Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 11

Clarification request: Oversight blocks (May 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=542990142#Oversight-related_blocks

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request 

Statement by NE Ent
The motion clarifies an admin should not reverse a block designated oversight without consulting with an oversighter, but the Wikipedia policy says to contact the committee mailing list, not the oversighter mailing list. team Please clarify the proper contact.
 * Gorilla Warfare, your point is well taken, but perhaps reflects a poor assumption / phrasing on my part rather than the essence of the question; by design "Oversight" is easy to contact, as indicated by the prominent on the Oversight page; the question is does the committee want be involved with Oversight block discussions from the get go, or should the first step be contacting the oversight functionaries team? NE Ent 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's actually an issue with the wording of that 2010 Gorilla Warfare linked, the phrasing the "block has been made in error" falsely implies  unblocking means the intial block was an error -- to the contrary, unblocking simply means a block is no longer necessary to protect the encyclopedia, not that the initial block was incorrect. My $0.0002 is that Courcelle's position is preferable, but either solution is workable, as long it is clear what the policy is. NE Ent 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that, per the 2010 arbcom motion, arbcom consent is not required to unblock (only input from an oversighter); so when an oversighter posts "appeals must be directed to arbcom" it looks like a power-grab. NE Ent 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Committee: this is getting surreal; it's perfectly fine to either require another oversighter input or require arbcom consent; the problem is this absurb status quo, where a blocking oversighter admin posts a notice like: where "this announcement" actually says Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; NE Ent 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Observation: It is written nowhere arbcom shall only use existing resources to resolve issues; if the best answer is a oversighters only, non-archived or time limited archive, why not simply decide what ya want and have a such a list created? NE Ent 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Snowolf
Please take my $0.02 for what they're worth as I have not been that active as an Oversighter lately. I think that Oversight block are fairly rare and as such the even rarer occurrence of an appeal can safely be handled by the Arbitration Committee, whose members can easily reach out to the Oversight team for input if appropriate.  Snowolf How can I help? 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)
As a non-arbitrator oversighter and former arbitrator, I think the best way forward is as Courcelles suggests. The Committee doesn't need the workload of every appeal, and the functionaries-l list is well set-up and generally sufficiently responsive to be able to handle these requests in the first instance.

As an aside, the wording quoted by Gorilla Warfare below still refers to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, which was dissolved last year. Changing it is not urgent, as it just refers to referring something to BASC if that is the most appropriate action (it simply will never be such), but it is something to bear in mind for when it does get revised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

it is entirely possible to discuss non-public information without repeating or quoting any non-public information. Indeed in my experience of functionaries-l this is exactly what happens, oversighters will say that e.g. user:example was sexually harassing user:example2 at $page, or ask for opinions regarding a specific OTRS ticket. In the same way checkusers give links to the CU wiki. If you have access to the non-public information, you can go and look at it for yourself if you need to. If you don't have the necessary access then you can't see it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be worth including language that these blocks are still appealable and queryable to the blocking administrator (as anyone making a CU or OS block will be a holder of the relevant permission). Bringing discussion to the wider body of functionaries should be done as the step after that if either party feels a wider review is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC) resigning after fixing capitalisation of username to generate a ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

in practice I have never encountered any actual issues with not being able to include oversightable information in functionaries-l discussion, and moving to oversight-l is always an option if necessary. I also strongly oppose directing appeals to a non-archiving list in the first instance, and (less strongly) oppose changing the scope of oversight-l to allow it to be archived as we would then require a third list on which oversightable material may be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NativeForeigner
There are relatively few OS blocks, and most are related to arbcom cases. My intuition is that OS blocks related to arbcom cases or explicitly designated as arbcom only should be reviewed by Arbcom. All other OS blocks should be reviewable by functionaries or OS-l, although which of those (func vs OS vs both) is chosen doesn't seem to be of huge importance to me. NativeForeigner Talk 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
Oversight blocks are rare, especially compared to checkuser blocks (though like buses, their appeals all seem to be coming at once lately), so it's unsurprising and not necessarily a bad thing that we don't have a formal procedure for their appeals. My own opinion is that there's nothing wrong with the current system, and that the functionaries' list is a good venue for appeals. All oversighters and all arbitrators are subscribed to it and it accepts incoming mail from the blocked editor, unlike oversight-l, and input from our checkuser colleagues and the various ex-arbs on functionaries-en can be useful. Of the handful of oversight blocks I've made, most if not all would have bee made by any oversighter—I just happened to be the first oversighter to come across the issue—so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be appealing to me individually.

Everyone on the functionaries' list has been through the same vetting and satisfied the same criteria for access to non-public information (with the exception of a handful of WMF staff, who have been through the WMF's processes). The differences in user rights are largely due to different interests and different levels of technical skill, not checkusers or oversighters being untrustworthy to handle certain things. My understanding is that sensitive information (like checkuser data or suppressed revisions) is not supposed to be posted to functionaries-en because that list is archived, meaning that the data would be retained for longer than it should be (neither oversight-l nor checkuser-l are archived, whereas any subscriber to functionaries-en can read every email sent to the list, back to the day of its creation). HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Avraham
For what it is worth, I agree that there are few OS-specific blocks, and that func-en is an appropriate place to discuss it. Everyone on that list is OS/CU eligible and has been vetted for private information. Oft times the institutional memory contained by members of that list is very helpful when dealing with these issues, as human behavior tends to repeat itself and the more seasoned members may have valuable insight. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Thanks to for opening this ARCA request. Hopefully the matter will get clarified somewhat. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A further comment. I don't really see why it should be an ArbCom block versus an oversight block. If it is an urgent case, there can be a temporary block put by oversight, but a proper ArbCom case should be opened if it is to be an ArbCom block. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See this for background for this ARCA request. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
I was a member of the Arbitration Committee that first approved the concept of an oversighter block. At the time, I believed that it should be a rarely-used but potentially useful tool for addressing very specific problems, i.e., applied only to editors who had repeatedly posted information that easily qualified for oversight, after they had been explicitly warned by an oversighter not to repost. Unfortunately, we on Arbcom didn't go as far as we should have at the time and did not establish the framework for applying such blocks, leaving it to "best judgment". Most of the time, oversighters are probably correct in their assessments, but without even a structure to review these blocks (starting with an email to the oversight or functionaries list announcing that one has been made), it is very difficult to honestly say that all of the oversight blocks are indeed appropriate. I have been quite concerned about the nature and quality of some of the oversight blocks applied; in some cases, a block was probably appropriate but an oversighter block not required (that's the original reason for developing the ability to turn off talk page access of blocked users), and in other cases I'm not even sure a block was called for. I'm definitely concerned that they're over-utilized.

I would like to see *all* oversighter blocks announced to the oversight list (or alternately the functionary list) at the time they are applied, and for *all* oversighter blocks to be reviewed by the appropriate group. The principle on which suppression is utilized is that it is better to suppress and then step things down on review than it is to not suppress and leave potentially problematic posts in full public view; however, all suppression decisions are subject to oversight team review. I don't see why an oversighter block should be treated any differently. I would very much prefer that the oversight mailing list continue to be utilized as a non-archiving list for oversighter discussions, and that we not reinstate community access to the list; the decision to do this was to protect the privacy of the information that is being suppressed. Expanding the function of the list would require that we turn archiving back on, since it would be important to have a "record" of the request; since the functionary list remains an archived list (and in turn doesn't permit revelation of suppressed material or CU results), that would be the best place to send any requests for oversighter block review (or suppression review, for that matter).

