Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. There is consensus that the page is furthering the infobox wars, whether or not that was the intention. SarahSV (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox


This is a problematic page in that it essentially victimises a small group of editors who are known to not approve of infoboxes in arts and biographies. Though other articles are included in an attempt to make the list more discreet, articles by Tim Riley, Brianboulton, Cassianto, SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld feature strongly in the list, who have all been at the centre of long and discriminatory discussions on infoboxes. This page can be considered a breeding ground for infobox warring, serving as a sort of "launch pad" for infobox enforcement, enabling pro-infobox supporters to pick on articles and causing trouble, which is counterproductive.

During the past two months, there have been four large scale discussions on infoboxes, all of which have been disruptive. They are Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe Affair, and Josephine Butler. With the exception of Butler, all are FAs and have featured no infoboxes. Sagaciousphil recently removed several articles from this list, believing that this list is unfair for targeting articles. I think this list has outstayed its welcome. I believe that Gerda stated that it was only constructed anyway for the purposes of an arb discussion. JAG UAR   18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete For the sake of the peace...♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with Dr. B. It's not happenstance that articles-particularly FAs, are hit with this conflict and many times over and over again.  Boxes aren't mandatory and as seen time and again, everyone does not view them as an improvement. The rhetoric re: IBs has increased markedly since lifting of bans and restrictions in 2015 on those who were ARB sanctioned.  Check the user pages of anyone who is either against infoboxes or believes they're voluntary--no one has an "anti-IB" list. We hope (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment An avid score is being kept as seen by the latest entry re: the Noël Coward infobox RFC. The edit summary says "‎let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing".  The people who put considerable time and effort into these articles certainly are not amused. We hope (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Show this page to Arbcom, then delete. It seems obvious that the only purpose of this "WikiProject" is to attract editors whose purpose is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors.  It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a 118-word statement of the wikiproject's goals, in which "infobox" appears once, as an example, and the page doesn't promote inserting them everywhere, it just says they're within scope. That's even consistent with removing them from where they are not helpful. The project's goals appear to be general.  Rather, there's a mismatch between the personal essay-and-stats-page at issue in this MfD, and the wikiproject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the page seems indeed to be in effect an incitement to attack. Declaration of interest: a number of the articles listed on this page have involved me as a leading or significant contributor, including Chopin and Verdi (at the time when promotion to GA/FA was under way) and many of the Wagner operas. I notice btw the list interestingly doesn't include Richard Wagner, which was the source of some major Arbcom infobox-related uproar in which a number of QAI project members were involved. --Smerus (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above – and yes, show it to ArbCom before it goes. Considering this list is curated by an individual who adds one infobox a day, every day. Should we make a list of these to target, or start stripping them out as having no consensus to add? As with Smerus, a number of articles on which I have worked extensively are present on the list. – Gavin (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the very recent edit summary linked by We hope above ("actually quite amusing") is indicative of the purely disruptive purpose behind this list. I first became aware of it when a very basic article I created was added - see the article history for more details - this was followed by several instances of the article being linked on a number of editors talk pages that I can supply diffs for tomorrow once I have access to a 'proper' computer. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The page is a talk page of a project page, with an archive. It is strictly a page of reverted infoboxes, no call to any action. One user has deleted articles from the list. You can do the same, feel free. The page doesn't have to be "shown to arbcom", because it was shown several times, during the arbcom case about a feature that I am determined not to mention again this year, and now in several discussions. Thanks for the attention. Answering some points.
 * The list doesn't victimise any editor because intentionally no names of editors are given.
 * I stated that the list was begun for the arb case, not that it was only for it.
 * Wagner is not mentioned, because the suggestion of an infobox was strictly for the talk page, not the article.
