at all, because - as I pointed out in June already - you will still have to deal with me until you ban me also ;)" suggests that Remedy 3.1 may be warranted as a preventative measure. Hopefully Gerda will clarify her intentions and make this unnecessary. Choess (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clarify that you can ban a person, but not an idea. I believe that for almost every article, an infobox is not damaging it, but is a service to readers. I respect an individual editor's wish to not have an infobox, ask Tim riley. I am looking at opera articles where an infobox was made available but is opposed by some editors who don't like any infobox, - one of them mentioned dung. I am waiting for some more factual pros for keeping the present side navbox, which duplicates facts from a footer navbox, instead of an infobox for the specific article, example The Ban on Love. I am waiting to see how consensus can be established in case of disagreement. I believe that arbitration should serve this purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw my name pop up on the new notification gizmo. I confirm that wherever Gerda and I have disagreed over info-boxes it has always been in the most colleaguely and reciprocal way. Gerda is one of my most cherished colleagues, and our disagreement over this one matter is a side issue as far as I am concerned. I abandoned editing WP for some months last year in the face of what seemed to me to be bullying over info-boxes, but Gerda was assuredly not the culprit. Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duly stricken. I think you are the person most likely to be successful in promoting infoboxes in classical music and opera articles, because a) you know and write a great deal about these subjects and b) you're capable of backing down and working on other things when you find that other people don't agree with you. Good luck, and I hope we'll be reading your lovely articles about music for a while. Choess (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved party

I know that this decision has the potential to impact editors' lives and may even shape policy about Infobox but after reading this talk page I went to go look at the Proposed Decision page and was surprised to see that only 3 or 4 Arbiters have weighed in, they haven't agreed on or objected to every single proposal (many are skipped) and it is very possible that minds could be changed if someone comes in with a compelling argument. I take the delay in other Arbiters posting their views is because it isn't a simple case (or they could all be on vacation!).

This is all to say that none of the proposals that impact specific editors has a majority of votes and a lot can change (for or against) in the next 24-48 hours. I would hold off celebrating or despairing until all of the votes roll in. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Worm That Turned

I must apologise to everyone that I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to come up with a solution here. David and I were working together on a decision, then unfortunately real life stole me away from Wikipedia. I will be going on an indefinite wikibreak as soon as I've tied up a few loose ends.

So, here's a few thoughts, which might hopefully help the creation of a solution. Bear in mind that I came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars.

  • Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing. They allow information to be offer key facts about an article to our readers and facilitate reuse of our content. They are customisable to allow editors to decide what to put in or leave out.
  • Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted.
  • The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. It should be added as part of content creation, and they should not be added systematically to articles.
  • Edit warring over infoboxes should not happen. Ever.

If anyone can create a solution out of those thoughts, please do!

Now, to a few editors specifically.

@Pigsonthewing: I do see that you've managed to keep yourself from falling off the edge into an arbitration case for 5 years, since the end of your ban. However, you've carried on with many of the same behaviours, especially around infoboxes. I attempted to craft a solution whereby you could be removed from any discussion if you were dominating it, but it was pointed out that you are still on article probation and that clearly isn't working.
@Gerda Arendt: I have seen systematic additions from you, please do keep in mind that infoboxes are a content decision, not a maintenance decision.
@Kleinzach:@Smerus: I have been unimpressed by the attitude you have both taken reading around the discussions, though little evidence was provided regarding it. You have tarred discussions with the same brush, refused to assume good faith about the actions of editors. Suggestions that infoboxes cannot be put on the talk page for discussion because someone might copy it onto the main page is clearly stifling discussion. There have been more incidents and if I have more time, I'll be adding something regarding them.
@Nikkimaria: Again, I have been quite unimpressed by your actions, especially coming from an administrator. Reverting without discussion or explanation even in the edit summary is unacceptable. As is edit warring over these matters. I haven't looked far enough into the allegation of following edits to add that to the list, but overall it doesn't make for a good picture.

I believe that covers everything. I'll try to find some time to vote and possibly add some more bits over the next few days WormTT(talk) 09:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply from Gerda - to where I am addressed above)
I don't add where I think it's contentious (learning slowly...). I don't believe to add an infobox to a composition or story - my only cases of "systematic additions", like Schubert's masses, Kafka's short stories - are a content decision. - The newly developed infoboxes for opera should not be contentious, but I realize that they are and am more cautious. (Please see Siegfried: I only proposed on the talk.) - I am on 1RR, take any revert, there were many. I could have provided evidence against other editors but didn't want to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm, re Klein and Smerus...they should have been part of the original proposed remedies, but glad you seem the need. Real life is more important, but within the AC world, I'd submit it's better to delay a PD and case closing in order to get a sound and fair decision that to rush and leave a swiss cheese decision. The problem of long term issues is a tough one. The only real solution is to for the parties on all sides to realize the problem and change and within the wiki world that's very difficult to do. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason for the delay we had was that I was unable to keep working on the PD. As time went on, I became less available, not more. I'm not going to hold up the case for an indefinite period on the vague hope that I might suddenly get more time, especially given that it is unlikely to happen. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some arb needs to pick this up because right now this is an atrocious PD. It's better to delay against than make a bad ruling. PumpkinSky talk 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The committee is tasked with making a decision which resolves the problem. I may see areas for improvement in the PD, but I'd hardly call it atrocious. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm: I reverted without edit summary on a single occasion, and had already long agreed not to do so again. And yet there is no mention in the PD of rollback being abused to revert me. The PD also characterizes my participation in discussions as "sniping", based on a talk page demonstrating neither incivility from me (though one comment was admittedly sarcastic) and worse behaviour from others not mentioned, and ignores multiple diffs of both incivility and gross personal attacks presented by a variety of people in Evidence. I admit that some of my actions with regards to these debates were suboptimal, and have endeavoured to improve my responses more recently and reach a compromise with those on the "other side". But if the PD as presented reflects the overall picture, it's missing a few pieces, and is unlikely to either solve the problem or encourage a more collaborative approach. There were a few good ideas on both "sides" in the workshop - isn't it possible to consider more of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I had not seen that you had agreed not to do so again and that does make the situation better. Could you provide diffs for rollback abuse? I appear to have missed that too. I'm afraid the reason that you've been singled out is that you are an administrator, you should be setting the example for the rest of the community. Effectively, you should know better. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching and involved) Nikkimaria and I arrived at an agreement of mutual respect, so much better than restrictions if you ask me. She has been singled out because she did most reverts of infoboxes (about 20). As you can see here, her edit summaries improved greatly from "cleanup" (#28 Sparrow Mass) to "rm: several errors or oversimplifications, net negative; also per previous agreement. feel free to discuss on talk" (#49 Cantata academica). Both discussions are open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one was presented in Evidence, same paragraph as some CIV/NPA diffs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria, that has helped, sorry I missed it. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm: See my comments in "my" section above. I am concerned about your comment "and they should not be added systematically to articles..." - MANY wikiprojects have a standard article design that DOES in fact ask - nicely and informally - that an infobox be part of the standard article layout (note WP Horse racing, for example, see, e.g. Paynter (horse)). While I suppose someone who is an anti-infobox fanatic may insist that they "own" an article in project and demand removal of an infobox there, I really do think that the projects can be allowed to recommend a starter template and a standard design, even if they can't "demand" it. Ditto things like chemistry (oxygen) or gems like the Yogo sapphire. Just saying. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very sensible position, but should not the reverse also be true, that WikiProjects can recommend, if not demand, that an infobox be omitted from the "standard" article on the grounds that infoboxes usually do a poor job of representing that subject's articles? (cf. the recent removal of the "influences" parameter from Template:Infobox person: I'm sure there are a few cases where it could be used reasonably, but consensus seemed to be that it was more an attractive nuisance than a useful tool.) Choess (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have long supported the ability of projects, not set in stone, to either mandate and deprecate infoboxes for particular types of articles. But in the types of articles that are expected to add them, someone else will come along and do it. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sensible position": the name of my project is opera. The project made an {{infobox opera}} available in June, concise and in keeping with the recommendations in Brianboulton's Signpost essay. I tried it in operas. Some are accepted, others were (rather systematically) opposed and reverted by those who don't like infoboxes for composers. See for example Götterdämmerung and feel free to join the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had an initial (not positive) reaction to Worm's ".. not be added systematically…' comment. However, after thinking about it, I believe Worm has a good point. Some of the concerns here are founded in a different interpretation of "systematic" than I came to have after reading carefully. We have many editors who perform valuable maintenance tasks. In many cases, those edits can be done "systematically" and without needing an expert's understanding of the subject matter of the article. I'll give an example. I recently created a task force on women's basketball. We do not yet have a template for the talk pages, but once one is created, I can imagine an editor finding an appropriate cat, and "systematically" adding the template to all articles in the cat. That can be done by an editor who knows little about the subject. In contrast, I think Worm is suggesting that such a "systematic" edit is not such a good idea with infoboxes. Even if some Wikiproject identifies the inclusion of an infobox as best practice, and an editor finds a cat whose every entry is within the project, it would not be wise to " systematically" add the infoboxes. Why? Because infoboxes take parameters. If an editor plunks a blank infobox into an article, it will make the article look unfinished until someone populates the fields. If the editor chooses to populate the fields, they might get some right, but might blunder on others. In many cases, it take an editor who is conversant with the subject matter to properly populate the infobox. An empty infobox is arguing worse than nothing at all , an improperly filled one is arguably worse than an empty one. If a maintenance editor wants to do something, perhaps they should add a note to a talk page informing editors that there is a suitable infobox, but leave the actual adding of the box to the editors who know how to populate it. Worm is suggesting that infobox addition be part of the content creation process, not part of a maintenance edit. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dave does make an interesting point, but there is no policy or guideline that supports the notion that "systematic" addition or removal of infoboxes is frowned upon (other than a local RfC at one WikiProject) - indeed, such a recommendation would hinge upon each person's idea of "systematic". We need to discuss what is best to do whenever either a new infobox template is created to meet a particular demand (such as {{infobox opera}}), but also we need to consider how to make use of a database that has been created. What if I come into possession of a verified database of notable monuments in Bavaria as used in de:Liste der Baudenkmäler in Freising? May I use {{infobox monument}} to make use of that data where we have an article already, or would that be "systematic"? Could we systematically translate the articles from de-wp, adding infoboxes as we go along? Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments generates many such databases from many countries and there's a debate to be had about how we can best use such data, so I think that a ban on "systematic" additions would be premature, and certainly far too early to base a sanction upon. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that no policy or guideline supports the notion. The very fact that infoboxes should be discussed at each individual article makes it a content creation decision. Assuming we can divide the types of edits people make into content creation and maintenance, then the addition of an infobox falls into the former, not the latter. For clarity, I would consider maintenance to be tasks such as categorisation, stub sorting, adding wikilinks, formatting and stylistic changes such as number and position of headers or placement of images, and simple copyediting such as grammar and spelling fixes. In general, these should not change the meaning of the article for the casual reader. Content creation on the other hand, would include addition and removal of text, images, tables, references and so on. The addition of an infobox should be considered part of the latter. The distinction is important as the former can be done by any editor on any article with minimal knowledge of the subject, whilst the latter should be done by an editor who has some knowledge of the subject, more than a cursory glance at the article.

As to your questions, RexxS, if you are creating the articles and have sufficient knowledge and understanding to write a stub based on the verified database, I see no reason why you should not be adding an infobox at the same time. That is part of content creation, and it is recognised that diligent mass content creation is acceptable. Similarly with translation, if you are diligently checking sources, you will have sufficient understanding to add the infobox. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there still is no policy or guideline that recommends against systematic addition of content. For example, there are a lot of stubs about plants and Indonesian administrative regions (if I recall correctly) that were created from a database. There were complaints, of course, but the overall opinion was that once we get a basis for an article, then other editors will improve what is there. So it is with infoboxes; if one is added, then it is likely that its content can be refined by adding or removing parameters. I was actually posing the question about adding {{infobox monument}} to make use of a database where we have an article already - is the answer the same as if we were creating a stub? If so, then I have to take issue with your underlying assumption: that there is a binary division between an editor with "minimal knowledge" and an editor who has "some knowledge of the subject". There is a continuous spectrum of knowledge on any subject and it is a recipe for conflict to allow editing only from those who claim to know the most. By that logic, if Andy were an expert on classical music, you'd be perfectly happy with him adding infoboxes - and yet he wrote a monthly column for a classical music magazine, so he demonstrably has more than "minimal knowledge". In the first half of this year, he added about 60 infoboxes, and more than 50 of those were accepted without a problem. Nikkimaria reverted 6 and Andy walked away from each of them, as I had advised him to previously. I'm sorry but that is not a battlefield mentality. The problem I complain about is that additions of infoboxes - no matter by whom - in one small area are invariably met with a revert by the same handful of editors with the only reason being that it wasn't notified to WikiProject Composers first. If you don't tackle that ownership problem (tq|"Please clear this with WikiProject X first"}}, we'll just be back here in a month's time. --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with a starter template, or a general explanation that infoboxes are recommended or not by any WikiProject. The ultimate decision though comes down to discussion at the article. Editors should not go through a group of articles, adding infoboxes to each systematically, or indeed removing them in the same manner. There's a difference between "recommending" and enforcing the recommendation. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "adding systematically". As it has been used in findings about me, I guess I better understand. When I add an infobox, I know how to fill the fields, be it an opera, a short story or a church. I typically don't have time to add infoboxes to articles other than my own, those related to them or otherwise of interest to me. Is that "systematic? Unwanted? Once the template for operas became available I tried to use it, because I am interested in operas and sincerely believe that opera articles are better with an infobox instead of a navbox that is uniform for all articles by the same composer. Look at GA (as of today) Fatinitza and compare to before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Giano

Ched is a friend of mine and one of Wikipedia's good people, so I sincerely hope he won't be offended by me saying that the bringing of this case was somewhat naive - especially, as the obvious conclusion has to be the exclusion of the main player and protagonist, Andy Mabbitt; something I wholeheartedly support and that I suspect Ched does not. However, Ched should not be too downhearted: some good can come of the case and it should be the unequivocal endorsement by the Arbcom of this finding [17], regarding the 'Use of infoboxes', because it gives those of us who feel downtrodden by the pro-infobox crowd something concrete to quote in all the many future debates/wars on this subject on pages from music and architecture to outer space. As a postscript, I would ask the Arbcom to go gently with Gerda; she's a good editor and she means no harm - she's a little hung-up with the use of infoboxes, but I think she amicably accepts that they are not everyone's choice. Anyhow, that's my view on what is probably an unsolvable problem.  Giano  20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offended? Absolutely not Giano. In fact, I'm outright honored to be considered a friend - and I do very much appreciate you trying to guide me to take some sort of direction in the beginning. Naive? Yes, I do have to plead guilty to/of that. Sadder yet is the fact that I actually communicated with a former arb, and was told exactly what to expect. (quite accurately I might add) My request was born out of frustration at all so many discussions on the topic. I did learn a few things though. First: have a target in mind, be willing to point fingers, have the diffs, and be willing to go for the throat. Use the diffs in evidence - then give what you want in the workshop with the FoF, and ask for bans in the remedy. There should have been at least a dozen other parties to this case (on both sides) which I was reluctant to name. Not really my style, so I doubt I'll ever return here. Yes, you're right - I do NOT want to see Andy banned - I think he has far too much positive impact to offer the project, so I guess we'll just disagree on that part of it. Not that I'm a full-blown "add infoboxes to everything" person - in fact your examples of a historic building is a good example where I'd agree that it would be counterproductive to add one. Still, when it comes to people - I do favor them (generally).
I do feel bad for the position that I put Dave/Worm and David in though. I dumped everything in Arbcom's lap, stepped back and let the chips fall where they may (partly out of necessity due to unforeseen things in real life) and hoped they would find or invent some sort of 1RR thing, and state that "Projects" can not "own" things, "canvass" and "tag-team" editors who are trying to improve articles. While being creative has happened in the past (Delta/Betacommand) - apparently that is not S.O.P. It seems that the Arbs must work with what is presented in the workshop, and without anyone building a case against the composer group ... there was only so much they could do. I am encouraged that Nikkimaria and Gerda are working together, and I even see signs of Nikki taking things on board - that I am very happy about. I'm also very encouraged by the fact that Dave/Worm and David stayed with us, were responsive and communicated and updated everyone thoroughout. Add to that the fact that Carcharoth put quite a bit of time into reviewing things, and offering suggestions to a way forward? Yes, as much as I see this particular committee as one of the most inept I've ever seen (the Malleus/George situation is a good example of that), the individuals are impressive to me.
I'll continue to login and check my talk page until this is closed. I'll continue to fix typo and syntax items where I can, even if I'm not logged in. I am tired though. Over the last year I have alienated people who were friends. I took sides against people who were friends because I thought it was right for the project. I was not "loyal". I did what I thought was right in my heart. I'm tired of admins. being "super-users". <aside> I know that a lot of kids will shortly be returning to school (which should alleviate some things). Still, I am tired of the bullshit. Years ago I was very proud of what I did here. The work I put into WP:RIP is something I will always be proud of. In the beginning I was even proud of being an admin. ... not so much anymore. I've met a lot of great people here, and I am happy about that. Still, I think when this case closes I will need a break. But I am rambling here .. so I'll close with "Best to all" Thank you for the kind words you've offered me Giano. I do consider it high praise indeed. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from John Cline

I had resolved to stay out of this discussion; to observe and learn if you will. All I managed to learn however was more about my own weaknesses. I find I am incapable of observing the mistreatment of an esteemed colleague without intervening aid. Also I find, if I reply to provocation, I am not proud of my prose; instead—ashamed!

Please understand that when not discombobulated, my stringent endeavor is to publish prose that I can be proud of; even succeeding at times. Yet the error is mine for having not further endured.

Help me to better endure by allowing that I edit under the enduring principles that founded this great site. Principles that do not embrace debase provocation; allowing one to withhold their own indignation in favor of observing the institutional retribution that is all but assured in policy.

It is well known that a plethora of policy insight is ignored, so the belligerent can edit this encyclopedia. Perhaps this is not an unsolvable problem after all? Instead, simply an example of one that can not resolve by ignoring all rules? :) John Cline (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more thoughts

A couple more thoughts here to try and help clarify some things (see also the section above that I added earlier).

  • Firstly, unlike Worm That Turned (who "came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars"), I and several other arbitrators have been very aware for years of the tensions surrounding infoboxes. But this doesn't mean that we are able to provide a panacea or that an arbitration case will provide a 'silver bullet' that will magically resolve these tensions.
  • The only thing that will help improve matters in the long-term, and it is worth repeating this again and again until people actually get it, is to have productive 'big picture' discussions that help editors settle on best practice and sort through any differences and disagreements they may have, and then people can carry on with writing articles and curating article content. Some people are able to discuss things calmly and work through their differences, or explain clearly why they disagree. Some are not able to do this, and need the help of others (or to be kept away from such discussions).
  • Infoboxes are templates designed to summarise key points, not just in a single article but across a range of articles. This is why there is a difference between systematically adding infoboxes at random (e.g. to a list of articles created by a single editor) and systematically adding infoboxes to articles in an area an editor (or group of editors) have some knowledge of and have considered carefully the best way to present the information in an article. This is why infoboxes tailored to specific subject areas can be helpful - it shows that a group of people have considered the various options and how best to present the information common to a range of articles within the same topic area. When you get broader infoboxes such as those for people in general (most of my experience with infoboxes has been on biographical articles), then it becomes more difficult to handle and a case-by-case approach is usually needed. Ditto for other topics.
  • The key point is to also have discussions about groups of articles, not just individual articles. To form consensus at a group level as well (to avoid endless discussions on individual articles), but to still strike a balance that allows maximum flexibility and exceptions where needed (such as not using an infobox if that is desired). Sometimes the merging of infoboxes helps focus such discussions, sometimes excessive merging hinders such discussions. What you don't want to do is end up with the bureaucracy that is sometimes associated with the requested move process - that evolved to help people resolve differences over article titles, hopefully people can resolve their differences over infoboxes without needing anything like that.
  • It may help to draw an analogy with discussions about whether to include an image in an article or not, or whether to include an article in a particular category, or how to write the lead section. Those discussions can get contentious, but the nature of infoboxes, placed at the top of an article and performing a similar but different function to the lead section, makes them particularly prone to causing certain types of arguments.

The whole argument about metadata and data in articles is something else again. That needs several rounds of proper community discussion. Anyway, most of the above isn't anything new, but the community absolutely needs to have proper, structured discussions, planned and properly publicised. A key part of the planning is sorting out where to publicise discussions, and having a representative selection of people working together to produce a summary and questions suitable for a community-wide request for comments (some of the workshop material is a good start). This can be a long and difficult process, but it would be better than endless low-level arguing. ArbCom can suggest that this should happen (I've suggested it to my colleagues), but we can't (and shouldn't) require that to happen - the real impetus needs to come from those willing to participate in such a process. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the PD, it seems like the decision will actually have little to do with Infoboxes and everything to do with conduct and a lack of collaboration (conduct, not content). It's about how differences are settled (or mishandled) and the fundamental content/policy issue could be almost anything - Infoboxes, COI, NPOV, anything that causes division among people (which is almost everything).
It reminds me of political scandals where the scandal isn't the news but the cover-up is. I'm not sure how much it would help but I think more should be written, policy-wise, on negotiating conflict when trying to come to a consensus. Mostly I see consensus arriving when one of the parties decides the fight isn't worth it, not because anyone has changed their mind about the issue of contention.
I think WP policies on consensus underestimate how difficult it is to arrive at, how conflict is to be expected and what should happen when differences appear to be irreconcilable. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think if people saw conflict as predictable and not exceptional, a lot fewer cases might arrive at the ARBCOM doorstep. Liz Let's Talk 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather new to the topic of infoboxes - as you all know from my evidence I was against them and converted, - very dangerous ;) - I believe we need a better way to discuss their flaws and merits. Sorry, I don't think that it happened (yet) in the often quoted Rite of Spring discussion which Andy started by only asking "Why ... no infobox?" (Now how disruptive is that?) - I started to discuss a very simple example, article type opera, template new and concise: The Ban on Love, - help there please, let's make it a model discussion! - I don't believe that we achieve progress by restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: yes, I hope that the model discussion could serve operas in general on a "group level".
@Liz: no, I did not foresee conflict on operas as predictable, - and still nobody could point out why a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox would be superior to an infobox on the specific article, - but I am open to learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles where infobox opera was installed was just promoted to GA: Fatinitza. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoriaearle/Truthkeeper88

Reading all these comments, and well-aware I'm not one of the people who can discuss calmly as per Carcharoth's statement above, it occurs to me that this case is about pure frustration and that's a tough one for the Committee to address.

Some background for Committee members unfamiliar, because a pattern exists and it's not only about classical music - that's simply the arena where it ended up. It began in early 2012 and is still ongoing, and honestly my own frustration has boiled over more than a few times during that period. Some examples for those of you unfamiliar with the tactics and the players: Ezra Pound in February 2012, Murasaki Shikibu February 2012, Ian Fleming July 2012, George Solti July 2012, Melville Island August 2012, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek September 2012, AN Br'er Rabbit community ban, October 2012, Andreas Sholl March 2013, Sparrow Mass March 2013, followed by many more in the classical music project, one of the more notable being The Rite of Spring, the day after TFA, May 2013 and now referred to as the "Ban on Love" on multiple pages. This then progressed to various music related articles which I didn't follow but was vaguely aware of.

The issue, however, in my view is not about infoboxes. The issues are deeper, more entrenched, causing enormous damage in terms of attrition of highly productive editors, and for at least a year and a half has needed attention.

In terms of how the arbiters are to handle this, I'd suggest to follow your inclinations, ignore pleas (including this), do the job you were elected to do (and like all the rest of us, it's frustrating to work for free), and decide how to eliminate the disruption.

In terms of individual editors, I'd suggest looking at their overall record. For example, Nikkimaria has a record of pitching in ceaselessly to keep copyvio from the mainpage, in checking sources at FAC (for a while she was the only person there doing that and as far as I know singlehandedly checked each nomination) and is an enormous asset to the project. Look at each editor's contributions, assets, and weigh it up. I think this is very tough and important case. If it needs to go back to the drawing board, do so. If you all know how to vote, do so and put us out of our misery. But realize that a lot of content producing editors who could be reviewing and writing are currently tied up here, or just plain frustrated and work has ceased. That is not good for the project.

Thanks. Victoria (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I factually clarify that you seem to confuse The Rite of Spring and "The Ban on Love". One is a ballet by Stravinsky, the other the translation of Das Liebesverbot, an opera by Wagner. Both articles are no biography. I tried to initiate a model for how reaching consensus might work in an infobox discussion, The Ban on Love. Please take a look. You may also want to look at a comparable work, where an infobox was accepted without disruption and frustration: Fatinitza, a GA nominee. For discussion as I like it see Peter Warlock. I agree that Infoboxes is not the topic of the case, - reasonable discussion about infoboxes should be. There is hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be hope, but I fear that it, and any remaining goodwill towards you and your mission, Gerda, is dwindling fast as a result of your relentless persistence. For example, I have engaged in a perfectly civilised debate with you concerning infoboxes on the Peter Warlock talkpage; I understand your position, and have made my views clear there. So why, the very next day, did you have to introduce the same issue into the peer review of my current music project, Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)? This fanning of the flames is a tiresome and unnecessary provocation. I do not wish to stifle debate, and I think it possible that a form of infobox might eventually be devised that is appropriate to the character of all Wikipedia articles. But this will require some wholesale rethinking on the concept itself, not just the adaptation of the existing model. My recent Dispatches article was a contribution to that discussion. However, very few positive steps will be taken in the atmosphere of antagonism and mutual annoyance that envelops this whole topic. And I entirely endorse Victoria's sentiment: we all have better and more productive things we should be doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you see a proposal as "relentless" that I thought was a reasonable solution to the problem to show at a glance that the Eighth Symphony by Jean Sibelius is a composition project, not a composition. I am fine with your decision to look for a different way to show that. I was fine with your decision not to change Warlock now. - Sorry, I didn't see a problem (fanning of flames, provocation, annoyance), but will avoid it now, with respect for your view. - What do you suggest we do until that future concept will be developed? And how do we develop it if not by thinking about the options we have now? How do we overcome an atmosphere of antagonism that I - late to the topic - obviously don't take into account enough, and certainly don't want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing would be to let the issue rest for a while. It is sucking too much creative energy out of the process. As I have said, there are more issues related to infoboxes than that of the reluctance of music and opera editors to adopt them, and the matter will not go away (I intend to return to it in a future Dispatches article). But if anything positive is to be achieved, there needs to be a calmer atmosphere, so if I were you I would adopt an informal temporary vow of silence on this issue. You can continue of course to work on your ideas in your sandboxes, and can invite comments there, but you should steer clear of initiating any new discussions and should generally avoid article talkpages and reviews. That would do a lot to defuse the atmosphere of antagonism to which you refer. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, taken. I said before that I don't add any more Wagner opera infoboxes until Götterdämmerung is resolved etc. - Please forgive me Sibelius. I saw you hesitating for the composer, but thought a composition was not the same problem, mea culpa. The same way I expected operas to be less of a problem than composers, especially with an infobox developed by the project which - I think - fits the requirements for conciseness your article pointed out. But obviously I was wrong. Why - that may be part of your next article. In expectation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Victoria has yet to address the demonstrably false statements made in her evidence, which she reinstated (after an earlier deletion), unaltered, after their falsehood was demonstrated. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently impossible for Victoria to edit Wikipedia outside her talk page, since she has been blocked for three months (by me, at her request). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did Victoria post a lengthy comment, above, yesterday, but she made 32 other edits in the last week. In none of these did she address the clear discrepancy between her false claims and the demonstrated facts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, let's look at your statement and then do some counting of edits.

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop#Evidence_by_Victoriaearle you wrote: Victoriaearle asserts that, following the Pilgrim at Tinker Creek discussion in September 2012, the "primary editor", User:Yllosubmarine, "became discouraged and left the project" and that we thus "lost a prolific female content editor". As can be seen by examining the edit logs, Yllosubmarine was editing as recently as two or three of weeks ago; as she continued to do throughout October and November 2012. The evidence appears to be blatant falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project", look at her contributions before and after her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: X!'s Edit counter for User:Yllosubmarine. By my count, in the 10 months before your exchange in Sept. 2012 (i.e. Nov. 2011 to Aug. 2012) Yllosubmarine made 914 edits or 91.4 edits per month. In the 10 months after (Oct. 2012 to Jul. 2013) she made 88 edits or 8.8 per month on average (a decrease of just over 90%). Please note that I do not count her 90 edits in Sept. 2012 (as that month was split in terms of before her encounter with you vs. after), nor do I count her 0 edits to date in Aug. 2013 (as the month is not complete). How is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?

Counting another way, Yllosubmarine was a major contributor to 14 FAs and 14 GAs. She started editing in Jan. 2006 and really started contributing around Jul. 2006, so to Sep. 2012 this averages out to roughly two FAs and two GAs where she was a major contributor per year. in the 11 months since her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, she has been a major contributor to zero FAs and zero GAs and a quick look at her contributions shows the vast majority are maintenance edits (things like reverting vandalism or minor copyedits). Yes, she technically did not leave, but I ask you again, how is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?

Pigsonthewing, I think you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you choose to start your count in November 2011. In October 2011, Yllosubmarine made only 34 edits; in September 2011, just 27 (fewer than in October 2012); August, 31. In July, it was as low as 18; in June, only 20 (again, both fewer than in October 2012). Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh? But thank you for proving my point: Yllosubmarine did not "leave" " Wikipedia. Victoria's evidence is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of my statement that I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project" do you not understand? Yes, her output varies over time, but I chose two periods of equal length to compare. Do you maintain she is still a prolific content editor? (The "female" part is not in dispute - that is a joke on my part)? Can you not see that your fighting every jot and tittle to the bitter end is precisely why you have twice been banned for two years and are now in this mess? Give it a rest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS For my own mental health, I am removing this page from my watchlist. I will be without internet over most of the weekend, but if my input is required, please let me know on my talk page and I will comment as soon as I am able. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to AGK

@AGK: Regarding [18]: despite the arbitrators' duty to examine evidence presented in a case, It sees that you may have missed this, in which I say:

Some editors have referred to my block log. Block logs are notoriously crude and errors in them are rarely corrected. In reverse order:

  • 31 December 2012 - erroneous, for a supposed edit war, 27 hours after making my first and only edit to Hans-Joachim Hessler in five days. He [ Mark Arsten ] subsequently apologised to me off-wiki, confirming this via the summary of a null edit, in evidence.
  • 22 March 2012 - Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me for supposed BLP concerns, undoing his contentious block with the summary "clear emerging consensus for topic ban". In fact ANI levied no sanctions for my editing, which was within policy.
  • 25 January 2009 JzG blocked for 3RR, then undid this after just twelve minutes, admitting he had miscounted.

That means that the last valid block (again that's disputable, but I won't labour the point here) was five years ago. (21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

Further to the above, the "BLP concerns" were discussed here; and continued here. At the latter, Kim Dent-Brown makes clear of the former, in his opening comment (21:08, 3 April 2012; my emboldening):

There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here [link to that earlier discussion] but this was never agreed upon.

and the second discussion was closed (over a year ago) by CambridgeBayWeather (19:37, 7 April 2012) with the summary (again, my emboldening):

There appears to be no consensus here to do anything. I would suggest that everybody take a few days off from throwing things at each other, which is what this has degenerated into, and go make some useful edits.