Statement by JzG
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the problem here. ArbCom looks to be the most appropriate body to provide independent review and appeal for an oversight block, what problem are we trying to fix? Guy (Help!) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what I see there is a reference (stated in rather hyperbolic terms) to a case that got handled pretty promptly and via an obviously defensible route. I don't think ArbCom necessarily have to codify this. That doesn't stop them doing so I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil
I think it is important that this is clarified so as to eliminate any confusion and establish a clear escalation hierarchy for appeals. As a non-Arb oversighter, my preference would be for it to go to functionaries-l first (if it is possible for this to occur), not for an official "review by the functionaries", but simply so that admins who happen to be oversighters can have a look, as per the usual procedure for all unblocks. If that's unsuccessful, then and only then should it be referred to ArbCom. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754
Is WMF okay with a list like oversight-l being archived? During the setup of wikidata-oversight we were told that such a list should not be archived, so that WMF could not hand information over if it was requested to under a court order. Though OTRS retains the information, so I'm not sure how useful that is, unlike checkuser-l. --Rschen7754 06:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Oversight blocks: Clerk notes

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



Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I wonder if this was codified this way because there is not a way for non-oversighters to email the entire oversight team. People can submit oversight tickets, which are handled by individual oversighters on OTRS, but the oversight-l mailing list does not accept external mails. Although oversight blocks can be overturned with the consent of a single oversighter, they tend to be issues where feedback from multiple oversighters is valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
 * Direct appeals to ArbCom
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team by instructing blocked users to send an email to the standard oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), with the expectation that any oversighter seeing such a request will begin a discussion on the internal oversight-l mailing list to reach a group decision
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team, opening up the oversight-l email list to outside senders
 * Direct appeals to the oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), where any appeal will be handled by an individual oversighter
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team via the functionaries-en email list (whose members include all current arbitrators, some former arbitrators, users with CheckUser permission, and users with Oversight permission on the English Wikipedia)
 * Before making any decisions, I'd like to get input on this from any non-ArbCom oversighters who have an opinion one way or another. I'll send an email to the oversight list so they're aware of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org (or Special:EmailUser/Oversight) is an OTRS queue, where emails (usually suppression requests) open tickets that are handled by individual oversighters. oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org is a standard mailman mailing list for internal discussion among oversighters; emails from non-oversighters are automatically rejected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that the initial decision regarding checkuser blocks directs all checkuserblock appeals to ArbCom: Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee.  When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted. Our motion on oversight blocks was not as clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with your point about the "block made in error" wording, though I'm not sure it's something we need to formally reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocks with the instructions "appeal only to ArbCom" are already within policy as written, though, in that same 2010 statement: The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.  In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it.  The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block.  Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it satisfy you to add "and this statement" to the OversightBlock template, to clarify that we recognize sometimes issues should go only to the ArbCom? Regardless of whether we decide to clarify the language such that the appeals can go to oversighters (be it the team or individuals), I don't see taking away the ability for blocking admins/functionaries to limit appeals to ArbCom when there are circumstances such as those described in the 2010 statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all the oversighters/functionaries who've weighed in. It seems like directing appeals first to the functionaries-en list is the preferred way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, but I think the first line of appeal for CU/OS blocks should be via email to the functionaries-en list, so there is a second line of appeal to the committee itself. Courcelles (talk)
 * Open to hearing more comments, but on first look I don't see a problem with the effective status quo that appeals can either be directed to oversighters or to arbcom. (I did recently correct an error in the OversightBlock template that made the wording inconsistent, but directing appeals to arbcom has always been an available option.) I do agree with GW that the "appeal to oversighters" option should be refined so that the appeal is handled by the group rather than a single individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To recap: In 2010, the committee passed a motion formally establishing the concept of "checkuser blocks", including some guidance on when to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2013, this was extended to include "oversight blocks". Immediately thereafter, the OversightBlock template was created for this purpose, which has from the first edit provided an option to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2015, BASC was disbanded with the provision that arbcom would continue to hear appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks. At least 12 currently active blocks, some going back to 2014, have the "appeal directly to arbcom" version of the OversightBlock template in the most recent version of the user's talk page. The idea that it is a new "power grab" to direct OS blocks to arbcom is not supported by the evidence. No objections to adding a link to the 2010 motion to the template, and as long as we're here we might as well sort out how to appeal to "oversighters" collectively as opposed to individually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callanecc on this; it doesn't make sense to direct appeals to a place where their context can't be discussed openly. The more this goes on, the less convinced I am that a separate Official Process is needed for this relatively rare category of appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My preference is that appeals of OS blocks should go to the OS who placed the block, the Oversight team (probably by opening up OS-l to external mail) or to ArbCom. The issue with having appeals directed to functionaries-en is that CU data can't be directly discussed as there are non-CUs on the list, likewise suppressed information can't be discussed there as there are non-OSers on the list. It's also worth noting that CUs or OSers (as can all admins) can direct that individual blocks only be appealed to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The access to nonpublic information policy states that information (ie suppressed information and CU data) can only be disclosed to "other community members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same information, ...". I'd want positive confirmation from the WMF that they consider users who formerly had access to be tools to be "permitted to access the same information" before encouraging it to be discussed on functionaries-l (I definitely don't feel it would meet that requirement). This is especially the case given that the policy also requires that, "When a community member's access to a certain tool is revoked, for any reason, that member must destroy all nonpublic information that they have as a result of that tool", as that seems to indicate that if you can't access the information yourself you shouldn't have access to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's possible, but if it were my appeal being considered I'd like the people discussing to be able to talk about it directly rather than stepping around what I actually said. For example, there could be a situation (with an OS block) where the people discussing it would need to say something like "I took User:Example's comment (tenth word to twenty second word) to mean blah [and not mentioned anything here from the suppressed edit or which would give away its contents] not blah as you suggested" or if, for example, User:Example posted a link and brief synopsis of the linked webpage (such as a blog which outs another editor) the people discussing it couldn't link to the blog, might run into problems quoting from the blog and couldn't refer to or link to other pages on the blog (content of suppressed edit). That makes handling an appeal very difficult. We'd also need to consider who would have a 'vote' in appeals (should users without OS access be able to vote or comment even though they can't know the full story?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc is correct in saying that appeals to the Functionaries mailing list would not be appropriate. I'd prefer the first appeal to be to the blocking Admin. I also would like to hear from more Oversighters before supporting opening up that list. Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with courcelles and disagree with Callan. Functionaries-l is the perfect place for appeals --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If indeed such information can be handled there, it may be. I've posted to the list about this discussion. Doug Weller  talk 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The simplest procedure is for requests to go first to the functionaries list, either directly or via a n individual functionary. As suggested, with the provision that it can be specified in a block that appeals go directly to arb com.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that oversighted information is stored indefinitely by the software why would there need to be a list which doesn't archive? Given the amount of discussion at OS-l which includes suppressed information as well as the suppressed information included in appeals at ArbCom-l I'd say it's fairly regular to refer to it and quote it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why given that OTRS records indefinitely, and suppressed edits are available onwiki (by oversighters) indefinitely. But it's worth us checking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. We had some discussion of sending appeals first to the oversight team, with the Committee as the second course of appeal, but most people preferred an either/or option. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Everyone on the funct-en list should have signed the NDA by now, so it could be functionally used for all discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if they have signed it, you still can't reveal suppressed information to anyone apart from oversighters and you can't reveal CU information to anyone apart from checkusers. Therefore, you still can't discuss suppressed information on functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per my comments above about the difficultly in hearing and deciding on appeals when the people deciding can't discuss openly all of the information. I'd absolutely support if appeals were to be sent to OS-l instead of functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Callanecc. I support almost all of this, but can't vote for it while there's an open possibility of appeals landing in a place where they can't be fully discussed. I think the destination should be either oversight-l or a new archived list specifically for appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Like Callanecc and OR, I would support this if it was OS-l. You may wish to consider that wording. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Callanecc says. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Piling on. Doug Weller  talk 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As above. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted -  Mini  apolis  15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Put your money where your mouth is and all that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Thank you Callannecc. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Keilana (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) If we're going to open OS-L like this, might as well shut down the OTRS queue and just handle requests there, too. (I truly hate OTRS for requesting oversight.  Does nothing but add an unnecessary step to the workflow, especially when working on a mobile/tablet.) Courcelles (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit of OTRS is that is does require someone to reveal their email address, and to hence single one member of the team out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Assuming that the list is archived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree that the list should be archived.  Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) the list must be archived. (second choice) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) With archiving, this could work, although there is no process in place for how they would be handled when requested. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion
 * Is the intention here that archiving would be turned on for OS-l? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best that archiving be turned on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Looking into it. Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Checkuser block appeals


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an checkuser as checkuser blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia checkusers, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking checkuser as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * 1) I think it's worth keeping the two practices in sync. Proposing this now to avoid having to have a follow-up statement (as we did in 2013) to clarify and sync them up again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Thinking about this some more, checkuser blocks are much more common and the appeals are usually less complex than for Oversight blocks. Currently CU blocks can be appealed to any other CU(s), in consultation with the blocking CU, or to ArbCom. Making them all go through functionaries-en is going to complicate this and, given that IPs/locations/UAs can't be discussed, get complicated. Plus consider how many appeals are dealt with quickly in unblock requests, or through normal talk page discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As above, I can't support the possibility of sending appeals to a place where they can't be discussed in full. I do think the two processes should be synchronized and there should be a venue for directing appeals to CUs as a group, though that doesn't preclude directly contacting the blocking CU. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) There is already sufficient practice in place to deal with Checkuserblocks without us muddying it more. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) As above; per Callanecc, basically. There's something to be said for keeping processes in sync, but the two processes start in different enough places. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Callanecc & Drmies. Keilana (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) And me, per Callanecc and Drmies.  Doug Weller  talk 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Amanda, despite my preference for consistency. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
Editors are in breach of wikipedia's policies and have now locked me out of the talk page.
 * 1) "Unjustified withdrawal of material" section on []