 * Please simply revert articles on the list that you don't want to see there. I didn't return the ones removed before, and will not return others. Please keep the numbered ones, - the 59 reverts that the arb case should have looked into. - I am not interested in boxes, only in article quality. . "Letting go of the past" is a good poem, by Poeticbent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I add when I happen to see things. I was not aware of Solti until Brian mentioned it in the discussion you initiated for the arbitrators, Fleming came up in an RfA that closed today, Coward was changed three times today, too much to follow. Again, you can remove what disturbs you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to mention the word infobox for the rest of the year. Will you let me? We can start today, - so I said in the case, in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many wrong assumptions, sorry, starting with the premise. The list is only about infoboxes REVERTED. I don't care what you do in an article you create. When I see an infobox reverted, I take notice, and if there's an RfC I comment. If I add an infobox and it's reverted, I take it to the talk, see (again) the Handel operas. Discussions can be that short, with the revert accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I do understand yours and Mabbett's view that every article should have an infobox" You clearly understand no such thing. That is not my view and I have several times in the past made clear that it is not. I therefore ask you to strike ASAP your dishonest or mistaken insinuation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Dr Blofield has now removed (not struck) the comment to which I rereferred (and several others) leaving mine looking nonsensical. [I have repaired the damage done to the indenting of replies to him by adding blank lines.] Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you and others of your ilk go and strike the dishonest or mistaken insinuations of "infobox haters", "anti-infobox editors", and other variants that have been directed at me and others. - Gavin (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're tilting at Windmills, SchroCat. Dr. Blofeld isn't allowed to make false claims about me, regardless. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No windmills, I do assure you, but it is interesting to note the 'false claims' (both in general and toward specific individuals) is an ongoing thread of the disputes. – Gavin (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you and others of your ilk go and strike the dishonest or mistaken insinuations of "infobox haters", "anti-infobox editors", and other variants that have been directed at me and others. - Gavin (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're tilting at Windmills, SchroCat. Dr. Blofeld isn't allowed to make false claims about me, regardless. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No windmills, I do assure you, but it is interesting to note the 'false claims' (both in general and toward specific individuals) is an ongoing thread of the disputes. – Gavin (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

*Yet more nonsensical crap twisted and distorted by the maintainer of this "list". If it is supposedly acceptable to simply remove articles, why does that editor choose to emphasise the articles removed? Again it is worth drawing attention to the edit summary of "actually quite amusing" which demonstrates the purely disruptive intention. SagaciousPhil - Chat

This list victimizes editors by forcing them to continue to defend their editorial choices regarding no infobox for articles they edit. It steals their time, which could be spent in improving other articles or off-wiki, with friends and family. If this list is supposedly "the past", why has it been so well-maintained, including today's "‎let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing"? We hope (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- unlike Doc. B, I'm not sorry, and I'm happy to see this go.   Cassianto Talk   00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is just another round in the infobox wars. WP:QAI is a project that has been around for years and an attempt to delete this page and its contents is not going to help anyone here.  There is nothing disruptive about the existence of this page other than it being a pileon for all the usual suspects. I really hate to see everyone—on both sides—going at this again.  I respectfully ask that this be withdrawn.   Montanabw (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The chart which keeps track of when the boxes have been added, then deleted, and are then in the processes of being added again, are indicative of the kind of behaviour which we have seen at lots of articles of late that are infoboxeless. It is a shame, but it's been a long time coming and there are a lot of disgruntled and shit-upon editors who have had enough of this kind of behaviour.   Cassianto Talk   02:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not disruptive to advocate a movement toward a standardized format both visually and with a machine-readable, simple summary such as is currently done by means of an infobox. This page, in part, is a record of the various debates and discussions that have occurred and helps serve a useful purpose in tracking the evolving consensus (or lack thereof) on the issue.  As such, it is far from disruptive, it is, in fact useful.   Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userify. I fail to understand how this is any more disruptive than someone's user talk page. Deletion wouldn't be the answer there either. This is not an attack page, and trying to reframe it as one is just not credible. If someone is being disruptive, or if the infobox wars are ongoing, then there are other fora to address that behavior. If it becomes apparent in such a discussion that this page solely serves as a vehicle for that disruption, then perhaps deletion would be appropriate. MfD is just a poor mechanism for addressing the issues claimed here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you "fail to understand how this is any more disruptive than someone's user talk page" then you are not reading the posts correctly and know nothing of the arguments which have led to this.  Cassianto Talk   02:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Things shouldn't be deleted as disruptive or harassing because some select few assign a personal meaning to it. For something to be appropriately deleted as disruption or harassment at MfD the disruption or harassment should be visible on the face of the page. Just looking at the page I see a collection of links that someone evidently finds useful. Your claim that some individual posts are disruption or harassment has no bearing on whether this page should be deleted. If individual posts are problematic, then a complaint should be lodged about behavior. A walled garden like MfD is not a means for bootstrapping a consensus to hamstring the efforts of someone with whom you disagree or whose conduct you find objectionable. Grasp the nettle. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for your talk of walled gardens, boots, hamstrings or nettles, but I do care about someone coming into this half-cocked, which I fear is what you have done.  