There was no topic ban; and the block was clearly contested by other editors and admins. I therefore invite you to remove or strike your false statement and recast your vote accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your comments. I'll look at the links you have provided regarding your block log, and then reconsider my vote, okay? (You will have to forgive me for forgetting about the evidence submission you quote above; the evidence page is one of the longest we've had in a case for some time.) AGK [•] 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I notice that you have just commented on your vote, and made a minor copy edit to it, but have - remarkably - let the false claim of a topic ban stand. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Is this not a topic ban? AGK [•] 09:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote says Blocked then topic banned for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand your objection. I thought you were claiming that there was no 2012 topic ban. In order to resolve this thread, I've corrected my comment. AGK [•] 10:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Pigsonthewing

@Pigsonthewing: Regarding your statement above that "arbitrators" have a "duty to examine evidence presented in a case" and your often expressed concern that no one make false statements, would you please address my concerns about your possible conflicts of interest, especially with regard to WP:COI? If needed, I will gladly point you to the relevant evidence I gave or my query above, or to the requests by multiple other editors that this issue be addressed. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your request more than once, with a link to my published declaration of interests in my userspace. However, since you either fail to understand that, or insist on attempting to smear me with innuendo, or both, I will explain: I have no conflict of interest regarding my infobox-, microformat-, or metadata-related editing. I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing. My potential conflicts of interested are all listed at that page. If you have evidence to the contrary, or in any way showing malfeasance on my part, you will no doubt now provide it; as you have provided none so far. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a more detailed answer than previously. I have no other evidence than your own words and links, but just to be clear (since, as you note, I "fail to understand" what is going on here), I want to ask another question. You write on your interests page: "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example" and then you link to this page, where your short biography includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." To me, this sounds very much like you are paid for your advice by these organizations. Since you are also a strong advocate of the commercial re-use of Wikipedia data and Wikipedia's use of microformats, how is this not "paid advocacy"? Please note that WP:COI says "paid advocacy is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question.". Yours in failed understanding, and thanks again in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I originally used the British spelling of "organisations" and a [sic] above, as an attempt at humor. I did not think that it might be taken as unkind, and apologize (as that was not my intent). 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can read Andy's "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" and still maintain that you think he's been paid, based merely on a surmise you've made from reading his brief biography. I have some experience with dealing with CoI and as it happens I spoke to Andy today. During the conversation, I asked him "have you received any payment from any of those organisations you named as having sought your advice?" and his reply was "No". I checked we understood each other by naming 'Google', 'BBC', 'Facebook', etc. and he was equally clear that he had never received money from them, but he supplies his advice freely. He confirmed to me that his paid work has been in connection with helping museums and other GLAM institutions in making use of the Wikmedia projects as a Wikimedian-in-Residence. I'll tell you this in case you still can't understand it: you simply cannot generate a conflict of interest from that, because his paid work is not in conflict, but in alignment with our object of producing a free, neutral encyclopedia that is available for all - otherwise you are going to be accusing all of our Wikimedians-in-Residence (not to mention all of the WMF staff and contractors) of "paid advocacy". Now if you want him to confirm what he said to me today, please feel to ask him whether I have accurately summarised our conversation; but I am becoming increasingly worried by your obsession with this non-issue, as it is starting to look like a smear; repeat an untruth often enough and people start to believe it. You need to consider carefully before making any further unsupported accusations. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it is hard to imagine who would have any incentive to pay for infoboxes to be created on 19th-century composers etc! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Thank you RexxS. Just to be clear, "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" is not the same statement as "I have received no payment from any [of those] organisation[s]" (which is why I asked for further clarification, which you have now provided). Also to be clear, I never mentioned any of his Wikipedian-in-Residence work as a potential COI. If Andy (who is quite capable of writing lengthy responses and who did not respond to my Evidence post or previous post on this page) would have made such a categtorical denial on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I would not have repeatedly raised the issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - I imagine a company might well pay for inclusion of metadata or insuring that all articles (regardless of topic) had infoboxes which their computers could read more easily. But RexxS has spoken and the issue is resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that myself at all, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read Riggr Mortis' comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence (diff) or Riggr's essay at User:Riggr Mortis for more on Wikipedia as a database. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have. There's a huge difference between what people will use when it's available for free & what they will pay for. That's rather the point of open content. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to discuss conflict of interest with Pigsonthewong in relation to QRpedia, following the release of the WMUK Governance Review. I didn't find his answers very satisfying. The last people I would look to for statements on conflict of interest would be people who were trustees of the WMUK board which failed to deal with the rather clear-cut case involving Roger Bamkin which sparked the governance review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that pulling in that whole WMUK thing is WAY outside the scope of this particular case? Not that it doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it's a lot bigger can of worms than what has been presented here. — Ched :  ?  04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do, but since former WMUK trustees RexxS and Johnbod showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing, I thought it would be a timely reminder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read the rest of the case pages, you would see that "showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing" is a strange way of describing my comments in this case, even by your standards. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view on payment, which informs (though not decides) my perspective on COI matters, is that I am less concerned if an editor is an amateur or professional than if their editing is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, within policy, and is not disruptive. In my view, an editor, for example, who is repeatedly adding a template to articles against consensus, and is not being appropriately responsive to concerns on the article talkpages, is being disruptive regardless of if they are being paid. To me it doesn't matter if the writer is left or right handed - what matters is the quality and impact of their writing. I find slightly odious people inquiring into the personal life of others. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andy Mabbett

Adding infoboxes

There is a proposal to ban me "from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes". there is no justification for this; and no allegation, much less no evidence, that the addition of infoboxes, in general or by me in particular, is controversial or has caused disputes, outside of a very narrow set of pages owned by one project and related editors. There have been no ANI sanctions resulting from the additions listed below; an no blocks or warnings issued.

In the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously), I added approximately (I don't promise not have missed one, when reviewing my edits) 60 infoboxes. Note that this figure is only for additions to pre-existing articles. It does not include the probably greater number I included in new articles which I created; nor a couple of changes from one infobox to another.

With a few exceptions, which I shall discuss below, none were disputed or reverted; or where they were, unusually, reverted they were reinstated by other editors. They are still, at the time of writing, in the articles concerned.

Of the infoboxes listed above, which are no longer in the articles concerned six of them (that's ten percent of all the infoboxes I added in half a year; four of them on one day) were removed by Nikkimaria during the stalking of my edits by her, about which I commented in my evidence:

  • [76] - I walked away after her second revert
  • [77] - edit summary "m, cleanup, tag"; I did not revert.
  • [78] - edit summary "org"; I did not revert.
  • [79] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
  • [80] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
  • [81] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.

(Those particular removals were not included in the evidence cited in the case, and presented at ANI, which was representative, not complete.)

Three further infobox additions were disputed:

  • [82] - the infobox was hidden in a collapsed wrapper, with a set pixel width, contrary to the MoS, rendering it less accessible, and moved to the foot of the article. I later reverted that, but when it was collapsed again, I walked away.
  • [83] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away.
  • [84] - My only revert was to replace {{Infobox invisible}}, which was shortly after deleted as it was styled to display:none;; and I replaced it after deletion. Nikkimaria eventually hid the infobox at the bottom of the article, styling it bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;. This is contrary to the MoS and makes it inaccessible. I walked away.

So, where is the issue that the proposed ban on me adding infoboxes is intended to prevent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but a few days before you posted this you also added a box to Café de Paris (London). I'm not stalking, btw, I was looking at the article for something unconnected. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The oversight is yours. As I say above, this list covers "the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously)". But thank you for pointing out yet another of my many uncontroversial infobox additions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake (not an oversight, a mistake, but thank you for highlighting errors), although I would not call it uncontroversial: I am not sure the article is made any stronger by the box, but far be it from me to start removing them, especially while the case is rolling on. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The remedy is inadequate if it would not prevent the tendentious, argumentative and disruptive behaviour at, to pick one example, Little Moreton Hall and Talk:Little Moreton Hall that spilled over into Talk:Montacute House and (now archived at) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.102 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Andy is mistaken about his edits in the first six months of the year. As the anon (above) mentions and I say in my evidence, Andy was certainly causing trouble in February 2013, and going out of his way to cause it too, which is why he showed up at Montacute House. Initially, I believed an infobox topic ban might be enough to curb his zealousness for infoboxes, now I am less sure.  Giano  20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the arbitrators to review the entire, and short, discussion at Talk:Montacute House/Archive 1#Infobox (only eight short posts), which was not about the addition of an infobox. The first two posts there were:

The infobox on this article is hidden. This is unhelpful to our readers. I un-hid it, but I have been reverted, with no explanation. The infobox should be displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You are trolling from another page and another discussion! Go away or you will be blocked for disruption. Giano (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.....and indeed you were trolling for trouble from yet another of your many infobox disputes; or have you suddenly become an expert of 16th century English domestic architecture? No, the truth is that you just cannot resist bombastically trying to impose your will and views on pages about which you know nothing. Wherever you show up, there's trouble.  Giano  21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. This seems to rest on three premises, all questionable: that the persistence of the infoboxes is a good indicator that their addition was not disruptive; that the controversy is caused by "ownership by one project"; that if, arguendo, the project has displayed unacceptable ownership, Andy's conduct has not in itself been disruptive. Judge for yourself. Choess (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eerrmmm... " [85] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away." Sorry to dip my little fly into the ointment, but that's not strictly true that you walked away. I tried to come to a compromise: you dismissed it on spurious grounds, saying "each [[WP:POINT|deployed]] by vehement opponents of infoboxes". That's falling well short of any attempts at good faith and evidence of a battlefield approach, rather than any serious attempts to come to a collective agreement - oh, and yes, as per the usual tactics, spurious allegations of ad hominem comments were thrown out to both me and Cassianto - simply for daring to have a different opinion to you, it seems. I find that your evidence on this one is extremely lacking and I don't have the spirit to go back through the others to see what has taken place in those arguments. - SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Choess raises, above, the question of ownership by the classical music project(s); I'd widen that to include some of their like-minded allies. I and others touched upon the matter in the evidence stage. WhatamIdoing said:

One of the main complaints in the music area is <!-- hidden comments --> demanding that editors respect the (dis)infobox POV of one particular group of editors, merely because the one group of editors has decided that they're interested in the article's subject. Some of the hidden comments say things like After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. Text similar to this appears in a substantial number of composer-related articles. This editor behavior needs to be addressed directly. A significant example of the debate can be read at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 8#Routine_use_of_infoboxes_for_biographical_articles.

(some of the other hidden comments are more forceful than that; I'll add an example later see below).

My evidence includes:

infobox opponents (IOs) have represented... guidelines as binding (hidden comments; see above; "adding infoboxes... against guidelines") and/or representing consensus (ditto), or "instructions", even after being asked not to. They cite them in edit summaries.

and;

IOs have frequently exhibited, or supported, ownership, in contravention of core polices; in talk, and even here: ("WP:IAR trumps WP:OWN", "use of infoboxes ... more than settled ... in terms of a clear project consensus"; proposed findings)

The "views of creators and maintainers of articles (and of projects relating to them)" have not "been summarily dismissed as WP:OWN", references to OWN have followed examples or suggestions of breaches of it. e.g. Folantin's examples:

I repeat this here, in the light of AGK's comment about having forgotten my evidence.

RexxS, Moxy (here) and others also touched on it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more than a little rich that you accuse members of the classical music project of thinking they WP:OWN articles, an accusation I have seen you make numerous times, since it seems to me that you think you WP:OWN Wikipedia itself and are on a mission to make every article emit "machine-readable metadata", as in this edit from February this year, only one of many many such, [90],I recently fixed this article's infobox, which was not displaying. Another editor has now removed it, saying "it adds nothing anyway". That is patently false, as the infobox, in addition to providing a summary of key points for the benefit of our readers, cases the article to emit machine-readable metadata, such as is used by DBpedia, search engines, and, soon, Wikidata. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 February 2013" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 August 2013‎
Nothing in the comments above indicate ownership nor are beyond standard discussion. And "it seems to me that you think" is so clearly the entry to laying out an personal opinion that it is alarming to see this presented either as rebuttal or evidence of wrong doing.(olive (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Andy says - "[77] Not about infoboxes", no it isn't, you provide a perfect example there of what I said earlier on this page, this is not actually about infoboxes at all, it is about your fanatical drive for "metadata" as a diff from just a little before the one you quote shows:[91] Somebody has just said "it doesn't add anything" and you reply "That's patently untrue. It's adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article, as well as emitting the former as metadata, which can be understood by machines, and mapped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 19 July 2012 " Not everyone who edits WP is obliged to arrange articles so that machines can read them, there is no policy that says that.Smeat75 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed the part of the comment, in your quote, which says adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article. That's adding them in a human readable form, so that our readers can see them with their eyes. Ownership on Wikipedia has a specific and clearly-defined meaning - clearly evidenced as having been breached by those opposed to having infoboxes on "their" articles - which is not "he says something I don't like". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are all working on machines. This is a wiki, machine driven. And nothing being said in the quotes you offer suggest "require", and by extension ownership. This encyclopedia some think should be edited so it can be handled easily and read easily, while suggesting that is not ownership. One is free to dislike the suggestion even the editor but extending that as somehow proof of ownership is fallacious logic, and to sanction an editor based on that kind of evidence or any like it is wrong and unfair.(olive (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The more forceful hidden comment, to which I referred above, is <!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->. AIUI, well over 300 articles include that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The only arbitration in my personal Wikipedia history where I have seen remedies this severe were with Will Beback in the Timid Guy case. Is this in any way even remotely comparable?Remember that you are laying out the worst possible remedy for Pigsonthewing. As a committee you have established where the most extreme outcome applies, have created a scale. How does this situation compare? Since I was very familiar with the TG case, I can tell you this does not compare. Where do you go from here if editors transgress on a level comparable to the worst case. There must be a consistent gradation and scale out of fairness, but also to make your job/decisions easier the next time and the next. (olive (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A more apt comparison might be to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram: one user repeatedly engaged in an activity that he finds constructive but annoys other people, brushing off criticism, and a group of other editors interested in the subject matter responding to that intransigence with increasingly bad behavior. The two seem broadly comparable in terms of severity of the proposed remedies. Choess (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a project in which people volunteer their time and knowledge, for fun, I would imagine, in most cases. The vast majority of us are not doing it for money, anyway. Where is the fun in being confronted with an aggressive editor like Pigsonthewing, constantly insisting that articles be arranged so that machines can read metadata? Most WP editors care nothing about that and there is no reason why they should.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Where is your evidence that Andy is "aggressive". I never found him aggressive. Don't say that's because I am on his side. I wasn't always. I disagreed with his view on Samuel Barber (March 2012), but found him factual, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour even: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". I don't have time for more right now, but to see labels such as "intimidating", "belligerent", "battleground mentatality" etc. with no evidence apparent to me, simply repetition of experiences from a time past, makes me question why arbitration in the true sense of the word (as I understand it) is not even tried. - This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Stress on "was". I know well what "frustration" means right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just as one example of his aggression, you could look at a discussion he himself references above - [92] where he put a table of distances into an article the day it was on the front page of the site, after literally years of arguing for such a table and being told that the creators of the article did not feel it was useful, or valuable. Yes, I think that is very belligerent, very intimidating and shows a battleground mentality, and it is not anything to do with infoboxes either, it is his obsession with metadata. There would be a dispute about infoboxes without Andy but no one else argues for them with such obsessive fanaticism, that is why I say this feud is not actually about infoboxes but about his disruption to the project and inability to collaborate amicably with others.Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion to which you point was again in 2012, right? I fail to see how adding a table is an "aggression". - Andy is collaborating amicably with me, with people developing templates, with people working on templates, etc. You may want to try yourself. I love his latest article, peace and reconciliation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No fun so we sanction the editor? I understand frustration, frustration though, does not equal sanctions especially of the kind I see here, further, your insistence is as direct as anyone else's. This is a squabble long term yes, but a squabble, and squabbles require more than one side to even exist. The sanction should be of the kind, "Don't make me stop this car", not, "you're out of the family."(olive (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
This would all be true if it were the first time. This has been going on for eight. bloody. years. The exact same issues over three arbitration cases including a year long ban. MLauba (Talk) 07:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. Define "this" more precisely. That a project introduced an infobox which is opposed is new! It has nothing to do with Andy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The context changes, the behaviour doesn't. No feedback registers. When an issue is pointed out, Andy endlessly finagles around details and takes nothing in. There is not a iota of difference in the way he handled the feedback regarding his multi-year long obsession with inserting a BLP's date of birth at Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) against the subject's wishes and annoyance, the behaviour that led to his topic ban from TFA, or what he displays in discussions around every single infobox feud listed in the whole evidence section. Heck the ANI report he filed a few months back complaining he was being stalked is a perfect illustration. Nothing registers. He's right, no matter how many uninvolved people tell him otherwise, and he will grind on and on and on. This is what has been going on for 8 years. The only relationship to infoboxes is that it so happens that this is the most common obsessive subject of his. MLauba (Talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I invite the Arbitrators to review my edits and comments at Manchester Ship Canal. In the cited discussion, it is pointed out by Tagishsimon (another editor driven off the project by ownership) that the table of coordinates and distances had been in the article, uncontested for four years. Having found it recently removed without discussion on the talk page, I restored it. When I was reverted, I joined the discussion on the talk page, where I was accused of making drive-by edits, despite my along association with the article. If I intimidated Malleus Fatuorum there, I shall of course apologise to him.

Likewise, I repast my invitation to them to review the Hawkins case, which polarised both editors and admins, but where it was again decided that there was to be no sanction against me. Both cases were over a year ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing is Andy Mabbett

Carcharoth comments It is worth noting somewhere for the benefit of those reading the decision that are not familiar with the background, that Andy Mabbett is User:Pigsonthewing (and vice-versa of course).. This is something that I agree would be worthwhile, and could probably most easily be done by copyediting the start of FoF3 to read "pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as "Andy Mabbett")". This is consistent with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Justin A Kuntz, which begins "Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) (who signs as "Justin the Evil Scotsman")". Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Arbitrators

It seems like this decision has taken so long because it's taken so long to get a quorum. Are a lot of Arbitrators gone for the summer? It seems like this hasn't gotten the attention from the entire committee it deserves. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a complex case with loads to read, this doesn't seem to have taken an unusually long time to me, though there may be a bit of an August effect. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective, Johnbod. I saw that the case was due to be decided on Aug. 14th so I was wondering what was causing the delay. At this point, unless new motions are made, it's a matter of casting votes. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, nice to meet you (so to speak). Actually many of the Arbs have had a look around here. Roger is really the only one that hasn't weighed in at all yet. It's a very complex issue, so as individuals they are all going to have their own views. Several things come to mind for me though - 1. Trying to sanction some scapegoat is not going to resolve anything. 2. While most arbs can agree on the "Principles", and even many of the "FoF" things (some of which I would dispute), there seems to be virtually NO agreement on any "Remedy". That makes things tough, or more to the point - unresolved. We all want to present ourselves in the best possible light, and since arbs are people too - that include them. 3. AGK is still looking and even asking for some diffs (which if I have time I'll try to offer this weekend). 4. One forward thinking arb (Carcharoth) is looking beyond this case, and suggesting a global discussion. How much time he would have to actually guide that only he can say. But he does see the need for it. The thing is that it would need to be structured to achieve an end result rather than a circular "I like it", "I don't like it" type of thing we've seen for years.
As an aside - one thing that has troubled me in this case is the "bully" aspect. Intimidation is a very subjective thing, and is as much befalling on the the subject, as it is on the so called bully. As someone who was small in stature growing up, I learned that if I wasn't going to stick up for myself .. then I would be subjected to bullying tactic all my life. So I refused to be intimidated at ANY level; and especially over the internet. And standing up for one's beliefs is not an attempt to intimidate. I also understand that there are quiet, shy, and timid people in life who are easily hurt and intimidated. Good, kind, caring, loving people who simply choose not to battle others; either in debate or argument. But when a group of people get together to try to force a situation through in their own walled garden, outside the global consensus, then yes, I do consider that intimidation. So it all boils down to talking to one-another and getting to know the people we write with. But the "Wikipedia is not a social network" stigma sometimes thwarts those efforts. But I'm drifting into "lecture mode" again, so I'll close here. (so much for my "Closing statement" eh? Later all. — Ched :  ?  05:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Ched. Although I've been editing on & off for 6 years, paying attention to Arbitration Cases is new to me so when I read that the decision is due Aug. 14th and it's Aug. 23rd and only a few Arbs have voted on solutions, it just got me wondering whether people were on vacation or something. Now that I've been told that this rate of progress finishing up a case is the norm and believing, as I do, that a better resolution is preferable to a faster resolution, I feel like my question has been answered.
As for your statement about "bullying", having worked in the area of conflict before, I'll just say that consensus building does not come naturally to people. It's slow, it delays an individual from taking action that they believe is necessary while one waits for people with different opinions to weigh in. It can be maddening to Type A personalities who just want to get the work done and not spend a lot of time talking about the process. I truly believe that aside from vandals, most editors that might be seen as bullies truly believe what they are doing is for the good of Wikipedia but that doesn't justify any effort to silence, badger, ignore or intimidate other users so one gets one way. But aside from a few personal feuds (which end up finding their way to AN/I), I don't think bullies are malicious in intent, they think they know better and trust their own instincts rather than the judgment of others. It's an unfortunate byproduct of their sense of rightness that their pursuit often results in alienating or, at worse, driving away some of their fellow editors. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I agree with Montana above that one editor may have been made a scapegoat here. This is a difficulty that arises with a case like this when its difficult to see where the problems are coming from. What I see is that a group of editors have been interacting in a less than positive style. Some have maintained a collaborative posture throughout as Gerda has. Others like Andy have shown improvement over his past editing practices and that must be noted.

The standard way of dealing with arbitration cases, doling out individual sanctions seems illogical here given all parties were involved in the squabbles surrounding info boxes. What Id' like to see is some out of the box thinking about how to deal with this kind of situation. Is there something that will fairly treat everyone, is not punitive while supporting ongoing work by knowledgable editors.

Suggestion: A restriction (time out) on all editors on infoboxes for one month. None of the editors named here touch an info box or comment on them. Further if any one editor does deal with infoboxes in any way, the whole group of editors will be restricted for another month. I am suggesting true collaborative work here, that those in this group be responsible to and for each other. I've worked with people in collaborative situations and used this technique, and found that the group begins to police itself, draw closer together, and those not willing to collaborate stand out in a hurry. Probably nothing new here but some thoughts on this case.

All sanctions should be specified per each editor as they are now. Editors who are not willing to improve in their collaborative skills will given this system show up immediately and that point sanctions may be applied. I realize this will be considered impractical but thought it might trigger novel thought. This is a collaborative community and collaborative remedies may be meaningful.

My concern is that three editors that I know of show a willingness to improve this situation. That in my mind is the best and most important aspect of this case.(olive (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nikkimaria

I am sorry to note that I don't see attempts to improve when an editor who is being scrutinized during an arbitration continues to make this kind of edit. [93] which seems very like the pattern of edits made before the arbitration[94] . (olive (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for notifying us of this (I have taken the liberty of correcting the username spelling in your heading). I'm not at all impressed that all three editors involved there (Gerda, Andy and Nikkimaria) have engaged in a discussion and sequence of editing like that during the case. The evidence presented was ample already. I will draw this to the attention of my colleagues. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my spelling, No disrespect meant to Nikki(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Er, my sole edit on that page during this case (I have not posted on the talk page since 9 April) was a technical fix, made on the (apparently mistaken) assumption that the renewed and seemingly resolved talk page discussion had settled the dispute. Whether we have an infobox or not; we certainly don't need two copies of the same one (I doubt even my most strident critics would argue for that!), so I removed the one which (no doubt because it was styled |bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;) Gerda had obviously missed when she re-added the other infobox in the immediately preceding edit. (I also made a minor tweak to the position of some parenthetical text for readability at the same time.) In what way was that disruptive? I trust that will draw this reply to your colleagues' attention, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC) - added @Carcharoth:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Olive, your second diff is from months ago, well before this case was open. As to the first: Gerda suggested on talk that we change the type of infobox that was being used; I agreed and made the change, noting on talk that I had done so. Gerda then added a second reformatted and expanded version of the same infobox; I disagreed and reverted, once, with a pointer to my explanation on talk. Can you explain why you see that as problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I left out part of the comment which unfairly created evidence of two diffs instead of one. Nikki I'vw watched your edits for quite a while and as you know commented to you on them. I thought that with this arbitration you might move towards a less aggressive style of interacting, with less a sense of ownership, but I'm not seeing that in the thread I linked to. I hope I'm wrong.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for amending your comment; however, I'm still not understanding your objection. The earlier edit used an edit summary which I agree was suboptimal; however, the edit summary of the more recent edit was IMO clear and based on an ongoing discussion. Furthermore, the more recent sequence shows that I implemented a suggestion by Gerda, objecting only to her subsequent addition of a second and inappropriately expanded template. Can you explain further how this sequence demonstrates aggression and ownership? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth. I don't see a concern with Gerda's or Andy's comments on this thread. I was concerned about Nikki's. With respect, I think its mistake to tar all editors with the same brush.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The orchestra: I found the article in the list AN/I list, an infobox added by Andy, reverted/hidden by Nikkimaria, one case of several. I restored an open version, It looked reverted the same day to me. I failed to see a collapsed version. What should an invisible infobox be good for, anyway? - No, I would not call this style "aggressive", but it's no clear communication, leading to waste of time. (Spare me the other steps, it's all in the history and on the talk.) - None of us is an "owner" of this article. If you ask me it should simply look like other orchestras, with {{infobox orchestra}} developed by Kleinzach in 2013, for example Lautten Compagney. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems beyond infoboxes

As both Newyorkbrad and WormThatTurned have cited Andy's behavior outside of the infobox realm as a factor in their decisions, I would point to the following as evidence of disruptive activity outside of infoboxes. There appears to be a similar issue over Andy's use, or overuse of Template:Coord, which is discussed in Rschen's evidence (roughly Sep 2011 – Mar 2012), with continued sniping here Apr 2013 and here Jun 2013. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by Roundhouse0 is arguably connected (both revolve around the "coord" template.) Compare also the behavior at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Discussion of recent controversial changes to this guideline and Talk:Jim_Hawkins (radio presenter)/Archive 2#Edit request, neither of which, in my eyes, covered him in glory. On the other hand, Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Accessibility and equality shows Andy quite restrained and civil when a number of people contradict his policy proposal.

I'm not quite sure what the arbs are looking for or expecting here. (The scope and title of the case have probably influenced the nature of the evidence presented, both about Andy and other parties.) None of these, coordinates included, are on the scale of infoboxes in terms of disruption caused; the non-coordinate incidents aren't anything I would have kicked up to AN/I, let alone arbitration (indeed, I agree with Andy's position on accessibility and avoiding definition lists); and the last link makes it clear that Andy is capable of accepting criticism of his proposals with equanimity on some occasions. All that said, I do think there is evidence of Andy's battleground mentality and difficulty accepting consensus, mentioned elsewhere in this case, extending at least to other metadata and markup-related topics. Make of it what you will. Choess (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I have said several times in this discussion, this is not just about infoboxes, but about Pigsonthewing's obsession with "metadata" and several arbitrators say on the PD page that there needs to be wider discussion of this issue. I agree, otherwise this problem will not be solved, even absent Pigsonthewing.Just as the guidelines for infoboxes state "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines" so they should state something like "It is neither required nor prohibited for any article to be arranged so that it emits metadata" and "put this-or-that into the article we are talking about because it emits metadata" should never,never be accepted as a reason for altering the visible appearance of any article. There is no requirement, and there should not be either, for any WP editor to care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are.Smeat75 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what you postulate, but with very few of your conclusions. Surely none of us would want to see editors compelled to enable metadata, just as we don't require them to use inline citations or make articles accessible. Nevertheless, improving accessibility, enabling metadata and converting raw sources to inline citations are part of the natural development of articles that improves them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we don't need editors to have expertise in every aspect in order to contribute. Many editors are quite capable of writing excellent prose, but rely on others to upgrade rough sourcing into more maintainable formats, or to ensure that their work is usable by a screen reader, or to enable third-parties to read our information in a format that is appropriate for their needs. Each good-faith change to an article - whether it be converting raw urls to citations, or identifying row and column headers in tables, or converting a bare image into an infobox - needs to be considered for the impact that it makes on the other aspects of the article, of course. But I reject the proposition, so often assumed here, that the self-proclaimed experts on a topic should be the only ones who are entitled to an opinion on such changes. Editors must be able to propose what they believe to be improvements to an article, even if the owners of that article don't care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are. Ignorance is seldom a good starting point for having a sensible debate on any issue and Ludditism isn't actually a cool stance to take. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update and reminder

A brief update pointing to what David Fuchs said here. Please be patient until any new findings are posted. A reminder to everyone to please maintain decorum on these pages. Robust debating has its place, but please hold off on that while the case is still going. I said on the proposed decision page:

"I think several of the parties to this case are quite capable of changing their conduct without the need to pass formal remedies. I would like to see how things go after the case closes and wait to see if further remedies are needed."

I also said:

"Overall, I think a 'parties reminded' clause is needed here. And (after a period of some quiet) a way for people to discuss these issues in a calm manner at a central venue, building on some of the proposals made in the workshop, without tensions rising again."

I am still hoping this will be possible (my colleagues may in any case disagree with this approach that I have suggested), but it does depend in large part on people being able to discuss things calmly and being patient as we finish voting. I've asked the case clerk and the other clerks to keep an eye on this talk page over the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principle 'Mission' and metadata

I think that the comments on this principle, and particularly the recent one from SilkTork, reflect a microcosm of the issues faced here. I would invite the Arbs - or anyone else - to examine these propositions to try to get a sense of what we need to understand in order to make progress:

  1. The very act of emitting accurate metadata helps others use our data. It cannot per se be harmful to the project and its current mission, and will most probably be helpful.
  2. As data is inherently dynamic, the metadata will only stay accurate if it is updated when the data changes. For that reason, an invisible mechanism for emitting metadata will always be inferior to one that is visible.
  3. Infoboxes are a feature of the majority of our articles and already contain both the structure and content needed to emit accurate metadata. They are therefore an obvious candidate for implementing metadata, as they require no duplication of data entry, nor special effort to update.
  4. In many articles, some particular key facts are too nuanced for a summary to be accurate metadata. In those cases it is not helpful to include that data in an infobox.
  5. There will be other valid, often aesthetic, reasons against including an infobox in a given article, but the job of seeking consensus is to balance the advantages (of which metadata is just one factor) against the disadvantages (which may be manifold or entirely absent). Both the issue of having an infobox and its content if one is included are properly subject to the process of consensus.

I believe those propositions reflect reality. I don't know whether SilkTork would on reflection modify his present stance, but I'd be more than happy to debate the points he raises in a broader forum, at a later date. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with what Silk Tork says in that comment you refer to, and agree with you that the issue needs discussion in a broader forum.Smeat75 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One point that I think was raised in the workshop or in evidence (or in earlier discussions) is that the placement of the infoboxes may be what causes some of the friction. In desktop view, the infobox is at top right, next to the lead section. In mobile phone views, infoboxes are above the article and the first thing you see. If infoboxes were placed further down the article, or down the bottom of the article, the way categories are, the way navboxes (footer navboxes, not the sidebar ones), and the way some succession boxes, and some 'invisible' metadata (such as 'persondata' and DEFAULTSORT values) are, then infoboxes might be a lot less contentious. You would still get some arguments (over accuracy), as people do still argue over categories and navboxes, but from what I've seen, the arguments are less - possibly because the visibility is less (my general observation is that some people get rather annoyed with five or six collapsed navbox templates at the bottom of an article, but suffer it because it is 'down the bottom and after the article'). The reduced visibility means that updates may not be as accurate or timely, but what I wanted to ask is whether any serious attempt has been made to explore other possible positions for infoboxes? (I've only seen the examples where infoboxes have been placed invisibly right at the bottom of an article - not showing but still emitting metadata, and the visible but collapsed examples - with arguments against both these attempted solutions). Do examples exist where the default location for an item on a page (not just infoboxes) can be changed if needed? Has anyone tried to do an alternative infobox design that would fit across the whole page like a navbox footer template? Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that was tried at one of the country house articles, but is disliked, as you note. I hope someone has the link(s). I'm not sure if any such as in place now. Andy's note in this case that the lead image can be above an infobox has some potential to help where a landscape image is the natural lead pic (not composers, but very often in art and architecture), though I suspect keen infoboxers (not really those in this case) would be forever coming along and changing it. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There are a few articles that have infoboxes embedded lower down within the article (eg Mini and many other vehicle articles), but none (afaik) that place the infobox at the bottom. Nor are there any that use a full-width layout - this would be very difficult to design, given the succinct nature of each field/value pair. Moving them would also have to be done site-wide for consistency (otherwise readers won't know where to find them) and it would no longer match the way all other language Wikipedias are setup. It would also make the {{sidebar}}-navboxes more prominent, which is a can-of-worms itself.
(2) Collapsing has been tried in various places, from Ponte Vechio (2010) to Little Moreton Hall (current). I've tried to enumerate all the problems with collapsing in my evidence.
(3) I think I was the first to suggest that lead-images could/should display above the infobox. At my sandbox4, I made a mockup of that (and a few other changes). I gave further details about this idea in response to one of Andy's workshop proposals - particularly "Ideally, the image could (would?) still be "part" of the infobox's code, it would just display above the box-outline - this would allow all sorts of articles to use larger images, without making the box extra-wide." I tentatively suggest that this should become the default for all lead/infobox-images - this wouldn't require changing any articles, it would simply require changing the templates.
HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a lead image above an infobox, we have the "Rite of Spring" problem: a picture suggesting that it is an article about a painting, instead of telling the reader prominently that it is a ballet by Stravinsky. I tried a new approach which I called "title box" as a certain word is not to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it is an article about a painting, Gerda. And why is that more of a problem when it is above rather than in the infobox? One might argue it is less likely to confuse that way. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused now. At present (no infobox) The Rite of Spring looks (!) like about a painting, The Ban on Love looks like about a person. What do you think of my title box? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This debate notwithstanding, Arbcom does not have the power to dictate to the community whether to accept or reject the use or inclusion of metadata. That is a content decision. Even if passed, this proposed principle should simply be ignored lacking an actual community mandate for it. Resolute 13:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy 'Parties reminded'

I wonder if it might be worth renaming this remedy to "Editors reminded" and making a corresponding update to the wording. I'm conscious of being as much caught up in the arguments surrounding infoboxes as many of the parties and there will be others in the same position as me. I'd willingly sign up to this proposed remedy and hope that everyone else can. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reminder certainly serves my benefit as well; which by the way, I intend also to heed. :) John Cline (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom needs to decide on rationales for edits: does the tail wag the dog?

Arbcom needs a finding on whether debates regarding Wikipedia content that postulate benefits to "downstream re-users"—the argument ad Google—which Riggr Mortis outlined as a common feature of pro-infobox debate (diff), should be allowed, or have any standing in content discussions. Such a clarification is surely within the committee's remit, since it would seem foundational that Wikipedia volunteers do not get to re-define who Wikipedia's "client" is. This cannot become a case of the tail wagging the dog. We again provide the following diffs as examples, quoting here from Riggr Mortis' post on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence (and showing only comments by User:Pigsonthewing; there are more there from User:RexxS):

The methodology is simple: I searched the talk page namespace for "Google" and "Pigsonthewing". Here is what I found (emphasis mine):

  1. "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to, because they do good and useful things with it, and because it serves our mission."
  2. "Using an infobox makes metadata about the subject downloadable from the browser, or to partner sites which use it, such as Google[,] Yahoo and DBpedia"
  3. "parter [sic] organisations such as Google also make use of them"
  4. "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo."
  5. "the metadata emitted by infoboxes, the hCard microformat, is a generic, open standard understood by tools such as Google and Yahoo."

Who is Pigsonthewing's "we" and "our" referring to? He is not speaking for us. He is not speaking for Wikipedia. He is speaking to his agenda.