201.53.10.205 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 19:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Word count
I'm not sure if I went over the word count. I am sorry if I did. I tried to find it and I can't find it on the page. I am in a hurry and I don't even know where to begin to look to find the word count rule. I wish it were on the top of the page. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Its 500, including replies. Jus  da  fax   01:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Where did you find that?  I guess I will have to cut it down now.  I will also gladly accept ArbCom authorization for an extension for the word count to that which I have at present  ~550-575. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There actually presently is no word limit at ARCA except a 1000-word limit on the filer of an amendment request, but as of May 3, the Committee is working on one. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it seems. Jus  da  fax   05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term indefinite blocks and bans
After the amendment proposal to unblock one person is rejected, I wonder how long must a user be unblocked, i.e. allowed to edit Wikipedia again. One person was banned or blocked for five years without resorting to sockpuppetry, and the appeal form was rejected. If emailing to ArbCom is simple, why has a blocked or banned person not had given a statement to ArbCom for years? Must a person wait another five years to be unblocked if he or she doesn't want to email the Committee? --George Ho (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the reason for the block or ban. Some situations involve non-public information that should not be prominently discussed on the most widely used interactive website in the world. Others do not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are you proxying for banned/blocked users? We're not going to drop bans/blocks out of the blue without some indication from the editor (private or otherwise) that they want to come back. --Neil N  talk to me 13:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not. I just focused on one user, and that is all. Rather than do the same on other people, which would put me on the tough spot, I decided to go for central discussion instead. I see lack of or insufficient interests in revisiting individual cases from five years ago or more without editor's statement. And I don't know whether the Committee made an effort on contacting banned people ever. George Ho (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So without any kind of prompting from that one editor, or any indication they wished to come back, you decided to dredge up old, probably unpleasant, memories on the assumption there was a lack of interest to do so? --Neil N  talk to me 13:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know memories are... unbearable and uncomforting. Nevertheless, even I thought banning people is ineffective on improving Wikipedia. In fact, I have seen worse people than one blocked person. I'm not sure how keeping them blocked forever would improve Wikipedia other than to prevent vicious edits. In some cases, an editor may have done good in the past but also bad. George Ho (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody says they're blocked forever - they're blocked until they make a successful appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * George, there is no expiry of indefinite blocks which would automatically reinstate a user's editing privileges. Your appeal on someone else's behalf was rejected simply because an appeal must be filed by the blocked or banned user as a reinstatement would depend on resolving the original problem. Why a user might not have appealed in years is something we just can't know, as it's entirely up to them. As it happens, I've met the person in question at a Wikipedia social event, and he seemed like a nice guy who just wasn't interested in coming back. So if a blocked or banned user stays away and chooses not to appeal - just respect that decision and leave them alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On another point you raised, I think I can be confident in saying that ArbCom does not pre-emptively contact blocked or banned users to ask if they want to come back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just got mail from Rod; I just forgot or realize that he is administering the Commons. He says that he's not that interested in working on English Wikipedia. Well, you can go there and say hi? George Ho (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Google it, George. That's a deep and disturbing rabbit hole. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's terminate on-wiki discussion of that specific user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Are ARCA discussions archived anywhere?
I can't find them. I would have expected an archive just like AE has an archive even though outcomes are logged in multiple places. --DHeyward (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They're archived to the talk pages of the relevant case. - Strongjam (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A question regarding the arbitration process
Forgive me if I'm asking this in the wrong location. I was informed that there is an arbitration process happening on a page that I'm involved in, and I've been waiting for more information about what this means or how to proceed but I'm still unsure. Is there a place that I am supposed to make a statement about the case? Or will the arbritators simply read the Talk page to see the various side of the situation? The editors involved in the other side of the dispute are much more experienced on WP than I, and in particular more experienced with editing conflicts. I've only been editing two years and this is the first page where I've seen major conflict. I want to make sure that my point of view doesn't get overlooked due to my lack of knowledge about the arb process. The article title is Rolfing. Thank you in advance for any guidance. --Karinpower (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice actually indicates that an arbitration proceeding has occurred in the past. If certain topics are subject to a lot of disruptive behavior or problematic editing, one of the remedies passed will be that the topic is placed under discretionary sanctions. This allows administrators latitude to quickly remove disruptive editors from the area, place restrictions on the editing of pages that prove to be particularly problematic, and so on. Receiving the notice doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it's just common practice to give editors a heads up that they're editing in an area that's subject to such a remedy. Just be especially careful in those areas to not misbehave, to be very certain to keep your discussions civil and calm, and to ensure that your edits to articles are in accordance with normal policy, and you won't have anything to worry about. If someone does request any action against you, they're required to notify you, and you'll have the opportunity to speak at that request yourself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. The page was frozen for about a week. I was under the impression that the Arb Committee would be considering the situation on the page? In my opinion it has strayed far from the standards of WP. Does that mean I should initiate arbitration? Thanks again.--Karinpower (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbitration doesn't make decisions on content, and wouldn't generally be necessary just due to an edit war on a single page. It's generally for long-term, intractable conduct matters. Regardless, this particular area has already been through the process. From there, it's just the normal editorial process&mdash;disagreements should be discussed on the talk page, following the dispute resolution process as normal if a discussion reaches an impasse. The page protection was just a normal reaction to an edit war, to hopefully get people to discuss the matter and knock off the reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that the edit war continues, it's just a cold war, with the article currently residing at a far extreme. The opposing side has many editors so though it's not supposed to be a vote, that's essentially what happens. Small voices get sandbagged. A couple weeks ago one editor essentially rewrote the article to sway it even more strongly to his POV and any discussion on Talk is so contentious that it does not seem to be a reasonable discussion of the facts of the sources. Also there are a large number of low-quality sources (which only mention the topic of the article a single instance, in a long list of other health methods). Previously on this page there was friction yet there was a reasonable discussion as well, with consensus being possible. In the past 4 months, this is not the case, and it's gotten progressively worse. Is there a next step? Is that the dispute resolution that you mentioned? Thanks again for the guidance. --Karinpower (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly wrong there. You and another editor are discussing the reliability of references, it seems relatively civilly. That's what talk pages are for. I don't see anything "extreme" about the article itself, nor anything that evidently violates NPOV. Do keep in mind, writing this kind of stuff in accordance with NPOV does not mean providing some kind of "balance" between scientific and pseudoscientific claims, it means using and the best available reference material. Medical claims, in particular, have specific guidelines for good quality references. If the best available medical and scientific references consider a practice as woo and quackery, the article is going to reflect that, not dispute those sources or do a "Butbutbut". Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your perspective is appreciated. We have no disagreement about MD:RES - the topic does not have adequate metastudies to claim any health benefit. What we disagree on is the quality of sources that are allowed to be used (as I mentioned, there are several cited that have only the most cursory mention of the subject, with no details) and the fact that there is significant disagreement among the sources on whether the method is primarily about physical/structural alignment vs. some of the stranger ideas that were connected to the Human Potential Movement and seem to have fallen away from Rolfing just as the culture around us has also become more grounded and science-oriented. Thanks again for taking the time to explain about the arbitration process. --Karinpower (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2016
I would like this comment posted to the Michael Hardy case request:

Would the Committee explain why they feel a full case is necessary? The only reason anyone is here is because ArbCom is the only body with the power to de-admin. This isn't some multifaceted dispute like the unrelenting mire of the various ethno-nationalist topics. Everyone knows this will end up in Michael Hardy being de-adminned. Just de-admin by motion and let the community discuss whether other sanctions are necessary. If the Committee feels that, short of someone going on a rampage with the tools, de-adminning requires a full case, I think we can officially declare "no big deal" dead and buried. (For those without long memories, ArbCom has previously de-adminned by motion.)