Cassianto Talk   02:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Userfy I was expecting to see some horrible attack page when I clicked on the link, it appears to just be a summary of the discussions involving whether to display or not display infoboxes. A good example of the Streisand effect, I would not have even known about it if it had not been put up for deletion. I am not sure it has useful material for the general reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why userfy? It's a project talk. It lists when an infobox was added, and if it exists, - just FACTS. No user names, no dates of debates, - all this can be found on the talk pages. The list follows discussions, doesn't initiate them. Look at the discussions of Pierre Boulez, for example, or Handel's lost Hamburg operas, and don't tell me I am driving away Brian and Tim with whom I wrote Messiah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems incorrect to include the Thorpe affair in the list of recent infobox disputes since the dispute there is about quote boxes, a completely different can of worms. AFAIK, there has never been a serious discussion to include an infobox on that article. clpo13(talk) 05:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to challenge the "target" view, but probably in vain. Thorpe was for sure not discussed because of this list, because it was not on it. I doubt that any recent discussion was caused by this list which only follows and keeps track of the status-quo. Until it was stylized as the "infobox warriors hit list" recently, it had attention of 1 or 2 viewers a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've already invited the nominator to take the allegations - albeit they are clearly fallacious - to ANI or Arbcom, when I collapsed a good part of the nomination as an unacceptable. They amy not have seen that, as my doing so was summarily reverted. Just as "deletion is not cleanup", so it is not to be used to attack editors, nor to remove project pages which they find useful, but which are not liked by others. I trust Arbcom will be as interested in the tone of the nomination and supporting posts on this page as they may be in the nominated page; indeed more so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note The inclusion of Thorpe affair in the original nomination was stuck, not by the nominator. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This just isn't the right venue. ANI or ArbCom is where this issue should be. Simply under ArbCom's remaining seized of issues once brought before it, and on the face of the complaint here, this belongs at ArbCom, because it's a complaint about behavior. Every single post has been about behavior, not about the content on this page. MfD is not a venue to address or redress editor conduct. The real shame of bringing this complaint here is that it gives the appearance of impropriety; MfD is notoriously low-traffic and low-visibility, it's clear OP knows of the more common fora for addressing behavioral complaints, and it's clear OP could have brought this complaint there instead. I'm not saying this was brought for an improper purpose rather than perhaps as a misunderstanding of what the purpose of MfD is. But this just isn't the right place. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it's clear OP knows of the more common fora for addressing behavioral complaints, and it's clear OP could have brought this complaint there instead, no it isn't. I don't follow anything to do with ArbCom and my attempt to submit a MfD was made in good faith because the target page is a breeding ground for more disruption regarding infoboxes. If there was a page dedicated to removing infoboxes then it would have been deleted in less than a week. I don't think this is a complaint about the behaviour of people, but rather it's a complaint of the negative repercussions that this page brings. JAG  UAR   12:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the simple list of facts about when an infobox was created in an article can lead to "negative repercussions" and be a "breeding ground", and "victimize" editors who are not even mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, looking closer, four discussions were mentioned, Holst is not on this list (never had an infobox, so no revert), Coward was discussed in February 2016 and again on 2 August, only then (12 hours later) added here. the revert of the longstanding infobox on Butler and its immediate discussion was 18 May, added here 31 May. Thorpe is struck. I see no factual base for any correlation between articles in this list as cause for discussions. - This is another waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. This isn't a common law court. You can't just plead a behavioral dispute as a problem with a particular page and expect that to fly. And I find your claim to have no knowledge of the ArbCom case disingenuous in light of this user talk thread referencing this ANI thread. And for that matter, this should have been brought at ANI instead, and you and I both know that you have knowledge of ANI. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are addressing that comment to?   Cassianto Talk   14:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Me, I think. I still don't think that this page is a behavioural issue but if somebody wants to take it to ArbCom then it's fine with me. JAG  UAR   15:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – I always felt this page as an instrument of division among Wikipedians. The adjoining project space page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox should be userfied, as it is a frozen opinion, now quite old (apart from a few recent paragraphs, not suceptible to community revision either), and not susceptible to community revision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The project page was . - The talk is no instrument but a memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, soliloquy, not open to community revision, untenable in project space. All the "old" stuff is still on the page, and what was added today is as frozen as the old stuff. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Our (project members') view didn't change. The addition expressed some things better than I could. If you have good revisions to make, feel free, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ? All my edits to the page, some of them pretty good ones, at least trying to address Arb suggestions from the Infoboxes case, were reverted, some of them even permanently deleted. Not the right time to be sanctimonious I think, the page is as divisive for the editing community as its talk page: "us" (project members) vs. "them" (all who doesn't agree to the soliloquy) was always at its very base (and the reason given for unashamed reverting of my edits to that page). But then, you never liked ArbCom in this matter, so seems clear you were only too happy to thwart their recommendations for a community discussion (which was the exact intent of my edits to that page). So, no stolid, frozen soliloquy — not tenable in project space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a project page, - are you surprised that members think "us"? - Help my memory about the reverting, please. What I vaguely remember is that you moved a project page to my user space and wrote something else instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: When I look at the Coward-RfC I don't know where to begin a community discussion. If you do, please begin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "I don't know where to begin a community discussion. If you do, please begin." – again, this is not the time to be sanctimonious. I began the community discussion, it was deleted. On that page.