Signed, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Riggr Mortis, User:Victoriaearle 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combined response in section below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing—an understanding of the huge scope of Andy Mabbett's agenda and activity

A few of us have discussed by email what we think is missing from this case to date. We are issuing one comment.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) has made hundreds of thousands of edits (via bot requests) to Wikipedia over the years that have no conventional effect on article content, yet there doesn't appear to be an understanding in the Arbcom's comments to date about the scope of Mabbett's agenda, which put briefly is to create templates and insert them into as many articles as possible so that "metadata" can be read from the articles more easily by computers. The Arbcom does not appear to realize that a remedy that, for example, disallows infobox editing, does not prevent Mabbett from continuing to build the infrastructure that supports his agenda. Indeed, arbtitrator David Fuchs has written "I'm hopeful that forcing him [Andy Mabbett] away entirely from the infobox issue would alleviate the cause of conflict for this case"! The "infobox prevention" remedy is not sufficient. We will explain this below.

Mabbett's entire project is to overlay his infrastructure of templates (not just infoboxes!) upon millions of Wikipedia articles so that they can be better "parsed" by computers. Mabbett must want Wikipedia to act like a database, and databases must have very defined structures. So every article (or template like {{Geobox}}, or "non-conforming" (e.g. collapsible) infobox) that deviates from his strategy and his structures is a potential battleground for him. An article edit that deviates from his template build-out, wherever he notices it, will be met with a revert, which regular editors are expected to accept, without policy grounds, for reasons that "they just can't understand"—it "emits metadata this way, you see"—it feeds third-party computer systems. His project is nothing less than re-defining Wikipedia for his own out-of-scope purposes. His "walled garden" of templates overlay the conventional editorial process and provide him with a self-reinforcing pseudo-technical rationale for controlling what appears in the wikitext of an article.

We must observe that Mabbett is perhaps Wikipedia's ultimate article owner, because his owning occurs via an entire infrastructure developed in the template space and applied to millions of articles. His methods have the effect of taking away editorial control from regular editors who may see no value in a template that adds complexity to the wiki-text without benefit to the reader. We all recently witnessed him attempt to take editorial control away from people who maintain articles about composers, for example, because their choices didn't fit his grand "data-feed" plan.

We will highlight one current initiative within Mabbett's project as an example of how he builds his infrastructure through templates and bot requests, to show why he must be stopped at the root. This recent bot request initiated by Mabbett proposes that dates already in infoboxes be put inside a new template—his template, ({{start date}}, created by him—so that the affected articles will output data that is easier for computers to parse. The infobox aspect is irrelevant, being only the container for the template, which in turn "emits" a microformat, another major part of Mabbett's infrastructural plans. (One can go back to 2007 and find quotes such as the following: "Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page [ANI], including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him".) You see, infoboxes are nothing special here—they are just another template involved in Mabbett's strategy; infoboxes and "microformats" and so on are all part of the same agenda that dates back half a decade, and involve the same battlegrounds. How will a simple "infobox ban" affect his behavior? Not at all. If Mabbett's behavior has caused controversy, it is because it stems from his agenda—probably the strongest agenda a single Wikipedian has ever attempted to implement without a fairly quick ban following. The solution is to prevent the agenda, by preventing the person holding it from implementing it.

The bot request linked above demonstrates everything this case is really about. It demonstrates that Mabbett will continue to find battlegrounds regardless of being "banned from infoboxes". In that discussion, he accuses the most thoughtful commentator on the page of "filibustering"; he refers to minor documents somewhere else to discount the informed opinions of the people who have taken the most time to respond. And so on. We see that, even when the topic isn't literally infoboxes, he's still doing the same thing, years on, and still acting the same way toward others.

Does the Arbcom see how wide-ranging and problematic Mabbett's agenda is? The Arbcom will not accomplish anything by preventing Mabbett from editing a given infobox on a given article. His battleground encompasses all articles, and the template space. He must be banned from all activity relating to templates, including edit requests on the protected templates he frequents, and from asking for or participating in bot requests, because these are the methods by which he establishes his agenda on Wikipedia. His agenda and his "enforcement" style are why we are here. No other named party on either side of the debate demonstrates the aggression and tenacious enforcement of Mabbett. To not ban Mabbett from all template and bot activity is simply to move Mabbett's battleground a little. The battleground behavior and agenda-pushing will not stop until the Arbcom introduces a very broad restrictive remedy.

Signed, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Riggr Mortis, User:Victoriaearle 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This hardly starts to examine how Mabbett achieves his goal via poor behavior. It does not focus on his bullying behavior, his ignoring any argument which he cannot attack, the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors (who are the lifeblood of this project).

P.P.S. If others agree with these statements, please sign your names below.

Responses

Thank you for this input, which relates to an issue I've been trying to read up on, but had trouble getting my arms around. The input raises a few questions in my mind. What community discussions have been held concerning the desirability of including microformatted information in articles? With greater specificity, what practical uses does the computer-readable microformatted information have, either within or outside Wikipedia (i.e., what are the actual or claimed benefits of including the microformats)? Can the microformatted information be included without visual effect on an article, as opposed to via an infobox, when the inclusion of one is disputed? I may have more comments later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The small scope of my agenda (forgive me that I don't understand all of the above): part of a microformat is for example {{start date}}. You enter year/month/day as yyyy/mm/dd, and worldwide can be understood "this is a date" and the single elements, which different cultures can represent with month names in their languages and their order of rendition. It's a great concept! I support that! More on microformats by RexxS on the specific example of Talk:Mont Juic (suite). Nikkimaria reverted the infobox, but the principal author liked it. Please note that Andy didn't argue in the discussion, only answered questions and explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Brad (or others) are interested in what the above contributors are describing, I suggest he takes a look at what independent scholars have to say about it, rather than taking the word of those who simply wish to keep us in the world of a paper encyclopedia. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World-Wide Web, wrote an article for Scientific American in 2001, where he describes his vision of a Semantic Web - it's available as a pdf here. After describing a brother and sister finding a specialist to treat their mother he writes:
Sorry to interrupt but is there a more legible version of that article? All I see is a page of "}A³Rҝ¬�^ät/�ßξ÷®g½ë›iï�Ä„‡³dHéøŒ" when I tried to open it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try saving it to your hard drive and opening it from there, in a PDF reader, rather than in a browser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pete and Lucy could use their agents to carry out all these tasks thanks not to the World Wide Web of today but rather the Semantic Web that it will evolve into tomorrow. Most of the Web's content today is designed for humans to read, not for computer programs to manipulate meaningfully. Computers can adeptly parse Web pages for layout and routine processing—here a header, there a link to another page—but in general, computers have no reliable way to process the semantics: this is the home page of the Hartman and Strauss Physio Clinic, this link goes to Dr. Hartman's curriculum vitae. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users."
So the concept of adding meaning to web pages is nothing new and doesn't belong just to Andy. Have a look at some of the results from this search on Google Scholar and you'll see that building the semantic web has been a task embraced by many scholars, designers and engineers over more than a decade of progress.
Nor is building the semantic web confined to microformats. For those of you who want to learn how our structured content is being used to train new generations of natural language processing programs, there is a video entitled "Intelligence in Wikipedia".
Every single web designer is aware of the potential of adding meaning to web pages. Our problem as a crowd-sourced website is in enabling everyone to contribute without throwing away all the other aspects of web design that most contributors will not be interested in. On the whole, we have made a good job of that, by using templates to hide the complexities of web-design inside a simpler wrapper. Even so, the fear of the unknown will still drive some to reject any sort of progress.
I submit that the essay above is nothing more than a device to stigmatise Andy's desire to see Wikipedia evolve into a resource that is usable in far more ways than simply reading an encyclopedia - I have the Encyclopedia Brittanica on my bookshelves if that's all I want to do. Let the three authors above honestly answer a simple question: "Would their opposition to infoboxes be any less if they did not emit metadata?" I think we already know the answer to that.
The authors also repeat a lie: that Andy has driven away editors. Not one single jot of truthful evidence has backed up that smear. In fact, Victoriaearle made that claim in her evidence, but had to retract it when it was shown that the editor whom she claimed had "left the project" had edited continuously ever since.
ArbCom should look carefully at the agenda of these editors: they have employed smear, innuendo and fabrication to create a caricature of an editor with whom they disagree. There is nothing sinister about wanting Wikipedia to be used as more than a paper encyclopedia; most editors share the goal of broader use and dissemination of our content; and there is no reason whatsoever why those goals should run contrary to the process of writing good content. --RexxS (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to endorse everything in RexxS' rebuttal to the three editors above. It is true that not everything can be accurately summarised in an infobox, but there has been no reliable evidence presented anywhere that emitting metadata for things that can is anything other than a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is not that metadata is a Bad Thing, but whether the approach Andy takes is helpful or causes problems. Is it better to have 100 editors doing what Andy does in small amounts, or Andy doing what he does in large volumes, as a speciality, and persistently, over many years? When people take a de facto leadership role in over-arching matters like this, is that a good thing or not? And how responsive are they to community concerns? That is my understanding of the argument being made here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me too for this. It does clearly lay out the concerns that I've seen expressed elsewhere as well. Could Ruhrfisch clarify whether the postscripts (PS'es) are from him or all three editors issuing the joint statement? NYB, to answer one of your questions, I believe that when you Google for something that has a Wikipedia article, the Google summary that comes up to the right on the standard search results screen is based on what Google can read from machine-readable sources, including Wikipedia articles. I believe the other questions you ask have been mostly answered in the evidence and workshop pages, though it can be difficult to find the links among the other material there. I too may have more comments to make later, but the closest ArbCom can come to limiting scope of activity is if the overall editing is bot-like or aimed at achieving a fait accompli against existing community consensus. Beyond that, it would be the role of members of the editorial community to initiate discussion within the community on whether consensus exists for such wide-ranging activities. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Newyorkbrad, There are other methods of obtaining this information, including the {{Persondata}} template. Interestingly a Google search for Terry-Thomas carries one of these side boxes, even though our corresponding FA article doesn't; the same is also true for a Google search of John Le Mesurier and again our (FA) article doesn't carry the box. Metadata in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: if we can provide a method of disseminating microformats in a hidden form (even if that is a collapsed box) then that can only be a benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more comments, based on what I've read about this while looking into some aspects of this case:
  • My understanding is that metadata here means data that can be included in and extracted from articles. This can take the form of infoboxes, but can take other forms as well. Microformats are ways of using existing html tags to mark and allow extraction of this data. You don't need to edit pages direct but the tagging is included elsewhere. It is a technical back-end allowing computers to 'recognise' what is on the page (i.e. semantic markup).
  • In an attempt to get a feel for the sort of work Andy does on this, I looked at some of his edits this year:
    • An example of his microformat work is here. Change made to sandbox here. This is (as far as I can tell) an example of allowing external data reusers to more easily access the data contained in Wikipedia articles.
    • An example of Andy's outreach and consulting(?) roles is here (from May 2013, about the ORCID "works metadata" working group), though I'm still not clear on the full scope of what Andy does outside Wikipedia on this sort of thing.
    • I noted the extent of the work done on data-related issues, templates, and infoboxes on some of his user pages: to-do and infoboxes.
    • I noted an example of a recent infobox merging discussion that drew a fair amount of attention: Template:Infobox journal.
    • I noted an example of a discussion on gender here.
My overall conclusions from this were that many people do lots of work of this nature (on templates and infoboxes), but most manage to do it without causing waves. Either because they are more sensitive to concerns, or because they edit less, or because they restrict themselves to a narrower area and don't edit across the whole gamut of infoboxes. What I'm trying to articulate here is whether there is justification for a principle that sometime less is more (to put it crudely)? I'm not sure there is justification for that, but there is a long track record within Wikipedia of individuals trying to do too much themselves, over-reaching, and running into problems with various parts of the community. It is very difficult to edit widely across a large number of areas without eventually running into those sorts of problems. It would help to be able to compare the participation in such discussions of all the editors named in or participating this case. Who participates in the most discussions, and who contributes most productively to such discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that I completely endorse the statement of the three editors above. My own evidence touched on the edges of Andy's metadata obsession, but having not looked at it as deeply as they have, I felt that an infobox ban would have been sufficient. They quite eloquently and convincingly (imo) argue that such a topic ban would not be sufficient in this case. Metadata by itself may not be a bad thing - this seems exactly what Wikidata was set up to achieve - but Andy's behaviour around it has been a continual and significant source of wasted time for pretty much as long as I've been here. Resolute 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also endorse the statement, and thank the editors for laying out with clarity the real problem here. I should note that the inclusion of metadata seems to me an important goal (I've said as much before in the debates about infoboxes), but that is not what is at issue here. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add my thanks and endorsement to the three editors' statement above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the metadata isn't the problem here, it's the zealousness which an editor approached the task he saw before himself. Building consensus and handling conflict is messy and time-consuming but an essential aspect of how Wikipedia works. I can see how anyone who believes they are working for greater functionality of Wikipedia would become impatient with ever present debates. But, I think for WP, the ends (greater functionality) doesn't justify the means of overcoming resistance by either steamrolling over it, denying it exists or bypassing the debate altogether.
I need to say this is a general observation about editor conduct on WP that may or may not apply to Andy. I only have these proceedings to go on and it seems like there are some conflicting statements in the lengthy proceedings. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully endorse the statement above; this is further supported by my evidence that I submitted a few weeks ago. --Rschen7754 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emphatically OPPOSE the witch hunt against Andy and the character assassination above. Here you have an editor who has clearly learned from his mistakes over the years, but is being hounded to death for a mere passion for a topic. The merits of the issue itself are being drowned in a sea of scapegoating. I see nothing of excessive "ownership" or some sort of dark agenda in Andy's behavior over the last year, and though he gets a little intense at times, he is merely a fellow editor with a strong area of interest. This is character assassination at its worst and it seems that any attempts by Andy to defend himself are met with the same chorus of outrage. The logic of the above statement is ludicrous: "let's ban people who care about improving the encyclopedia." Hmmph. Next thing you know, someone will want to ban Jimbo for his passion for wikipedia! Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses

Note: I also endorse RexxS' rebuttal.

So much for Carcharoth's request for the maintenance of decorum. What we see in two sections above, as others have noted, are further attempts to misrepresent and smear, devoid of any actual evidence of wrongdoing or ill-intent - exactly the kind of behaviour seen (and evidenced in earlier stages of this process), from those opposed to infoboxes, or metadata, or having our content reused by external partners, or objecting in some other way to normal Wikipedia practices.

Ruhrfisch has found some instances of me discussing the reuse of our content by Google, Yahoo, Bing, DBpedia and others. So what? A similar attempt to spread FUD in that regard, also referring to Riggr Mortis' ill-conceived essay was given very short shrift by the wider community when brought up on Jimbo Wales' talk page during this case. One editor there, User:Equazcion, commented:

"I fail to see the difference. Services that benefit people should be hindered because a company is also profiting from it? Why? To prove a point? To stick it to the man? Wikipedia is about providing your knowledge for free to whoever might use it for whatever purpose. What's the difference if it's structured data or prose? The same argument holds either way. I guess it sounds scarier when you throw around words like 'Google' (big ie. evil) and metadata (automated ie. evil), but really, it's all the same"

adding

"the wishes of the "primary" contributors shouldn't take any kind of precedence; The counter-arguments based on WP:OWN are perfectly valid in response to arguments referencing the amount of time or effort contributors spent creating or developing articles. We have that policy to deal precisely with these types of situations. You shouldn't contribute here if you think you have some sort of right to maintain control because it was 'your' work."

Ruhrfisch quotes me as saying "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to" (emphasis newly added). What he does not reveal, is that I was replying to the question (from Toccata quarta) "why should we shove our information down Google's throat?".

He also neglects to mention that my comment "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo" is a reply to the assertion that "[that] microformats... will one day facilitate the development of the Semantic Web, [is] just a leap of faith".

The "we and "us" I use refer to Wikipedia. Wikipedia shares its content using metadata. Wikipedia invites its reuse. Wikipedia's mission is enhanced by that reuse. And if I've done more than my fair share of the laborious and unexciting work to make that possible, for which I've been thanked by WMF staff and numerous fellow editors, then I'm very proud of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch responses

Newyorkbrad - I know that User:Pigsonthewing cited the existence (since 2007) of the category Category:Templates generating microformats as evidence that "The use of infoboxes to emit microformat metadata has been supported ... in practice" (take that as you will). As for actual RfC's, he cited two:

I do not know of any other RfCs which support inclusion of microformats. I do know that when the start date template was proposed to be added by bot to about 40,000 articles on listed properties in the National Register of Historic Places, it was done as a bot request and Pigsonthewing made only one post to the NRHP WikiProject web page about this - see here. I think it would have been much better if the NRHP WikiProject (to which I belong and which includes infoboxes in articles as a matter of course) had been asked directly for its input by User:Pigsonthewing. [Please note Pigsonthewing says below that he did not make the original bot request. I apologize for my error, as I said I am quite busy in real life and just recalled his comment on the NRHP talk page.]

If microformatting is desired, it can be incorporated in articles in places other than an infobox (to be very clear, infoboxes and microformats do not have to go together). One possibility would be Template:Persondata which is hidden from readers and is already included in over one million articles. As for microformats changing an article's appearance, they should not if done correctly, but even something as simple as a date runs into issues with the different date formats used around the world and in articles here which might cause it to change appearances (see the discussions above). I also worry that editors will not understand what the microformat templates are asking for which may lead to issues - again an issue raised in the NRHP page and touched on by us as part of the ever-growing complexity.

As for practical uses, I do not know of any within Wikipedia (Persondata is used for categories, perhaps microformats could be too?). Many third-party data-reusers can and do make use of machine-readable data (from microformats). As we asked, does the tail (Google, et al.) wag the dog (Wikipedia)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have little time in real life today, and will reply to the other arb comments / questions next as I am able. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata is only for people (hence the name), not buildings, events, and the many other things for which our infoboxes emit microformats. Please provide an example of a microformatted persondata template for a person, so that it can be tested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again Ruhrfisch misrepresents what was said, this time at the NRHP project talk page. I was replying to Doncram, a project member, who said "Please see wp:botrequest#Mark a lot of pages for microformatting. Not sure if they should be discussed here or there" and I replied "I've answered these questions at BOTREQ; I suggest we centralise discussion there.". Doncram and others joined the BOTREQ discussion; there were no posts objecting to the suggestion to hold it there. Note also that the bot request was not made by me but by User:Nyttend and the aforesaid comments are in reply to his notification of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth - the PPS is all mine. The PS reflects things that we discussed via email, but I will take responsibility for it now. I have asked Victoria (who has asked for a block) to comment on her talk page about the PS (since she cannot edit elsewhere). I assume Riggr Mortis will comment here if needed. More later. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on hearing the argument that we could incorporate microformats into something that isn't an infobox. Yet the truth is that nobody has ever done it with any success. {{Persondata}} could emit microformats, yet it doesn't. Any number of invisible data structures could be embedded into our articles, yet they are not. Why? Because anybody who actually sits down to the task quickly realises that the problem with invisible structures is that they don't get updated on a crowd-sourced site. Then they spot that they want a structure with a number of label/data pairs, like a table with two columns that's relatively easy to create and update, and it needs to be a template so that we can hide the classes needed to emit microformats. And voilà! they've re-invented an infobox. There are already well over 2 million of them in use on our Wikipedia, so why not just use them as the basis for emitting the metadata? The only reason why not is that some folks just don't like 'em. I'll start to take seriously Ruhrfisch's assertion that we could incorporate microformats in some other way when he manages to create one of these other ways and shows how it will be adopted in our articles. Have a look at Ruhrfisch's recent contributions and at my recent contributions. Which one of us is more likely to be producing technical solutions to problems? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not pretend to be a template or coding expert, nor do I wish to engage in a pissing contest with RexxS (and if I did, I would direct him to look at WP:WBFAN or at the number of peer reviews we've each done ;-) )(the smiley face means I am trying to use humor here). All I said was that infoboxes and metadata do NOT have to go together. To prove this, I have used {{Start date}} and put a microformatted datum into an article on a covered bridge without resorting to its infobox or a hidden template or anything hidden - diff.
On a more general note, members of ArbCom are asking for clarification and more information, and all Pigsonthewing and RexxS can do is resort to their usual tactics of attacking the messenger (me), pointing out one error (Pigsonthewing did not initiate the NRHP bot request, so I struck that and apologize), and challenging me to a code off (or whatever you call it). Why not give them what they ask for? Or could it be that the best evidence for consensus to add microformats everywhere across the whole encyclopedia is really a category (but hey, it is 7 years old!), a no consensus RfC, and 10 editors who could out-code me saying yeah, you can try this with a bot. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No-one attacked you; its just that the flimsiness of your arguments and falseness of your claims was (again) exposed. I don't know of any outstanding requests from Arbcom for clarification or more information about microformats, metadata or infoboxes, but if there are and someone points them out, I shall be happy to answer them. And no, you have not added "a microformatted datum" to that article, You have added a template which emits one element of a microformat, without a parent microformatted container to give it context (i.e. the start date for what - the page? Consider also a page with two infoboxes). The template documentation explains this. No microformat-aware tool will recognise it, because it does not conform to any published microformat standard. So you have not proved your assertion. (I have fixed your error) And do you really think inline templates, in running prose, are preferable to, or more likely to find favour with the wider community than, those in infoboxes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ruhrfisch: I don't remember trying to tell you that you should be doing peer reviews in a different way - the way that you tell me I should be writing metadata-emitting templates in a different way. In fact, I'm happy to acknowledge and commend your work in doing peer reviews because I know it improves the encyclopedia. But then you keep making the claim that we could put metadata elsewhere, and ignore my explanation of why it's a bad idea - based on what? Your expertise in doing peer reviews? I agree that it has a certain humorous quality. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthwing - So just to be clear, you, Pigsonthewing are the author of {{Start date}}, a template specifically made for emitting microformatted data. However, and here's the catch, it only works when embedded inside other "microformat-emitting templates". So you made it so it won't work unless it is in an infobox or other appropriate template - how does this not conform to our arguments above? i.e. you OWN Startdate, and it has to be in a box to work, so then you OWN the box too? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own any of them. Where is your evidence that I attempt to? Please explain how you would have {{Start date}} work outside a parent container. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch: you need to actually read WP:OWN. It's not about creating articles or templates; it's about stopping other editors from contributing to work that you feel you own. It is exactly what has happened with biographies of classical composers. It is exactly what has not happened with {{Start date}} - another half dozen editors have contributed and Edene is now the main contributor. For information: many infoboxes allow dates such as "about 212 BC", "15 or 17 December" which are not suitable for emitting metadata. So the way that we emit metadata for dates that are sufficiently precise, like "27 August 2013" is to wrap them in a template that adds a microformat - which is what {{Start date}} does. It works sensibly when the date it wraps with the classes "bday dtstart published updated" is inside another class like "event" which names the event that it is the start date for (or the person whose birthday it is, etc.) Please try not to use {{Start date}} outside of suitable containers like infoboxes otherwise re-users can't tell what it relates to. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS and Pigsonthewing, I have read it - I was referring to our joint argument about OWNership above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth - Riggr Mortis indicated to me on email that he is fine with the PS. Victoria posted the following on here talk page: Yes, per Carcharoth's question, I agree with the PS. It's been amply demonstrated on the pages of the arb case and on other pages where I've witnessed these discussions and is in my view the reasons it's difficult to impossible to discuss these matters elsewhere, which goes to Newyorkbrad's question. Only one more thing, in response to RexxS assertion that I accused Andy Mabbett of driving away editors: the evidence states editors become discouraged and leave. But - and this is important - I don't wish to engage on that level because frequently in these discussions the concept or the main point of the discussion devolves quickly into a "he said, she said" scenario which is almost always counterproductive. Feel free to copy over, or to link, or to point to this post. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) End of quote posted here by Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course Victoriaearle doesn't want to engage in discussion after she's been caught out in a lie. But her so-called evidence is still there on the talk page of Evidence even now for anyone to see and she hasn't had the decency to retract those untruths. Here's what she says referring to Yllosubmarine: "In September 2012 ... She became discouraged and left the project. ... . Keep in mind, too, we lost a prolific female content editor from the Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek episode." It's pure fabrication. Yllosubmarine never left the project. Here's a link to her contributions so you can see for yourself. Count the monthly contributions since last October when she was supposed to have left the project: 28, 10, 6, 11, 3, 7, 11, 2, 7, 3. She even edited today. It's on the back of this sort of mendacity that we get the smear "the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors". There is zero evidence. Strike it if you have an ounce of honesty left. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above in the #Comment from Victoriaearle/Truthkeeper88 section. While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not left entirely, her edits dropped by just over 90% in the 10 months after Pigsonthewing's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek infobox argument (compared to the 10 months before) and she has not written any new articles I could see or brought any to GAN or FAC (and this from an editor averaging over two GAs and FAs per year from starting here to Tinker Creek as TFA. As I said above, how is this not the loss of a productive editor? I know you won't answer that, because you can't. I will repeat what I said to Pigsonthewing and now say to you, you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the section where I disproved your and (not for the first time) Victoria's bogus claims by showing that Yllosubmarine had edited more times in some of the months after the Tinker's Creek discussion than in several of the months before it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch. Rubbish. Yllosubmarine made more edits in the month after the Pilgrim's Creek debate (October 2012 = 28) than she made in any of the four months prior to it (May, June, July, August 1012) and she was busily contributing to Today's Featured Article requests during the rest of the year. It is disgusting that you try to spin that into evidence of Andy chasing editors off the project. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

newyorkbrad and Carcharoth and any other members of ArbCom reading this - I see further attempts at discussion will get nowhere, since I cannot code templates and mendacity is supposedly rampant. I hope that our arguments offer a useful way for you to look at this whole mess. Ask yourselves this: if infoboxes and metadata and microformats are a content issue (as many have argued) and we have a small group of editors who are pushing this content everywhere they can, despite a lack of broad consensus for it, isn't this really a WP:POV case too? If this were some content on the Middle East or (Northern) Ireland that was being pushed, wouldn't the solution be obvious? In POV cases, ArbCom has topic banned or site banned the POV pushers. Is this that much different?

And now, since Carcharoth has asked for a break (as it were), I bid you all adieu. Good night and good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[I've cut this way down, Carcharoth]

On the lying accusation: Don't call people liars. I had the same impression about Maria/yllosubmarine--that she was gone, I mean. It's an easy mistake to make, in general, about people you've encountered a tiny bit. Maria certainly has cut back on editing, having made maybe 70 edits since the infobox debate she participated in almost a year ago, which went something like this: Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox.

"Give example of an editor leaving because of Pigsonthewing?": OK, me. Not as a matter of direct conflict, but in the way that one has an instinct to walk away from something they think might explode. Or worse, stick to them and explode. Wouldn't want to be within a country mile of the next Tinker Creek Box Battle.

(Why am I back? I participated in proposing the remedy we gave above (that bold part), because if it passed I would feel much better about the culture and editing environment of Wikipedia.)

Metadata misdirection: All cut—except for a short comment on semantics and retro-fitting. I didn't know that buildings and bridges had birthdays, were "published", were "updated", or fit into a calendar event, but the HTML source of one example tells me so: <span class="bday dtstart published updated">1872</span>; the Eiffel Tower has a "nickname" that happens to be in French: <span class="nickname" lang="fr"...>La Tour Eiffel</span>; Chelsea Manning was also going to have a "nickname" that consisted of their prior name (sounds controversial in any other context, doesn't it: [95]); and biographic metadata for the most part "emits" contact card data. "Semantic"? Hehe. Not so much. This "tail wagging dog" concept comes up again. What to do with it... Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has anyone called anyone else a liar? The HTML class names used in microformats are just labels,; (they could easily be in the style "parameter23"), but were chosen by the authors of the microformat standards to match the internationally used vCard standard, and as already discussed, are widely and interoperably recognised by a large number of organisations, web services and software tools. In the case of the bridge, the classes "published" and "updated" are disregarded, because the parent microformat includes no definition of them, unlike the "dtstart". Since they are not exposed to our readers, there is little chance of them being cased any confusion. I've already suggested that people read the archived section of Jimbo's talk page, where your user-page essay got very short shrift, and quoted some of the response to it, above. In that essay, you give your reason for leaving as "As long as Wikipedia drifts from its origins as a tool for human learning to a second-rate quasi-database—apparently to the benefit of ADD-inducing tech companies—I will no longer participate as a volunteer". Let's have another quote from the discussion of that on Jimbo's talk page, from User:Cyclopia: "So someone is led to retiring because we're making it easier to reuse data and make Wikipedia interoperable with other tools? I am sorry but I can't think of anything else but 'insane' when reading this essay... Licensing is how we deal with wishes of people who wrote the data. If you don't want your contributions to be used in ways you wouldn't think of, you better not contributing to a project under a free license." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Riggr Mortis: I call someone a liar when they are clearly telling lies and damaging another editor as a result. Did Yllosubmarine leave the project - yes or no? Is Victoriaearle a liar? Of course it's easy to make mistakes, but honest people withdraw the accusation when they realise they've made a mistake. Victoriaearle's mistruths lie on the Evidence talk page to this day and you use them to call for sanctions on another editor. You suffer no damage by defending such lies, but for the person who is maligned as a result, it may possibly result in an indefinite ban for something that you've helped to fabricate. Shame on you. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS - everyone makes mistakes (my recollection is that Pigsonthewing said I found quotes by him, when all I did was copy what Riggr actually found, you referred to me still doing peer reviews when I got burned out and basically do not do them anymore). Yet I am not calling either of you liars. Victoria cannot edit any page but her own, and has chosen to leave the project. I said above that while Yllosubmarine did not technically leave Wikipedia, it is also clear she is not contributing at anywhere near the level she did before. You have an excellent FA nom; you know the effort involved in writing and researching and getting an article through FAC. Look at Yllosubmarine's edits - she still cares enough to revert vandalism and good faith cruft additions, she still participates in a few discussions if any article she took to FA is nominated to be on the Main Page, but that is it. She went from 14 GAs and 14 FAs in less than 7 years to ZERO in the year since the infobox posse showed up at the Tinker Creek article. Address that part of Victoria's statement, why don't you? Yes, Yllosubmarine still pops up from time to time, but she is not the editor she used to be. Why can't you admit that too? Or do you want to provide yet one more example of how you and Pigsonthewing attack one small part of an argument (IT'S A LIE!!!!) so no one will focus on the rest: that Wikipedia has lost a valued content contributor? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS In the interest of not contributing anymore to the avalanche here, and to give the Arbs a break so they can sift through all this, I am done - ping me if needed. Please play nice with each other while I'm away. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honest people correct mistakes, not rehash them to tar others unreasonably. Victoriaearle still makes the untruthful claim that "Yllosubmarine left the project" - do I need to supply you with the diff again? She could easily ask for that to be refactored, but chooses not to, so that you can repeat the smear on Andy that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Why did Yllosubmarine cut down on her GA/FA work? Why did you cut down on peer reviews? Peoples' circumstances change, and it's utterly inappropriate to heap the blame on Andy when there is nothing that supports it. The Tinker's Creek discussion occurred mid-September and Yllosubmarine edited 28 times in October - that's more than she had in the previous April, May, June or July. How on earth does that support your wild assertion about "behavior which discourages and drives away content editors"? You simply made it up. Address that fact first instead of making ad hominems about honest editors who have caught you out in a smear campaign based on a tissue of lies. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information on microformats

If anyone still needs information on microformats, as suggested above, please see microformat; my statement in the 2010 RfC; and my essay giving a comparison with persondata.

As I said in the second of those, Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation [spoke], in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". Note, in particular, the part about "allow[ing] software to know, for example, that the numbers shown in one of the columns in this table listing U.S. presidents are dates". That's exactly what microformats do.

The cited article is also a very accessible overview.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I would also add that I am firm believer in the benefit of infoboxes to our human readers; I added them before we started to use microformats, and I have worked hard to ensure their readability by humans, both visually and for those with visual impairments requiring them to use screen readers. And I would still add and improve them if they did not emit microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus

I note the arb opinions that I have degraded infobox discussions and the examples cited of my comments against Gerda; I apologise for these and certainly intend not to indulge in such behaviour or employ such techniques again. May I ask then whether the unprompted incivilities (and sometimes gross incivilities) of Rexxs,(examples of whose handiwork I gave in my original evidence), Montanabw and PumpkinSky against myself during infobox discussions are also to be considered? There is PotW as well of course but his general behaviour is adequately covered in other aspects of this arb case. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the apology. - I said before that I didn't need one and would like to only look forward. Thanks for expressing it anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda is very gracious, and between the two of you, I hope you've patched things up. However, that leaves Andy and also your overall attitude toward anyone who proposes an infobox anywhere that you claim ownership in the topic. if you fail to see your own incivility, Smerus, and still cannot even when it has been pointed out to you (and others) with diffs and examples, then it proves my point that you are a mere bully who is mean to people who you think are weaker than you, but when called on your own behavior can only cry crocodile tears and claim that you are the victim. Montanabw(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is clear from the above edit what I mean. I have not anywhere claimed that I am a victim. The abuse, name calling, unsabstantiated allegations and pose of moral superiority, is part of the culture of PotW, Montana, Rexxs and PumpkinSky, and if this arb case is about editors' polite behaviour towards others, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders. In Wikilawyering capacity I am a six-stone weakling compared to the professional intimidation carried out by these characters. But I do not seek, like Montanabw, to be a moral touchstone, exonerate myself or to be claim to be heroically intervening on behalf of others; I only ask that all participants be evaluated as I have been. It seems from the recent request for diffs about me and Montana's ready response to this that the closing date for evidence has become irrelevant to this case; I can see it for extending for several months or years yet at this rate; so if arbs request me to produce diffs, there is no shortage of them and I shall be glad to oblige. Meanwhile, as Montanabw seems to note, Gerda and myself have taken constructive steps to make things work, which is more than most other contributors to this discussion have done. --Smerus (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to see the diffs, particularly of my unprompted incivility. If I see you bullying Gerda, or saying that Montana is "libelling other editors", or attacking other women editors again, you can be sure I won't be civil when I take you to task for it. But that won't be unprompted. I am perfectly civil when I'm interacting with those who debate in a collegial and constructive manner, but a lifetime involved in resolving disputes has left me with little tolerance for those who deliberately don't. Mea culpa. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not an arb. I will gladly list them, as I clearly state, if an arb indicates that s/he will be willing to take them into consideration.--Smerus (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limited number of comments in discussions

While I completely understand why this has been proposed, and I can see that it will be a big help to curtail some of the unproductive discussions, it has as I see it two potential downsides:

  • Hampering productive discussions about content.
    In pretty much every area of Wikipedia that is not watched by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes, the existence of an infobox is not at all controversial. Sometimes though the content of an infobox is not always clear cut and it requires discussion between various parties until everyone is happy that the information is correctly summarised, this can sometimes take several comments until people understand each other. Now imagine that there are three fields of an infobox that require discussion but you're limited to two comments. How do you proceed?
  • Discouraging productive discussions about infoboxes or their content.
    Evidence presented shows that a not infrequent sequence of happenings in the classical music sphere is that someone proposes an infobox for a given article, whether they know (or can know) it is likely to be controversial or not. This is either reverted or responded to with a comment along the lines of "No infoboxes on this article!", the proposer then responds with the reasonable question, "Why do you not want an infobox?" gathering only the response "I said no!". If someone has a maximum of two comments to make then this sort of behaviour is encouraged because it means you get to keep the infobox off 'your' article without having to explain why you don't want something that other editors think will improve the article.