71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016
I'd like to add as an uninvolved party that Michael has taken to harassing Guy Macon on Guy's talk page despite Guy's request that Michael not post there anymore. Michael has proven himself to be completely incapable of dropping the stick. He also seems to not understand WP:NOTTHEM. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. — MRD2014 T C 21:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Debresser (August 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Debresser at 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) User_talk:Debresser


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification Nableezy
 * diff of notification Nishidani
 * diff of notification to sanctioning admin Lord Roem


 * Information about amendment request
 * User_talk:Debresser
 * I request the sanction against me be revoked and the other two parties strongly warned against trying to game the system to push their POV

Statement by Debresser
Two editors with a strong POV in the Israeli-Palestine-conflict area have removed information they consider to reflect negatively on Mahmoud Abbas, and have made other edits to that article, in disregard of serious objections by me as well as uninvolved editors, refusing to participate in discussions, using ever alternating baseless arguments in an attempt to push their POV, filing a baseless 1RR report against me at WP:AE in an attempt to use that forum to remove my resistance to their edits, and making personal attacks or belittling me and other dissident opinions. The report was made after I had made a second revert after 26 hours,. The sanction of a three month topic ban was imposed by Lord Roem in disregard of several editors supporting my point of view and joining my request for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy (and now Nishidani), and of the fact that only one other admin had expressed an opinion and was clearly against any sanctions, so the sanction is not even supported by a majority of admins. Likewise I fail to understand why Nableezy and Nishidani have not been sanctioned, even though their behavior was clearly POV-inspired, attempting to game the system, stonewalling on talkpage and independent forums, and included repeated reverts as well. I think the sanction is imposed without there being a problem in my editing, without a consensus among admins that there should be a sanction, in disregard of procedure, and in disregard of the obvious attempt to use WP:AE to remove resistance and push a POV, as well as the behavioral problems of the reporting editor himself, Nableezy, and his most staunch supporter, Nishidani, with whom he edits in concert. The coming with unclean hands and the sanction being applied not evenhandedly, are reasons to revoke the sanction. I think that a revert, well after the 24 hours of 1RR was the only way to force Nableezy and Nishidani to break the stonewalling of Nableezy and Nishidani and their refusal to reply to legitimate concerns. Their previous and consequent edits and behavior support that conclusion. I would like to stress that I am an 8 year editor with over 90,000 edits, active in many areas over this project, see User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia, and I always try to edit neutrally and keep in mind the good of this wonderful project that is Wikipedia, see User:Debresser/My rewards.

Editors supporting me at WP:AE: Drsmoo, Sir Joseph, Only in death

Second admin against sanctions: no evidence of violation, cmt.

Using ever changing arguments to push POV: First Sepsis II (who was recently permanently topic banned at WP:AE) used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument against other editors. They when I made the same edit, with improvements, Nableezy tries to say sources are not reliable, which they are, or when good sources are readily available, see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas. They he tries to say it is recentism, and see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue, so he plays that card too. If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether. See also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverted. This clearly shows that Nableezy considers all means legitimate, only to remove this information.

Refusing to participate in discussion or rendering discussion ineffective: When uninvolved editor TransporterMan proposed a compromise on the talkpage, I agreed, but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me. I took this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Nableezy sabotaged that discussion. Nableezy completely ignored the discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard,, even though I posted it on the talkpage. Recently Nishidani added a new paragraph, and my objections on the talkpage in Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas have been completely stonewalled by Nableezy and Nishidani,(1) without any content or policy based reply to my objections based on lack of relevance and reliable sources, and in blatant disregard and falsification of the results of the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which Nableezy opened, and where both independent editors who responded, agree with me that the source is not good for its purpose, while Nableezy and Nishidani post long replies to smother all resistance.

(1) Especially telling of bad faith and gaming the system was the call by Nableezy to Nishidani to revert me after less than 4 hours of discussion and no outside opinions at a time he himself couldn't revert because of a previous revert.

Proof Nableezy and Nishidani edit in concert: 1. by Nishidani, which he then self-reverted to avoid a violation, followed by by Nableezy. 2. Nishidani acted upon Nableezy's bad faith advice. 3. The many talkpage discussions where I have seen them both and invariably support each other. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of repeated reverts: Nableezy after 1 day and 16 hours, Nableezy after 1 day and 15 hours

Procedurally request ignored: I asked that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words in order that I could reply to it effectively. That request was ignored, so an essential procedure has been violated and the resulting sanction should be void.

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nableezy: "Wtf are you babbling about?"

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nishidani:, , "That looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, Dovid", What you or I think is irrelevant", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israelites&diff=731982369&oldid=731951288 why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge. ]" ("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish) Struck after Nishidani explained this was a typo and at most a Freudian slip.

I thank Lord Roem for his patience on my request to reconsider sanction, and his willingness there to reconsider it after a month or even to mitigate the sanction to a 0RR sanction. I think there is no basis in the evidence presented at WP:AE to justify a sanction against me, and/or to not justify a sanction against Nableezy and/or Nishidani. In addition I attest to my good faith, and see no evidence of bad faith from my side at WP:AE. A sanction at WP:AE is a bad precedent, as recent comments have shown, and I willingly take my changes here, as I did before at WP:AE when I (!) undid the withdraw by Nableezy, see the witdraw and my undo. At the same time, I hope that even if editors here will disagree with me, they will be willing to consider mitigating the sanction along the lines suggested by Lord Roem.

@EdJohnston You suggest I should have posted at WP:AE first. I looked at the ways to appeal at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, where it says "The process has three possible stages". I exercised the first, writing Lord Roem on his talkpage, and when we reached an impasse there, I followed the third, posting here. Nowhere does it say that I have to use the second option of posting at WP:AE/WP:AN. The reason I didn't use it is because the sanction was made on WP:AE, and appeals are not usually made to the same place. I am perfectly willing to post at WP:AE again or at WP:ANI, just wanted to assure you that I followed the instructions in good faith. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem Both Nableezy and Nishidani are respectable editors, and with both of them I have in the past reached worthy compromises on contested issues in the IP-conflict area. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why they don't behave in the same respectable way on Mahmoud Abbas. Perhaps because the subject at hand is too close to them. I am sure we will return to working together amiably in the future. However, how we can establish a "pattern of collaborative editing" in order to reconsider the sanction after a month during the time I am topic banned, is something that is not completely clear to me. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis Confirmed. The main reason I decided not to post again at WP:AE is that at WP:AE only two admins reviewed the case. As a result, in spite of the fact that there was only one admin who thinks I should be temporarily topic banned, that was the decision reached at WP:AE. In addition, my request to admonish the filing editor for what I consider to be his problematic behavior wasn't reviewed at all. I hope that a larger group of admins from ArbCom reviewing this case will either reach another opinion and decision, or at least I will know that a serious consensus exists that I am on the wrong track. In addition I hope that they will take the time to review the behavior of the filing editor as well, per my request and per WP:BOOMERANG. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amanda There was no escalation. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amanda After reading the proposed explanation by Nishidani, I'd like to add that the edit he posted contains the following sentence: "I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition". Apart from rejecting this type of accusation as coming close to religious persecution on Wikipedia, I can state as a fact that I am not aware of claimed rabbinic tradition, by which I want to make the point that this was a bad faith accusation. I'd like to request ArbCom to make a clear statement to the fact that editors on Wikipedia should not make assumptions based on professed religious adherence of editors. In addition, if this statement in any way affected LordRoem's opinion, I'd ask immediate annulment of the sanction on that basis alone. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare & @Opabinia regalis I see that both of you find I was incorrect in insisting on adding a less than reliable source. Regarding this issue I have a few things to say: 1. The quality of the sources was a question that was under discussion. Another editor agrees with me that the source is fine,, especially since the same statement was since sourced to additional sources of high repute, but nevertheless Nableezy and Nishidani insist that their point of view is the only correct one. That brings WP:TE to mind. 2. I provided better sources in the process. 3. If the problem is my addition of a less than ideal source, then a warning to review WP:RS would be in order, not a topic ban. 4. Nableezy and Nishidani also edit warred to add a bad sources, which is still in the article, despite the opposition from two independent editors at the relevant noticeboard discussion. Why were my complaints about this ignored? Why aren't those editors topic banned as well? No society or community can apply rules other than evenhandedly. 5. I have shown a pattern of POV pushing and gaming the system by Nableezy and Nishidani. My actions should be seen on that background. As a result, I ask for leniency if I unintentionally wasn't careful enough regarding the reliability of a source. At the same time I repeat my request to address the problematic editing of those two editors. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis 1. I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered. If that is not so, please let me know asap, because I would probably not have posted here otherwise. Now, that was only #4 of my 5-point reaction. Why then did you say my whole 5-point reply gets into WP:NOTTHEM territory? Why did you ignore all the other facts and arguments? 2. Why do you want me to roll over and play dead? I am not here to acknowledge that I was wrong. I am here precisely because I think I was not wrong, and I want you to review my case. At the same time I am aware that maybe I was wrong. If that will be the conclusion here, then at that moment I will gracefully accept that fact. At this moment, I am trying to argue that I was right. Your comment suggests an a priori assumption of guilt, while the presumption of innocence applies to appeals as well. Please note that I am not saying that I made optimal choices regarding each and every detail, but I do think that my general editing pattern was legitimate, and did not warrant or justify a sanction. 3. By the way, I am making edits in other fields at the moment, as I always have. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies See above: "I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered." Why wouldn't this be the right venue for sanctions against other editors? And what is the right venue, under the circumstances? Debresser (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for justice. It seems, however, that this forum is not interested in justice. In this regard I disagree with Opabinia regalis that my call for justice was "declined by implication". I am rather of the opinion that it was ignored. Several ArbCom members have said explicitly, that they are not willing to review the actions of Nableezy and Nishidani. The logic behind that decision they have refused to explain, and I claim that that decision is incorrect and an injustice.