 * Re. "It's a project page, - are you surprised that members think "us"?" – in my long experience with Wikipedia, infobox-related project pages are the only ones where "you're not a project member" is used as a deletion rationale. That is divisive. No, WikiProject pages that are beneficial to the Wikipedia project don't have this "us" vs. "them" mentality (I edit project guidance for projects where I'm not a member etc.), all the more reason to do away with this, because you really, really don't seem to get that all this acerbation of divisiveness has no place in this project. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs please, User:Francis Schonken. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So, no diffs, then. Your allegations should be judged accordingly. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other delete arguments. Little more than a tag team co-ordination page which has no business in project space or anywhere else on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please name one "tag-team" you think came from this list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many examples are cited on this very page. I'm hardly the only user to have concluded WP:QAI operates more like a clique/tag team than a conventional WikiProject.--Folantin (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, four examples have been cited, two of them were never in the list, the other two were added after discussions had begun. Your chance to name a first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, there are more than four. --Folantin (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I looked for links. Verdi, added without the slightest protest, no wonder, after Viva-Verdi had added infoboxes to all his operas, also without protest, as far as I know. Chopin: after discussion, Brianboulton, agreed on by the pricipal editor Smerus. Francis can tell you what happened next. Again: no tag team. Wagner operas: see a discussion on project opera. All friendly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The Wagner discussion involved the very kind of WP:QAI tag-teaming I have in mind. Especially considering one of the WP:QAI participants there was the sock of a notorious banned user (User:JackTheVicar) and another mysteriously and acrimoniously vanished soon after . --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the closing comments, - perhaps we could take them to our hearts. Do you think one of the editors said something they didn't believe, a year ago? - Admittedly, the tone was sweeter more recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Gerda, this is what you wrote a long time ago: "I dislike "boxing" of creative art in general (s. Toshio Hosokawa boxed "Neo-Impressionism") and dislike redundancy as a cause of likely mistakes, so would vote on both reasons against required info-boxes - but don't oppose voluntary ones". Six years ago . That's about the wisest thing you've ever said on the subject of infoboxes. Sadly, at some point you departed from this wisdom and became a warrior. Much damage has been caused to relationships, and more will follow unless things change. So please, get rid of this ptovocative list, and  reconnect with the editors who would be your collaborators and friends. Have no more to do with those whose  concern is not music, but infoboxes, infoboxes, infoboxes. They are false friends. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I, at least for a while. That is still no reason to delete a list of facts. I will archive, hope that's ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy. This MfD is WP:KETTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT drama, one side of a dispute trying to WP:WIN by deleting material that pertains to their "enemy". The page in question is nothing at all but a personal ("I ...") statement about of infoboxes, followed by handy discussion-outcome stats (which can be used by anyone, whatever their opinion about the templates in question). The personal statement part is angelic compared to many of the statements against infoboxes by their foes (e.g. that they are for "idiots" who "can't read" and that anyone who installs one in an article is a "vandal", etc.; I could supply a mile of diffs about that kind of behavior, but this is not a user disciplinary forum, something the "show this to ArbCom!" people above need to keep in mind).  The fact that there are a few editors who make an unnecessarily dramatic stand out of opposing infoboxes, instead of just letting RfCs and other discussions about them proceed in a normal fashion to their pro or con consensus conclusions, means that articles in which those editors are are involved in infobox discussions will necessarily appear in the stats. The page does not single out particular editors in any way at all.  However, it does not appear to be a wikiproject page per se, it's just Gerda Arendt's page, so it should go in userspace.  Others keep pages functionally similar to this (I have one about the outcomes of debates over capitalization and disambiguation of species vernacular and breed names, for example, and it's very helpful to keep track of consistency cleanup work over time). If someone leaves their screwdriver on the kitchen counter, you put it in the toolbox, not the garbage can.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well put. I think your analogy about putting away another's tools is especially apt, and reflective of a fairly normal MfD approach. That's part of what has me surprised about this MfD; I don't recognize any of the players here as MfD regulars, and the arguments being advanced for deletion are way out of touch with what's normally seen, even among more deletion-minded MfD participants (as I usually am). If there are behavioral issues, those need to be discussed in an open forum, outside the procedural trappings of a deletion debate, and only upon such discussion concluding that this page is being used for a disruptive purpose should deletion be considered. None of the alternatives for deletion are even being discussed by those advancing deletion: Blanking, archiving, userifying, redirecting. A couple months ago an MfD on these grounds would get shouted down for failure to state a reason for deletion, failure to consider alternatives to deletion, and failure to consider whether some other user might want it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not MfD regulars, but "infobox war" regulars. This is an extension of an internecine, drawn-out, intensely personalized dispute that's already been to WP:RFARB twice (the WP:ARBINFOBOX case and a rejected followup), and now to WP:ARCA twice again just in the last month (and is currently there now). This isn't what MfD is for, and this frankly smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  Contrast this sharply with, say, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English, which deleted a pseudo-wikiproject that existed for the express purpose of WP:GREATWRONGS campaigning against MOS, to thwart the inclusion of diacritics in Wikipedia. There's a big difference between a "canvassing farm" conspiracy/cabal to pursue WP:TE / WP:SOAPBOX goals against consensus, and a page that expresses a personal viewpoint and has some stats on it that relate to how well that viewpoint is reflected in consensus, nestled as a subpage of a wikiproject with diverse members and a broad scope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * . I put the "enemy" in scare quotes to indicate I was being arch. But please consider that this goes entirely both ways.  Editors who think that properly done infoboxes add utility to an article are surely at least as tired of having "you didn't write this article so you have no right to do anything with it!" shoved down  throats, and guess who has a much stronger policy leg to stand on? If any of that group were to try to make an ArbCom case (or ANI, or whatever) against Gerda over this stuff, I confidently predict a WP:BOOMERANG.  