As Carcharoth notes, "The fault (if any) seems to be more a frustration that others won't discuss things fully.". This is the crux of the matter, those who think infoboxes on articles improve them generally seem to want to discuss them and get them right. They are generally interested in why someone thinks that something is incorrect or too nuanced so they can understand the objection in order to work around it (by which I mean either correct the information, present it in a different way so it doesn't mislead or omit that bit of information from the infobox). In far too many cases this has been met with a refusal to discuss - often the infobox in its entirety or sometimes the objections to specific aspects of it ("piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox, therefore we must not have an infobox", rather than "piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox therefore the infobox will include on information ABCDEF which can be accurately summarised.").

It is not possible to have a productive discussion when one side refuses to discuss anything, and I don't see these proposed restrictions as helping that. Some things that I think would help would be:

  • A ruling that no party to this case may revert the addition or removal of an infobox from any article or talk page
  • A ruling that proposing an infobox on the talk page of any article where there has not been recent discussion of one is disruptive only when the proposal makes no reference to that article.
  • A ruling that arguments about a (proposed) infobox on a specific article are disruptive if they make no reference to why the infobox is or would be or not be beneficial to that specific article; and that such arguments may be removed by any uninvolved [editor|administrator].
  • Imposing a limit on the number of concurrent discussions about infoboxes that may be initiated by any party to this case. If that number was 3, then an editor must wait for the first discussion they initiated to conclude before they my start a fourth discussion.

As for more general alternatives, would the committee regard any of the following to be within their remit?

  • Mandating that discussions of individual infoboxes must take place only at the level of the individual article, and take into account only arguments related to that article?
  • Mandating that WikiProjects may not impose a blanket requirement for or against infoboxes on 'their' articles?
  • Mandating that discussion of whether articles should emit metadata is irrelevant to whether a given article should have an infobox?
  • Rule that WikiProjects do not own articles?

This is not a recommendation that the committee should do any of these things, it is asking whether they could do so if they felt it would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts for better collaboration! As for wording: "by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes", it seems a bit too general, for example Kleinzach initiated infobox orchestra, infoboxes for compositions have a tradition to at least back to 2007, project opera initiated an infobox opera. The restriction is for biographies in the field. But you are right that some members dislike infoboxes, period. - We can practise consensus at The Ban on Love which I moved (for this purpose) from the case workshop back to the article where an infobox had been reverted twice. I just left the discussion for today with my self-imposed limit of only one entry to one discussion a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like a 1RR restriction might be useful. The problem with "consensus" is that no one knows what it is or when it has been achieved...for example, the WP Classical Music project claims a "consensus" against infoboxes, but that claim is then used to bludgeon anyone, anywhere, who proposes one. Yet, to have 10,000 individual article discussions seems other fruitless also. I DO think your comment about "one side refuses to discuss anything" is the crux of the matter, you can't reach consensus if one side covers their ears and shouts "lalalalalalalalaaaa!" or if there is a Greek chorus drowning out everything. If that can be addressed, the rest might fall into place. Montanabw(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that a community-wide discussion be held to determine global consensus on infoboxes

Apologies if this has been mentioned, as I've only been peripherally involved in this. I was reading through the proposed decisions and saw @Newyorkbrad:'s Locus of dispute. I honestly don't see any way for the infobox question to be resolved on an article-by-article basis. The first bullet point reads:

"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)."

Setting aside the question of how to handle a tie, are we really content to resign consensus down to a vote at each individual article where it might arise? It seems like that's what this comes down to, and if that's the case, it would actually save everyone a lot of grief to state it plainly and simply: Do not discuss, but rather simply vote, as this comes down to individual preference, so majority therefore rules in each case. As far as each individual article is concerned, there is really nothing to argue about. It doesn't seem like the infobox question is actually all that article-dependent, beyond the infeasibility at certain topics (an article about an author is feasible, while something like dystopia might not be), and the fact that different people with different opinions on infoboxes might be editing at those respective articles. Again, it comes down to individual preference.

The above really doesn't seem like any sort of Wikipedia-style solution though. If any semblance of actual WP:Consensus currently seems impossible as there is no relevant policy or guideline, nor even a logic to point to on a per-article basis, maybe this is the time to start answering the question by putting it to the community at large. I'd like to see that as one proposed decision, assuming those can still be added. Equazcion (talk) 17:20, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why someone can't independently launch an RfC at a village pump, or some other appropriate location. That being said, for myself, I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory. There are always exceptions to the rule. Resolute 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Reso. I update Infoboxes all of the time but don't think they should be mandatory, especially on articles that are not biographical. I can't see there being a straight "Yea for Infoboxes", "Nay against Infoboxes" vote because however it was decided, it wouldn't reflect a consensus, just a majority for those editors who cared enough to cast a vote. I'm not sure if there any solution other than deciding this article-by-article. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Some if us have been trying that. Look where it's got us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] "I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory" - Me too. Who is it, remind me again, who wants to make them mandatory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well me for one, for certain types of article where the Wikiproject so decides, and with a certain allowance for IAR, as I've said more than once in the case. And the 31 users of Template:User Infobox pref - "This user believes that all articles should have an infobox". But certainly not for all biographies - biographies are one of the problematic areas for infoboxes. A pertinent example today, from my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda getting off point. I think rehashing the opinions of all involved here on the infobox question isn't going to be all that helpful. We've seen arbitration decisions before that a community discussion be held to gauge a broad consensus, and I think such a decision would be appropriate here. Equazcion (talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be an appropriate remedy in the sense that nobody would object to either its relevance to the case or disagree that it is within the committee's remit to pass such a remedy. I don't think that it would be useful though - at the end of it I would be prepared to bet a significant amount of money that the answer would come back "The community supports infoboxes but doesn't think they should be mandatory" - i.e. exactly where we are now. This is because other than a very small minority of people who dislike infoboxes per se, almost everybody agrees with the status quo. Even if anybody wanted to make them mandatory (which I've never seen any evidence of) there are some articles where its just not possible (e.g. Orthogonality and Types of inhabited localities in Russia), and there are other articles that are structured by their very nature and so any infobox would just be duplicative (e.g. List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom). You would therefore have to mandate them only on articles where they were appropriate - which gets us back to exactly where we are now. What needs to happen is for the discussions about infoboxes on pages within the sphere of classical music to become detoxified such that they are as productive as the discussions about infoboxes on the other 99.99% of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really suggesting only those two questions be asked. We could additionally ask the question, "Should infoboxes be mandatory on every article about a person"? I think that would produce interesting and useful results, just as an example. Let's start fleshing out some guidelines here (not literally here, but at a global discussion) so that people arguing at articles actually have something to discuss. Equazcion (talk) 19:54, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
I don't support mandating their use even for articles about a person because there will always be edge cases where an infobox is not appropriate and other cases where it is debatable whether the article is about a person. The first example that comes to mind (although there will be better ones) is Piltdown Man. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to know what you think, but I wasn't really asking, with all due respect. I'm again suggesting a community discussion. But just as an aside, yes, if infoboxes were mandated for "person" articles, there would be some scattered instances where the article topic is ambiguous, and that would need to be discussed at the article. As is the case for most guidelines, they're not always easy across-the-board answers, but can rather be a place to start, whereas right now there is nothing on which to base a discussion. Equazcion (talk) 20:36, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this be a straight yes-or-no question; only that it be a community discussion on what to do. We can make room for several possibilities. The point is, it seems arbitrary to leave it up to the "i like infoboxes" or "i don't like infoboxes" stances of whomever might be at a particular article at a particular time (that's essentially what it will come down to). Centralized community discussions (especially those commenced by arb decision) tend to make room for several possibilities, not simply a yea or nay. Let's see what we can come up with. Equazcion (talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Considering that ArbCom is close to banning a user for advocacy of infoboxes and thus singling one user out as a scapegoat, against an "old guard" of rather mean and nasty-acting sorts who continue to do anything (including collapsible side navboxes) to avoid having "teh dreaded infoboxen" appear on "their" articles - you may have a valid point. If "consensus" leans toward infoboxes, then the sanctions toward this user would be moot. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any sanctions imposed on Andy Mabbitt will be an indication of his behavior alone - nothing more or less. Any great debate on the general usefulness of infoboxes will be millions of wasted words of waffle - most of them written by editors who have never written a useful page in their lives. The present system of adding an infobox only after debate with the primary editors on the talk page is the most satisfactory and least aggressive way of obtaining consensus that there's likely to be. The problem has always been Andy Mabbitt's inability to accept this.  Giano  20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still struggling with this notion of "primary" editors, and how this concept could have possibly gained even moderate acceptance in a discussion here, of all places, where there's a policy called WP:OWN. But I digress. This should be put to a community discussion. I don't care about how various editors have behaved and don't have an opinion one way or the other on sanctions (because frankly I'm not familiar with their history) but the way these things are handled in general should be discussed broadly, as this is a broad-reaching issue, regardless of how lowly you regard the opinions of those who might respond. Equazcion (talk) 20:41, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, those seeking to bombastically impose their own views on others have always erroneously invoked WP:OWN. Fortunately, most people see the flaws in such false reasoning.  Giano  20:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's not erroneous. If someone is imposing their own views on others then they could be wrong too, but if you counter with any argument based on "primary" editors or anything synonymous with that, you're just as wrong, as you're doing precisely what WP:OWN warns against. It is the very purpose of the policy to prevent such stances from being credible. You may have a point that an editor acted inappropriately, but if that's the case then you've got the reasoning wrong. Equazcion (talk) 20:57, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that a community-wide discussion about some of the issues raised in this case is needed. The trouble is that in the past when ArbCom have stated that explicitly, the response is at times a resounding silence. Literally. I may have missed it, but in the Doncram case earlier this year, ArbCom suggested (in relation to the stub guideline) that "this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way." I am not sure if that ever happened. In part, this is human nature as the last thing most people want to do after a lengthy ArbCom case is to carry on the discussions. You can take a break for a month or so, but people are often still reluctant to return to things especially if some of the ArbCom remedies may have calmed things down. Bit of a Catch-22 really. The other problems are that many casual editors will be completely unaware of WP:INFOBOXUSE, and many editors will have widely varying experiences and expectations in relation to infoboxes, which makes centralised discussion not as easy as it looks. You need to prepare such an RfC and gain input from all those who have strong views on the matter, otherwise the results won't be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is made to put the question to the community, and no one is mandated to actually create it, then yes it could result in silence. I think if an RfC actually appeared, with a watchlist notice, there would be widespread participation. I would create one myself right now if I thought I could make a good one, but I was hoping someone smarter and more capable than myself could craft a good one. It needs to present all the right information and distill all the issues into a viable group of questions, and if that happened I think it could work. I have a feeling the infobox issue isn't quite as contentious in the broader community as it is with those vocal few present currently. Equazcion (talk) 21:04, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead. Almost anything would be better than the way we deal with disagreement now. Today I looked at the history of Sparrow Mass again, and I suggest you do the same, it's short. I added an infobox, after doing so to the liking of the principal author for Schubert's masses. Was that aggressive? Less than two hours later it was reverted, edit summary "cleanup". Was that aggressive? It looked to me not very thoughtful, so I reverted, asking for discussion on the talk. Edit conflict war, page protected. Andy was not on the scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the issue. Per WP:BRD, you never should have restored the infobox after being reverted, regardless of whether you agreed with Nikkimaria's removal being characterized as "cleanup". Rexxs (with an ironic edit summary) and Diannaa should not have tag teamed to try and force its inclusion, nor should Nikki have edit warred against the three of you. But all of that came about because you incorrectly figured the guideline was bold, revert, revert, discuss. Once the page protection was lifted, the infobox was again removed to restore status quo ante, and you were right there to restore it yet again. Why? What did you expect to gain when there was already a discussion on the talk page, involving the usual suspects? Resolute 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I should not have reverted. But was it "aggressive". It was a spontaneous angry reaction to something unexpected I could not believe. By now, I am on 1RR, voluntarily so. Looking back to April and June gives you a wrong picture, I improved. So did Andy, no? (He didn't touch that article, sorry I was not precise about the meaning of "scene"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that Andy was, in fact, on the scene, apparently misrepresenting the outcome of his microformats RFC to try and gain the upper hand in that discussion. Resolute 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was We've had RfCs which have shown community consensus to use infoboxes to emit microformats}}; and though I commented on the talk page, I did not edit the article, which is what Gerda is referring to. [Note Gerda means edit war, not edit conflict. Corrected.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and SilkTork's closure of that RFC made it clear that no such consensus existed on the use of microformats, let alone the use of infoboxes as the delivery system. They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general. Unless, of course, there is a different RFC that I am not aware of. Resolute 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other RfCs, yes, one cited above; and the Composers Project RfC authorised the use of {{Infobox classical composer}}, which has emitted a microformat from the get-go. Your reading of ST's admittedly ambiguous-in-part closing statement also omits some important detail: "In general people felt that microformats had a place on Wikipedia, and there were no views calling for an outright exclusion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no, I quite clearly said "They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general." Resolute 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section of Propose that...

I think it's important to note what ArbCom can and can't do. The Committee can impose binding decisions regarding inappropriate behaviour - such as users consistently ignoring consensus. The Committee cannot make decisions regarding content or policy or guidelines, nor force the community to have discussions regarding content or policies (the Committee can recommend or suggest such discussions, and the community can quite rightly ignore such recommendations). We have community wide consensus on the use of infoboxes which has been quoted in the findings: WP:INFOBOXUSE. This has been in existence since October 2011. If people feel this needs amending then the appropriate place to open a discussion would be on the talkpage of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. What this case is partly about is not that we don't have a guideline regarding the use of infoboxes, but that some users may not be appropriately following that guideline - that is to say that some users may be urging either the consistent use of infoboxes on all articles as standard, or conversely, some users may be insisting that infoboxes are not to be applied to a certain section of articles. The guideline indicates that use of infoboxes on a particular article, if contested, is decided by discussion and consensus on the talkpage of that article. Discussion has been taking place. The decision for the Committee is whether such discussion has been handled appropriately, whether those taking part in the discussions are taking on board the concerns of others, and whether certain users are having contentious discussions regarding the use of infoboxes so often as to be considered disruptive. The Committee's considerations on these matters will be informed by awareness of existing guidelines and consensus, but it is outside the scope of the Committee to alter consensus or to ask the community to set about altering consensus. My own view on infoboxes broadly aligns with consensus - properly used they provide useful information, but they are not always required, so making them mandatory would be inappropriate. If editors cannot reach agreement in a discussion regarding the use of an infobox in an article, they should avail themselves of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures we have in place.

However, making a focus on infoboxes is perhaps taking the spotlight off the real issue, which is the use of metadata. Infoboxes come into the picture, it seems, because they are regarded as the best means of employing the metadata software. The issue is that those in favour of employing the metadata software wish to place an infobox on articles which don't have one. Some users are objecting to having an infobox on an article where it may not be appropriate merely in order to employ the metadata software. If there is to be a community discussion on something, it should be on the use of metadata software on Wikipedia. Infoboxes would come into that discussion, as they are seen as fairly indispensable to the employment of metadata. My understanding of the metadata software is that it is able to encode certain basic information, such as the date of construction of a building, its location and size and type, and that can be translated into whatever readable format is appropriate by compatible software. This means that information can be transferred by means other than text. In previous discussion on metadata there is a consensus that it would be appropriate to explore this technology. Where there hasn't been consensus is how to use this technology - and how much we should be adjusting Wikipedia to fit the technology (such as employing infoboxes on all articles, regardless of local consensus on the appropriateness of such infoboxes).

That is, however, only the background. This case is not about should Wikipedia be using this technology. It is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. It is a grave error, and one that may prove costly both to him, and to the advancement of this technology. It is frustrating that this is the third time he has been involved in an ArbCom case related to the same issue. Though a user may be pursuing the right end, the means are also very important, and the community cannot work well if some users are allowed to ignore consensus because they have a good idea.

My view is that I am inclined to support a site-ban for Andy Mabbett, but I also see the need for the community to have a full and detailed discussion on the metadata technology, and such a discussion would benefit from the involvement of Andy Mabbett. I am wondering if a suspended site-ban would be appropriate. Allow Mabbett time on Wikipedia to get others to buy into his vision. Build some bridges. Explain more clearly how the technology works. And listen carefully to the concerns of the community. Perhaps get the site developers and the Foundation involved. While doing that, there would be certain conditions which if he broke would trigger an indef ban. Conditions such as: edit warring; arguing over using an infobox in an article (if someone objects, simply back off - there are over 4 million other articles on Wikipedia to work on); and being dismissive or incivil to other users (think twice before clicking "Save page" - has that comment the potential to be read as offensive or hostile? As an example - repeating in bold three times "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile). I haven't decided yet to simply support the current site-ban, or to propose a suspended one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile. It can also be read as helplessness when faced with missing a basic common ground in a discussion, which needs to be established before you can reasonably talk. See (from Don Carlos):
  • My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. --Kleinzach 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole. Kleinzach 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can one say politely that a key player in the infobox discussions has a misunderstanding of what they are? I wonder how much conflict could have been avoided if it was accepted that infoboxes hold key facts, not a summary of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." I understand that this means only key facts, avoid trivia. - What do you think? - Do you think an infobox on Verdi has to capture his genius? It's a myth. Not even an article can do that. - A common understanding of such basics is crucial for a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While particular users' behavior in these particular cases is certainly a big part, if not the focus of the case, I think the arbitration committee has an opportunity to make a recommendation regarding the larger underlying issue that causes these conflicts to arise, even if until now they've taken place on a smaller and less noticeable scale. The guideline we have really offers no guidance at all -- it is in the end merely a negative statement: that there is no policy, so just decide amongst yourselves, using no criteria in particular. In addition to deciding what sanctions to impose on users, I think making broader recommendations when an underlying issue is present seems to have always been within the purview of arbcom. Equazcion (talk) 03:37, 27 Aug 2013 (UTC)
The "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" comment was in this discussion, where (as Gerda suggests) it seemed a proportionate response to the wall of the demonstrably ill-informed and ad hominem dismissal of a proposed action which already has unequivocal support at an RfC (and which as a result of that unfounded intervention is currently stalled). Since that's not how it read to you or others, at whom it was not addressed, I apologise. I wonder if you, @SilkTork: would like to comment on similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments addressed to me and others on various talk pages, by parties and commenters in this case, along the lines of "you clearly have no interest in..." or "you clearly have no knowledge of...", which, unlike my comment under discussion, are not accompanied by evidence and have no basis in fact? Also, which are the other two "metadata arbcom cases" to which you allude? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more reassured Andy if you were reflecting and taking on board concerns that people raise rather than arguing against them. If any user proposes something - regardless of what it is - they will likely meet some concerns. Some of these concerns will be valid. Some will arise out of a lack of clarity regarding some aspects of the proposal. Some may well be wide of the mark. All concerns need to be met with the same politeness and genuine attempts to allay the concerns. If after several reasonable attempts to allay the concerns they are simply repeated without showing signs of understanding, and if after reflecting on the adequacy of the explanations, perhaps asking what aspects are not clear, possibly rephrasing if needed, the same concerns are again repeated and it starts to appear as though the person asking is being disruptive, then it is better to ask for assistance rather than resorting to be impolite. If at this stage you don't understand that, then I am concerned. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, a fair point, and one I'm taking on board as a a result of this case (if you will, consensus not only has to be done, but be seen to be done), and I would indeed seek third party assistance in such cases in the future (you can read that as a formal undertaking if it helps). You appear to have missed my question about similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you are close to drowning, Silktork tosses out a lifeline, and you are essentially complaining that it didn't precisely hit the mark. Astounding.SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) [This case] is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. This to me is the heart of your apparent misunderstanding. As evidence has repeatedly shown, it is not Andy who is failing to get the community to buy into his vision, the problems all stem from a small number of users who have a dislike of infoboxes and who refuse to engage in discussion about it. You can continue to try to ban Andy for having been banned before if you want, but you can't expect people who have actually read all the evidence in this case to support your "grand vision" for an Andy-free project, nor can you expect it to solve the actual problems in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article showing an infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page? Why are those who oppose infoboxes considered to "refuse" discussion, whereas supporters are just trying to help? Some editors are able to propose change in a manner that is not disruptive. When such an editor encounters stiff opposition, they adapt, assuming that the opposers are acting in good faith, and that assistance or time is needed so others can understand the benefits of the proposal. A good editor might even contemplate whether the opposers have a valid point of view. Some editors can collaborate, while disruption seems to follow others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample evidence in this case of where I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly true Andy. In the Frank Matcham discussion you were offered an alternative compromise version, which you refused to even consider "because it finds no favour". To say there "is no evidence of the reverse" is just misleading, I'm afraid, although I'm sure it may have just slipped your mind. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SchroCat, it is strictly true. In the Matcham discussion, I replied: "...the collapsed infobox, with hidden content, hasn't been implemented across WP because it finds no favour, unlike the million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes we have... Collapsing the infobox not only defeats its primary purpose, of providing a quick and convenient fact-list for those readers who desire or find useful such a thing (and there is evidence that readers [...] do), but also hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata, since hidden content is more likely to be overlooked when pages are updated. However, if you still think we should adopt that model despite such shortcomings, then - again - a centralised RfC should be the way forward." (of course, I should have said "2.5 million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes". Mea culpa). That might be a discussion that you find inconvenient, or even dislike intensely, but for you to attempt to portray it as a blank refusal to open a dialogue is at best misleading and quite possibly disingenuous. You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we do on so many things. You were offered a compromise solution on Matcham: you rejected it out of hand with a line of argument that a)smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and b) I am not sure I believe ("hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata"? Not at all true). It's not a question about an argument that I find inconvenient or dislike, so please don't try and double guess my rationale again: try to stick to the more concrete things people can understand, without trying to look into the psyche of others. I'll ignore your regular passing (and baseless) ad hominem comment, I find them part of the scenery in discussions with you, so there's no point in trying to rile me with such silliness. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like something or not is one thing, but accepting something that "defeats its primary purpose" seems strange. I also have to disagree with you on this, SchroCat, as I disagreed with Nikkimaria on it, see? Dealing with a cantata "There is a contrary and despairing thing" (illustrating my present feelings quite well) I phrased about collapsing: I "regard (crossed out stronger term for dislike) the other as against the spirit of an infobox as openly accessible information. I don't revert it in articles of others (Little Moreton Hall comes to mind), but please please please don't do that to me in my articles, - it's against my sense of quality." The reply was: "functionally, there is little difference", which told me that I was not understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please feel free to disagree all you like with my reasoning in the cited comment, and the basis for it; and even to wrongly doubt my sincerity. But to pretend for a minute that it is evidence of refusal to engage in dialogue is fatuous in the extreme, and to describe it in such terms and link it to a pattern of similar incidents is not ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence." There was no false allegation and I find your words an ad hominem that are, at best, unhelpful, as is following it up by accusing me of being "fatuous". I stick by what I first said, that you were not being entirely accurate when you said "I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse." There was evidence of the reverse, it's just that you didn't like what was being offered to you and rejected it out of hand. I'm taking this off my watchlist (again), so feel free to write whatever you want: others will judge your words for what they are. I find interacting with you utterly frustrating and demoralising: you can't see beyond beyond your own opinions on things and cannot behave like discussion is anything but a battlefield for you to smear and wound your opponents - and well done for beating another person away from a discussion. I'm utterly sick and tired of it and hope that I never see another petty, supid and pointless infobox argument break out again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page", it seems logically impossible, - it's war or it's only one side. Wars are rare, thank goodness, we try to learn, really. More frequent are discussions with repetitions of similar arguments, see [[Rigoletto, reaching no consensus. We need a procedure to solve those cases, and banning one contributor will not solve them. However, as mentioned above, one protector of the status quo found a simple solution: change the Manual of Style. (Rigoletto would fall into a category which has no more option for an infobox.) Can we please come up with something more constructive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, SilkTork, about what ArbCom can and can't do. In WP:ARBDATE, a protracted and difficult case that occupied seven months of 2009, ArbCom passed the following Enforcement:

  • Stability review: "If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus."

Ryan Postlethwaite (God bless him) put a huge effort into organising and conducting a grand RfC to settle the content issues. It succeeded and there has been no war over any form of date de/linking to this day. I agree that ArbCom can't settle the content issues itself, but as you have indicated, it could go a long way to making sure it's in the interests of all involved for the warring to stop. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further update

By my estimation, it is likely to take at least another week before the case is close to closing (possibly longer). I'm aware that there has been a large amount of debate on this page in recent days, but can I ask that everyone please show restraint and focus purely on the proposed decision from now on? That will help those arbitrators who have yet to vote or complete voting, as there is a lot on this page for them to read. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be hoped, not least given AGK's undertaking and his request for additional evidence, that those who have voted will also be reconsidering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak from bitter experience that if you're going to railroad somebody in an arbitration proceeding you need to do it fast before people notice what you're up to and start asking pesky questions about evidence and motives. By all means, let's drag this out and see if some clueless administrator will block one of the participants while you all decide whether or not to jump off the ledge. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better a well-thought out and consider decision, Carcharoth, than one made to hastily made. As far people posting, I'm not sure what can be done about that. People want to talk about this case and they will look for an appropriate forum to discuss it. If not here, it has to be on another page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Carcharoth's frustration quite well. He's trying to get the stupid case in the can (whether it's just or not is beside the point now) but no one dithers more than a half-active arbitrator who has just realized this job isn't what s/he signed up for and can't bear taking an unpopular stand. In the meantime, the talk page is exploding and he knows sooner rather than later someone's going to say something rash enough to earn a civility block, and then we'll have to hold a whole other arbitration case to deal with the inevitable fallout. Clock's ticking.
As to the merits, it's clear from the proposed decision that the committee should never have taken the case in the first place. None of the proposed bans are really supported by the evidence; if that's all it takes to get someone banned these days I've some scores to settle and some cases of my own to bring, although somehow I don't think I'll be as successful. No one's indispensable, but that doesn't mean prolific editors should be banned, blocked, or restricted lightly. This is ultimately a content dispute, not a personal one, and it'll have to be settled in the usual, painful way. You ought to just dismiss it, or water it down with the usual adjuration that we should all be nice to each other. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (a former arbitrator) makes some good points. Liz, it would be a good idea to centralise 'overflow' discussion at another page and leave links from here (anyone is welcome to do that). Specific commentary about aspects of the proposed decision is what is really needed. Some wider debate has been helpful initially, but that can only go on for so long before it detracts from the specifics of discussing the proposed decision. More specifically, those facing sanctions need the time and space to respond to what is being decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I beginning to wonder why anyone would want to be an Arbitrator. Seems like a thankless job. Thanks for plugging away at it, even in mid-August. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an update from me; I'm one of the dithering Arbitrators referred to above. I have been trying to keep up with this case, but I have other Arbitration work too: CheckUser/Oversight appointments, Ban Appeals work, and the Tea Party Movement case. All three have been neglected just as this case has. I'll try to get this done by next week, but realistically that may or may not happen. For now, my preliminary analysis it to support the first several paragraphs of what SilkTork wrote above but again, there are a billion RFCs and talk page discussions to read and for someone who found out that there was a serious problem with infoboxes on Wikipedia in July 2013, it's not exactly the easiest thing to immediately grasp. NW (Talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a gentle suggestion, it looks really bad when your (the committee's) proposed decision essentially ignores one side of a dispute, even though ample evidence was presented. Arbcom isn't supposed to take sides in a content dispute, but you are here. Mackensen (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take another gentle suggestion: don't look at a billion RFCs but at 2013, it would make your life easier and mine. Remember:
@NW: your wording "ban the worst offenders" reminds me of "arrest the usual suspects". As one of them, I urge you to go beyond suspicion, to facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
That's an excellent point, Gerda. That was me looking at the situation in July, never having understood that there was a problem with infoboxes. Having extensively read the evidence since, I understand that my first impression was entirely wrong. I'm still not entirely sure how I'm going to vote on the case but I know "arrest the usual suspects" is not on the table. NW (Talk) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! There should be no problem with infoboxes, meant to be help and service. Repeating: if someone added infoboxes to my articles, I would say thank you. It is hard to understand for a newcomer - I am relatively new to the topic - why most works by Kafka have an infobox, no problem, but the addition of one to a book article in September 2012 is still remembered as a (insert the terms you heard) discussion, believed by some to have driven away a precious editor. This is not the fault of the infobox, which is rather simple in case of a book. The Rite of Spring, similar, a composition, - Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007. - I have good news for you and all: the unilateral change of the MoS of project opera, aiming to keep the operas of all major composers free from an infobox, was reverted, a discussion is called for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NW: I'm not really surprised that you didn't know of problems with infoboxes because over most of Wikipedia, there's no concern. However at WikiProject Composers, infoboxes have been a problem for many years. If you're feeling masochistic, take at look at the 2010 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC - 219 kB of text where you see the same anti-infoboxers rehearsing the same weak arguments ("redundancy", "consensus amongst the main contributors", etc.) against a different bunch of pro-infoboxers (many of whom have since moved away). You find DGG patiently explaining about the value of metadata and about building the semantic web, and you even find Kleinzach complaining about canvassing, because the pro-infoboxers hadn't notified all of the other relevant wikiprojects. What's the word I'm looking for? --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned about myself, and I haven't seen recent facts that would justify banning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes and new articles

Any restriction on adding/not adding infoboxes to articles should specifically exempt creating new articles. As it currently reads, the first Pigsonthewing remedy seems to say that he cannot add an infobox to an article that he creates. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor an eight-word stub that I turn into a proper article. Nor an article on a subject well away from classical music and he other parties in this case, where there is no dispute on the use of infoboxes; or even where infoboxes are the norm. Note my evidence higher up on this page, listing the 60 infoboxes I added to existing articles in the first six months of this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look closely enough at the case to see if a restriction on the other cases you mentioned would be merited or not. My only thought was that since this is about conflict between users, a restriction where there was only one user would be irrelevant. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the section "Proposed remedy 1.1" currently at the bottom of the page, where I have proposed wording that allows for this. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding of Fact No. 4

Could I prevail on whomever's drafting this decision to clarify the problematic behavior? I see much forceful arguing, yes, but that's not impermissible and in general appears to be within the bounds of civil discourse. The evidence linked is also rife with personal attacks, bad faith, and innuendo from editors not named Pigsonthewing, none of whom are themselves subject of findings of fact or "remedies." If I were looking at those linked pages as a matter of first impression it would not occur to me that it was Pigsonthewing who was being sanctioned, and I'm still not sure what policy he's alleged to have violated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still waiting for an answer here. Surely the ten who endorsed it and five who (presumably, given no other findings of fact) consider it the basis for a ban can quickly explain. If there's confusion about why you're banning someone then maybe it's not a great idea. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am deeply concerned that an arb decided to vote for banning Andy, mentioning the Peter Planyavsky case. Andy helped me (!) there, as often, on "my own" article where I wanted an infobox (and still don't have it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm put in mind of Henry's apocryphal plea, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" This case now borders on the farcical. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is quite apparent to me, and as the finding states, Andy's contributions to the theatre of infobox disputes have been broadly unhelpful. The diffs show a sample of the evidence to support that conclusion; and they are illustrative, not exhaustive. Bearing in mind that this has been a heated and protracted dispute (where level-headedness is basically mandatory, if the whole thing isn't to descend into chaos), I don't think it's reasonable to contend that Andy's conduct illustrated by these diffs was helpful; is that what you're trying to suggest in your first few sentences?

    I was under the impression that anybody else who is a prolific party to this dispute has been appropriately sanctioned, if they have had a negative effect on the dispute, but even if there were other people whose conduct has been wrongly overlooked, that would not excuse Andy's truculent interactions with the other disputants, nor make his previous influence on the dispute less disruptive. Debating whether he's earned a site ban is fair enough, but suggesting that he's conducted himself appropriately on all, or even on many, occasions is pretty out there. AGK [•] 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think you're asking me to prove a negative. What would helpful look like? Reading over the discussion truculent may be apposite, but he's not uncivil, he's not name-calling, and he's generally advancing the idea of why a particular edit ought to be made. I'm not aware of anyone else being sanctioned in this dispute, and I think that if you're going to ban someone outright you need to go a lot further than characterize comments as "unhelpful", especially when you have other editors specifically disputing that characterization. Above all you need specifics. Let me ask another question: do you see any other unhelpful people on those talk pages? I do. Do you think they're going to be helpful to the next editor who rolls around if you ban Andy? I don't. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued collaboration?