@SMcCandlish I agree with you that 3 months is a lot more than the usual sanctions at WP:ANI. That is precisely what I meant when I said to LordRoem that this is not a short sanction at all.

I find it interesting to see that most uninvolved non-admins who posted here and at the original WP:AE seem to be of the opinion that I should not be topic banned, and agree with my point of view that there are serious problems with the editing of Nableezy and Nishidani. Sir Joseph and AnotherNewAccount point to some real problems. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite specific policy requirements on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in.  nableezy  - 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
It took me 2 days and several hours of time extracting from Debresser, regarding just one edit proposal, based on a high RS source written by the foremost Samaritan authority on Samaritan history, an admission his 3 reverts of that source from the lead were wrong. By simple arithmetic, were I to take the same trouble to parse, analyse through the edit history record, what Debresser wildly claims above, we'd be here till kingdom come. He's a productive editor, with 90,000 contributions, double my own piddling 48,000. Like all of us, he has defects: his is to revert repeatedly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds material closely sourced from books which, on every occasion, leap the WP:RS high bar, being written by authorities in their respective fields, and published under academic imprint. We have the respective talk pages of Mahmoud Abbas (here), and now Israelites (see here and here )to examine the difference in approach. If any close reader can find in Debresser's responses to numerous queries palmary instances of close reading, intimacy with the niceties of wiki policy, wide familiarity with sources and a lucid grasp of the academic pedigrees of authors, their standing in their fields, and endorses his apparent belief that the Bible is a more accurate source for ancient history than scholarship, then by all means, they should call me to order, and ask me to explain myself. I won't defend myself against Debresser's tirade, for obvious reasons. I have no belief he even reads my responses.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the record Dovid, when you cite my edit summary above looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, as an ’example of insult and belittling comments’ by myself, you missed the fact that I was alluding to a commonplace in the scholarly literature on Israelites and Samaritans., e.g. here p.176, here p.524; here pp.56-7; here p.420, to cite just 4 of a dozen examples. Our conflicts are of this type. I keep citing the scholarly literature, and you keep reacting to the personal implications you read into my edits, rather than to the academic hinterland whose dragoman I try to be. Operatively, it's not me you keep reverting over numerous pages, but the relevant scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note on Amanda's request to Lord Roem. I cannot presume to know the latter's mind (I struggle to know my own, or what remains of it, more times than not). I would only add that the complaint was originally on Debresser's behavior at Mahmoud Abbas. The merits of this complaint that D removed high quality RS at sight, without any visible policy grounds, and couldn't produce them at the talk page, were being evaluated without any clear consensus. Out of the blue, on another page, Debresser suddenly repeated that pattern complained of at another article,Israelites. I.e. while the pattern asserted to exist in his editing Mahmoud Abbas was being analysed, he appeared to confirm it existed by repeating it on another page. I drew admins' attention to this new fact (new evidence supporting the complaint) here. Several hours later, Lord Roem closed the issue with his sanction. My presumption is that the second piece of evidence was read as confirming what, until that point, had only been a hypothesis of uncertain merits: a single-issue complaint became multiple.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:AnotherNewAccount.
 * "I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the 'brains' and Nableezy the 'brawn' in bludgeoning their POV into articles."
 * That's quite offensive, not because it is utterly false but because I reckon I could whup Nableezy in a fight, but he'd run rings around me on a huge range of complex technical subjects. The gang of four you indicate are still here because they are rule-abiding, and accept fairly strict standards for encyclopedic composition, as do the several 'pro-Israel' stalwarts one could also name. There are over a dozen such editors from both sides who regularly edit the same pages, respect each other because the rules are respected, disagree often, talk policy, ask for evidence, marshall sources, analyse their merits and achieve rational outcomes. The people who end up here do so because they come with one topic in their sights, understanding one POV exclusively, use poor sources, don't discuss or do so erratically, and as often as not ignore the constraints we all accept. The people who get into trouble on A/1 or AE for I/P issues have one characteristic. They are unwilling to do the kind of unsexy intensive legwork, time-consuming research, on which solid article construction is based. They have nothing but a focus on those elements of a long article which can be spun to political advantage.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joe. Again, the same (it's repeated in every thread) insinuation:
 * "this area is 'off limits' either due to the headache or bias"
 * The area is not difficult to edit if you are rule compliant, have a genuine interest in history, feel uncomfortable with broadbrush simplistic generalizations, and are willing to work hard. Most editors who stay on do not find it a headache. It demands a lot of work, that's all. The only headache is the historically attested fact that the I/P area tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats,anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, and gamers. They have no bias of course, though they account for 90% of the AE, A/I complaints. They are certainly not 'pro-Palestinian', a silly designation which is used as if it meant 'anti Israeli'. That you do not find in articles here what you find in partisan tabloids is not necessarily a token of bias. The same rude impression will arise if you read any good academic source or encyclopedia. It might just mean that editors who make contributions that stick, because the RS quality is high, work harder than the meme-replicators out there in examining all the available documentation, and writing it up per WP:Due and WP:NPOV. That said, I have no objection  if this suspicion is thought serious enough to warrant a close examination of the editing history and contributions of all to see if they are contributing content or just here to play politics. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Just to comment that my above support linked to by Debresser should only be taken regarding the underlying content issue - I have no comment on the subsequent alleged behavioural issues (which I assume is what led to the sanction) although personally I think the area is ripe for a full case given the amount of POV-laden editing and BLP violations from multiple editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Nothing prevents the Committee from taking this if they want to. But in fact, User:Debresser has short-circuited the usual appeal route which is laid out at WP:AC/DS. He had the option of appealing at WP:AE or WP:AN but has not done so. I'm unclear why the appeal is here. In the absence of any special reason being given, I suggest the Committee decline this request and ask him to use AE or AN for the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem
I don't have much to add that isn't already linked. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. As the sanctioning admin I do think my short sanction on Debresser is appropriately proportionate. However, I don't see Debresser as helplessly disruptive and will happily lift the topic ban in a month or so if a good pattern of collaborative editing is established. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I was initially only concerned that Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction on the page (21:14 13 July and 23:05 14 July). At that point, I thought a warning to be careful about 1RR would be the only thing required. What changed my mind were diffs like this (see edit summary) and the conversation here (where my initial perception was Debresser was stonewalling). This isn't one of the cases where there's something egregious; this is why I suggested during a convo on my talk page to change the sanction to a 0RR restriction instead of a full topic-ban. Debresser expressing willingness to undergo that, but didn't appear to recognize that his approach, thus far, was only disrupting the page.
 * If arbs think something different is appropriate, I'm not stuck to my position. There's other history in the AE request that gives more context to the situation that I recommend committee members go over. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount
I've been away for a few days, and have only just realized that Debresser had ended up topic banned. I have much to say, but I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I won't comment on the quality of the talk page discussion, which was awful - and it wasn't all Debresser's fault. The dispute is a microcosm of the problems in the topic area:
 * Factionalism amongst the editors, and a continued personal animosity between Nableezy and Debresser. They have rather rancorous disputes rather too frequently. It's obvious that Nableezy in particular holds Debresser in utter contempt, judging by how I've seen him belittle Debresser in so many disputes. Every single complaint against Debresser at AE was filed by Nableezy when a content dispute didn't go his way quickly enough.
 * Persistent "numbers" issue. Pro-Palestinian editors are not just in the majority, but are also far more active and persistent, which has inevitably affected the content. In the initial content dispute, the breakdown of editors was broadly as follows:
 * Nableezy - pro-Palestinian editor
 * Zero00000 - pro-Palestinian editor
 * Sepsis II - pro-Palestinian editor, just been topic-banned
 * Nishidani - pro-Palestinian editor
 * Debresser - pro-Israel editor
 * Epson Salts - pro-Israel editor
 * 4-to-2 is a fairly typical ratio of editors for this topic area. Indeed, Nableezy's arguments often resort to "appeals to numbers", particularly when he's belittling Debresser.


 * Continued "tag team" editing. And not just in edit wars. I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles.
 * Complete lack of neutral editors, those that do attempt to edit or mediate in disputes are typically crushed or worn out by the incessant continued bickering between the two sides.
 * Extreme difficulty in deciding which material is important and relevant to an article, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.
 * Extreme difficulty in identifying and agreeing on reliable sources, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.
 * Related to this is the ability of certain editors to utilize apparently decent sources to present a less-than-neutral view of the topic, either through selective choice of sources, or cherrypicking only favourable material within a source, or most commonly by simply choosing an academic/expert/journalist that has expressed the desired opinion. Both sides have done this to an extent.