Yes, both sides of the debate need to give it a rest, but only one side of it is regularly engaging in character assassination of everyone who disagrees with them as "idiots", "vandals", etc. I.e., consider that this MfD is an obvious pile of the very same "bullshit" we're all sick of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please name those four or five articles. The assumptions (not by you) that I made editors retire and am happy about it makes me sick. Can we get to facts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I asked you only for the names of the articles: Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe affair, Fred Allandale, Josephine Butler, Valerie Lush, Toru Takemitsu. Three of these, I never heard before, two others were also not on this list (remember why we are here?), the other two were entered AFTER the discussion began. My obversation: we have a sad "war" but it has nothing to do with this list, or this project, and Andy Mabbett. Sinatra was last year, and don't tell me that my support of an uncollapsed infobox drives editors away. Smerus was driven away by the unfair ruling in the infoboxes case. I am happy that he returned. I would be happy if the others returned or reconsidered. - Can we please write articles again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I asked you only for the names of the articles: Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe affair, Fred Allandale, Josephine Butler, Valerie Lush, Toru Takemitsu. Three of these, I never heard before, two others were also not on this list (remember why we are here?), the other two were entered AFTER the discussion began. My obversation: we have a sad "war" but it has nothing to do with this list, or this project, and Andy Mabbett. Sinatra was last year, and don't tell me that my support of an uncollapsed infobox drives editors away. Smerus was driven away by the unfair ruling in the infoboxes case. I am happy that he returned. I would be happy if the others returned or reconsidered. - Can we please write articles again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I asked you only for the names of the articles: Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe affair, Fred Allandale, Josephine Butler, Valerie Lush, Toru Takemitsu. Three of these, I never heard before, two others were also not on this list (remember why we are here?), the other two were entered AFTER the discussion began. My obversation: we have a sad "war" but it has nothing to do with this list, or this project, and Andy Mabbett. Sinatra was last year, and don't tell me that my support of an uncollapsed infobox drives editors away. Smerus was driven away by the unfair ruling in the infoboxes case. I am happy that he returned. I would be happy if the others returned or reconsidered. - Can we please write articles again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with all you said last. You have not blamed me for editors walking out, but others have. SchroCat kindly took it off his talk. I have not initiated any infobox discussion this year, I just add - and get reverted, then put it on this list, - isn't that better than edit war or a new discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sinatra is, however, indicative of the tendentious and uncompromising stance taken by those constantly enforcing their preference for IBs. There is no reason whatsoever for this list to be maintained except for your "amusement". SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sinatra is no longer on the list (all before 2016 were archived), also I remember it as a compromise, - a word I would like to hear more often. (It was, like all others, entered here AFTER the discussion began, and it was entered because a long-standing infobox was reverted.) - "constantly enforcing" means what, please? Dr. Blofeld listed seven articles. Looking at the millions we have, that seems rather an unimportant percentage. - I am sorry about my edit summary. Please note that it came with a turn from infobox to no infobox, so humour seemed the best way to deal with it, also with the anticipation of more turns, which happened since, and I didn't even follow every one. The reason for the list is to remember reverts, and that reason has not ceased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, User:Dr. Blofeld, I'm going to ask you to stop trying to speak for me, and to strike the parts of your post where you do so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Dr. Blofeld has now removed (not struck) the comment to which I referred. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even it was right (but it wasn't, for no "good reasons", - just look at the one diff provided by an arb voting for a site ban: he must have looked superficially and was "deeply concerned" about Andy uncollapsing an infobox I had added to an article I created), even if it was right, it had nothing to do with the summer 2016 don't-know-how-to-call-it, because it was rescinded long ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I claim - even if esteemed colleagues such as Brian and yourself say no - that the list is neutral: someone not wanting infoboxes could go for articles which have one, just the same as opposite, and no dispute following a listing here has been shown. I hate being told that I want an infobox in every article, that I have forced something down some throat, done tag-teaming, and the other niceties, especially that I stand for infoboxes, infoboxes, infoboxes. Sad, really. See my boxes, and my contributions. I am interest in article quality, happy singing and music, but will pause about the quality aspect infoboxes for the rest of the year (said so two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well put. Correction: it is not a project per se, but a subpage of WP:QAI, open to changes by everyone. I archived everything before 2016 and made the colour for no infobox less aggessive ;) - The list can be read both ways. I accept the status quo of an article, be it with or without a box, I'm just interested in changes and links to the discussions. Interesting that the topic got hot again in 2016, after two quiet years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that this entire MfD is an attempt to make a WP:POLEMIC case, but this case has not actually been made; the deletion suggestions are all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT without an basis in deletion policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If the issue is Gerda's posting or removal of material from the "live version" of this page, then the remedy is to seek redress of behavior, and not to seek deletion of the page. Deletion becomes appropriate only when there is community consensus that the conduct was wrongful. As I have noted above, MfD is a walled garden; very few roving editors stumble into it, and as a result discussions almost solely include the nominator, page creator, and the handful of MfD regulars. Sometimes talk page watchlisters of the nominator or page creator join as well. But this is almost always going to be non-representative. MfD is not for such controversial deletions as these where multiple alternative fora are available, and where the decision hinges on a determination of misconduct. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I said above that I'd archive everything before 2016, in response to many commenters who misread it. Repeating: It is - and has been - a factual list of articles with the date when an infobox was added, and how the present status is, - nothing about editors, nothing about date of reverts, nothing about a wish to change the status-quo - how much more neutral can a list be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Page improvement is a perfectly acceptable practice at MfD, and compromise-seeking is encouraged as an alternative to waging battle. MfD, like AfD, concerns itself with the "best state" of the page, whether that is actual or reasonably foreseeable. Unlike AfD, that "best state" may include blanking or redirecting. But also like AfD, the nominator and those !voting for delete are expected to consider whether any of the alternatives are viable choices. Cf. WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE. The general principles have become part of regular MfD practice, and it is inappropriate to fail to follow those principles here.