What I like best on Wikipedia is collaboration.

  • Did you know that Andy and I created {{infobox Bach composition}}?
  • Did you know that it was copied to the German Wikipedia, first installed recently?
  • Did you know that there's an an article on which Giano, Eric Corbett, Andy and I collaborated?
  • Did you know that there's another one by Nikkimaria, Tim riley and me?
  • Did you know that The Company of Heaven, Benjamin Britten's 1937 composition for speakers, soloists, choir and orchestra, contains "metrical spoken (shouted) male chorus"?
  • Did you know that Ben Gunn, imprisoned 32 years for killing a friend when he was 14, earned a Master of Arts degree in peace and reconciliation?

Let us continue collaboration with Andy.

  1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Since you mention my name, I will comment. I accepted an infobox (without question for its need, although I did question some of its dubious content [96]) on Holzhausenschlösschen because you, Gerda, were the major concerned editor [97](if I recall correctly, you posted on my talk-page requesting my input [98]). I respect your views on pages where you are a major content contributor - I never comment in these infobox disputes on pages where I feel my input has been non-existent or negligible. Unfortunately, Andy Mabbit does not reciprocate that view where his input is minimal. My solution of leaving these disputes to those writing and maintaining the pages is the obvious peaceable solution.  Giano  18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and a suggestion from Harry Mitchell

Please forgive me if if this might have been better presented in he evidence or workshop stages; I missed those, mostly as I have limited access to the Internet at present, but also because I think the whole thing is a bit silly. However, after a heated conversation with a friend at the weekend, I wanted to offer a few thoughts. For the sake of transparency, I should declare that Andy Mabbett is a personal friend in real life and Nikkimaria is a fellow coordinator of the military history project whom I've worked with in the past and hold in very high esteem. I am less familiar with the other parties, but this seems to me not to be the typical arbitration case.

This isn't a political or nationalistic dispute spilling over onto Wikipedia (like Armenia/Azerbaijan, Israel/Palestine, etc, etc); it's a group of very intelligent and otherwise rational editors who have made immense contributions to this project but who seem to have lost the plot a bit. I actually intended to be quite scathing of several of the parties, but they have all presented themselves well in this case, made reasonable comments, and suggested that they are willing to sit down and discuss the issues with infoboxes like adults. They're not children who need disciplining, nor zealots who are incapable of putting the needs of the encyclopaedia above their own personal biases, so the optimist in me hopes that the discussions around infoboxes can continue without anybody (pro- or anti-infobox) having to be forcibly removed from the discussions or the project as a whole. What needs to end and what is totally unacceptable and unconducive to productive discussion is:

  • The snarkiness, sniping, sarcasm, condescension. Editors need to behave like adults and not resort to juvenile name-calling, or thinly veiled remarks about opponents' mental health, intelligence, etc.
  • Similarly, the contempt in which the parties hold each other (of which the above is a symptom). Folks need to wipe the slate clean and remember that we're all working to the same end. We're entitled to disagree on the route we take to that end (it's inevitable, and ArbCom should not seek to suppress honest disagreement), but no progress will be made through petty bickering.
  • The belligerence of the parties, the passive-aggressive behaviour, and the spoiling for fight. This includes the attempts to railroad infoboxes in by force and the continual hammering on the same door, which only heightens the bad feeling, intensifies the dispute, and only makes the anti-box parties dig their heels in even further. It also includes reverts with cryptic or inaccurate edit summaries, and any other behaviour which is intended to avoid or derail discussion.
  • Adding infoboxes to articles where previous contributors have opted to omit one (or removing long-standing infoboxes) without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page. The parties have all been around the block enough times to know that this causes more problems than it solves.
  • Attempts to undermine or demean opponents by manufacturing a divide between "content creators" and "others". The idea that there would be such a divide is anathema to the principles of Wikipedia, and, more importantly, it's a fallacy—many (most, even?) Wikipedians write articles and do other things. Defining oneself as belonging to one camp or the other in an attempt to belittle the other demeans every contributor to this project and serves no purpose towards addressing the resolving disagreements.
  • Flash mobs (whether recruited on-wiki or off, ie including but not limited to wikiprojects and ad-hoc groups of friends) turning up en masse as if to fight in a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editorial decisions are not made by volume of advocates, so attempting to drown out opponents with vast numbers of "me too" comments is unhelpful at best.

My suggestion would be to be liberal with the admonishments/reminders/cautions if ArbCom wants to be seen to be doing something, but really this is a content dispute. It can only be resolved through discussion. Perhaps once all the parties have had a dressing down for their various misdemeanours, they could attempt to work out their differences on a centralised talk page (for issues around infoboxes in general) and on article talk pages (for issues concerning infoboxes on a specific article). A small group of mediators (experienced editors who have or can earn the respect of both groups) could be appointed to keep order, and could be given the power to caution editors and then remove comments or ban them from a specific discussion or all infobox discussions if their comments continue to degrade the quality of the discussion. It won't resolve the questions about whether and where to use infoboxes (that's for editorial discussion), but it might improve the quality of the discussion. And if it doesn't, the case can be revisited in a few months with liberal application of bans for those who refuse to engage in civilised discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen.(olive (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Fine thoughts that we can all agree on, except that there is a distinction between content creators and others (I'm an other). Magnificent articles do not evolve from people like me correcting typos or adding factoids—someone with a deep understanding of the topic needs to devote large effort and energy in an act of creation that is fundamentally different from 100 passers-by adding a sentence each. In this case (where infoboxes are not mandatory, and where good arguments exist on both sides), the most collaborative approach is to employ the WP:ENGVAR idea of leaving an article the way it was built. Battling content creators is very unhelpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to vehemently disagree with that, Johnuniq. Content creators who take so much pride in their work that they don't expect to have to argue the issues on equal footing with everyone else are best suited to non-wiki venues. I'm not even sure how feasible this kind of attitude would be, as not everyone who comes across such an article will be familiar with the special treatment these people are to be afforded. Shall we make a template that reads, "This page was created by a beloved content creator, so tough calls fall by default to them"? Equazcion (talk) 01:43, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that conclusion can be reached from my statement—of course ownership is wrong and needs to be stamped out if encountered. However, having a group of technical editors say that infoboxes are mother's milk is not sufficient reason for the group of editors who maintain an article to accept that an infobox is necessary. Apparently some third-parties view infoboxes as obviously desirable, and so regard the reversion of a new infobox as an ownership problem, but there is not even a guideline to support that view. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is an interesting discussion but - in my view - is mistaken at the premise. Show me one person who likes infoboxes who would say they are "necessary" ("mandatory")? I would say: helpful yes, necessary no. Look at The Rite of Spring (if you dare): Do you see "necessary"? "Why doesn't this article have an infobox?" - that was all, and two versions suggested. How is that "imposing an infobox" (a term I often read and don't understand, as I don't get how that would be "disruptive")? - The question is still open, btw, even if the discussion was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not drawing any conclusions about who should win the infobox debate in those or any instances. But when people attempt to answer that question by drawing a distinction between how the opinions of "creators" should be regarded versus those of others, that is an ownership problem. Every article on Wikipedia is a collaboration between editors who all have varying levels of devotion to a topic, from gnome to wizard (or whatever the nomenclature is) -- none of which should dictate their level of control over the fate of articles. How much content an editor is responsible for in a given article should never enter into any debate as proof that their opinion should weigh more than anyone else's. It's always been one of the supreme challenges of the Wikipedia editor to vigilantly let go of those natural notions that creation entitles one to any modicum of control. That's just how this place works, like it or not. Those who can't accept that fact, or simply refuse to, don't get a pass to ignore it. Equazcion (talk) 02:33, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
          • Infobox are not compulsory, yet their persistent promotion has caused enormous disuption to a group of content creators—that's about the most damaging thing that can be done at Wikipedia. From frustration, perhaps someone has said that the views of content creators have primacy—that's incorrect, but hardly a hanging offense. If an infoboxes-cannot-be-removed policy is enacted, so be it, but meanwhile maximum benefit arises from defending content creators. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "meanwhile maximum benefit arises from defending content creators" -- How so? Because we don't have an answer it's best to keep the peace by choosing someone to side with arbitrarily? Or if it's not arbitrary, is it that we need so urgently to keep content creators happy that we should ignore a basic tenet of Wikipedia? The need for content is not so dire that we should bend Wikipedia around those few content creators who seem less satisfied with the way things are actually supposed to work here. Equazcion (talk) 03:55, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
              • There is no consensus mandating infoboxes, and both sides have presented sound arguments. Are you suggesting that a good way to resolve the conflict would be to reject the views of those who maintain the article, in order to promote our basic tenets? Supporting content creators is not arbitrary—it is a choice that is likely to result in more good content being created. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've made no claims as to how the issue should be resolved, other than somewhere above where I suggested a community-wide RfC to start crafting an actual guideline on the topic. And as Olive below points out, all contributors should be supported equally. Supporting content creators over other editors so that more good content can come about is a tactic best left to independent publications. It has no place on Wikipedia. The ends do not justify the means here. Equazcion (talk) 04:32, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
                  • The issue should be resolved by both sides – and I make no apologies for stating that unfortunately there are "sides" – discussing the issues with an view to reaching an agreement, rather than aiming for a "win" for their views. Equazcion expresses some of the frustration I have found when I've seen an infobox reverted with the only reason given being that a particular project was not notified first. Nevertheless, the principal contributors to an article do have an advantage – they almost certainly understand the nuances of the subject better than others. What that means is that we should respect their expertise: they are in the best position to help decide on the content of an infobox. If someone who has guided an article through FAC tells me that key fact A is misleading because XYZ, then I make sure that fact A doesn't go in the infobox. That doesn't mean that their opinion of the value of metadata or accessibility, for example, is worth more than anybody else's. The so-called "content creators" (and I have written featured content, but I'm still unsure whether I'm counted as a content creator or not) are the best folks to improve content and curate it - and that includes the content of an infobox. The sad thing about all of this is that in one small area the very folks who would be of most value in making sure an infobox would improve an article are the ones who are so dead set against having any infoboxes in their walled garden that they have opposed them blindly. There is even an article on a composer which was promoted to FA with an infobox but five years later had the infobox removed (edit summary: "Removing infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Music#Biographical infoboxes". The infobox had been there for five years and it was promoted with it - now please read the "discussion" on the talk page. The infobox was of course removed again and is still absent. Then in the next breath, we get told to defend the "content creators". What hypocrisy. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Wikipedians is necessary whatever they do. Good is a subjective judgement. (olive (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Unsupported finding /sanctions (Gerda)

This is "controversial"??? Given that many of the additions are from July 2 and are "current," and the other handful I checked show the boxes still there, obviously the boxes aren't very controversial. NE Ent 23:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My infoboxes are very controversial, but the arbs possibly didn't find them. I presented them as evidence. The list also contains some "controversial" infoboxes by Andy, such as Russian Symphony Orchestra Society, Cathedral of Blessed Mother Teresa in Pristina, Reginald Aspinwall. I am interested in a broad participation of one case, to find out how we can reach consensus (or not) amicably and with respect, The Ban on Love, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for discussion

I like the idea of "Infoboxes for discussion", rather like other contentious areas where opinions might be divided and progress is not being made, to have a venue where discussion can take place, and an uninvolved editor/admin makes the final decision. Might be worth folks having a discussion on the Village pump or a RfC page regarding if "Infoboxes for discussion" would be viable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently on Project QAI. I am willing to open a new subpage for centralized discussions if wanted, but the normal thing would be to go to the article's talk page. Don Carlos is open on QAI since it was deleted from the talk of Don Carlos with the edit summary "The talk page is not the place for an info box. - Typically an infobox is added and reverted, period. It would be a nice service if the one who cleans an article from an infobox would place it on the talk for discussion. Recent examples where I placed it on the talk are Cantata academica (infobox was added by me) and Russian Symphony Orchestra Society (infobox was added by Andy). In the latter case, discussed above, I didn't find an infobox in the article. I wonder if you will ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I invite all the arbs to visit the current version of the RSOS article and look at the infobox there (n.b. not the image/ caption set in the top right), then to tell us here what they think of it, its accessibility and usability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question re "Editors reminded" section of PD - it says editors are reminded "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." In that case, in my opinion "this article needs an infobox because it emits metadata (or wikimarkup, etc)" should never be accepted, or even introduced into discussions about a single article's infobox, is that what is intended? Can this be clarified in the final decision?Smeat75 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I see this "reminder", comments such as this [99] on the Don Carlos talk page, which have nothing to do with the specific article, should never appear again on single article talk pages, I wonder if the arbs agree that is the implication of this "reminder".Smeat75 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have it the wrong way round. Any article will benefit from emitting accurate metadata, so that needs to be considered in every case, just as every article benefits from having a quick overview summary of the key facts for the casual reader. It's nonsense like "the infobox is redundant" and "the information is already in the article" that needs to be stamped on strongly. It is obvious that the lead itself suffers from exactly those problems, but we still encourage editors to add leads to articles, because it improves them. Millions of Wikipedia articles benefit from having redundant information in their infoboxes, and there's nothing special about composers that makes their redundant information any smellier than other peoples' redundant information. Redundancy of information is not in itself a disadvantage to any article, but it sure makes a good target for those who don't have any real arguments to muster. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the venue to discuss the merits of infoboxes, and even if it were, it's producing more heat than light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That would indicate to me that nothing will change."Why will an infobox improve the article on Don Carlos", answer "Because it emits metadata" has nothing to do with Don Carlos. Smeat75 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Rex's frank statement (not his first) that he is implacable that there are never good reasons not to have an infobox for the vast majority of articles shows why this is unlikely to work. There is little point in a "X for discussion" set-up where there are entrenched views among a high proportion of the small minority interested. It just becomes a matter of stamina. Those interested in metadata need to find another, and better way of handling it, linking to the vast amount of work being done outside WP on standard vocabularies, digitizing standard sources with more authority than WP, and so on. Then metadata on WP would become an input and a positive benefit for WP, rather than an output, and a nuisance for us and a benefit for the likes of Google. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be so radical or purely black and white. Non-infobox templates could emit the metadata just as well. Collapsible infoboxes that do emit the metadata seemed to gather quite a few votes among those traditionally opposed to them - it's the pro crowd that rejects them out of hand. Infoboxes could have a supplemental flag parameter that trigger a bot which copies to or updates wikidata entries then removes those flagged infoboxes from articles, avoiding recoding non-infoboxes that emit the same metadata - I'm quite sure again that people traditionally opposed to infoboxes for non-metadata related motives could live with 24 hours of infobox presence that gets removed. Or the bot could comment out the infobox once it has done its work, leaving it still present for updating purposes later on. Solutions abound. The willingness to compromise is what is lacking. MLauba (Talk) 22:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's the complete opposite of what I've said, John. I have never intimated "that are never good reasons not to have an infobox" for whatever set of articles you care to choose. I have consistently and patiently explained that there advantages and disadvantages and both need to be balanced when making decisions. See my evidence for starters. I do get rather sick of having words put into my mouth by those whose only goal is get rid of all infoboxes from Wikipedia for no other reason than not liking them. I do believe that an infobox would bring some advantages to Don Carlos: (i) it would provide a quick overview of key facts for the casual reader; (ii) it would enable outside data users to quickly and easily index those key facts about Don Carlos; (iii) it would help improve the accuracy of natural language processors which are trying to glean further information from the text of Don Carlos - which in turn helps spread our content beyond the traditional boundaries of paper encyclopedias. I also can see that having an infobox with wrong or misleading information in it would work against those goals; and I'm even able to accept the argument that so little information about a particular article is presentable as a key fact that an infobox would be a net disadvantage. But that's because I can see both sides of the argument and I'm willing to search for compromises. Your crew hasn't budged an inch with your ownership issues since before 2010 and if you carry on like that, of course you'll find nothing has changed. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Mlauba: Have you written a "Non-infobox template" that "could emit the metadata just as well"? If you produce one that's as easy to edit and maintain as an infobox, I'll be happy to see it used where infoboxes are unwelcome. Until then though, I hope you'll allow me some skepticism of another pie-in-the-sky idea being thrown around as if it were fact. We usually call it "vapourware". As for infoboxes with collapsible sections, I'm lukewarm although I've created some as examples of the technique. They make life harder for anybody who can't use a mouse, and frankly, if the infobox is getting so big that some of its content needs to be hidden, I'd rather exclude that content from the infobox anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By those whose only goal is get rid of all infoboxes from Wikipedia for no other reason than not liking them."—There is no such person. (One said, e.g., [100].) Your comment may have been said in anger, as we all over-generalize when angry, but such statements make me wonder what the point of ever "debating" or "trying to finding compromise" with you would be, when you misrepresent the situation that much. (Am I supposed to be one of the people who wants all infoboxes removed? Garbage. Hell, I've commented in four or five infobox debates in my life, all in the humanities area (humanities bios, art, lit). This is the main scope of the infobox problem, though it would be hard to tell from the presentation here.)
One tends to stop "debating" when all of one's positions are considered "refuted" by the strident infobox supporters a priori. (Here's a talk-page search of Andy Mabbett saying "refuted". All those top results are him. "Bogus / refuted / misleading / bogus ..."). This case happened because, in the history of the entire infobox debate on Wikipedia, people have questioned infoboxes on perhaps 50-100 specific article talk pages. There was a common factor to most of those cases, as this case has clearly shown. No person was ever present, in the numerous discussions I've seen, who suggested that all infoboxes should be deleted.
RexxS, you called someone a liar [101] and shamed me [102] higher up on this page. Observing that such is permissible, I'm going to stretch my wings and say to you: shame on you for lying (which is to say, knowingly misrepresenting the degree of infobox opposition). This bird has flown. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish - there's a whole bunch of people who have never advanced more than the most fatuous of reasons for removing infoboxes - even you could see that if you took your blinkers off. Yes, I am angry, because I can see that all you've been doing here is playing a game to get rid of your principal opponent. There's been no attempt to look at ways of resolving the issues over infoboxes and all you've achieved is damage to the encyclopedia. You must be really proud of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version of an infobox for Don Carlos is here, because it was deleted on the talk of the opera. (Andy restored it there.) Note that it is a double, showing French and Italian version which have different names. For me (foreigner), that's much more obvious than any prose, - feel free to discuss there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS You can spare the condescending remarks, thanks all the same. The point is that there are several potential solutions that could dissociate metadata from the present infoboxes, whereas goodwill is manifestly lacking. Fully visible, present-state infoboxes as the sole emitter of metadata is not a permanent truth. It's a matter of convenience. Dissociation of metadata from full infoboxes could be a good way to give all sides what they want. It would also definitely separate both matters, which in reality is probably for the best. MLauba (Talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, it's fine to promise all these technological solutions when you haven't a clue about the problems of creating and maintaining them - not to mention the Luddites who will fight you tooth and nail before they'll let you make changes to the articles that they own. Anyway, if you ever look, you'll find that it's not just a matter of convenience, it's a matter of maintenance - or are you going to write a bot that keeps these invisible structures updated as well? It's ok to make promises relying on work from other volunteers as long as you don't have to do it yourself. And I'll tell you this: valuable as it is, metadata is only a minor reason for having infoboxes; the principal reason remains the value that they give to the casual reader who wants a quick fact, or the visitor who doesn't understand a lot of English but can still pick up some key concepts. So you're a very long way off the mark by thinking that stripping metadata from infoboxes would solve anything. The walled garden brigade would still be removing perfectly good infoboxes from their articles just because they don't like them. Or is that the only solution that acceptable to you? --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem intent to pick a fight with whoever doesn't share your absolutist world view. What you are amply demonstrating is that neither the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox crowd are capable of envisioning a reality that doesn't conform to their narrow vision of what is possible and feasible. You think every single article should have an infobox? Go ahead, get a site-wide consensus to implement one. And lastly stop ascribing opinions to people when you have no idea what their opinion on infoboxes are. If the subject is so emotional to you that you are unable to maintain a semblance of decorum, a wikibreak might do you good. Voluntary or not. MLauba (Talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And you're pretty quick to leap to the ad hominems when somebody tells you something you find unpalatable. Address the comments, not the commentator. I'm quite happy to stand up for myself and for reason, and if you want to claim that's an intention to pick a fight, you'd better start finding some examples of where I've started it. If someone wants to debate sensibly, I'm more than willing to engage at that level. But when someone starts spouting drivel, I'm going to be telling them so. You know nothing about me, but you want to smear me with an "absolutist world view" - complete and utter bollocks. Have you read any of my evidence or contributions? Thought not. If you had, you'd see I have never suggested that every article should have an infobox, but have given examples of where I've agreed that an infobox is not an improvement - at least one of us understands that we have to debate pros and cons to reach a consensus. Read up on what a strawman is before you engage again. Folks like me have been willing to see both sides of the argument and look for compromise through reasoned discussion, but you come along and pontificate about technical solutions without any understanding of what is involved. I am very angry right now at the most one-sided decision that I've seen from ArbCom in the five years that I've followed them, so if you want to threaten me with a block, bring it on, and show us just how abusive an admin can be when involved in an argument. Why on earth we promote trigger-happy kids to a position where they can threaten other editors that disagree with them is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported finding /sanctions (Andy)

@Carcharoth: asked for comments on the proposed findings.

My detractors have posted a carefully chosen selection of diffs and links to discussions, attempting to portray me and others who share some of my views in the most negative light they could. That is, of course, their right, and they would no doubt say I and others have done the same to them. This arena has, after all, evolved over the years into being an exceedingly adversarial process (the debate about whether and how to remedy that is for another time).

Unfortunately, those who drafted the proposed findings have drawn from these partisan examples some very broad brush conclusions, which others have taken on board at face value. For instance, there are already sufficient votes to pass the finding that my "contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation". I beg to disagree, and suggest that dispute only occurs in the narrow focus of this case; that is, in articles edited by members of the classical music projects and a small group of others who (for want of a better way of referring to them collectively) are those who see themselves as a "content creator" faction described by Harry. Most of my talk page edits regarding infoboxes were not mentioned in the evidence or workshop stages, because they did not seem relevant, but I believe I have a reputation among many editors for being helpful in that regard - at least, many ask for my advice or assistance, (and I recall being "thanked" in notifications, though I quickly turned that off as a distraction), and I am often engaged in unremarkable talk page discussions which result in undisputed improvements to templates, their content and the articles on which they sit. If Arbcom want it, I would be willing to collate evidence of this, but that would be both time consuming and voluminous.

Even in the discussion cited as evidence in that finding, I contend that my comments, while forceful, are not generally unhelpful. I also note that the finding ignores the comments to which I was subjected in those cited conversations, such as "I suggest you go away and finds a spot where your input is more welcome", "I would have expected you to have had more sense...", and so on.

There is also the contention that I "selectively choose what discussions I consider consensus". This later claim is evidenced solely to the linked discussion about {{Geobox}}; where a TfD found "no consensus" for a merge proposal, and I have been painstaking to propose small, incremental changes in discussion on its talk page, those of related templates and interested editors, and with related projects Note that in that debate, Ruhrfisch, the cited editor who accuses me of ignoring consensus, said at the TfD "if you want to get rid of Geobox, then 1) fix the infoboxes so they can do everything Geobox can, and 2) make sure it is as easy as possible to convert from one to the other, then ask again"; which is exactly what have been doing (again, I can furnish diffs on request).

As a result of the above finding, there is a proposal, already with enough votes to pass, albeit slated for rewording, which would have me "indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes" across all of Wikipedia. I have provided ample evidence, above, that the vast majority of my infobox additions are outside the area of this case as described, and are non-controversial. The project will drive no benefit from preventing them.

I have already indicated my willingness to further moderate my tone in discussions; and I am of course willing to take note of and abide by the "all parties reminded" findings recently suggested. If it is necessary for me to give an undertaking to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia involved in this case, then I shall of course do so. But, as Mackensen notes above in a currently-unanswered question, the evidence presented in this case does not support the findings and the proposed, extensive restriction on my editing or commenting, much less a site ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply later today as I am ultra busy in real life and for now refer people to my evidence on the Evidence page, which offers much more than Pigsonthewing mentions above. I also ask the ArbCom to decide if the proposed topic ban includes 1) "infoboxes" without the name "Infobox" (such as Geobox) and 2) editing Infoboxes in general (otherwise I foresee a can of worms). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does need clarification from the Arbs. As it passes now, the ban is on 'adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxs'. On the face of it, that does not include - altering the templates, adding/removing sections to them or nominating them for removal outright. Is this deliberate in order to allow Andy to continue to work on infoboxs? Or is it an oversight? Because I would refer to Ruhrfisch's evidence if its the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I have very little time today, so here to start are the pertinent sections of my evidence on Pigsonthewing's selective use of "consensus" (copied from the Evidence page):

"In my experience, Pigsonthewing seems to try to wear people down, arguing long after consensus against his position been reached. Despite his single-minded pursuit of his goals, he can be frustratingly inconsistent in his arguments. For example, his evidence (above) cites a no-consensus, nearly three-year-old RFC to support adding Microformats on WP. But when I pointed out six-month-old opposition to adding an Infobox at Talk:Rite of Spring, he basically dismissed it as "based on false claims" diff. He did not object to my citing numbers (6-1 against) then, and when I gave a tally/percentage (as is done at WP:RfA) of those opposed to an Infobox in the article (myself included) and those in favor diff, he wrote "So we are making progress!" diff. However when Gerda abstained, I recalculated the tally, and Pigsonthewing called my actions "asinine" and accused me of "rig[ging] the figures in your favour" diff."

"Pigsonthewing is also out to delete Template:Geobox despite "no consensus to merge" (with Infoboxes) on his TfD. He then tried to delete the Geobox piecemeal, starting with the Mountains and Mountain ranges functions here, and here. Next he turned to Geobox|River, by proposing it be "deprecated" at Template talk:Infobox river (and no notice from him on Geobox talk)."

I also note that I later told Pigsonthewing that I had changed my mind on replacing Geobox, but he didn't quote that and I have no time to dig it up now. I will comment more later, no time now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Pigsonthewing is at Template_talk:Infobox_river#Geobox.2C_again and reads in part ". I have changed my mind (especially as I would have to do the work of updating the river articles I am the chief contributor to if this comes to pass). Wikipedia allows editors fairly wide leeway on how they do many different things here (please see WP:IAR). One example is that there are at least three different ways to cite references (with many similar but not identical templates). Are you going to "unify" those too?"
There are over 20,000 articles which use Geobox River - I know how long it took me to convert when the current version of the Geobox was introduced (diff) and assume conversion to Infobox River would be at least as time consuming. Even if it took only 1 minute per conversion, that would be about two weeks of work to convert all 20,000 plus Geobox River articles. Nor did Pigsonthewing bother to notify the users of Geobox River about his plan to deprecate that version of the Geobox.
In addition, please note that both {{Infobox mountain}} nor {{Infobox mountain range}} still CANNOT do everything that Geobox Mountain and Geobox mountain range did (i.e. Geobox mountain had parameters on the geology and geological period and who made the first ascent) [103]. So much for my request that they first "fix the infoboxes so they can do everything Geobox can" and Pigsonthewings claim that this "is exactly what have been doing" sic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I (Ruhrfisch) close by quoting Finetooth at the Infobox River discussion "Andy, the issue that concerns me here is editorial control, which should never be ceded to a subset of the whole collective. By consensus, the collective has already rejected your proposal to eliminate geoboxes entirely. Your proposal to deprecate geoboxes is essentially the same proposal. The English Wikipedia and the Commons are parts of a commons managed collectively; anyone, including Google, may reuse the product (encyclopedia articles, data, images) under the terms of the GFDL and other licenses and may participate in seeking changes to existing policies and guidelines. However, participating in policy discussions is not the same as setting policy. That power should remain in the hands of the collective, which has already spoken on this matter. ... "
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhurficsh: so because one infobox is suboptimal then all infoboxes are bad and anyone who promotes them needs to be banned? According to my understanding of the way wikis work, an infobox being suboptimal is simply a reason to fix that infobox. If you can't do it yourself you should explain to someone who can what needs fixing, if they don't understand what needs fixing or why then you need to have a civil discussion until you understand each other and come to an agreement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, by no means is that what I was trying to say, sorry to be unclear. Pigsonthewing mentioned me and my evidence, so I tried to clarify. To beat the proverbial dead horse, Geobox was nominated for deletion (by Pigsonthewing), but that TfD was closed as no consensus to merge with the appropriate Infoboxes. Despite that clear consensus, Pigsonthewing succeeded in deprecating the mountain and mountain range functions of Geobox, and tried to do the same for the River function (in the latter case not even bothering to post a notice on the Geobox talk page for a proposal that would wipe out over 20,000 uses of the Geobox had it passed). My problem with Pigsonthewing has everything to do with his repeated bad behavior, and only involves Infoboxes (and Geoboxes) because that is where most of our interactions have taken place.
Just to be clear, I am not "anti-infobox". If you look at the 28 articles I helped bring to FA, about 90% have some sort of box (though I suspect most of those are Geoboxes). In most cases, a box is OK by me, but there are some like Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park or the 3 FLs I have been a co-nom on at FLC that either have no box, or where a box would not add anything useful. To me it is an editorial decision, just like which photos best illustrate an article and what level of detail to go into on different topics. And, for the record, I did support improving Infobox River (see further down its talk page), I just choose not to use it in stream articles I write (and as RexxS can tell you, I can't code templates). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly remedy

"All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, ..."

  • So when the case is closed, are the clerks going to put a notice on every editor's talk page?
  • Shouldn't editors maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about ... anything?

While I respect the committee's willingness to settle the issues no one else wants to actually figure out, I've never figured out how vague sweeping remedies like this are intended to improve WP? NE Ent 02:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not so silly. One purpose enshrined in such General Purpose Criterion is its effect on future incarnations of "behavior"; impossible to list for being unknown, and for such GPC, unnecessary. :) John Cline (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what's equivalent to Chemical weapons, committee decisions or haggling over infoboxes??? NE Ent 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a concept, is all. :) John Cline (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent, that remedy originally referred to the parties to the case, rather than editors in general. The change was made here. See also the comments made by arbs. Strictly speaking, the remedy should refer to editors who participated in this case who would reasonably have read that remedy. It's a warning for people who participated here to keep calm as their conduct will likely be judged more harshly than others if a future case is needed if things flare up again. Though hopefully that won't happen. Your point about how editors in general should maintain decorum in discussions about anything, not just infoboxes, is well made. The wording could be tweaked (e.g. "All editors engaged in discussions about infoboxes are reminded to maintain decorum and civility"), but the current wording is unlikely to be misunderstood. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective from Kleinzach

A cluster of issues — personal, publishing-related and technical, (if not philosophical) — are involved in the infobox question. Confusing these issues has made it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve them.

Unfortunately I think the lack of structure and preparation for this ArbCom case (as freely admitted by the initiator), has doomed it to the repetition of old arguments, limiting the prospect of positive outcomes. (If only the energy that has gone into this case could be recycled in the actual encyclopedia! Perhaps we could even start reversing the decline of Wikipedia!)

I’d like to make some quick points:

1. Personal disputes have been discussed in detail. It should be simple enough to determine who has been edit warring and sanction them accordingly. Sanctions should be proportionate. They should be based on how users behave, not on how they think.

2. The ‘publishing issue' — of how to coordinate ancillary material with main text — is important for all encyclopedias, on and offline. This could be usefully discussed in separation from general and technical matters. AFAIK no one is advocating putting wrong information in infoboxes, so there is no reason for a dispute on this aspect of the box question.

3. Technical issues have not been adequately opened up for discussion. We need to look at how the boxes are structured within pages, and used to extract what data, for what purpose. Assumptions have been made by both sides (pro-box and box-sceptic) without any real examination of how the boxes should be coded and applied. In the future, improved, better-linked infoboxes (‘smart boxes’) may obviate some of the present difficulties and help address GIGO concerns (e.g. boxed information missing from articles might be highlighted etc. etc.) I think we should be looking in this direction.