 * The general failure of the various noticeboards and the wider community to be of much help. The topic is a bargepole issue, and I suspect the resident noticeboard-dwellers are scared of the topic and want nothing to do with it. (I see Debresser issued a message on the BLP noticeboard which was ignored.)
 * Problems related to the 500/30 sanction. The inital disputed material was added, in good faith, by an IP who was clearly unaware of the sanction. I think this remedy has caused as many problems as it has solved, with several decent new or casual editors having their work reverted, having their heads bitten off, and in a few of cases ending up blocked, whenever they make the mistake of editing an article that hasn't been Extended confirmed yet.

I think there is a good case for the Arbitration Committee to examine the continued warring, content issues and chronic NPOV problems in another case, with the particular aim of increasing the influence of neutral editors. Either that or starting a frank community-wide discussion of the problems on the appropriate community discussion forum. The editing dynamics remain unconducive to neutral and collegial editing, and I think individual editor POVs, factionalism, and groupthink amongst the current editors is to blame. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I will be the first to agree that Debresser can sometimes be strong in his opinions but you also need to admit that for a pro-Israel editor, the "game" already starts off with the other side having a major handicap. Any issue that falls under 1RR or any RFC usually ends up being a numbers game, whether intentional or not. I think the best thing would be to shorten the TBAN and issue a strong warning. We really don't need to lose a usually good editor who can edit neutrally. I have seen Debresser editing with a pro-PA (in a way fixing the article but not touching content, etc.) and I have had my run ins with him as well but on the whole the IP area would be worse off without him.

I will just agree with ANA's point about the area not being one that neutral editors want to touch. During my time at AE I've also been told via email that this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias. That is indeed something that should be looked into, independent of this action. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
I notice looking at the ARE in question Nableezy had withdrawn the motion. Debresser reversed this withdrawl. Essentially shooting his own self in the foot. I'm seeing a fiery battle when I look at the talkpage which would seem to me to be banworthy. For example "Don't be stupid". I could pull out other examples but my point is this all is a FIGHT. There was need for admin intervention. Perhaps there might be a question if Nableezy should also be topic banned but I see no reason why this ban should be questioned. It seems that Lord Roem was trying to take the least severe action reasonable. An indefinite topic ban, and correct me if I am wrong, would require a 6 month waiting period after any failed appeal. Lord Roem, and don't let me put words in your mouth, seems to have concluded that Debresser would possibly amend their behavior. Judging from Lord Roem comments they are willing to review the situation as early as 1 month if Debresser shows improvement. Debresser this seems like a much needed cooling off period.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Three months is not a "short sanction". It is shorter than the one year authorized by WP:AC/DS, but it's long by WP:ANI standards. DS is an unusual remedy for in extremis cases in controversial parts of the project, and usually applied to recalcitrant/intransigent disruptive editors about whom we all have WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE concerns, not usually long-term productive editors. I would think that a one-day block, or a one-week Tban would have been sufficient. The problem with three-month Tbans is that, because they are based on perceived behavior/attitude not on content and sourcing, they often have the effect of "handing the keys to the kingdom" to the opposition without regard to what the fallout will be on the content. This is eminently gameable. All it takes is for a PoV pusher or tagteam thereof to play a long game, patiently goading a very well-meaning but less patient editor into being just frustrated and intemperate enough to attract attention from an admin who sees DS as the right tool. I don't imply anything about anyone in particular in this exact case (I have not examined the rationales of the opposing parties in any detail, nor do I detect an "I have a hammer, an every problem is a nail" attitude on the part of the admin in question).

I'm just speaking from years of observational, and occasionally direct, experience. Three-month restrictions have a strong tendency to act as a de facto green light to the other side of a content dispute to WP:WIN (and such DS tend to be engineered to serve this purpose), an administrative ruling leveraged sometimes for years after the fact as a weapon/threat to let a faction have their way, to the detriment of the content and our readers. The content disputes in this particular case can surely be ironed out with some RfCs. I'm skeptical that continuing the restrictions against Debresser will serve any preventative purpose, only a punitive one. The main rationale that I see here, the "well, Debresser knew those sources were weak but used them anyway" excuse, speaks directly to this being a punishment for an error, not an ongoing necessity to prevent firmly predictable continued disruption; there's no evidence I can see that Debresser would resume right where he left off.

So, I call WP:TIGER shenanigans on this three-monther. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I'll only deal with the AE request here:
 * The dispute started as a content dispute where Debresser was accused of violating consensus. In the middle, Nablezzy withdrew the request since the underlying dispute was kind of solved, but Debresser reopened it, asking for a WP:BOOMERANG. But they "lost". It's hard for me to feel sympathy here.
 * Lord Roem basically implemented the sanction by themselves, which is fine (sanctions at WP:AE do not need consensus). It is generally good practice to allow others to others to weigh in, but the WP:AE request had been open a fortnight, with only one other admin commenting, briefly. It's no secret that nobody wants to touch this area with a ten-foot pole.
 * It is generally the thinking at at WP:AE that very short topic bans aren't effective. Anything less than one month is useless, three months is common as well. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Clerk notes

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



Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I haven't had time to read this, but on the procedural question raised: I see no reason  can't choose to skip the other venues and come straight to ARCA provided he understands that a result here is a final decision, i.e. you can't come to ARCA and then go back to AE about the same thing. I'm afraid that bouncing stuff to AE on a technicality would result in it coming back here again later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aye, per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions per saltum appeals are explicitly permitted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From per saltum: "The phrase is used in the legal term certiorari per saltum, meaning the possibility of seeking a resolution before a higher court, bypassing intermediate instances" for everyone else who had to google it. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that you're aware of the above and still want to appeal here rather than AE? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is going to take a while for me to parse through. I admit at this point I haven't read the full ARCA nor the full AE request, but I'd like to start with some preliminary questions. These are purely informational questions not to assign blame or guilt or make any judgement.
 * By looking at the result section of the AE request, I see that your view seems to have progressively changed from no sanction to sanction over time. Could you briefly outline your thoughts/reasoning on the escalation over time to where the behavior became disruptive enough for further sanction? I'm not looking for anything detailed, just some diffs or sections that show things were continuing to escalate requiring enforcement.
 * Your last comment on this Enforcement was 5 days before it's closure. Could I request your two cents on the new information and result?
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I echo Opabinia's point above, that Debresser is welcome to come to ARCA without first going to WP:AE or WP:AN. I am not convinced that the ~25 hour gap between edits was an attempt to game 1RR. However, the sanction placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure seems appropriate due to the re-adding of poor-quality sources (even after Debresser admitted they were of poor quality), as well as attempts to control the content of the article based on claims that his own edits reflected consensus despite lack of discussion. I think Lord Roem was right to place a fairly short sanction (three months, when DS authorizes indefinite topic bans of up to one year ) given that these are not the most egregious violations we've seen, but I do think the short sanction is warranted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting I've read your most recent comment, Debresser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify one thing, DS allows indefinite topic/interaction/page/etc bans and other restrictions. The only thing which is limited to one year are blocks (and site bans aren't permitted). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oop, thanks for pointing that out Callanecc. Have adjusted my comment accordingly... GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gotten behind on my ARCA reading, but I've caught up with this one now and I agree with GW. There was certainly edit-warring, even if not "gaming", and it was poorly sourced material in a contentious BLP. This is a pretty short sanction, and Lord Roem even mentioned willingness to lift it early if warranted, and IMO this is well within the norms of admin discretion in DS. Use the time to relax with some quieter articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser, I read your recent addendum, and I fear we're getting into WP:NOTTHEM territory. This also isn't the right venue to ask for new sanctions against other editors under DS. People who gracefully acknowledge they may have been wrong and invest some time in other things are more likely to get their sanctions lifted early, or to cause hesitation to impose new sanctions later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points: 1) As far as I can see, your request to have others sanctioned wasn't so much "ignored" as "declined by implication". 2) As for my advice, well, I've read this request, and the AE request, and the talk page threads, and I think you were sufficiently in the wrong that a sanction was justifiable. It seems that quite a few experienced admins and arbs are coming to that conclusion, which is useful feedback. But if you prefer, read it as pragmatism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Like my colleague above I see a lot of NOTTHEMing here. What I don't see is an egregious administrative failure or an excessively harsh topic ban. Quite the opposite: Lord Roem seems to lenient and willing to reconsider. Nor is this the place to ask for other editors to be punished or warned. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon review, I find Lord Roem's actions reasonable; so, appeal declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When deciding on appeals of discretionary sanctions, I look at whether the enforcing admin's actions are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and DS procedure. In this case DS procedure was followed so there are no issues there. Lord Roem seems to have been very reasonable (3 months is a short topic ban by AE standards) and is willing to discuss options to move forward. For those reasons I decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM 'parties'
I am not a party to the TRM request in any possible sense of the word, and nor as best I can tell is anyone else listed in here. Can one of the clerks do the necessary? (FWIW, there seems to be some fairly blatant canvassing going on here.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks… &#8209; Iridescent 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can the Committee, as suggested, look at the behaviour of certain administrators on the Reference desk?  Tevildo (who is not an administrator) removed some comments, whereupon he was taken to WP:ANI and ordered to stop.   He resumed his behaviour this week, upon which another editor added the posts back.   This induced Jayron32, who is an administrator, to re - remove them and block the editor who added the information indefinitely.   Indefinite block for answering a question at the Reference desk?   This is either tool abuse or a WP:CIR issue.   I suspect the latter as the editor he blocked was an IP, and any competent administrator knows that we do not indefinitely block IPs.   This view is supported by the weird sequence of edits which then followed:


 * adds an IP to a list
 * (17 minutes later) removes it and replaces it with another IP
 * (2 minutes later) shuffles the position of the new IP in the list
 * (1 minute later) adds back the IP he added originally (under edit summary oops) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.14.226 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to Guy Macon's suggestion, previous practice was that anyone who wanted to remove another editor's Reference desk post had to place a notice on the talk page.  Reinstating this requirement would probably stop the current arguments.   Bad faith posts are easily spotted, so I would suggest the guideline apply to removal of good faith posts only. 2.216.56.58 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposal that Arbitration cases should be numbered, with no reference to those involved, will be a disaster.  No jurisdiction uses such a system.   The ability to study a list of cases and pull out those germane to the one in hand is essential for effective advocacy.   Exceptions are very rarely made - for example


 * The "John Doe and Richard Roe" cases, where a nominal plaintiff is required for procedural reasons
 * Commercially sensitive cases (When I petitioned the Chancery Division to wind up a major bank the case was listed as ''In re a Company: No. ..... of .... )


 * Cases involving minors

Infobox warring
Before I propose anything I'd like some prior discussion here on what we should do. I think it's become very clear that this infobox warring/universal enforcement situation has got out of hand. It seems to drain most of the energy of a lot of us on a daily basis now. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see a mention of an infobox or unpleasant exchanges betwene people because of it. It's become an impossible situation to deal with and has grown out of control, especially when articles written by one or two editors are systematically targetted. It's become a form of bullying on here and one of the most disruptive aspects of the site right now. Even more concerning is the way that articles are targetted especially once they're promoted to FA/GA. We're in danger of losing FA contributors because of it. Most of us dread TFA now because we know that somebody is going to turn up to start a new infobox discussion.

I think it's high time we did something about it and propose an amendment to the current arb ruling on this. User:SlimVirgin proposed INFOBOXVAR in 2012 on WT:MOS (though not by name), but it got shot down. Four years down the line and the problem is still here, and it's got worse, to the point that editors who previously greared most of their editing time towards content have now being roped into disputes which spew onto multiple pages. The current ruling on infoboxes leaves it open for the "cult", and it is a cult, to systematically turn up on article talk pages and start new discussions on infoboxes. Often it happens four or fives times on the same article. Given that Featured Articles tend to be especially vulnerable, for a start I would suggest that we make an amendment which protects what was decided on an infobox or no infobox by the editors who contributed to the article and decided at FAC. Editors who work hard to promote articles don't deserve to have to deal with this. How do we put an end to this current situation? I would make a formal request but given how many people support infoboxes I can't see it having any success. But something badly needs to be mediated here to stop this happening time and time again. It's not good enough to leave the ruling as it currently is. Some advice/input from others here would be useful. Do we all admit that there is a problem with ongoing infobox disputes across the site? That would be a start, admit that there is a problem..♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a problem, but perhaps a different one. Please provide three diffs for what you mean by "systematically turn up on article talk pages and start new discussions on infoboxes", or even for "infobox warring", which sounds so clear but can mean many things. - I, for example, tried hard this year to avoid the topic, systematically so. It's not good for my health. I argued on an article talk page in two cases where an infobox I had inserted was reverted (Pierre Boulez, Peter Maxwell Davies), I tried to get general support for a minimal infobox following the example of Beethoven on WP:COMPOSERS (not successful), and commented a few times when I noticed discussions, including the open ARCA request. I went to users' talk pages a few times to clarify, for example Smeat75 about Giulio Cesare, where I think we found an agreement. - Arbitration was not successful in the past to settle infobox disputes, - I would not set any hopes in them ;) - How about making it a reader's preference to see or not to see an infobox? It should be technically possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, we did reach an agreement on Giulio Cesare, and, I hope, about articles on Handel opera in general (about fifty articles) re infoboxes. I absolutely agree that something needs to be done about this never-ending and bad-tempered (as one can see on this very page) feud, but I don't think adding some sort of restriction to featured articles only would be enough. I work a lot on Handel operas and other works of Handel and have in the last few days been revising and expanding articles on the operas of Meyerbeer. Articles on works of Handel and Meyerbeer operas both have templates which add side navboxes to allow further exploration of other works and the same picture of the composer, which unifies the articles (in Handel's case there are hundreds) and creates a sort of book on the subject within wikipedia which I think is very valuable. When someone takes out that template and replaces it with an infobox I perceive it as sabotage of the work I have done trying to improve those articles. I am not bothered about taking articles to Good or Featured Articles when there are so so many articles on the subjects I am interested in that are truly pitiful. I feel sorry for someone turning to this, the most viewed site for information on the web, about a performance or broadcast they are going to attend or listen to and all they see is a badly written stub (or nothing). Maybe one day all the gaps I see here will have been filled and then I can start fussing around for months on one particular article to make it officially "Good" or "Featured". I have included infoboxes to articles on other subjects that I have created, for instance The Myth of Persecution so I am not against them on principle but I do not think they add anything to the articles on music I work on (I guess that makes me a member of  the "elitist gang" referred to on this page.) A lot of people seem to think that Discretionary Sanctions would do some good, I have no idea, maybe they would, I guess it is worth trying, something definitely needs to be done.Smeat75 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't have to look far to spot them. Two or three articles written by Tim riley or Brianboulton have been targetted in the last week or so. WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox and that list you maintain also indicates that it is your intention to impose infoboxes on every article which currently doesn't have one eventually.. This is really more than just about you, there's a lot of editors now causing disruption with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The list you mention is strictly a list of infoboxes reverted, no target list. The correct link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox, but thank you for promoting my old dreams of 2013. I have not edit-warred once in my career on Wikipedia, if it means - as I understand it - returning the same thing three times one day. - "Two or three articles written by Tim riley or Brianboulton have been targetted in the last week or so.", - can you please name these articles, because I am not aware of them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: before complaining about Brian's articles perhaps look what, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What WP:CITEVAR does is acknowledge that citation style is a matter of editorial choice which should not be changed without consensus; it shortcircuits discussion and avoids bad feeling. What I'd like to see from INFOBOXVAR or something like it is a similar acknowledgement that a decision taken by the editors working on an article should not be revisited without a good reason -- something that can be used to end the discussion (either pro or con) without absorbing a lot of time and energy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The amount of ill-will and lost time is astonishing. The pro-infobox warriors possibly imagine they are saving the world, but is the cost really worthwhile? Clearly the two sides will never agree, and there are two possible outcomes. First, one side might wear down the other causing them to retire or drastically cut back their activity. Second, a sensible solution like WP:CITEVAR could be imposed by third parties to avoid the pointless bickering. A third solution, and one that I favor, would be to put infobox warring under discretionary sanctions with escalating blocks for anyone who proposes adding or removing an infobox against the opposition of the group who care about the issue. Then the participants could spend their time arguing about what was the established style, groan. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, if this was solely about you it would be about you. It's not. There's a lot more editors involved in nasty discussions than you. You don't edit war, but you definitely have a habit of commenting on infoboxes and do want to see articles written by Tim and Brian with infoboxes, and you've undoubtedly hit the "thank" button a lot of times towards people starting disputes, I've checked the log a few times on that. You're entitled to your opinion on infoboxes as much as anybody else, but the constant warring and ill feeling between editors over infoboxes has grown into a massive problem which needs to be resolved asap for the sake of future content production if nothing else.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the time I really couldn't care less about an infobox. They're in a lot of articles i've written with people, no problems. But the constant warring and attempts at enforcement in arts biographies in particular where they might have very limited use has become a major site problem which needs to be mediated by arb I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We still have - under the colourful header of Infobox warring - not a single example of that happening. Nor an answer to my suggestion to solve the problem technically: by letting those readers who want an infobox see one, but not the others. - I don't check thank-you logs, - I see bigger problems than expressing thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Allowing readers to choose isn't the answer; I don't know any editors who argue that infoboxes are bad everywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's servers rely on caching to display pages—frequently accessed pages are retained in a cache of formatted pages that require very little overhead for display. There are occasionally suggestions that a reader preference could control the format used to display dates, or what kind of units are displayed for measurements. However, suggestions like that do not proceed because of two factors. First, they would reduce the effectiveness of caching. Second, only logged-in users can have a preference, and the vast majority of readers are not logged in. Regarding the suggestion that examples be shown—why? Are you seriously unaware that there are infobox wars? Or, do you consider any attempt to grind down the opposition as being an acceptable means to achieve a desirable end, and so, by definition, is not warring? Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am seriously interested in understanding what is meant by "Infobox warring" in this thread's header. I am not aware of any recent edit war over an infobox in article space, so I keep asking for an example I may have missed. To insert an infobox, be reverted, go away - that is no war. To restore one that was removed, that is also no war. So what is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Warring goes beyond article space reverting/restalling of infoboxes, 90% of the warring goes on on article talk pages for weeks sometimes. And it's all pointless.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you qualify a RfC as warring? A discussion as warring? - I'd still prefer if you didn't say that 2 or 3 articles were targetted last week without saying which, and "Often it happens four or fives times on the same article" without saying where. How often is often? - Always learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If we could start with a simple adjustment to the ruling, such as articles which have passed GA and FA where the principal editors have made the editorial decision to omit an infobox that would be a start. Make it a blockable offence for anybody to war with adding infoboxes to an article multiple times where there is consensus to not have an infobox and starting discussions on infobox enforcement where the people who have promoted an article don't desire one. They should get one warning should they bring it up but then if they persist and an argument ensues that it to be blockable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't follow much what arb do these days but would it be possible for them to assess the current infobox dispute problem and propose an ammendment/change in ruling to the current ruling between themselves? I really think intervention is needed here, for the sake of the peace of the site and content writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For background, there were similar problems 10 years ago with people changing date formats, and it was dealt with successfully by ArbCom in two decisions, Requests for arbitration/Jguk and Requests for arbitration/Sortan. I believe it was those decisions that started the "VAR" concept: WP:STYLEVAR, WP:DATEVAR, WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR. What is needed now is WP:INFOBOXVAR.