 * Aye, why would we need to see the previous version? It's routine and expected that pages will be improved to address XfD problems in the course of the discussion, if the problems are reparable and may obviate deletion of the page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Smerus. With the added comment that regardless of the motivation for its creation, its actual effect is not a positive in an already contentious area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid rationale for deletion. The standards for what we keep in project and userspace are far lower than articlespace. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv, it is, as Only in death makes perfectly explicit, a comment, not a rationale. Unless of course you mean that any comment of mine is automatically invalid.--Smerus (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well personally I say that anything in project/userspace that by its nature is forseeably going to be disruptive, is ripe for removal. You might have particularly low standards, mine are slightly higher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur: I never said that something disruptive "by its nature" should be kept. There is, however, reasonable disagreement as to whether this page is disruptive or is permissible dissension. Resolving that requires an inquiry into behavior that MfD is not equipped to answer, and which should have been brought up in the first instance at ANI or before ArbCom, which remains seized of the overall issue of the "infobox wars". The very claims that this page is not permitted belie this issue: Commentary, even heated commentary, is not and has never been grounds for deleting the revisions where those comments were made, or for deleting a page where those comments might be housed. The resolution is to archive the comments if necessary. Similarly, assembling a "working list" of articles is not prohibited, even if there is a correlation between the list and an area of past disruption, unless it violates a topic ban or some other sanction. And even then, practices at MfD indicate that deletion would be disfavored in the absence of an overriding reason. Every comment, and I mean every comment, in favor of deletion is founded on behavioral grounds, regardless of the commenters' protestations to the contrary. MfD is simply not the right forum to address behavior. Just out of fairness, whether to Gerda or to those calling for a deletion, and to prevent endless repetition of these MfDs with each and every commentary or essay page Gerda creates, this should have been brought up as a behavioral issue elsewhere. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well fortunately I never said you said that. I said *I* personally feel that it should be deleted. You or what you may/may not have said do not come into it. Feel free to attempt to get this shut down on the basis of 'should not be handled here' though. I look forward to the fallout. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The purpose of the list is to keep a tally in an area which ArbCom has ruled should be decided on an article by article basis, and the list is headed with statements that infoboxes are good and that one person dreams of having one on every article. As such, it furthers a battleground attitude. There is no policy argument whatsoever in favor of adding an infobox in any specific case—Arbcom explicitly ruled otherwise. Thus this scorecard does not belong on-wiki. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfectly worded, I couldn't agree more. Four good content editors have left thanks to the idiotbox wars, I'm shocked and appalled at all this. So far it's 12 to 5 in favour of deleting this page, and I think that this will be one step closer to putting an end to this madness. JAG  UAR   15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "idiotbox" QED. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be more concerned with the departure of four valuable editors rather than singling out wry humour. It's accurate though. Joking aside, I just want this to end, so the deletion of this page would probably be for the best, for everyone's sake. I'll take a leaf out of Dr. Blofeld's book and will stop commenting here as it will only entice more negativity. JAG  UAR   19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to to see (yet) any connection from this list to discussions on article talk. don't count votes but provide a substantiation for that claim. See above: 7 articles are mentioned for recent discussions, 5 of them were never in this list, the other 2 added after discussion began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "the list is headed with statements that infoboxes are good" In don't see any concurrent nomination for pages, outside article space, which say they are bad. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) also to Yngvadottir: No. Nothing about "on every article". (Help me to better wording please if that can be misunderstood. What I don't understand is why infoboxes are something special, different from other tables.?) The list has ONLY articles where an infobox was reverted. Not many this year. - It is NOT about adding, not even re-adding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another user took the time to analyze the, installed there first by Tim riley, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep So far my understanding of the matter is that the parties involved have not used this to haunt the articles shown there but keep it as a record of discussions on the subject. If one side of the discussion does not want that record to be kept it might be that they want to hide something. What do they want to hide? Agathoclea (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For some background on what sort of dispute is being shopped here, see infobox-related threads at WT:ARCA and WT:FAC. 20:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Precedent for userfication of a similar sort of page (keping track of style discussions, in a manner that some didn't like): Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register (2nd nomination). That one was even being used for disruptive purposes (its principal editor is indeffed for stuff relateing to it), but it was userspaced to the second most frequent (non-disruptive) editor.  Even if this page isn't left in situ, it's difficult to see any deletion justification. (This is a followup to my original !vote, not a replacement.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's merely a log of pages where technical improvements are still needed. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bless, there's obviously no accounting for naivety.  Cassianto Talk   16:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. For the umptieth time: It is a list of articles where an infobox has been reverted (and come to the attention of project members). We do not claim that an infobox is a technical improvement, nor that it is needed. We watch the coming and going of infoboxes, which sometimes is fast. Look at Coward: after the Talk:Noël Coward as found by SlimVirgin, we had


 * 27 Aug:
 * 27 Aug:
 * 27 Aug:
 * 27 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug: (corrected)
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:
 * 29 Aug:


 * Waste of time. - What has this list to do with it? The article was, in response (!) to the on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the sole purpose of the "list" is to provide "amusement" for the maintainer who seeks to target specific editors whilst continuing to do drive by "try ibox" additions to articles. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment which I regret came after the third revert, when I didn't know if I should weep or be amused. I think I predicted precisely that there would be more, and the final outcome. (I stopped updating that article then.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding "drive-by": I love opera, and recommend reading infobox opera made simple. I find Carmen and Falstaff more attractive and informative than the side navboxes we had before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My diff shows no such thing.  Cassianto Talk   20:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, thank you.  Cassianto Talk   20:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's just leave to the side the questions about whether there is further context for that quote. Where in the comment does it use the phrase "sole purpose" or any equivalent language? On that note, where does it say that the "amusement" descriptor attaches to all Gerda's contribs to that page, rather than just that one? In what way did that comment "target" any editor, rather than, at worst, a page? What does "target" mean here? Do you mean attack? Please provide support for that claim. Furthermore, please flesh out your claim that Wikipedians are not permitted to derive pleasure or amusement from editing activities. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Cassianto and the others. Everything I had to say about this has been said already. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 07:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I came across this this, from 2013: "A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency." and "A way to proceed if no clear consensus is established needs to be defined." How about that, instead of unfounded claims. Also repeating: seven discussions were mentioned by Dr. Blofeld, none of them came from this lists of infobox reverts. We might spend our time better trying to find ways and procedures for cases with no consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we might better spend our time working on articles, not fussing about silly infoboxes. That would be a good idea. On the contrary, can you prove that this list was not responsible for any proposals for infobox enforcement?♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What are "any proposals for infobox enforcement"? No infobox can be "enforced". I can only guess that you mean the discussions you mentioned before:
 * Gustav Holst never in list (never reverted)
 * Noel Coward entered in list after discussion started, now archived
 * Thorpe affair never in list
 * Fred Allandale infobox added by article creator, two days after being reverted a first time (first of four), removed by a reverter
 * Josephine Butler entered in list after discussion started, now archived
 * Valerie Lush, infobox added by article creator, two days after being reverted a first time (first of four), removed by a reverter
 * Toru Takemitsu never in list
 * Other suspicions? - This list - only made to help our memory of where discussions can be found - was rarely looked at until it received the label warriors' hit list. - There are at present 21 articles listed as reverts. Any problems with those articles? Perhaps look at the latest, Talk:Le duc d'Albe. - How about about closing this, respect each others preferences and move to other topics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked closer at Valerie Lush, and yes, I take responsibility for protecting the infobox added at article creation time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You won't be willing to respect other people's preferences though, that's largely why so many people have voted to delete this and see you as some sort of infobox mafiosa. You've made it clear on countless occasions that losing an infobox to you is more important than anybody developing a poor quality article to featured article status. Obviously you're completely innocent and not at all interested in infobox inforcement. The wool is well pulled Gerda, we all still believe you, obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Any "proof" of me not willing to respect? - An infobox is part of article content for me, which you seem not willing to respect. I am innocent. Off to travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that someone who says "I take responsibility for protecting the infobox added at article creation time." has never edited the Valerie Lush article. A different editor restored it twice. You claim you had nothing to do with Tim riley's leaving; in his last WP post on someone else's talk page, Tim said "The info-box for Falstaff was already in place when I began working on the piece, and though it is a waste of space I left it in situ feeling that it would be as arrogant and presumptuous of me to remove it as it is arrogant and presumptuous of Gerda and co to issue a Diktat that I must add a box to any article I write. Don't worry, Gerda: you shan't have to take my name in vain any more. The bullying, whining and bad faith of a handful of editors has ground me down and I am withdrawing from editing Wikipedia." Others commented about his leaving from your talk page. We hope (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a project page, not an attack page and it is useful for determining where infoboxes may be needed. -- Dane 2007  talk 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not implied, the description was something like "My dream is to see an infobox in every article". That doesn't imply that infoboxes "may" be needed at all, but more that every article, including all of the entries on the list must have one like a uniform. And given that many on the list were articles written by you know who, the list itself was provocative, regardless if it wasn't used directly in many cases to force an infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stay with the facts. The line is and always was "I dream of the day that the infobox is a simple tool of accessibility." This "every article" implication is a myth. I don't care if an article where you are the only editor has an infobox or not, but I mind once you remove an infobox that others created as a service to our readers. (Cary Grant comes to mind, now archived.) I understand that you find the mentioning here provocative, but it is is and was only a reaction. The idea of "forcing an infobox" is another myth. How? It's an edit that can be reverted as others. Let's start to treat infoboxes like other features and leave the drama scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dane2007: An infobox is never "needed", it's always optional. I believe it's a good option, that's all ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're totally missing the point though Gerda. That an infobox might have been in the Cary Grant article since 2005 or whenever is irrelevant. The article itself was utter crap and nobody could be bothered to improve it to even beyond start class quality. If nobody gave a damn about the article, then what makes you think the infobox was regarded so highly or had this great consensus to have one? It's like buying a country house which was once lavish but now dilapidated and in desperate need of redecorating. That the furniture and wallpaper may still exist from the 1940s doesn't mean that that it the ideal or that the house owners think that is best. You completely renovate the place and polish it up, get rid some old fashioned rickety pieces and replace them with modern ones, and the house significantly increases in value on the market and becomes the lavish house it once was. It's the same with the Cary Grant article, that I might have got rid of infobox pales in comparison to the work gone into expanding it properly. Time and time again you've demonstrated that you think removing the infobox is more detrimental to wikipedia than the actual major quality improvement. Your priorities are all wrong. I see it as little but throwing out an unwanted sofa. You see it as bulldozing the house entirely.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Outside of people signing up, the project pages and talk pages are primarily used by one editor. The IB page is a personal essay masquerading as a project page-it is a personal expression of the editor's belief in infoboxes. Let's look at the project page itself: when an editor very active in FA creation and review wanted to remove his name from the project in June of this year, commenting "(→‎Contributors: rm self. No involvement in present activities, whatever those are?)", his name was re-added by the main editor of the page with the comment " (Undid revision 727164895 by Wehwalt (talk) part of history, please find a different way of saying "no longer active", and FA writing, reviewing and nominating are activities I see you active in)"


 * The project page says it's for improvement of GA & FA articles:
 * The project keeps track of missed users, hoping to retain quality editors, to write quality articles.