(I’ve been travelling during the last couple of months. I haven’t had time to read all the submissions above and on other pages. I'm only taking this opportunity to make these brief comments because the page has been left open (past its expiry date?). I'm not intending to add anything later. )

Kleinzach 08:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page for discussing the proposed decision. It will remain open at least until a decision is finalised.
The personal dispute problems are not a matter of edit warring, so more nuanced remedies are required.
The publishing issue really does need to be discussed outside of this case. I wish you luck with it.
It is pretty obvious nobody will advocate putting wrong information into infoboxes, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten those who have complained about other people putting wrong information into infoboxes. (It's always other people, right?) To refresh your memory, here are a few snippets of those complaints:
  • "if boxes are a possibility, no matter which ones are out there, I expect that editors who think everything from plainchant to Mahler's "Resurrection" Sym. is a "song" will persist in afflicting us with The Wrong Box, and, if history is any guide, will then get upset and combattively launch new discussions like this one when others remove them"
  • "editors will continue to use inappropriate boxes or even create a composer/musician box themselves without consulting us."
  • "First, look at the existing article on genre, to which the box gives a link and to which an ingenu might be expected to refer. It's an utter dog's breakfast. (And don't advise me please to rewrite it if it upsets me so, I have other things in life to do). Then let me take issue, as I think many others would, as to ecosaisses etc. being considered as genres. If he has a genre, it's perhaps 'early romantic pianism', but don't quote me on that, I am sure many will disagree."
  • "if the exact same description appears in the lede, then why is there a problem with having it in the infobox? Infoboxes and ledes can and should be edited if a summary description is problematic or wrong for a particular composer."
  • "the project's issue you raise above is not quite right - the primary concern has always been inaccuracy not duplication"
  • "Liszt might get a litle hairy, too: many people assume his was a priest but he only took minor orders, hence he was called 'Abbé Liszt'"
And so on. But those are all from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, so you may have forgotten them.
I've spent more than my fair share of time explaining how boxes are structured, and used to extract data, and for what purposes. I have studiously examined how the boxes are and should be coded. I am perfectly willing to repeat any explanations that you feel remain unclear to you. I have over the last few days coded a mechanism for retrieving information from Wikidata into a Wikipedia page (Module:Wikidata) so that all language wikis can make use of the data from a central repository. So I find it somewhat insulting to be told that I have been making assumptions without any real examination. Some of us have actually been looking forward for a very long time now. --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point number 3 is quite true, but it is really not within our scope. We can try to pass a remedy that leads to a binding discussion on it, but the structure is probably not even there for that yet. NW (Talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Kleinzach. More discussion is needed on various issues. The most useful thing ArbCom can do (in my opinion) is set the stage for those discussions, and then sanction anybody who prevents those discussions from progressing. There's nothing wrong with two groups of editors disagreeing or even having a dispute; the problem comes when—through gamesmanship, loss of temper, bad attitude or anything else—people prevent the dispute from being resolved. Forcibly removing people from the discussions at this stage only guarantees that the dispute will continue—perhaps more quietly for a while, but eventually it will come back to haunt all of us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the 'publishing issue'

It’s been pointed out that my Point 2 (The ‘publishing issue’ above) needs clarification. When I wrote “AFAIK no one is advocating putting wrong information in infoboxes, so there is no reason for a dispute on this aspect of the box question.” I was thinking this issue could be usefully separated from the general debate, and examined objectively and in detail by editors with a view to writing some rigorous guidelines (for an improved and expanded MOS:Infobox).

The ‘publishing, or copy-editing issue’ is about consistence, clarity and coherence, relevance, appropriateness, balance, and presentation, including things like: 1. position of infoboxes within articles, 2. size/text length of infoboxes in absolute/relative terms, 3. box/lead content relationship, 4. box/article content relationship, 5. collapsed or non-appearing fields and field names, 6. appearing field name rules, 7. linking and referencing within boxes, 8. rules on avoiding anachronism, 9. material exclusive to the box (i.e. not in the article), 10. illustrations, 11. use of technical, scientific and foreign languages, abbreviations etc. etc.

The ‘Proposed decision’ states “All editors are reminded . . . to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.” If centralized discussions of key aspects of “infoboxes in general” have never taken place, then that avoidance will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Kleinzach 07:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Quiddity

My thoughts echo a variety of users above (HJ Mitchell and Kleinzach in particular). I sent a variant of this message to arbcom-l, but it was deemed inappropriate for private evidence, so I'm going to post an edited version here.

The current proposed decision is not going to solve the underlying dispute, and is not going to move the community towards solving it ourselves.

As Ched said, "We need leadership".

I would suggest that what we specifically need is: a simple question and answer session - i.e. Someone good at mediating (not just someone enthusiastic about trying to help), reads until they understand the entire issue, and then asks smart questions, and the editors acting-on-best-behaviour *actually answer*, rather than tangenting or sniping - which is what often happens when direct/uncomfortable/backed-into-a-corner questions are asked.

This might also, perhaps even mostly, involve asking editors privately, in order to keep the dialogue unhurried/calm/unreserved/honest/etc. This is why we need someone utterly trustworthy to lead it.

Relatedly, a public RfC will almost certainly not help matters - it will devolve into argument, and !vote counting - we already know all of the issues, we just need to determine whether solving them will actually help.

(Note: The only item I purposefully left out of my "Legitimate problems" list (in Evidence), is the issue of "distraction" - I suspect that this is one of the major reasons that some editors are infobox-skeptics; not wanting anyone to be tempted-away-from reading the hard-worked-upon entire introduction/article - this is a hot-button issue (some editors previously mockingly referred to it as teh Brilliant Prose), and I don't raise it willingly, but it does need to be out in the open.)

Therefore, We need to know:

  • Would an aesthetic redesign/tweaks help?
  • Would reinforcing the template-documentation help?
  • Would anything help?

This is what we need to know, if we want to prevent an eternal-stalemate, and/or individual argumentsdiscussions at the thousands of articles where anyone might object to the inclusion of an infobox.

This is what I was trying to get at, with my Evidence and Workshop suggestions. I'd hoped that arbcom members would simply ask those questions on these talkpages; or in private, amongst themselves, and to the editors; and perhaps the latter is still possible.

I've tried hard to limit the extra content that I oblige arbcom to read, and I will endeavour to not discuss it further here (and I hope nobody replies at length), but I hope this last post helps. –Quiddity (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the wider issues are known by everyone: one of the arbs (NW I think) remarked that until July they were unaware infoboxes were an issue, and equally I'm sure that most of the editors who do the normally useful work of adding infoboxes to articles without them are unaware both of the hostility to them in some cases (until they run into it) and also of the "metadata agenda" that drives some of the editors here. The core issue for the infobox sceptics is accuracy - I think I coined "misinfobox" some years ago, which User:Wetman and some others used too (also "disinfobox"). There are things that would help in a small way, but really the way forward has to be to treat metadata separately and more seriously, and as an input rather than an output (see above). I don't think a private mediation that involves choosing whether the online encyclopedia or the metadata output is more important will attract community support. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Online encyclopaedia" vs "metadata" is not a helpful thing to be saying, because they are not in the slightest way opposites. The relevant question is "Do we want an online encyclopaedia or an online encyclopaedia?" Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, is there any reason why you and Andy (and everyone else with strong feelings on infoboxes) can't sit down and have a rational discussion about these issues with a neural third party moderating the discussion to keep it constructive and on-topic? From where I'm sitting, there are good arguments for and against infoboxes, and you're all intelligent enough to reach a solution, if only both sides would stop bickering and engage in serious, level-headed discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Thryduulf, Rexx's comment above about: "...Andy's desire to see Wikipedia evolve into a resource that is usable in far more ways than simply reading an encyclopedia - I have the Encyclopedia Brittanica on my bookshelves if that's all I want to do" shows a fundamentally different attitude to the project to that of most Wikipedians, I would suggest.
@ Harry - surely that is what the various case pages have been doing for most of the time? It has I think produced considerable elucidation of the issues, and will be educative for any outsider with the patience to read it, but I see little sign of "a solution" emerging. I notice that Rexx, who began the discussions saying discussion would solve everything (if only the other side would stop using "bogus" arguments), has rather changed his tune, as on your talk recently. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a paper encyclopaedia. If you want to remove all metadata you need to remove all page history, all categories, all page titles and headings, many (if not all) redirects, many templates, most (if not all) tables, etc. All of these either are metadata or produce metadata by virtue of their existence. Metadata and human readable information are not exclusive, indeed far from it. There is no diachotemy between improving the encyclopaedia for human readers of the Wikipedia website and improving the encyclopaedia for those using our content in other contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. Who is proposing that? Nobody. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (to "straw man"). Thryduulf, your posts above conflate issues in a rather scary way. You've conflated metadata and data. You stated that to have concerns about the "data emission" agenda is to oppose "metadata", meaning we must delete page histories, etc. Do I need to point out how absurd this contention is? I fear I might, which is why I will spend some time on this post and attempt to tie it back to our original joint statement.
    Thryduulf has given some examples of what "metadata" actually is: it is data about data, in the common definition. The "metadata of a Wikipedia article" would include its size in bytes, its article assessments, and some of the things Thryduulf mentions, like page history. "Metadata" and "data" are different concepts, and you've given evidence that it might be generally useful to clarify this. Someone involved with the "metadata emission" project must have adopted the term "metadata" in a loose sense to refer to data about the article subject that is encapsulated in various ways using HTML attributes. This emission happens most conveniently by wrapping a template around a date or other atomic data point which makes the system output a bit of extra information in HTML source; in turn giving computer programmers more confidence that they are retrieving what they want to retrieve.
    When we speak of "metadata emission" in the sense that its most ardent supporters use the term, we're speaking of "data" about the article subject. Those supporters appear to have originated the use of the term "metadata" for these data emission things they do, and for better or worse we've adopted the term in discussion so that, at least in a local sense, there is an understanding that we're referring to the same thing. But the extra syllables do make it sound more important, I suppose. In short: page history is metadata and (really!!) no one ones to delete the page history. On the other hand, an example of "metadata emission" goes like this: "{{Birthdate|1940}}". That template wraps one piece of article subject data (inside an infobox template) so that a computer can read the data by recognizing HTML code like "<span class="bday">1940</span>". The "1940", the article content, would be in the HTML source either way; the wrapper is meant to help computer programmers. It is easy to imagine every computer programmer saying "yes, that's great!", but they're not the ones who have to measure the goal against its costs. They're not the ones considering project scope. Adding that wrapper to every "data point" in the encyclopedia is no small feat and quite obviously encompasses the creation of a large template infrastructure, plus millions of edits, that some people might consider beyond the scope of the Wikipedia project. When those edits are largely the work of someone who engenders conflict, trouble's a-brew.
    I would suggest that in favour of a "debate" about "[meta]data", the community realize that the entire project of Wikidata was set up to accomplish this task. No, not in exactly the same way as its main supporters have implemented it here—but ultimately in a much better, scalable, computer-friendly way. (It's even multi-lingual, meaning no need to repeat this "data emission" project on each Wikipedia.) Two expected counter-arguments: 1) "The technical means differ." That doesn't matter; to argue that is only to suggest that you are more concerned with the implementation methods you've chosen than the conceptual goal (semantic web, parseable data). Which would suggest an underlying motivation for implementing it all a certain way on Wikipedia. 2) "Wikidata can't accomplish x yet." That would be a reason to help on Wikidata, including in development, and not a reason to continue the build-out of the infrastructure here. We now have a sister project designed to accomplish the equivalent of the "data emission" goal on Wikipedia. The work belongs there, would be welcomed there.
    I justify the length of this post on an arbcom talk page as follows: 1) I hope it may help clarify some concepts and their relations for some arbcom members. 2) I hope it may shed light on our original joint post, by showing in a bit more detail how large and encompassing the infobox agenda is here—how intertwined it is with related concepts (by the primary advocate's design, I mean)—and how easy it will be for the agenda's primary and most active advocate—the one with documented repeated issues of engendering conflict—to just move on to a slightly different area of the "build-out" if topic-banned from only one piece of the puzzle. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that I had finished posting here, but as Riggr Mortis has decided to prolong the discussion, I suppose I might as well add the information he leaves out. There is a standard defined for emitting data in that the names of the data-wrapping classes are standardised. When the template outputs "<span class="bday dtstart published updated>1940</span>" each of those class names is the same as for data similarly encapsulated on thousands of other websites, so that common agents can 'understand' it as perhaps a birthday if it's inside a "hCard" microformat, or perhaps as a date of publication if inside a "hAudio" microformat, and so on. The classes are not only common across websites, but are designed to exist inside a container that gives context - a person, an event, a piece of music, etc. That's one of the reasons why {{Persondata}} falls short: neither the container, nor the items inside are assigned standard classnames, so they remain invisible to the readers that can read the information inside our infoboxes or their equivalent on other websites.
It would be nice to think that one day every data point in Wikipedia could have a descriptive name (for example a date is marked as a birthday, not just any old date). Adding meaning to content is part of Berners-Lee's vision of building a semantic web and it's something that most people who think about it would see as a "good thing™". But the point about cost is well-made, and on a crowd-sourced site, it is not feasible to expect every contributor to mark up data meaningfully. All is not lost, though; on a crowd-sourced site we should be able to allow other editors with the skills to apply the semantic markup. If they're really clever, they mark it up in such a way that future editors don't have to see the internals - and so that's why we use templates to hide the scary bits. It's also the reason why I find it so annoying when somebody tells me that marking data with microformats doesn't add value to an article. And at the present moment, we only have infoboxes to do that, so it's even more annoying when I'm told there's lots of other ways of doing it. Yes I know that, but at present none of them work.
I would wondering when somebody would raise the issue of Wikidata in an attempt to tell us that we can offload all our data emission to there. I've actually been working over there so I know a bit about it, and I've just spent my most of final contributions here on creating a means of importing Wikidata back into a Wikipedia with full local control, in the hope that somebody in the future will find that useful. But I digress; what I should be telling you is where Wikidata gets its data from. Did you guess? - it gets it from infoboxes. I'm not kidding you. That's where the vast majority of data comes from because a bot can import it fairly automatically and accurately - did I mention that infoboxes also have the advantage of very regularly structured data as well? The downside is that the collection is patchy. I was doing some testing a few days ago and found that Wikidata thought that Richard Burton was born in Wales (hint: there is actually a place called Pontrhydyfen) and only had two wives, one of whom was also one of his childen - they must have confused him with some other actor. I corrected the error manually, but was unable to add three of his four children as they didn't have articles. So Wikidata has a long way to go before it's anywhere near as useful, flexible or accurate as our infoboxes. And if you think the the cost of infoboxes isn't negligible, you'll have a fit about the cost of cleaning the data in Wikidata that you're proposing as a replacement. One day maybe, but that day is not today.
And that's it from me. Goodbye and good luck. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont known know Rexx, but perhalps if you had used less agressive stalking horses. I know I'm one to talk, but I was only ever provoked, I never wandered out and said "this is the way it should be, if you disagree, I'll have people who will, over years and months, grind you down". Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation Notes

Why do the implementation notes say that 1.2 "cannot pass" and that "1.1 is passing instead"? The maths seem to allow it to pass with one more vote which hasn't been cast yet, and at least two arbitrators explicitly say in their votes that the two are not alternative to one another 92.39.207.86 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those can pass. Actually the second Locus of dispute principle was presented as an alternative to the first one. — ΛΧΣ21 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've misread it horribly - I think it's having more than one row numbered 1.1 that's confused me - why do that? In some ways I suppose it's not as bad as having four 5s, two of them adjacent in the same section. And likewise three 6s, two of them adjacent. But at least there aren't any notes mentioning 5 or 6 by number. 92.39.207.86 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. I should have written "Finding of fact #1 cannot pass." instead of just "Cannot pass". Let me fix it. — ΛΧΣ21 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved user, late to this discussion

Premise 1: I hope we agree that Wikipedia's mission and values make no distinction between first- and second-class readers. We bring free knowledge to the widest possible audience, without discrimination.

Premise 2: I hope we agree that Wikipedia is non-paternalistic; that it does not decide for the readers how they should use information. This is reflected in the policy against censorship, in the provision of an open API so developers can make new ways of viewing and interacting with Wikipedia, and in the licensing which allows adaptation and reuse by anyone, for any purpose.

Premise 3: As a consequence of (2), a lot of the access to Wikipedia's free and open knowledge is via DBpedia and similar harvesting projects, which in turn feed sites such as the BBC. I hope everyone here is familiar with DBpedia's prime importance in the web of Linked Open Data.

Premise 4: People who remove an infobox (or other semantic markup) from an article are, in effect, deleting a page of information. They are not deleting it from Wikipedia itself, but from DBpedia, Google, the BBC, or many other sites and apps

However, as per premise #1 those audiences are no less valid readers of Wikipedia than those that come to the site. They are no less entitled to benefit from free and open knowledge. We're not like commercial web sites where it's all about getting "eyeballs" on your site rather than "competitor" sites: that commercial mentality does not belong here. This isn't a matter of subjective preference: it's core to Wikipedia having a distinctive mission as a free and open encyclopaedia.

So I've come late to this discussion and a lot of what I see is very worrying. Andy Mabbett's statements about making data reusable and accessible are cited against him as evidence of a harmful agenda, rather than of him advancing the Wikimedia mission. The fact that we enable for-profit companies to harvest metadata is cited as if it were against Wikipedia's mission, rather than fulfilling it. I see "the reader" of Wikipedia being defined as those that come to the site, bluntly denying both Wikipedia's mission and licensing (as made clear by RexxS) and the way the Web has evolved over the years.

Whether or not we make information and knowledge open and free, removing barriers so that the greatest audience can participate in it, is not a matter of personal preference. It's not something to be weighed against the aesthetics of how particular users view Wikipedia. It's definitely not something that has yet to be worked out by community discussion. For Wikipedia, it has already been decided. There are clearly vocal users that disagree, but they have a huge uphill struggle if they want to change Wikimedia's mission to fit their preference, and in fairness they need to warn all contributors that "Wikipedia is about knowledge that anyone may freely use for any purpose, with these exceptions..." MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given such confidence that the pro-infobox case is obviously correct, why not propose that a policy prohibiting the removal of infoboxes? The problem with this case is that infobox enthusiasts have not taken a policy approach, possibly expecting that adding infoboxes would become de facto policy after wearing down a few obstacles. Further, the arguments are rather more subtle than assumed in the above. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Based on MartinPoulter perspicuous reading, those who object to the inclusion of infoboxes are ruining it for everybody; hence, the case for making their inclusion a matter of fundamental policy (up there with RS and V) should be straightforward, compelling and unstoppable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are good grounds for removing infoboxes, if they contain only wrong or misleading information. I edit mainly in the area of psychology, and I don't think many psychological articles merit infoboxes. So you're both hacking at a straw man. On the other hand, there aren't good grounds for treating the increased availability of free and open knowledge (one form of which is putting information in semantic formats) as an agenda to be resisted on Wikipedia. As to "[T]he arguments are rather more subtle." Why? What are they? As I said, I think the key decision has already been taken and it's the anti-semantic users who want to change the status quo. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What are they? It's not helpful to post summations to write off good editors (very good editors) in a complex case without studying the background. This case is about the consequences for the encyclopedia of a battle—it's not about whether infoboxes are good or bad. The only fact concerning infoboxes of any relevance to this case is that infoboxes are not mandatory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the venue for discussing the rights and wrongs of infoboxes. This is the venue to discuss the way the Committee is dealing with conduct issues arising from those who have been battling over infoboxes. There have been several suggestions made by various people (including a formal one by the Committee) that discussions on various aspects of infoboxes should be held. Hopefully at some point people will start doing that at a more appropriate venue than this one, so a broad range of views can be heard. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I see is that much of "conduct" was caused by the lack of agreement about infoboxes and who decides in which article they go, causing conflict that would not exist otherwise. (Example: if there was a guideline about infobox in a book article, a traumatic discussion on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - 2012 and remembered - would not have happened.) - I will bore you but suggest: be easy on conduct of the past, especially of years ago, and work in respect for each other, starting today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy 1.1

Several of the arbitrators have expressed a desire for remedy 1.1 to be fine-tuned, particularly those who see it as an alternative to 1.2. For my part, I see that remedy as an excellent opportunity to determine whether Andy should be site-banned or not. If his behavior is restricted and things run along okay, then we need not go further. Finding of fact 4 identified Andy's engagement on article talk pages, usually right after an infobox had been added or removed, as problematic. I haven't seen any suggestion that there's a problem in the template namespace itself. If I were tasked with enforcing that remedy I'd understand it, even as written now, to be restricted to the article and talk namespaces, but that may not be clear enough. I'm thinking giving uninvolved administrators (perhaps designated beforehand) the power to ban Andy from a talk page might work, though that would mean specifying unacceptable behavior. The remedy as written though would even prevent Andy from adding an infobox to an article he creates. Sometimes arbitration rulings have perverse outcomes; the committee should probably acknowledge that issue upfront if there's no way to avoid it now. I suppose you could try this:

"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes on articles where he is not already a major contributor."

Open to interpretation and I'm a little uncomfortable with a remedy that more or less endorses WP:OWN. You could also add in the implementation notes "Administrators, don't be stupid when enforcing this" but I don't know if that would work. You might also want to consider a sunset clause or opportunity for appeal, such as was found in 1.2. All bans area appealable of course, but it's best to state these things openly. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, on re-reading the decision, the remedy for rejected for several others might represent the desired tailoring:

"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction."

That remedy would have essentially the same effect as the current one, but with a tiny amount of give which hopefully prevents misunderstandings. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the first bit, how about: ""Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding infoboxes to established articles or deleting infoboxes..." If a definition of "established" is needed, then "articles in existence (under any title) for over one year that are not classed as stubs" should do. I don't think anyone wants to prevent him adding boxes to general articles of types that normally have them, and given he can't restore any reversion, I hope everyone will be happy with this. Do we need to prevent him from "deleting infoboxes" actually? No-one has complained about him doing this.... Why is he "they" at the end? Redrafted whole thing:
  • "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding infoboxes to established articles (defined as articles in existence under any title for over one year that are not classed as stubs); restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction." Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my earlier comments at #Limited number of comments in discussions I think that restricting the number of comments one person can make in a discussion will have the effect of preventing productive discussion while doing little or nothing to prevent unproductive ones (even possibly encouraging them). Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I expect there will be some lengthy comments, & Andy should finally start using preview. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wont help where the conversation is: Andy: "I think this infobox would help this article", Bob: "Generally I agree, but I think nationality is wrong, because...", Andy: "Bob: Would putting 'Austo-Hungarian' there be more accurate?", Carole: "I like this, but I think it's worth putting there that her husband was her third cousin, can the template do that?". Andy (on Carole's talk page): "I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to answer the question you asked me about the infobox.". Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely the way conversations have tended to go. Maybe he could start a user subpage with a) standard FAQ (or FMA - "frequently-made arguments"), and also b) notes re individual cases. It's not entirely clear how many times he could edit one comment - and he often takes a number of edits on a single comment as it is, hence my preview remark. I don't think such a subpage would be covered. I accept it is not a standard remedy, but surely better for him than a full topic ban, which seems to be the most likely alternative. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is how conversations about infoboxes tend to go everywhere the classical music/opera editors aren't involved, and it is how we want conversations to go. An FAQ would be useful (if one doesn't already exist?) but only if editors actually read it and understand it (I have no confidence certain editors named on this page would). I would not be at all useful for questions such as this about specific entries in an individual infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent). It might also be appropriate to tailor this remedy to certain projects. My impression is that this dispute is mostly localized to articles which fall under the purview of WP:OPERA and WP:COMPOSER. In most parts of the article space the use of infoboxes isn't controversial and I don't know that any evidence has been brought forth suggesting otherwise. Under those circumstances a more narrowly-tailored project/interaction ban might be appropriate. E.g. (and building on the suggestiosn from Johnbod and Thryduulf):

"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from the following actions involving articles which fall under the purview of WP:OPERA and WP:COMPOSER: adding infoboxes to established articles (defined as articles in existence under any title for over one year that are not classed as stubs), restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction."

I've retained the "wider policy discussion" boilerplate to make it clear that he can mention a "covered" article in the context of a wider discussion. In essence, this is an article-space interaction ban but limited to those areas which Arbcom has actually found disruption. Additional narrow findings of fact concerning those projects would be appropriate if this alternative is considered. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh for God's sake: it's simple mathematics. Pigsonthewing + Infoboxes = Trouble. Whereas, Pigsonthewing - Infoboxes = a Quiet life for all.  Giano  21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano, I sympathize, but that's not true for the entire encyclopedia. The committee does no one any favors by painting with too broad a brush. In the areas where I usually work neither Andy nor infoboxes are controversial. This remedy attempts to get at the actual root of the problem, which is the interaction between Andy and a few select projects. If you can suggest improvements to this concept I'm open to them, but full-blown remedies such as what you're proposing are already in the decision and voted upon. Several of the arbitrators are interested in a more tailored remedy, and that's what we're discussing here. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree: Andy's obsessional views on infoboxes (in all subjects from music to architecture) have been a complete pain in the backside for too many for too long; he needs removing from the equation altogether - then others can all be allowed to reach reasonable compromises. He's had dozens of chances and he's blown the lot, I don't care if he's banned from the project of just banned from infoboxes; just so long as he stops causing all this trouble and disharmony.  Giano  21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano's got the maths right here: "Pigsonthewing + Infoboxes = Trouble. Whereas, Pigsonthewing - Infoboxes = a Quiet life for all." QED. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this case (I hope). He had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we must simply disagree on that. There are many subjects on this project where infoboxes are not controversial nor is Andy's involvement in them. Andy is a regular at Templates for Discussion where he is one of many editors pushing for standardization of templates. This isn't considered disruptive by any of the regulars there. If Andy were truly disruptive sitewide I would have expected broader participation in this discussion. If this was truly a sitewide problem and not localized to a connected set of projects I would expect to see evidence of it, but none was adduced. Much has been made of his bad behavior from six years ago. If we were to constantly hold bad behavior from six years ago against editors then this project would be consumed by hatred and be destroyed. People change and grow. The only thing that's apposite from six years is that Andy doesn't deal well with wikiprojects which reject infoboxes. Fine. An interaction ban solves that problem by removing Andy from that equation. We can then see how that discussion proceeds without him. The results should be indicative.
  • Anyway, this thread is about helping Arbcom craft a narrow remedy. If they think it's warranted they'll take it up. If they don't they'll do something else. I don't think it helps anyone to reiterate how we feel about certain editors. Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Mackensen, how are your posts anything but "how [you] feel about certain editors"? ;-) Be that as it may, please read the finding "Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions", which has unanimous support from all 11 active Arbs, cites recent evidence (including disputes outside Music articles) and cites my evidence. You might also find Choess' and some of the other editors contributions on Pigsonthewings behavior useful.
  • Even RexxS, one of Pigsonthewing's strongest supporters, has a more realistic view of his behavior. RexxS wrote on SilkTork's talk page that "You could insist on him having a mentor starting now. What he needs more than anything is someone to tell him "walk away - it's not worth the pain", because he's glaringly bad at recognising when that point has come. ... But if you don't get someone who can help him spot when his best option is to step away - even when he's right - then you might as well ban him forever." (diff). Frankly, my opinion is if someone can't learn in nearly a decade on WP how to play nice with others almost all the time, then maybe it is time for them to leave the project (voluntarily or not). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have quoted the next sentence from RexxS, because it's even more telling: "Over the last few weeks, he's often emailed me to ask my opinion on a given debate and most often I've told him to walk away - to his credit has done that each time." I've found that whenever we try to get into this question of "playing nice" (not patronizing, just quoting) and whathot we get bogged down in the level of disagreeability a person's contributions warrant. I got out of that business a long time ago because it's an impossible question. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could also have quoted Samuel Johnson "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." We shall see how long the good behavior lasts, though I hope it is a permanent change of heart. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will fly, not least because the Arbs are reluctant to take a position favouring "states rights" for Wikiprojects, which this proposal will tend towards. Several areas have come up in the case, in particular literature, architecture, the visual arts, and historical biographies. There's a long-running infobox row at Peter Sellers, with an entirely different cast (ok, largely different, since some here including myself & Andy commented briefly, mostly back in 2012 - Archive 1). The attempts of Thryduulf & others to paint infobox scepticism as very localised are wrong, though there are large areas like sports and taxons where it presumably doesn't exist. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but that's the practical effect of this decision regardless. The Committee is free to claim otherwise, but sanctioning one side of the dispute and one side only is taking sides and endorsing the position taken by those projects. Can I gently suggest that you broaden your horizons with regard to the project's scope? There are numerous areas: transportation, sports, the hard sciences, politics, languages (just to name a few) where infoboxes are in my experience widely accepted. I don't claim this to be troublesome or difficult; I claim this because I believe it to be true and because it has a significant bearing on this case. Broad remedies are justified by broad problems, not narrow ones. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "large areas like..." (and had already mentioned sport) and back on the evidence page and way up above here have briefly attempted to define what distinguishes those trouble-free areas from the troublesome ones. But someone up above suggested biographies in general were a trouble-free area, which is very much not the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define "trouble-free". I fail to see trouble in the infobox for Verdi's work that will be shown on the Main page, DYK. I fail to see trouble for a symphony that will appear these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, it is a mere coincidence that the most prolific pro-infoboxer is being sanctioned. I find it quite unreasonable to read a remedy that says "for [consistently unacceptable conduct], Andy is topic banned", then infer that we are sanctioning him because he's a pro-infoboxer. If we also consider that one anti-infoboxer has been sanctioned, and that evidence for misconduct by other anti-infoboxers has not been supplied despite a request for it, I find it quite obvious that the notion the committee has taken a side – or can even reasonably be perceived to have taken a side – is nonsense.

On the request that we write a narrower remedy, I am not persuaded. Even a brief review of the evidence demonstrates that Andy's conduct with respect to infoboxes has been unsatisfactory on several topic areas, not merely on opera articles. The first diff I opened illustrated him misbehaving on an architecture article, for example. The problem is also with Andy and infoboxes in general (cf here), not Andy's views on whether certain subjects are best presented with an infobox. His attitude in general is problematic, not his content views, which is why a wholescale removal is required. If we restrict him from infoboxes in certain topic areas, the committee is only going to have to chase around after him over the next year, adding more and more topics to the topic ban. AGK [•] 12:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I never said that you were sanctioning him for being a pro-infoboxer; I think you're sanctioning him for being Andy. I'm unfamiliar with anyone on the "anti" side being sanctioned, unless you mean the admonishment of Nikkimaria. I can't really consider an admonishment in the same breath is a site-ban which appears to be very much on the table, or an infobox-ban which is still a very serious remedy. You'll note that I mentioned several projects above. You might also note that many of the same editors frequent those projects. Whether you draw a conclusion from that is your own affair. Plenty of evidence has been adduced of intractable, uncollegial behavior on the part of other editors which has gone unremarked. Gerda Arendt has raised these issues repeatedly on this talk page and on some arbitrators' talk pages, and has been rewarded by a renewed effort to sanction her (remedy 3.3). Principle #6, concerning ownership, is failing, though I note you haven't taken a position on it. The effect of this decision is to endorse one side of the argument by sanctioning the other. If that's unintended then maybe the decision should be redrafted. All I'm trying to do at this point is limit the effect of this decision to the areas of the project that are actually disputed. I think, however, that I'm wasting everyone's time. You can't see what you don't want to see. Just remember that in your evidence for Andy's disruptive behavior you link to a page where he's the subject of multiple personal attacks. If you're still wondering why many of us are appalled by the direction this arbitration took, that may be your starting point. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also say that the wording points here should apply to any other topic ban remedies, as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

In the finding of fact, Gerda Arendt is referred to using "she". But in the proposed remedies, "they" is used. It sounds a bit silly when read as a whole. Could this please be made consistent? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pronoun concerns me less than the "remedies". The "wider than classical music evidence" is dated. At the moment I am on a voluntary 1RR rule, walk away if an infobox is reverted. I have never added an infobox to a classical music bio other than one I wrote myself, and try to find out in which areas precisely I should avoid to serve the reader by an infobox (see above). - I see that there is a battle but my goal is peace. I respect the personal wishes of editors if I know them. How can we define the "territories" to avoid unintended battle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the context: Did you know ... that Ben Gunn, imprisoned 32 years for killing a friend when he was 14, earned a Master of Arts degree in peace and reconciliation? (now on the Main page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left the two most controversial projects, opera and classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BrownHairedGirl

This is also a comment rather than evidence, and I hope it is acceptable to use the page in this way. Please tell me if it isn't.

I share Kosboot's view that the root of the problem lies is structural, and that is what I want to comment on. (I have had good and bad experiences of parties on both sides of the dispute, and have nothing to add about individual conduct.).

This dispute is one of several areas where there is tendency for a structural clash between 2 sets of parties:

  • some wikiprojects which have a strongly normative culture, which they seek to apply to all topics within their scope
  • editors who work on more technical aspects of the project, such as navigational boxes, categories, succession boxes, or infoboxes. (Similar, tho slightly different issues, have also arisen with some bot owners)

Unsurprisingly, clashes have also occurred with other forms of metadata such as co-ordinates, categories, and navigational templates. Disagreements over the use of co-ordinates have rarely been long-lived, and those over categories and navboxes also tend to be resolved without prolonged drama because in each there is a structured process for achieving a consensus: WP:TFD and WP:CFD, with appeal to WP:DRV. Similarly, there are processes for reviewing and constraining the authorisation and uses of bots, such as WP:BRFA ... and in all cases, the centralised and structured decision-making has allowed a body of precedent to be accumulated, which helps to stabilise consensus.

No such structured process exists for achieving a consensus on infoboxes, which has left the various parties to rehash their fundamental disagreements on the non-prescriptive MOS:INFOBOX. The result is sometimes a cold war and sometimes a war of attrition. Regardless of any action which might be taken wrt individual misconduct, the structural clash will continue.

Others have pointed to the ambiguous status of Wikiprojects. Theoretically, they are vehicles for collaboration; but in practice they assume some degree of WP:OWNership over their subject areas. The community is fluid in how much ownership it accepts, and the unresolved boundaries of both scope and ownership make them an impractical vehicle for deciding on the use of infoboxes. (Some topics may be core articles for 2 or more projects.)

One possible solution is to adopt a rigid global policy on infoboxes, to end the individual disputes. However, the community usually rejects rigid rules.

I see two other solutions, which may be implemented separately or together.