 * Project members go for "reformation, for elucidating love and study, for a free project that everybody can edit without petty restrictions, for peace".


 * The link above refers to a globally banned editor who was a prolific sockpuppeteer under many names.


 * The goals of this project of "hoping to retain quality editors, to write quality articles" and "a free project that everybody can edit without petty restrictions, for peace" are at cross-purposes with the reality of the infobox conflicts. User:Cassianto, Gavin, Tim Riley, and others who are leaving or left find it's not possible to do content work while the gospel of infobox is continually being forced on them. None of these people have ever been before ARBcom, banned, admonished or restricted. These are quality editors who have been driven away, not retained, by their Civil POV pushing.


 * We see above that the editor in question claims responsibility for reinstating the infobox at Valerie Lush, but has never edited the article. The stub article is listed here, along with another stub, Daisy Dormer, where the same editor continued re-adding the box enough for the article to be protected. Neither are GA or FA articles, yet they are on the list and the editor didn't just have a psychic vision to suddenly take interest in these pages.


 * How is "I mind once you remove an infobox that others created as a service to our readers" any different from the claims of OWN leveled at authors when they object to the addition of an infobox? "Thou Shalt Not Touch the Infobox" is just as much an OWN opinion. As far as the "drama" claim goes, the productions don't begin until the IB problem surfaces at articles. Let's close drama theatre and delete the page. We hope (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * gerda you reverted 's removal of himself from that project? Is he tied in perpetuity to the QAI project, or just until you release him? How Kafkaesque, as you yourself may say. - Gavin (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Gavin, We hope, that's hardly unique; Gerda doesn't allow anyone to resign from her little cult. &#8209; Iridescent 14:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if a person finds it embarrassing to have their name linked to the group, or refutes all connection, or whose views have changed fundamentally to the group aims, GA won't let them leave? I find that rather odd, to say the least! - Gavin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. WP:QAI is a "WikiProject" only in name; for all practical purposes, it's a personality cult, and like all such cults considers apostates worse than those who never believed in the first place. (Were you around for WP:ESPERANZA? The arguments sound strangely familiar.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankfully before my time, but there looks to be a certain level of similarity between the two... - Gavin (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete or userfy - this page has always been divisive. I questioned it on Gerda's page when it was first started, the discussion was moved here to mainspace over my protest. Its only function appears to be to save memories of reverts, which I suppose Gerda has every right to do, but not in mainspace. Personally I wouldn't oppose if the entire project were deleted. Victoria (tk) 17:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Victoria, since you have made a statement at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, would you consider adding the above link to your statement there? The statements made in the For review? section regarding fighting and dying for a cause and beating editors into submission were made prior to the ARBcom case being opened; not certain if they were brought to ARBcom while the case was being heard.  The restrictions were lifted in 2015 after 6 months and the problem ARBcom hoped to solve at the time the case was opened never really went away. Perhaps they will decide to take action on the present request. We hope (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, my sense is that it wouldn't really be productive. My evidence (and someone else's) got moved to the Evidence talk page - the bottom three sections there are worth reading and include comments by editors now gone. My memory is that I'd made a comment to Gerda's page that ended up in main space and I wasn't happy about that - I didn't actually remember the substance of the conversation and I'd completely forgotten this discussion or her comment that "I believe that a good idea doesn't stop to be a good idea because people died fighting for it or against it." I think it's best to try to forget, which is why I oppose the existence of this page. We all think differently, I wantonly throw things away when I'm done with them, whereas Gerda likes anniversaries, memories, etc. That's really ok. What's not ok is to use Wikipedia servers to store memories of old conflicts in mainspace - at least not in my opinion. But I'm not sure the arbs need to be involved on that level. Victoria (tk) 22:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * QAI is a solid project, tracking GA and FA efforts. The infobox side is, however contentious, sincere and in good faith.   Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On the topic of “running off good editors,” I acknowledge that sometimes people just have to take a break and there is nothing wrong with that. But I have to say that, I respect pretty much all the parties here, on both sides of the issue, but making these type of disputes into deal-breakers is maybe overkill.  I’ve lost some battles here on Wikipedia (particularly in the “Capitalization wars” which are, if anything, even nastier than the infobox wars, the one at WP:BIRDS resulted in the loss of nearly all the editors on that project).  But I don’t put up the banner and quit.  Sometimes I sulk, sometimes I suck it up, sometimes I double down and refuse to give up.  But when the clouds clear, it’s worth staying.  I wish we could ratchet down the emotions somehow.   Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.