Community solution
Create a central forum for discussing the inclusion of an infobox on an article (possibly Wikipedia:Infoboxes for discussion). That would help the wider community to join in infobox discussions, broadening participation between the two most involved camps (i.e. the infobox specialists and the Wikiprojects)
Technical solution
Modify the mediawiki software to allow readers to set their preferences to enable or disable the display of infoboxes. A community decision would be needed on the default display setting, but giving readers a choice would help defuse some of the tension. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Versions of the "community solution" are discussed above, in this and other sections. I doubt the "technical solution" will please infobox-sceptics as we know the awareness & take-up will be miniscule. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A community discussion to determine whether WikiProjects should be purely a collaborative venue or have power to dictate rules across article categories might not be a bad idea either. Equazcion (talk) 16:26, 2 Sep 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of interesting ideas and possible solutions mooted here; however nothing is going to be solved happily and collegiatly while Andy Mabbitt is on the loose. Too many of us have been there with him too many times. For as long as he is allowed to run rampantly and arrogantly through the infobox subject nothing will ever be happily resolved. He has made himself a red rag to too many bulls/cows  Giano  19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there, Giano. I see plenty of evidence that many users, including Andy, can grow and change. I do think that sometimes when people who have clashed in the past run into each other, they may be more prone to revert to old patterns, but it's important to look at the user's overall growth. A ban on Andy won't solve the real problem here, which are some other editors who WP:OWN the classical music projects and run off anyone who dares to question their authoritah. I think that's the tragedy here. (Note the action of Gerda, above, and also Ched, who has quit WP altogether because of all this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 September 2013‎
Smerus has left Wikipedia as well. – Voceditenore (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence at all that Andy can change or is even, indeed, willing to change. It's sad, but he has to be removed fron the subject/project - there is no alternative.  Giano  21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK: Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus

was posted here and includes sub sections: [104] (olive (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The drafter looked at that evidence. He found the Smerus evidence persuasive, and proposed an appropriate finding (which was followed by my remedy). The Kleinzach evidence was not so persuasive, but the point is that all the anti-infoboxer submissions were dealt with and there are none outstanding. AGK [•] 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by, "little or no evidence" in your statement and assumed the previously posted evidence had been missed. No comment one way or the other was meant which is different discussion.(olive (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph Priestley article and Infoboxes

I am not sure what else to do with this information, so I am posting it here.

The article on Joseph Priestley is a FA and has no infobox. In June 2007, as a group of editors were improving it with an eye to FAC, the infobox was removed after a talk page discussion, and discussed again later that month. The lack of an infobox was raised next in its October 2007 WP Biography peer review, and none of the 5 editors commenting there were in favor of a box. No mention was made of infoboxes in the GA review, in October 2007 a box was added, then removed and discussed - for both see here. Inoboxes were not mentioned in its Scientific peer review or FAC.

In 2009 there was an extensive discussion and RfC on both the alignment of the lead image (it used to be left aligned, until the MOS changed) and the lack of an infobox - here. The RfC closed with no consensus to add a box, and although the MOS change meant the image became right aligned), from Oct. to Dec. 2011, there was a discussion that again came to the consensus that no infobox was required, at least at that time.

Earlier today, User:Pigsonthewing made a series of edits to the article, some of which added an infobox with edit summaries including "Template" and "ce" and "("(diff). I reverted citing WP:BRD and previous consensus against a box (diff). I opened a discussion on the article's talk page here where we each commented briefly and Pigsonthewing said he was done with the infobox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for arbitrators only

Please could the arbitrators (and please only arbitrators) answer the following questions in as succinct manner as they can manage. Having re-read all their comments on the decision page I still do not understand why this decision is as it is:

  1. How will banning Andy improve the encyclopaedia, taking into account all his contributions?
  2. Why do you think that this decision will not lead to ownership of articles by the Classical Music and related wikiprojects, contrary to the opinions expressed on this page by (almost?) everyone not involved with those projects?
  3. Why have you chosen not to make any mention of the personal attacks against Andy presented in evidence and on this page?
  4. Why do you think that this proposed decision has generated so much opposition relative to almost every other? The Tea Party case is the only comparable one I am aware of, and that was in the Committee's own words an extraordinary proposal).

These are not flippant questions, and I would like answers please from all the arbs active on this case before it closes. I am normally very supportive of the committee but I am genuinely struggling to understand how you came to a proposed decision that is so seriously out of line with the evidence as most uninvolved commenters here read the case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs, Salvio giuliano, SilkTork, Carcharoth, and NuclearWarfare:,@Timotheus Canens, AGK, Newyorkbrad, and Roger Davies: Please would you have the decency to respond to direct questions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed this earlier (I remember reading it, but replying to your questions slipped my mind). First, a word on responsiveness of arbitrators. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the norm for all 15 (currently 13, and only 11 on this case) active arbitrators to respond to direct questions aimed at the committee as a whole. If all 15 arbitrators participated in every such set of questions (and you and others replied to all that was said), we would be here a very long time. Until a proper moderated way to have discussions without them running out of control is available, that will always be the case (this is, incidentally, one of the reasons for the 'comment only in your own sections and avoid threaded discussions' set-up at WP:RFAR). Having said that, the talk pages of a proposed decision is a place for threaded discussion, and some responses are warranted. I will do my best to answer your questions.
  • (1) Andy is not being banned. But if anyone is banned during a case it is usually to prevent disruption caused by that editor's presence, or that editor's actions, regardless of their levels of contributions.
  • (2) I supported the principle referencing WP:OWN that did not pass, but I can understand the reasons given in the comments by my colleagues that opposed it. Editing is often a balancing act between (i) editors that range widely across articles in many different topics who may (or may not) have extensive knowledge of a specific topic area; and (ii) editors that focus on narrower topics or areas (sometimes only one article) and build up that area or article. This can lead to tensions if both types of editors (and I know many editors do both sorts of editing) clash over some aspect of article editing. The key is to be able to discuss things productively when that happens, and respect each other as fellow editors, rather than end up in circular and endlessly repeating arguments that reduce the productivity of all editors that end up involved in such disputes.
  • (3) No comment. I will leave that for the drafters of the case to answer if they choose to do so.
  • (4) This case has not really generated more debate than other cases. You need to look back to earlier in the year and to 2012 and 2011 to compare with cases back then.
I hope this helps, Thryduulf. Apologies for not replying earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Carcharoth said. 3 cont) I didn't draft this case and there is only so much time I could spend on it. NW (Talk) 02:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A subject that comes up time and time again at arbitration is the "worth" of contributors--namely, the rationale that X editor, having broken Y policies or guidelines, should receive "less punishment" because of the good work they do in various areas.
I don't subscribe to that idea.
If an editor is disruptive, and preventing other editors from contributing effectively, then they should be addressed. Anything else becomes a bizarre game of editing worth. Let's engage in a thought experiment: who is worth more as an editor, Pigsonthewing or me. Andy has roughly three times as many edits. He has more mainspace edits than me. Does that make him worth more? I have more featured articles, more substantial edit\ to a smaller core of articles. Is that better than editing tens of thousands of articles like Andy? Or is my quality outweighed by quantity of smaller fixes, typos, and formatting? A lot of my featured articles are on pop culture topics, so are they worth less than a classical composer? If so, how many FA video games articles would it take to make a Wagner? A Liszt? A Mozart? What's the exchange rate on template edits to meaningful content additions? To vandalism cleanup? To admin backlog tasks? What about factoring in yourself, Thryduulf? Have your 43 edits to Spain, the most you've sunk into any article, been worth less than what I've done, or what Andy has done? Is true "editing worth" the proportion of article edits to non-articlespace edits, in which case you would be found wanting?
I hope this exercise conveys my point: there's no agreeable metric to decide when an editor's worth is greater, or less, than the trouble or disruption they cause.
We are all volunteers, and (despite biological or emotional ages) Wikipedia's principles are set up so that we are all treated as equals and adults. As an arbitrator, I often try and focus on minimizing fuss and trying to get quality edits out of editors without causing trouble; if a banned user appeals, I'm more inclined to try and suggest a topic ban from problematic areas than throw away the key. But there is a point where no amount of gamesmanship can thread the eye of the needle, that perfect sweet spot of disruption-free quality contributions. And so one has to make the call about whether cutting off some good contributions to avoid the bad is worth it. That threshold may often be higher for quality contributors and long-term editors, simply because there are more fields they partake in, more topics they edit, more namespaces they benefit. However that threshold is, fundamentally, an issue every arbitration case grapples with in its remedies.
As for your mentions of "seriously out of line" and estimation of whatever you could possibly term "popular opinion", I think we will have to disagree on your interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My answers to the questions above:

  1. I did not vote to ban Pigsonthewing, precisely because I concluded that the drawbacks to doing so outweighed the benefits. That being said, I think there is wide agreement that aspects of his behavior have been problematic and need to change.
  2. One of the issues to be addressed in the hoped-for community discussion, I believe (and have indicated on the decision page) is the degree of deference due, in deciding whether an infobox is useful in a given article, to the users most familiar with the article or the subject-matter. I expect the conclusion will be that their input is relevant but not necessarily dispositive. The reasons that contributors to a given article or members of a wikiproject believe inboxes are unsuited to the articles in that area also bear consideration. Sometimes those reasons might be convincing to other editors, and sometimes they might not.
  3. Not every instance of poor or debatable conduct presented in evidence needs to be or can be included in the final decision; the drafters, and other arbitrators who add to the draft, wind up prioritizing in every case. Although the drafters may speak for themselves, presumably they concluded that this was not an area that required focus in the decision. It remains unacceptable for any editor to personally attack any other, although not every instance of doing so can or will result in a sanction.
  4. I agree with Carcharoth's response to the last question. Sorry these responses were delayed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to those who answered, I haven't got time now to read all your answers but I would like to appologise for my tone earlier - a good example of when I should have previewed and then not saved. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principle 3.1.5 Mission

I am concerned that the Arbcom appears to advance a view on content in principle 3.1.5 Mission: "Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such as metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope. [+emphasis]"

Whatever the perceptions of my opinions on the matter might be, my point is that I would be equally concerned if the pronouncement in the last sentence were the opposite. The italicized portion could be used as a rhetorical weapon (or more than that) in community debate, and influence what should be unbiased discussions from the beginning. NW is perceptive in saying that " 'detrimental' would have to be able to be interpreted so widely as to make [the principle] useless". That nuance would undoubtedly be lost when this principle was taken up by a community in debate. Since any hypothetical debate would obviously examine the pros and cons, I'm not seeing the point of this statement other than to inadvertently set up a context for content debate which amounts to "The Arbcom said...". And If I'm not mistaken, the Arbcom is actively recommending in another finding that community discussion should occur on these issues. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I’ve already commented on this above, see Perspective from Kleinzach, 3. Technical issues. If metadata is a form of content, and content is outside the scope of Arbcom, then the second sentence of 3.1.5 (Mission) is mistaken. Most of recognise that we need to look at the subject of metadata much more closely. I’d hope ArbCom would encourage, not discourage, this. Can they think again? Kleinzach 00:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Riggr and Kleinzach. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive

"Indefinitely separating an long-term dedicated editor from this project should take more than the closest possible vote of a divided committee. For this reason alone, I'm striking my support. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)" Now that is impressive. PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed!—John Cline (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna pile on my kudos too. I'm completely unfamiliar with Pigsonthewing's history so I can't say if his banning would've been a good or bad thing. Either way this is a refreshingly wise statement. Equazcion (talk) 03:18, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • I also am pleased and impressed to see this expression of wisdom. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we elect the Arbs to make the hard abstentions for us. I especially like the last minute bait-and-switch, so no one realizes what a bizarre decision this now is. As it currently stands, Arbcom has voted to...
    • ...admonish Nikkimaria for edit warring with Pigsonthewing, but not to admonish Pigsonthewing for edit warring.
    • ...indefinitely restrict Gerda Arendt from restoring an infobox that has been deleted, but not to restrict Pigsonthewing in this way.
    • ...admonish Gerda Arendt for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advise her to better conduct herself, but not to admonish Pigsonthewing or advise him in any way.
    • ...remind Smerus to conduct himself in a civil manner, but not to remind Pigsonthewing how to conduct himself.
  • What exactly do you find impressive about this again? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The decision to indefinitely ban Pigsonthewing from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes seems to have passed though. I think that covers the restrictions others got, and maybe covers admonishment as well; though perhaps an explicit admonishment should also be proposed for Pigsonthewing, seeing as the site ban is defeated -- I don't have an opinion on whether he should be admonished, but it looks like something that could pass. What is impressive, Ruhrfisch, is T. Canens lone act, even if fault can be found in the way the totality of the case stands at the moment. Equazcion (talk) 04:21, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      Exactly; and the stuff you didn't say too!—John Cline (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mabbitt be site banned, for breaking his restrictions, in a few weeks or months just as surely as evening follows day. The Arbs know this, but the current passing motion allows them not to appear too Draconian.  Giano  07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressed and relieved. Everybody who knows me a bit knows that "battleground" is kafkaesque, but I couldn't care less about "imposed" restrictions. I learned, not only this new word. (You don't add the unspeakable thing, you impose it, I didn't know that.) - For clarity: "care less" means 1) I was not worried at all about myself, 2) I am not worried about sticking to restrictions as I left the conflict areas - classical music and opera - already.
@Equazcion: from Andy's recent history: Ben Gunn and "Let us not forget that even one book, one pen, one teacher can change the world". I am happy that more of that can come.
@Giano: Everybody afraid can simply watch his edits and revert, it's so easy.
A hymn is in order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Gerda, it appears that someone may have used our differences in language to play a cruel joke on you—indicative of child's play. There is actually no relationship with your manner of editing and the verb form of impose—yet somehow you've used it in correct context with "restrictions". I'm impressed again.—John Cline (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. Canens's action is certainly a good thing, and I thank him for it. However it shouldn't be regarded as impressive for an arb to take such action - doing it shouldn't be needed in the first place, but if it is it should be normal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take (short version): bullet unbitten, inevitable postponed. This pulled punch is only going to work if you have the stamina to enforce it properly. --Folantin (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already a dead letter?

This morning Gerda Arendt has gone straight ahead and added yet another infobox to a Bach article [105]. As far as I can see, this is not a page she herself created. I don't see how this is stepping away and disengaging from the infobox furore. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cantata where I am the main contributor, as for most Bach cantatas. I created about half of them, expanded several others from a stub. With some 150 articles in question, I didn't improve all at the same time, but since December routinely add an infobox for the cantatas of the upcoming Sunday. - For consistent style to the reader, I would prefer if all looked the same, but I respect other editors (BWV 105) and the cleanup of editors who are no contributors (BWV 71), as now also the one you mention (BWV 51), - I will not fight it, but does it make sense? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem consistent with: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create." --Folantin (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is yours ↑ consistent with "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.", nor Bencherlite's below ↓.—John Cline (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after several edit conflicts) You are right. - Perhaps that "letter" can change, to make more sense? How about templates such as {{infobox Bach composition}}, that were developed within the project and are not contentious? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda is obviously trying to get as many infoboxes in as possible before the restrictions start, despite her empty words to me this morning: "I left projects classical music and opera, the areas of conflict. If I added an infobox you could simply revert it, and now I will not even add one." Clearly she and I have a different view on how many infoboxes make "one". BencherliteTalk 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What seems obvious to you, isn't true. It's a routine since December, I do three a week, normally on Mondays, as you can see in my contribs, - this week I was held up. I don't only add an infobox, but also update them, improve wording, format references and add the lang-template to articles for which I feel responsible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) She may not have "created" the page (again: is that a criteria? Under what policy?) but she is a major contributor to it, having first contributed in 2010. Indeed, she has added more volume of content to it than the colleague who did create it, and who has not edited it since the day they did so, in September 2005. I note that Eusebeus has removed the infobox, with the edit summary "rm info box pending determination for consensus via talk", but started no such discussion on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)×3 :I note that the addition was reverted by user:Eusebeus with the summary "rm info box pending determination for consensus via talk." but the only comments on the talk page are from 2011 and no attempt has been made to explain why the infobox might not be beneficial to this article. This is important because, to summarise and generalise RexxS' comments, the benefits of infoboxes are generally the same for every article accross the project but the downsides are not, and so they need to be expressed and weighed up on an individual article - sometimes they exceed the benefits and sometimes they don't, but you can't evaluate that without knowing what they are.
While she didn't create the article, the revision history statistics show Gerda is the most frequent contributor to the article by some way (38 edits, one editor has 7 and no others have more than 3). Although she is about 10th by average edit size, she has added a lot of information to the article (including referencing it), so it is in no way fair to say that she is not one of the principle editors. From memory (and I haven't double checked this) Bach compositions are cited in evidence as articles where additions of infoboxes have been uncontroversial in the past (in the context of it being impossible to know in advance where they will be controversial).
So what we have here is one of the principle contributors to an article adding an infobox to it, and being reverted by someone making their first edit to the article without discussing why. Which is the exact opposite of what we are told always happens by those not wanting infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting this proposed restriction: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes... [she may] include infoboxes in new articles which [she] create[s]."
It's funny to see Andy Mabbett now stressing that the opinions of the principal content contributor should be given the most weight. Had he actually espoused this principle before, we might have been spared all the endless wrangling over Cosima Wagner or The Rite of Spring, to take just two examples. It's even possible that this very Arb Case need never have arisen. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not what is being suggested at all. Andy (and I) are simply saying that you can't have it both ways - if you insist that the views of the principle contributor are respected when they don't want an infobox then you have no leg to stand on when views of a principle contributor who adds an infobox are not respected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what Andy's saying. See below. I would have no problem giving weight to the opinion of the creator/primary contributor (assuming it was in line with our core content policies). --Folantin (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm saying. While the basis of your position is false, it's still being applied hypocritically. And we do have a core content policy which precludes giving additional weight to one editor or group of editors: WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's funny to see Andy Mabbett now stressing that the opinions of the principal content contributor should be given the most weight. - That would indeed be "funny", and not in the humorous sense. I didn't say that, nor do I think it, so please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think those referring to principle editors above are doing so in the context of interpreting the proposed decision on this page, as in, what might constitute an article that Gerda "created" (rather than the more general principle that anti-infobox editors tend to reference). I have to say though I don't think the allowance that Gerda can "include infoboxes in new articles which they create" is served by her adding an infobox to an article she did not create, and is not new. The case hasn't concluded yet but those likely facing infobox restrictions might be wise to keep a distance from individual article infobox issues at the moment. Just my take. Equazcion (talk) 11:30, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Warum betrübst du dich, mein Herz
BWV 138
church cantata by J. S. Bach
Thomaskirche, Leipzig
Relatedmovement 5 base for Missa, BWV 236
Occasion15th Sunday after Trinity
Cantata textanonymous
Choraleby anonymous, formerly attributed to Hans Sachs
Performed5 September 1723 (1723-09-05): Leipzig
Movements7
VocalSATB solo and choir
Instrumental
You are right, but
  • if we go strictly by the letter the restriction is not in place yet
  • in the light of this discussion, perhaps the restriction can be worded differently?
  • the articles in question are not "individual articles" but a series in which most articles have infoboxes
  • for these articles there is no author whose feelings are hurt
  • the topic is not contentious
  • the parameters are not contentious
I ask our esteemed arbitrators for a solution, perhaps with our readers in mind, - hopefully before Sunday. Until then, I will not add to Warum betrübst du dich, mein Herz, BWV 138 (Why do you trouble yourself, my heart), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to doubt that the arbitrators will think it beneficial to make the restriction contingent on how contentious a particular situation is/whether or not you're a principle contributor/whether or not an article series has an established form. Those would add layers of ambiguity and interpretation ripe for fighting over later. The choice of words ("new" and "create") was likely intentional as it is less likely to produce conflicting interpretations. Equazcion (talk) 12:10, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, infoboxes on classical music articles are somewhat contentious. I think everyone following this case has realised that by now. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I show the missing infobox which will hopefully make it to the article until Sunday, better tomorrow because the premiere was 5 September. Folantin, the template {{infobox Bach composition}} has been discussed first on the project talk, further on the template talk. There is also {{infobox orchestra}}, initiated by Kleinzach, - your generalisation "infoboxes on classical music articles are somewhat contentious" is not quite to the point. It's more some classical music authors, who - not wanting infoboxes in biographies - extend this dislike to compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I don't think what this case needs is yet another infobox discussion. Please. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It is a discussion about how to supply our readers with unrestricted information, for example by a different wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, in the workshop I tried to find a way to reach consensus. In this case I don't even see a conflict, author wants infobox, no former author objects, why not then? Whom would a restriction serve in such a case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare GA BWV 103, GA review by Smerus with whom I liked to work and hope to do it again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New day: I found messages on my talk which made me reply, thoughts also for this context:

  • I would love to eventually not talk about infoboxes for individual articles, but groups of them, for example orchestras and Bach cantatas, two topics where I don't see the slightest conflict.
  • All French, Norsk and German Wikipedia Bach cantatas have an infobox, the German derived from our English example.
  • Infoboxes in Bach cantatas (template developed and usage established with help from Kleinzach, Voceditenore and Nikkimaria) help the reader understand at a glance that the long German title, followed by a translation and a catalogue number, is a work by Bach; they provide year/date and location, let him know the sources of the hybrid text (typically three different sources) and the voice parts and instrumental scoring?
  • Regardless of how good or bad the article is, and by whom, these are facts important for a reader. Please let him have them at least for articles for which I feel responsible, - accepting that it is impossible at present for the several that Nikkimaria wrote. How can we get reverted infobox of BWV 51 and the one proposed for BWV 138 here to the respective article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabbett and infoboxes

I was trying to stay away from this subject as it annoys me intensely and the whole brouhaha that surrounds the discussions generate far too much heat and little in the way of light. I do feel uncomfortable with the wording restricting POTW's remedy 1.1 (currently passing): ("Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.") While I support the spirit of this proposal, it does mean that even if POTW starts a new article from scratch, he is unable to add an infobox. This seems to be an unwanted aspect to the proposal and I advocate a minor tweak to allow him to add an infobox at article creation stage:

"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes: he may include infoboxes in new articles which he creates."

– SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going down that road (and I agree with your comments about the existing proposed restriction, and it exist also for Smerus' proposed restriction) then using the same language as used for Gerda would be good for consistency. But please per my comments elsewhere on this page, drop the maximum two comments language from all of them, it will just make things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see #Infoboxes and new articles and #Proposed remedy 1.1, above.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Courcelles has taken the step (although using the awful singular they). Many thanks Courcelles. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the points raised in #Infoboxes and new articles and #Proposed remedy 1.1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

per the committee recommendation I started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/2013 RfC draft. Play nice. — ChedZILLA 08:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn't some kind of joke. Any community discussions that are set up following this ArbCom should be done by established, respected editors who are willing to do the necessary detailed drafting. Editors who have taken a moderate position on the controversy will be best suited to this job. It shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Kleinzach 09:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chedzilla is an alternate account of User:Ched, who requested this arbitration case and had previously started User:Ched/RfC - Infobox. Despite the comments on User talk:Ched, he has not left Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the WP:OWN mention on the page and put it into more neutral language: there was no finding of ownership in the decision, so I'm not sure why the RfC decided to lead with it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is much that is useful and possibly helpful at User:Geogre/Templates and suggest all interested parties read it for ideas. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Kleinzach and with the comments made by Carcharoth and Johnuniq in the sections below. This is extremely ill-advised. If an RfC is to have any chance of not becoming a complete train wreck:

  1. Before even embarking on a draft, at least three months are needed for all involved to return to normal editing, reflect both on this decision and on their own positions, gain some perspective, and drop the (understandable but counterproductive) recriminations and posturing.
  2. Not only does the drafting need to be initiated and undertaken by established, respected editors with hitherto moderate positions on the controversy (preferably no one who has given evidence in this case nor any of the parties, including the filing party), they must also be willing to put in the considerable time necessary to create a detailed and thoughtful draft.
  3. The draft and the eventual RfC should be held in a "neutral location", possibly on a sub-page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, but certainly not on the pages of WikiProject Infoboxes.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above comments. Please delete this RfC "draft" before it spirals into another series of mistakes. You can't just throw a handful of stuff at a wall and hope other people turn into something useful. It didn't work with this arbcom case, why would it work with an RfC? Productive RfCs require a lot of hard work and mediation skills. Please leave it for someone who is willing to put in that effort. –Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreak

In case anyone has a question for me, please note that I am facilitating two conferences over the next five days; so shall have limited and unpredictable opportunity to edit here until Tuesday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for letting us know. If any developments require your input, we will try to hold them off until your return on Tuesday. AGK [•] 11:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The letter of the finding

We speak already of the letter of the restrictions, let me please ask a question regarding the findings about me. It reads at present:

6) Gerda Arendt ... has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion. including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial.

Gerda, this is about the fifth time you've said you were "following the advice of Brad". Can you actually point to where he gave you this alleged advice? NYB would be the first to admit that he has virtually no content-writing, page layout or template markup experience, and as far as I'm aware the only time he ever discussed infoboxes was this comment, in a private discussion with me on my talkpage about how to head off this very RFAR—not any kind of policy debate—in which he specifically prefaced his suggestion with a note that doing this would "probably please noone". – iridescent 20:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't give me the advice. The link to where he gave it is above, Brad on Boxes. I met it in a list, trying to find solutions for infobox controversies, added there by Nikkimaria, which is linked in my entry "No infobox" (link above), repeated once more. I thought it was a good idea and tried it, without digging into the context where it was mentioned. I wish now I had not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading NYB's full comment, it seems in saying it "would probably please no one", that Brad was merely presenting the definition of the word "compromise", not recommending against the measure. He was presenting talk page-hosted infoboxes as something that both parties might at least tolerate even though neither got their way entirely. That's what compromises generally are. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 5 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Advice on post-case discussions

The case is close to closing now. Feelings have been running high. My advice to the parties and all those who participated is to step back for a bit and find something else to do. Way up above, Brianboulton said: "My recent Dispatches article was a contribution to that discussion. However, very few positive steps will be taken in the atmosphere of antagonism and mutual annoyance that envelops this whole topic. [...] we all have better and more productive things we should be doing." My suggestion, for those who want to sort through their thoughts on this while they are still fresh, would be for people to make notes or mini-essays offline or in their userspace, and to leave articles and talk page discussions well alone for a bit (or for longer if someone is restricted). Don't rush into post-case discussions, but let things calm down, and find other things to do in the meantime. It's not like the issues are going to go away (the essay by Geogre that someone posted above is from seven years ago). Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and time

  • It's close to closing and not one of the arbitrators has seen fit to answer any my explicit questions to them, or respond to any of the comments regarding the perceived weakness of several proposed remedies (by both sides of the dispute in some cases). Those are not the actions of a committee that is interested in maintaining the respect of parties in this case. I'm honestly shocked to think that any arbitrator can read this talk page and still genuinely expect collegiate discussions about infoboxes to stem from this decision. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've answered your questions above as best I can. Could I ask you to consider putting your post above (which isn't really anything to do with post-case discussions) into a new section separate from what I said (you could title it something like 'questions need answering before case closes')? The point I was making about post-case discussions is really important, and I don't want it to get lost because you feel affronted that your questions were not answered. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Carcharoth and was surprised to see the recent RfC section above which pointed to a new RfC draft. I would much prefer that the Community discussion recommended remedy state that it would be counter-productive to start an RfC discussion in under three months. There are good editors on both sides, and very strong feelings on both sides—conducting another knock-down battle at the moment is the last thing that should occur. It would be impossible to hold any discussion in the next three months that is not seen as "Arbitration part 2", and the entire case would be refought—perhaps not the entire case because variations on "editor X was disruptive" would be squelched, but everyone involved would know that this was the ultimate winner-takes-all argument, and only two outcomes would be possible: my side wins, or your side wins—in each case, a significant group of editors is made to feel even more bitter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - my bad, my fault. I saw the suggestion of a discussion, and not being able to be consistently active on wiki, I missed the "wait" idea. Feel free to delete. I'm doing my best to follow this through to the end, and I screwed up - sorry. Feel free to delete it, I won't object. — ChedZILLA 04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy

Smerus retired. I would like to see no actions against him, for decency. (I had no problem with his arguing, minded only one phrase. He and I were ready to keep working together. The term "battleground" is a myth, if you ask me.) I don't know if the rules would permit that.

  1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. –Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be in favor of reversing the sanctions against Smerus, but not out of mercy. The quoted evidence just seems rather thin for imposing restrictions: [106][107][108]. The third diff is really the only example of unacceptable behavior that I'm seeing. The other two seem at most like impatient words in a heated exchange, as is par for the course on Wikipedia. I've seen people get away with far worse both in cases that did and did not end up at arbitration. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is entirely possible as I've not done any digging beyond reading those three diffs), I'm inclined to ask the arbitrators to rethink this or at least explain their votes a little more than they have. Equazcion (talk) 13:54, 6 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I'm sad that I never managed to successfully communicate to Andy that he has to acknowledge the perspectives of others when they have legitimate subjective objections (I still think that would've solved almost everything, in this and previous heated-discussions). Acknowledging the diverse perspectives and problems, cannot be undervalued, as a part of resolving team-disputes.
However, I'm also frustrated that any other editors seem to be getting more than an admonishment - restricting gerda or smerus from infoboxes completely isn't a good solution - they just need to be given a better structure to work within - ie. better infobox guidelines. They're both willing to admit mistakes and move towards compromise/consensus positions and templates, when not backed into a corner. These two split decisions, that are leading to one retirement and widespread frustration, could be usefully re-examined. –Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity, the problem is that we lack the authority to unilaterally create better infobox guidelines. We may suggest or even urge the community to discuss the issue and come up with a new solution, but, right now, we have to apply the policies as currently written, even if we were to consider them unwise. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio, I suppose I was thinking of this as the rationale/answer: "We're going to admonish editors x and y, but not restrict them, because they are currently working based on fundamentally [flawed/ambiguous/lacking/inadequate] guidelines and MoS pages. We will try to assist the community in its search for a suitable individual to help put together an RfC aimed towards improving these areas of documentation, in an effort to move this forward in the normal community process, but in as well-researched and balanced a manner as possible." (Note: That's not meant to be in the standard-legalese; my wording is flawed; I'm just trying to get across the general idea. :) –Quiddity (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity, I like your proposal as an alternative to restricting Gerda and Smerus (but not Andy, whom I still think needs to be site banned, but that's neither here nor there); and I have mentioned it on the mailing list. Let's see if any of my colleagues agree. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What has always been a problem and is becoming more so here and around Wikipedia is loss of understanding of what a community is. We are so intrenched in a punitive mind set that we do not have the vision or skills to work through problems that have arisen in a group, that depend on collaboration rather than separation. Our arb committee, not their fault and in good part because of what the community is clamoring for may be stuck in an outdated model. Problems will always arise when people are working together. Even as editors here are working out their problems, find solutions, and this is the real outcome of this arbitration, sadly the sanctions stay in place. Something rather important has happened here due in good part to Gerda's open heartedness and ability to work things out with people. A strategy that supports community growth has occurred, if only we could see it.(olive (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Understandably, people view arbcom decisions as "punishments". But another way of looking at all this is that the protagonists have been given an "opportunity" by the arbitrators to step back from the trajectory they were all caught in—instead of plowing ahead with disputes in article after article and becoming more and more frustrated with each other. I'm not sure it was an opportunity they would have chosen themselves before these proceedings began—in fact six more infobox discussions were initiated on article talk pages by the parties involved here during these proceedings: [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. In any case, people now have the space to reflect and to break the cycle. I hope it will be used constructively. Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Pigsonthewing adding an infobox to Joseph Priestley with the fairly misleading edit summary "template" (diff). I reverted it, citing WP:BRD and the previous consensus not to include an infobox (diff). I then opened a discussion on the talk page where I linked to 4 of the 6 archives where infoboxes are discussed (there is also clear consensus against a box from late 2011 on the current talk page) here and was told by Pigsonthewing "I note that you dismiss my addition of an infobox without making any arguments against it" (which he had not even labeled as an infobox on adding it to the article).
Arbs, please read your Proposed findings of fact again. Then read the Proposed remedies. Does it really seem, based on your own findings of fact, that Smerus and Pigsonthewing deserve essentially the same remedies? I would argue that Smerus' remedy is worse - he is also "reminded" (and Gerda and Nikkimaria are admonished) while Pigsonthewing is neither admonished nor reminded. I know these are neither crimes not punishments, but if they were, would the "punishments" fit the "crimes"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is striking me here in many of the above comments (clear up to the top of the page, is that it appears that presenting evidence in one's defense is considered a whole new "crime" rather than a defense -- supposedly sought by ArbCom -- for the previous set of actions. Does no one see how the tag team of Smerus and Kleinzach paired up to WP:BAIT Gerda in particular, but also gave aid and comfort to Nikkimaria to the point that she made some serious mistakes in stalking Gerda and Andy, and how Andy's behavior, if it was anyone other than Andy, would be deemed mildly overeager wikignoming at most? Seriously, Smerus and Kleinzach really should not scoot out of this scott-free. They DID exacerbate the situation! Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw - with due respect, as an outside observer, no I do not see that Smerus and Kleinzach "paired up to WP:BAIT Gerda"; rather, I see you have done your bit to do this, even as Gerda and Smerus were building bridges, by being outraged ostensibly on Gerda's behalf (though she has not invited this from anyone), accumulating evidence - most of it quite trivial - against Smerus in particular, despite Gerda's continued collegial attitude to Smerus. I notice that since Smerus has been driven away from Wikipedia, Gerda has joined the [vote of thanks to Smerus]. Perhaps you hadn't noticed he had departed? Forgive my saying, but your actions increasingly appear to be driven by some kind of vendetta. Please prove me wrong. Alfietucker (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read all the diffs, then. They were requested, and submitted. As for the rest, Gerda did a good job to work with Smerus, and Nikki, and had they been left alone and not tag teamed by others at the classical music project who owned everything, they may have worked things out. But the reality is that Kleinzach, by simply refusing to respond at all, is scooting off more scott free than Smerus, and he was, if anything, the more egregious offender in the "lalalalalalala no infoboxes everevereverever" department. My only concern here was seeing how bad Gerda was being ganged up on and bullied. People showed her little good faith and were saying terribly mean things about her. I think she's a wonderful, kind, decent human being and she did not deserve any of this. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read all the diffs (at least the ones proffered and a bit more, plus there's what I have happened to encounter in the course of working on classical music articles on Wikipedia). I'm not sure I'm convinced by your change or at least modulation of tune over Smerus, Montanabw - or at least you give no explanation of what you meant by your previous accusation that he "tag teamed" with Kleinzach. It would seem to me a more likely explanation of them often being on the same talk page is simply that they work on several of the same projects. Otherwise can't the same accusation of "tag teaming" be applied with even greater pertinence to you and Andy? It also seems disingenuous of you to now claim your main beef was against Kleinzach, when the majority of your evidence was against Smerus: furthermore, your evidence against him was both pettifogging and luridly presented ('scream(s) bloody murder'; 'describes Gerda as "an effete and loathed sissy"'; 'dripping with sarcasm'; etc.). This, frankly, does look like vengeful action rather than a dispassionate presentation of the facts. Alfietucker (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have backed off on Kleinzach, who was the worse offender, but I only have 24 hours in a day, and because everyone was saying the poor Kleinzach wasn gone and didn't have the ability to defend himself, I backed off on him more than I should, probably. I'm not saying that I'm backing off on Smerus, only that if Gerda feels he was the lesser problem and she believes that she can work with him, I have respect for Gerda's views on the matter. Gerda is not the "offender" in any of this, my view is that if Gerda is "admonished," then those on the other side should be equally admonished for their behavior. Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not saying that I'm backing off on Smerus...Gerda is not the "offender" in any of this, my view is that if Gerda is "admonished," then those on the other side should be equally admonished for their behavior." Since when did two wrongs make a right? Alfietucker (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[X] really should not scoot out of this scott-free. They DID exacerbate the situation! [Y]". X<Y. And while I appreciate any "aid and comfort" offered, particularly in the face of egregious personal attacks, only I am responsible for the choices I make to accept invitations and act on concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nikki, X=Y or X>Y. If you get smacked for what you did, (and I have already made my comments on that issue, I have nothing more to add there) justice demands that the punishment fit the crime and all "offenders" be appropriately approached. Smerus, Kleinzach (and possibly others) certainly contributed to the mess and you should not be carrying that alone. Scapegoating someone as the sole offender is not justice, nor appropriate, particularly when, as noted here, you and Gerda actually were working stuff out between you. I consider the others with the "lalalalalalanoinfoboxevereverever" attitude to be the far greater problem here. At most, you had a few bad days where you started stalking edits and lost your usual good judgement. They have a longstanding premeditated ownership problem. That's a much deeper concern. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"your actions increasingly appear to be driven by some kind of vendetta". Driving Smerus (one of our best classical music editors) off Wikipedia is not enough. After all, Smerus and Kleinzach messed with core members of WP:QAI and must be punished. I have a strong suspicion they aren't the first to receive this kind of treatment. --Folantin (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin, you and I agreed to a truce on discussing one another's behavior and your QAI conspiracy theories. As we agreed, you struck some of the things you said, particularly about me, and I struck my concerns about you. So let's just keep that hatchet buried. Your stirring the pot was not calming down the situation. If you really want to crank this up again, though, be aware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I return to this after two days off, and again can't believe what I read above. I - a core QAI member - ask for Smerus, a colleague with whom would like to continue working and who accepted a comprise solution on Symphony No. 1 (Sibelius), to not be admonished/restricted. I had no problem with his arguing, minding only one term. Is anything not clear about this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Smerus should be sanctioned to any greater degree than you, Gerda. And I don't think you should be sanctioned at all. But if they are going to treat you like the villain, then the eye needs to be focused on all players equally. However, if left alone, you three would have worked things out between yourselves, but others were not going to allow the sacred ground of the classical music wikiproject local consensus to be altered and were more than willing to bully, intimidate, snark and threaten anyone who challenged the status quo. So really. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing and Joseph Priestley

I'd just like to highlight what Ruhrfisch wrote above: "Please also see Pigsonthewing adding an infobox to Joseph Priestley with the fairly misleading edit summary "template" (diff). I reverted it, citing WP:BRD and the previous consensus not to include an infobox (diff). I then opened a discussion on the talk page where I linked to 4 of the 6 archives where infoboxes are discussed (there is also clear consensus against a box from late 2011 on the current talk page) here and was told by Pigsonthewing "I note that you dismiss my addition of an infobox without making any arguments against it" (which he had not even labeled as an infobox on adding it to the article)."

This shows Andy Mabbett's persistence. I remember bringing up evidence of his warring on the very same very article in the Pigsonthewing2 Arb Case back in 2007 [115]. If it wasn't obvious already, this is why the previous Arb Cases are relevant to this one.

If Mabbett isn't sanctioned properly, we can expect more of the same. --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dance

You read it on the Main page: ... that when rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, conductor Rafael Kubelík said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"?

  • I recommend a closer look at the above mentioned "six more infobox discussions were initiated on article talk pages by the parties involved here during these proceedings", six diffs provided. Yes, I started a few, not for battle, but to see if we can actually argue in decency, as a model for future discussions. I inserted an infobox for Götterdämmerung, for example, - it was reverted and discussed, - have a look what the parties did and if there is anything in it that requires restriction. (I confirm again that I will not add an infobox to another opera, it's enough.) The infobox on Peter Warlock was added by none of the parties. The following discussion reads to me as if the principal author was ready to accept a short infobox. The two discussions on Verdi and Das Liebesverbot were started as part of the arbcom case and only taken to the respective talk pages. Rigoletto was started before the case. Siegfried (opera) was a suggestion on the talk page, a very short eye-opening discussion which I actually enjoyed for literary skill displayed. Don't miss it.
  • I am by now bold enough to recommend a closer look at a diff that was at one point given as a reason to ban Andy. He moved an existing infobox from the bottom up to the top and uncollapsed it. He did that in an article written by me where I wanted an infobox. - Looking at his contributions in 2013, I don't see a reason to restrict him, - what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend a look at the top of my talk: links to several articles, including the symphony mentioned above which has an infobox shaped after the 2007 Buckner model, and some of Andy's recent article work. Enjoy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, a couple of points. The constant reference to Main Page material (and recent article work) is becoming rather wearisome. There is really no point constantly emphasising that and using DYKs (or other Main Page content) as examples. Main Page content is good, but it doesn't have a special or hallowed place on Wikipedia. Things appear on the Main Page only briefly, and far more important is long-term stability and quality. Quoting a DYK hook in an attempt to recast a battle as a dance is distracting and annoying. If you want to say that you think this area should be less a battle and more an area for calm discussion, then just say that without dressing it up as a dance.

I am sure many of the discussions associated with infoboxes are fascinating, but at the end of the day are they really productive and useful? Can you see that some people think that the amount of time and effort that goes into them may outweigh the benefits? Why do people spend so much time on the details, when there is so much other (arguably more productive) work that can be done on Wikipedia? Some people like discussing things like infoboxes, but people have differing tolerance levels: some would like to get back to doing other things, while some seem quite happy to spend weeks and months (even years) discussing infoboxes over many articles (essentially specialising in infoboxes). Can you see how that can end up being be a problem? Imagine this amount of discussion over a category, an article title, an image, the balance of the lead section, the precise wording used at any point in the article itself, or even the quality of the sources used (or not used).

Those discussions do happen (and people do 'specialise' in category work and article title discussions - not always terribly productively in my opinion, but that is their choice), but like the discussions over infoboxes, they need to be focused and not overwhelm the other work that needs doing. My inclination when something is disputed is to recognise that fact and consciously attempt to minimise the impact discussions can have on others, plus (and this is critical) focusing on improving other aspects of the article before even considering returning to previous discussions. If things show no sign of improving after this case, it is extremely likely that those mentioned in the decision (if they continue to contribute to the overall deterioration) will face further sanctions later on, such as topic bans or even site bans. Those named in this decision absolutely need to step back and let others have their say in the post-case discussions. Please consider that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can speak only for myself. I repeat that I don't add infoboxes to "contentious" Classical composers unless they are "my own". I repeat that for articles on operas and Classical music, I stepped back from adding infoboxes and starting discussions on talk pages, unless they are "my own", as this symphony. I confess that I would prefer to see more consistency, all symphonies treated similarly, or at least those by one composer, but will spend no time fighting for that. I hope that consistency may be an aspect in future thoughts on the topic. - I would have chosen a different word than "dance", but could not change a quotation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda, first of all, please note that I'm speaking only in my personal capacity, but would you be willing to enter a gentlemen's agreement under which, for the moment, you accept to refrain from adding infoboxes to single articles, with the exception of those you start, until a better guideline regarding infoboxes is adopted? Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I offered above my way to avoid conflict. Why would you think the project wins if I stop adding infoboxes in the estimated 95% of articles where an infobox is the normal thing to have? (Not that I would have time for it, just curious.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close

Isn't this whole case now rather going around pointlessly in circles? The Arbcom has accepted and established, that which most of us already knew: infoboxes are not mandatory. Furthermore, the Arbcom has established, again what most of us already knew, that certain editors (one in particular) have been vehemently arguing and trying to impose infoboxes on pages against consensus and policy and in doing so, causing disruption. Arbitrators are now themselves becoming guilty of deviation and in danger of exceeding their remit.  Giano  09:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably dot their i's and cross their t's, though. Gerda Arendt restricted (2) and Smerus prohibited are now both marked in the implementation notes as "cannot pass", but each has 5 supports, 5 opposes, and no abstentions. User:Roger Davies's previous votes have been struck but he has not "re-voted" in either of them. Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger's votes were struck not because he changed his mind, but rather because he went inactive. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for that explanation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think it's time to close as long as the proposed "remedy" for Andy ("Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.") would prohibit him from adding an infobox to "his own" articles, such as Francis John Williamson and Selly Manor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well he should have thought of that before he caused all this trouble. If there was any sensible justice in the world, he would be be completely banned and therefore not writing anything at all. He should count himself lucky that he's not.  Giano  11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to like his writing, this edit especially, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Gerda, as far as I'm concerned, Andy is getting off lightly, here; however, having caused enough disruption wrt infoboxes, it's best if he keeps as far away from the topic as humanly possible without exceptions. So, no, I would oppose authorising him add infoboxes to "his own" articles.

Also, as a side note, in the spirit of patti chiari, amicizia lunga, as they say in Italy, (which means "clear understanding breed long friendships", by which I mean that I'm not assuming bad faith of you or anyone else, but just want to make this clear to avoid unpleasant surprises for anybody), if Andy was to ask another editor to add an infobox to an article on his behalf, that may be construed as an attempt to game the restriction and may lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, Gerda, encouraging people to go arownd and arownd in circles again. We are not discussing the quality of Andy Mabbitt's writing - that is not the issue. This case is about the hectoring and bullying that has surrounded the implementation of infoboxes against policy. That has been proven. Now it would help this case enormously if you and others would try and stick to the relevant facts of the case.  Giano  12:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, "it's the irrational hatred of a clique of editors" as noted below that IS the relevant facts of the case and what got us here. Not Gerda. She is the person who was hectored and bullied. Can't anyone understand that? Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make very sure there is no leeway for Mabbett to game the sanctions. You also need to make sure you have the stamina to enforce them - please, Arbs, no offloading the responsibility for enforcement onto the shoulders of some poor admin who will be mobbed by Mabbett's fan club. As far as I'm concerned, Mabbett's already tried a breaching experiment with his addition of an infobox to Joseph Priestley, as noted in the section above. I predict more of the same, unless he's properly supervised. --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin, there is no cabal, and they are not after anyone. Drop the stick, please. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand "implementation of infoboxes against policy" (there is no policy against them) and "mobbed by Mabbett's fan club". Everybody can check Andy's edits, no? Many will. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, as you well know, it's not policy to enforce an infobox: Mabbett frequently wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose them - that's against policy. While your loyalty to Mabbett is to be admired - you really need to accept that he was in the wrong behaving as he did.  Giano  18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had said more than enough but you addressed me personally. So, as gently as I can (imitating the ways of the sadly missed George Ponderevo) I ask as I asked consistently since the beginning of the case: when did Andy add an infobox to an article that was meant to be infobox-free and behave "dictatorially" (however you would reference that term)? You have experiences from a past that I don't share, but the last time I observed him adding an infobox, followed by a long discussion was Cosima Wagner, 25 December 2012 (Please note that the lady isn't even a classical music composer.). What I observed now (see below) is add, make one comment and walk away, see below. I trust that he can do it from now on, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to preclude any answer Giano might provide, but I have to say my very first encounter of Andy here totally chimes with what others, including Giano, have said about his dictatorial behavior. On Talk: Peter Warlock Andy suddenly appeared, intervening in what appeared to be a reasonably civil if candid exchange between Smerus and another editor, who had just posted "I consider myself wrist-slapped. Sorry." Andy's very first comment was: "Don't. Smerus is bullshitting. "no infobox should be added without a formal justification" is utter bunkum." I should add that Andy had latched onto a phrase of Smerus's, which in context has a quite different flavor: "I considered tinkering with the added infobox to remove the irrelevant information included in it. However, on further consideration I believe that, as this article obtained FA status (the highest classification possible for a WP article), no infbox should be added without a formal justification and evdience that it improves the article." i.e. Smerus meant no more or less - it seems clear to me - than anyone wanting to add an infobox should present a written justification for doing so and demonstrate "that it improves the article". Furthermore, Smerus had indeed, as I'd seen from the edits on the article, attempted to improve the content of the infobox before deciding - quite rightly in my opinion - that the infobox was a poor introductory tool for this particular article.
Anyway, Andy proceeded to edit-war over the info box, twice reverting within 70 minutes to reinstate it without offering any justification, and only desisting when a *third* editor (neither Smerus or myself) intervened and removed the infobox. If anyone cares to check the talk page, they will see that - quite apart from my being offended by Andy's rude appearance and attitude - I actually went over the objections Smerus had raised against the box, pointing out that he had at least tried to make it work, whereas Andy by contrast offered no argument or attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of the box but was, as I said at that time, "imposing the infobox for no stated reason whatsoever". I wrote this based entirely on what I had seen him write on that talk page (I've just checked, and that was absolutely his first post there), and his edits on the article. Andy continued to refuse to answer any points either Smerus or I had raised about the article and the infobox, but simply brandished the straw man he had made - i.e. his selective quotation from Smerus.
I have since understood there was a past "history" between Andy and Smerus. Still, that does not excuse Andy's behavior on that (still quite recent) occasion. Alfietucker (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You describe your perception well, and everybody interested can follow the discussion. You might have mentioned that Andy had not added the box, - we were talking about "wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose them". (I think I mentioned already somewhere that I don't mind bullshit here, bollocks there. Telling someone - possibly a user who never heard that an infobox can be a problem and who felt "wrist-slapped" by a revert: "don't" [feel wrist-slapped], - how do you describe that?) You might have added that the further discussion with the main author (Smerus had made only one edit before) reached acceptance for a shorter infobox. This - discussing the content (!) of the infobox - could have been achieved without a revert. The only reason why an infobox is not in the article seems to be that the author is waiting for "less volatile times". I wish him patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what was being discussed. In the Peter Warlock instance Andy certainly "wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose" an infobox: the fact he was not the original author is not the issue; what is relevant is that he twice reverted within 70 minutes to keep it there, which *was* an imposition (and disregarded BRD), and the fact he refused to offer any explanation to justify this makes his actions dictatorial. I'm afraid Giano's description of Andy's behaviour matches this case fairly exactly. Alfietucker (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a coincidence that Mabbett chose Joseph Priestley at this particular time.--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already talk of gaming the system (or not gaming the system) here]. My view is that Andy Mabbett's continued presence will be disruptive by its very existence. How will we know that infoboxes are not being added by his many 'students of Wikipedia' and what influence will he exert as Wikipedian in residence (the Wikipedian in Residence at Queen Street Textile Mill Museum, Burnley; also the Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall; Wikipedian in Residence at Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service (winter 2012/2013) and Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador). If he's allowed to remain a 'Wikipedian', the whole thing is unpoliceable.  Giano  13:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of monitoring infoboxes added by 'students" would by just the same even if he was banned. Now I - in a way a student - restricted myself, will not infoboxes for opera and classical music other than "my own". But for a building such as Selly Manor: where's a problem with a 'student' adding an infobox? Then why not allow the author to add it himself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you really are not getting it are you? The whole point of this case seems to have passed you by in some sort of fluffy cloud of cotton wool. I shall say no more and leave it to the Arbs to see that this case needs wrapping up tightly before we are all suffocated by any more thick fog.  Giano  13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, you have just exemplified the locus of this dispute. It's not the infoboxes, it's the irrational hatred of a clique of editors who are so vehemently opposed to the great unwashed editing "their" articles that they feel it gives them the right to talk to other editors like something they just stepped in. This is an encyclopaedia built by collaboration, and no editor has the right to take the sort of tone your posts above take with Gerda. There is no need for it, and its only purpose is demean other editors, so kindly knock it off. I'm not going to sit here and defend Andy—he knows his conduct has been unacceptable and it's up to him to see the error of his ways—but nothing he or any of the pro-infobox crowd have done gives you license to attempt to patronise and demean Gerda or anybody else like that. I'm firmly of the belief that if both sides stopped stopped bickering like children and stopped trying to get one-up on each other, you might actually find some common ground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like You got it in one, HJ. That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to explain all along! Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case would have been simply and quickly resolved if people were capable of (and advised)to sticking to relevant facts. Instead we have had millions of words going of at tangents. You say, User:HJ Mitchell, "Andy knows his conduct has been unacceptable" - well you seem to be the only person who has spotted that amid the huge smokescreen of waffle that's been created. So don't you come here preaching like some puritanical Sir Gallahad telling us what we all should have seen and how to behave because you appear to be alone in your observations.  Giano  20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think HJ Mitchell is all that alone in how he believes people should be behaving, Giano. I've found your comments to be consistently derisive too. As for Andy, HJ is not alone there either. Several people, including arbitrators, have acknowledged Andy's own acknowledgment that his behavior needs improvement. equazcion (talk) 20:16, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • Drowning people invariably learn to swim a few strokes before they sink for the third time - and I believe it will be Andy's third time. I admre your faith and trust, but really its naivety is worrying.  Giano  20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any trust or faith. It's not myself who thinks Andy will get better. I don't know anything about him and have no experience with him. But you said HJ was alone in his observations, and I just wanted to correct you. equazcion (talk) 20:25, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • ".I don't know anything about him and have no experience with him" Then why on earth are you here? Sitting like a little old woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine.  Giano  20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm here because I wanted to refocus a little of this case on the larger underlying issue, and suggested a proposed decision recommending a community RfC, which was subsequently added and passed. I may not know anything about the involved parties prior to this case, but solving the greater issue interests me. Some of us do make appearances in the interest of something other than interpersonal drama. equazcion (talk) 20:33, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
"Andy knows his conduct has been unacceptable". His addition of an infobox to Joseph Priestley on 2 September would suggest otherwise, especially given the history of his prior involvement in that article. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy's friends are currently bestowing him with the gifts of humility and remorse that his actions don't seem to portray. Throughout this has been a strong theme of the case - I wonder if the Arbs are clever enough to see through the fog and cotton wool. Time will tell.  Giano  20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So people who don't know Andy shouldn't be commenting here, and anyone who supports him must be his friend. I have to say, Giano, without being privy to this conflict, if I had to ascertain who might be most responsible for its escalation, you'd be at the top of my list, based on what I'm seeing on this page. It's a shame the case is nearly concluded without a decision regarding you, as I have a feeling your continued involvement in infobox issues will cause continued problems.equazcion (talk) 22:57, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You can't base a judgement on this case only by what you see on this page, that's the point.Smeat75 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, Equazcion, you are not privy to this conflict. Were you informed on this subject, you would be aware that Mabbett and I have only come into contact when you has wandered off the street onto pages where I have been a significant editor (note: I do not say my pages) on one occasion I would go as far as to say he was provocatively trolling a page. I have frequently declined to comment on his edits to musical pages because, while I sympathise, I have not edited those pages. However, My advice to Mr Mabbett is if you don't want trouble don't go looking for it. Like most editors here, I woudl quite like a quiet life without being ordered and dictated to by misinformed editors who have already been banned twice (without any help from me) because of their behavior on this subject.  Giano  06:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the crux of the conflict, is it not? My understanding is that the way "significant" editors react when someone from "outside" comes along to make changes is central. Referring to the them as "coming in off the street" and "looking for trouble", etc, is the stance from the involved parties in opposition to Andy, rather than being some special circumstance that precludes your being referred to as involved. equazcion (talk) 06:22, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)

I can see that this is very difficult for you to grasp. Let me try to explain it simply: Arriving on a page upon which one has never edited (but is often still in progress by a group of dedicated and knowledgeable editors) and then making major changes without at least minor consultation is at the least extreme bad manners, at worst disruptive. When the dedicated and knowledgeable editors unanimously reject Andy's changes, he edit wars and causes trouble and distress. Often he plonks his infobox on a fully formed page which has attained or is attaining GA or FA status (again without consultation) and then wanders off and expect others to maintain it. That this causes resentment and anger is hardly surprising. Your "crux" of this matter is that Mr Mabbett is the architect of his own misfortune and attempts by his supporters to try and shift the blame are misguided.  Giano  06:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to make my stance easier to grasp as well: I'm more than aware of your stance and who you think is to blame. That's not in contention at the moment. Perhaps Andy has acted inappropriately, or perhaps not -- I wouldn't presume to know this without delving deeper into several page histories. Your own manner in dealing with it, if the comments on this page are any indication, tells me it is likely that he is far from the sole reason this conflict has escalated to an arbitration case; and I suspect the conflict will survive any measures implemented against him if you continue to act in the future the way you are here. equazcion (talk) 06:51, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • I rather think you will find, if you bother to research before further commenting, that compared to the long term trouble that Mr Mabbett has caused others, my involvement with him has been minimal. In fact, I have often felt guilty for not doing more to support the many beleaguered musical editors who have suffered from his behavior. However, my own personal view is that editors should not become involved in pages about which they know nothing. This is a public page, so it is right that all who have experience of the subject can bring their grievances here - providing they understand what they are talking about. It seems to me that you belong to a class, once known as the Peanut Gallery. I suggest that you read up before commenting further.  Giano  07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on your behavior on this page, Giano, which I'm equipped to do, having been involved here and read the entire thing. You're free to dismiss me using whichever personal criteria you deem acceptable, although I seem to not be alone in my assessment, among at least one person who does appear to meet your criteria. equazcion (talk) 08:06, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You are actually wasting time and space by deliberately deviating and obscuring with hot air; so I shall cut off your oxygen and not engage further here with you.  Giano  08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this exchange has deviated from the point, and I don't have any interest in wasting time (I'm not sure what possible motivation I would have in doing so deliberately). If most of the people here have come in order to assess the conflict from a user behavior standpoint, I think this is a rather relevant discussion, even though it's not my own primary reason for being here. Your responses here have demonstrated that you handle disagreements by responding derisively, resorting to name calling and attempting to "score hits", as they say; quite the opposite of attempting to defuse the situation. I do hope this is a unique result of my somehow having inadvertently pushed your buttons (if so, I do apologize), and I similarly hope this isn't how you normally engage those with whom you have disagreements. If this is how you've been handling infobox conflicts, then I think something needs to change there if the matter is to progress better in the future. equazcion (talk) 08:27, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio and Hahc21, since Roger Davies is now listed as inactive, shouldn't all of his votes have been struck? I notice that his "oppose" at Pigsonthewing banned remains. Not that it makes any difference to the outcome, but there should be an accurate record of how the final vote was split. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an oversight, which I have just corrected. Thanks for pointing this out! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification re "Editors reminded" section

I would still like arbitrators to clarify, preferably in the decision itself, what exactly is meant when it says "All editors are reminded ....to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" which would seem to me to mean that any discussion of "metadata" or machine readability or wikidata etc should never be introduced into discussions about whether a specific article should have an infobox or not as that is exactly an issue "about infoboxes in general". Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the point I made on 3 September: " . . . If centralized discussions of key aspects of “infoboxes in general” have never taken place, then that avoidance will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.". So I support Smeat75's call for clarification. Kleinzach 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it, the principle invites editors to discuss each case on its merits, i.e. why an infobox would be a good or a bad addition to the article in question. This may include references to metadata and machine readability.

In my opinion, this remedy was only meant to indicate that generalisations such as "infoboxes are always good, no article should go without one" and its opposite "infoboxes are the worst thing ever" should be avoided at all times. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A discussion about infoboxes in general" is not quite the same thing as "a generalisation about infoboxes". Arguably generalizations are always bad . . . . but in reality the arguments have related to specific templates rather than individual articles, e.g. the use of Infobox musical artist for classical composers, so they haven't normally been about infoboxes in general, or about individual articles either. Kleinzach 12:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"infoboxes are always good" because they emit metadata, etc., is just what has been said in hundreds of these arguments which, if anything is going to change, should not be acceptable any more in discussions of specific articles, in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What this case is about: The right to say no (and have it stick)

Many of our basic rights can be expressed as a right to say no. An election allows voters to say no to the candidates or leaders they do not want. Free speech is the right to disagree, to say "no, that is not what I think". Many protections of a civil society involve the rights of minorities to say no to the majority (no, children cannot work in factories; or no, you cannot enslave others; or no, you cannot stop me from voting, etc.).

On Wikipedia, ALL of the Five Pillars can be seen in some way as rights to say no:

What Wikipedia is not (No to all things not encyclopedic);
Neutral point of view (No to bias);
Wikipedia is free content (No to payment for or restrictions on use and re-use)
Civility (No to offensive language, no to ignoring the positions and conclusions of others, and no to attacking others)
Ignore all rules (No to any rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia)

As far as infoboxes go, WP:INFOBOXUSE says in part "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." To me that says that editors have the right to say no (on occasion) to infoboxes. This applies to all sorts of articles, not just classical music. So Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park and Horse Protection Act of 1970 and British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War are all FAs and none of them have infoboxes, and that's OK.

I am not against infoboxes, per se (and most of the aticles I've nominated at FAC have a box of some sort). I am against any "one size fits all" solution, and I am in favor of editors having the right to say no to an infobox. I am also in favor of decisions being decided by consensus, and then allowed to stay that way. Let it stick, and don't bring it up over and over and over and over and over again ...

This is the last thing I plan to say about infoboxes for the next three months.1 I invite everyone to take a break, think things over, and hopefully let things calm down. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1If someone adds an infobox to an article on my watchlist without one, I reserve the right to discuss it there, or to comment on a RfC on this topic.

  • Very reasonable and well expressed - I agree. Alfietucker (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should form part of the Decision. I've yet to read a better expression of the moderate infobox-sceptic position. Kleinzach 00:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include infoboxes in new articles which they create

"They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." is a clause in the planned restriction for me, and I can live with that. This clause is still not in one of the restrictions for Andy. please think about it. Philosopher, with a background of law, noticed this (see above, "My only thought was that since this is about conflict between users, a restriction where there was only one user would be irrelevant."), improved wordings were suggested by Mackensen, supported by SchroCat.

I support that Andy may add infoboxes to his own new articles.

  1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- I would agree. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, Though I think my modification of Mackensen's proposal above is better still. He would not be able to revert or argue against any subsequent removal so there is no risk of extended argie-bargie. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: I agree that your version is better, also Mackensen's proposals. This is more an idea than a specific wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm going to go out of my way and AGF here, with some additional criterion: articles which Andy has personally started (first edit) and the infobox may only be included in that first edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd support; also if I were to create an article and ask Andy to help me, I'd sure prefer that optionL there are dozens of wikiprojects where infoboxes are standard operating procedure and the local consensus is to encourage them; more than not, in fact. Is there any project other than the classical music ones that have such an anti-infobox position? (Wondering) Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Andy having nothing to do with infoboxes whatsoever anywhere.

  1. --  Giano  15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What Giano said. I can already guess how this concession might be gamed. --Folantin (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't - how? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should be careful of WP:BEANS, but one way would be the creation of dozens of stubby one- or two-line articles in certain subject areas, just so those pages can have obligatory infoboxes. --Folantin (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which anyone not restricted can remove without comeback. I think this is pretty far-fetched, and would it be the end of the world? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I agree with Folantin, John, as you say anyone could remove infoboxes that Mabbett inserted; his pages would become a playground for trolls and anons and cause even more trouble. Personally, I would keep a lot of spave between me and any page he created, but you know what Wikipedia can be like....  Giano  08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by ColonelHenry

If Andy creates an article, he should be able to add whatever he wants by way of infoboxes, templates, widgets, whatever. Telling an editor "you can't do this" when other editors can violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Personally, even though I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, a good infobox is a benefit to an article. Where the infobox is lacking, I can understand the desire some editors in deciding against adding one. But it is nonsensical where there's a net improvement to article to avoid adding one. I wish the infobox policies on Wikipedia would change...especially in the classical music area. Infoboxes should be on a case by case basis (balancing the informativeness of infobox with the needs of the article), there shouldn't be any blanket edicts banning them by either a WikiProject or a well-organised clique of determined editors intransigently insisting one way or the other irregardless of the facts or rationale. Further, I don't see the point of irrational arbitration cases giving edicts of "thou shalt not add infoboxes." A dictum of "we're not going to provide infoboxes because the information's already in the article" doesn't address all users....while I like reading the articles, I have to acknowledge that 90% of readers give an article 30 seconds despite our best efforts and useless arguing. And penalizing Andy for improving an article is a ludicrous position just because someone is vehemently anti-infobox. Apparently, I wouldn't be surprised the same people who refuse editors to classical music articles the freedom to choose whether or not to infobox are probably listening to Shostakovich and know Stalin denounced him for exercising freedom in creating and almost silenced him over insistence on similar bullshit. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; was Shostakovich for or against infoboxes? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Rather *against*, I'd say. Seriously, though, if we're going to evoke Stalin it could be argued with more pertinence that those who insist on infoboxes being inserted in an article - against the wishes of those editors who are familiar with the subject - are rather like Stalin insisting that every artist should work within the aesthetic of Socialist Realism. More to the point, isn't it usually argued (by Gerda, for instance) that infoboxes are *not* meant to be, and cannot be, a 30 second summary of an article? It's precisely your confusion on this matter which adds grist to the mill to those who are concerned that infoboxes, rather than enhancing, can short-circuit an article: i.e. you've just demonstrated the mindset of those readers who think all they need to crib up on the subject is to read the infobox, rather than the lead/lede which demonstrably - when well written - does that job much more efficiently. Alfietucker (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You called me: what do you think I argued? Summary not of the article, but key facts? Yes. Any time in seconds given? No. - I believe an infobox serves an article like a cover a book, but I don't insist, and I respect the wish of a main author, even if I don't understand it. - Yesterday I was pleasantly surprised seeing the main author of Peter Warlock experimenting with an operatic infobox, - if a new era begins with a small step, I can easily leave the scene ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the implication of "ColonelHenry's statement: "A dictum of "we're not going to provide infoboxes because the information's already in the article" doesn't address all users....while I like reading the articles, I have to acknowledge that 90% of readers give an article 30 seconds despite our best efforts and useless arguing." Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument - I guess I should have written something like "infoboxes are *not* meant to be, and cannot be, a summary of an article ("30 seconds" or otherwise)". My point - about the evident danger of readers treating infoboxes as a "crib" for an article - still stands. Alfietucker (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Aside: Actually, the Stalin page is a brilliant demonstration of the uselessness of biographical infoboxes. The box contains tons of trainspotterish information while completely failing to get to the essence of the man's "achievements" (Ukrainian famine or Great Purge, anyone?). I think I've already mentioned Adolf Eichmann as another example of the box's ability to miss the point in a crashingly offensive, anal retentive way). --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler are further gems in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually, the Stalin page is a brilliant demonstration of the uselessness of biographical infoboxes." - I think this is too general. If one box is bad, it doesn't demonstrate the uselessness of others. If one is bad because the wrong parameters were chosen and filled badly, it can be discussed and adjusted on article level. If the template doesn't provide the right parameters, that can be discussed and fixed on the template level. We improved infobox book by providing wikisource in other languages, not only English, for example, and working on the publishing (next thread there), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, Stalin and the Nazis. We've now invoked Godwin's Law. Sheesh. I love those biography infoboxes in general, the one for Stalin is a bit long and overdone, but "trainspotterish" info is helpful and often what people ARE looking for in the "cover" of the article (nice analogy, Gerda, I like it). Let's NOT start in on this in other wikiprojects, I beg you! Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw - just to politely point out, in case it's escaped anyone's notice, that Stalin was first evoked by one of the *pro* infobox supporters: make of that what you will. Alfietucker (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep saying: it really is about time this case was closed.  Giano  17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really is time to knock this on the head. --Folantin (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, given that they are waiting for a 24 hour stable consensus (people keep changing their votes), we can't quite get there, but perhaps as far as the wall of text on THIS page, where we non-ArbCom members have been debating forever and I doubt any minds have changed much, perhaps we finally have said something we can all agree on for this page, at least? Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case is closing

A brief note to let those posting here know that the case is now closing. Please read what I said earlier above. There may be some more discussion at the arbitration noticeboard once the case is closed, but other than that, please let things calm down and allow people to work out in their own time what to do next (if anything). In particular, if any editors sanctioned in this case decide to seek clarification from the committee (at WP:ARCA), please give them time and space to do so by themselves without extraneous commentary. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep telling us it's closing, but it never seems to. Viewing the Arb's voting is as thrilling as sitting in the middle row at the opera, desperate to go to the loo, and watching Tosca repeatedly trampolining above the parapet. Get a move.  Giano  08:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is now closed, given the parties have been handed final decision notices. My view: some promising points, but it's too early to tell. The real test will be whether this is enforced properly and what a certain editor decides to do with yet another last chance he has been given. Also, there's the question of whether Smerus returns to editing at some point in the future (let's hope so). I think we should have a moratorium on the infobox issue of, say, three months (I believe something of the kind has been suggested elsewhere on this page). Even that will be too soon.--Folantin (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed_decision"