Requests for arbitration/Jguk:

"When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change' (30 June 2005)."

Requests for arbitration/Sortan:

"Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike (25 February 2006)."

A key passage in the 2006 decision is: "nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style." What would be helpful is for ArbCom to confirm that these rulings apply to infoboxes (perhaps by amending the 2006 ruling), and to impose discretionary sanctions on infoboxes so that admins can more easily stop the disruption. SarahSV (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that if an article had an infobox for years ("preferred style"), an editor removing it (in warring fashion) should be sanctioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Often it's not the "preferred" style though, more like a hundred different people added bits and pieces to an article and somebody happened to add an infobox. As nobody bothered to properly write it and sort it out, nobody challenges the infobox. Then when somebody who cares enough sits down and properly writes the article, you can't really claim that the infobox was preferrable before. It's like saying "This article had three copyvio paragraphs and five unsourced paragraphs with bogus text for ten years! This was preferrable, but now editor xxx has developed it into a Good Article, even though the obvious consensus before was to have that text purely because it existed for ten years. Therefore it must have been the right choice and preferrable". It's a "doof" argument!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I would say that if it is clear that the infobox is the existing style for an article, then yes, it should not be removed, and removing infoboxes from articles with well-established infoboxes should be discouraged just as much as the reverse. It's my understanding that this problem is much rarer, but any WP:INFOBOXVAR should be evenhanded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite clear on why this thread is on this particular page. I just posted over at the ARCA request recommending a new thread if people are interested in discussing DS for infobox topics. If people want to discuss a new community compromise instead/in addition, great, but this isn't really the right place for it and you'll miss out on comments from people who are interested in infoboxes but not so much in arbitration. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I wasn't sure what sort of request to make, and whethe rit would be worth starting one or not, given that a lot of people are pro infobox. I thought it was better to get some feedback here first. Perhaps could try again with INFOBOXVAR?♦  Dr. Blofeld  16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going to copy over a variation on some comments I just made at Ian's talk page: Those of us on the pro-infobox side have rather similar emotions to the anti-infoboxers and share a sense of being drained.  We too feel the opposition has a serious OWNership problem.  The Pro-Infobox view is, most likely, the position of the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors, but those who feel strongly about the issue, well they do feel strongly, but I think we are really talking about 9 or 10 editors, roughly.  While a minority view is entitled to respect, and I think where an anti-infobox editor creates an article or does the 5x expansion of a stub that languished unloved for years, their preferences are entitled to a certaindegree of deference, there is also a question of whether we have a walled garden problem or people who are holding back the tide.  We have seen articles with perfectly good infoboxes be challenged at TfA by a reviewer who demands their removal (one of the Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs was an example).  A problem with a general rule is the phrasing "consensus of active editors" or "first major editor" when we are talking about the question of what constitutes an "active" or "major" editor -- is it the first person to start the edit-war by changing an article that has been stable, but ignored, for several years?  Is it the creator who said, "all done" and has had the article watchlisted for years but edited little other than vandal patrol?  My take is that one solution might be an RfC that goes up on the big banner on our watchlists -- perhaps there is a need for a community-wide discussion.  We could get the input of hundreds of editors and maybe from there we could have a crowdsourced solution.   Montanabw (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One other comment on a problem with INFOBOXVAR as compared to CITEVAR: The amount of work involved is very different and we are not comparing apples to oranges here, despite a superficial resemblance.  CITEVAR is useful for two reasons that do not apply to infoboxes:  1)  The underlying formatting of different citation template styles is often all but invisible to the reader; outside the editing window, for example, no one can tell if there are inline refs or LDR refs.  But infoboxes - or the lack thereof - are visible to the reader immediately.  2) Amount of work involved:  A featured article can easily have 200 citations, and requesting a style change is, frankly, abusive and requiring a good editor to spend hours meticulously changing a format.  In contrast, an infobox, once created, is very simple to add or remove, and fixing parameters is no more difficult than fixing a typo in a citation template.   Montanabw (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this difference is substantive for this discussion. In some cases (short vs. long form in the footnotes) the difference is quite noticeable to the reader.  More importantly, though, consider what would happen if someone were to implement a "|style=mla" or "|style=bluebook" (etc.) parameter on the various citation templates, so that with a global search & replace one could change styles.  (I recently saw someone suggest just this.)  In such a situation the differences you point out would disappear, but I hope you wouldn't argue that this would mean CITEVAR should be less honoured by editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason why MOS:ENGVAR is such a useful guideline to settle issues of which spelling style to use is: The parallel guideline MOS:DATEVAR has exactly the same purpose and decision scheme and is completely uncontroversial in deciding whether to use the completely equivalent DMY or MDY date formats.
 * 1) that it has an agreed purpose: to prevent back-and-forth edit wars between two editors over two completely equivalent styles;
 * 2) that it is amenable to an agreed algorithmic scheme of deciding the outcome: opportunities for commonality; strong national ties; talk page consensus; retaining the existing variety; first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.

However, WP:CITEVAR is not comparable because it does not compare a limited number of equivalent styles. Not all styles are created equal, and the debate cannot be framed as a choice between two equally valid options. Wikipedia editors might use one of two standard templates, but there's no guidance on why that might be a good idea (e.g. once one has been chosen, subsequent editors can follow that precisely). In fact, Wikipedia editors are free to make up their own personal style of citation format, with rules that only they themselves are aware of. The purpose of CITEVAR then becomes solely that of giving authority to one editor to impose their personal preference on an article, no matter how poor a choice that may be. Not only that but it becomes a centre-point of the efforts of small cadres to impose a walled-garden around the articles they claim ownership over.

The proposal for BOXVAR is even more ill-founded. There is no equivalence between having an infobox and not having an infobox. Some articles are well suited to having an infobox; others are not. But there's no formula, much as the infobox-haters would try to claim entire swathes of articles as "unsuitable for infoboxes", despite there never having been any community consensus to designate certain types of articles in that way. I call them "infobox-haters" by the way, because I can't think of a better term for a group of editors who consistently remove or exclude infoboxes on grounds that are nothing more than naked personal preference.

The other reason why BOXVAR is a bad idea is that it has no rational use other than to allow a group of editors to impose their will on the content of an article, contrary to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia: anyone can edit it. To those who claim that a group of infobox-panzers are steamrolling over their articles adding unwanted infoboxes, I say: "show me the diffs". Because what you'll see at Talk:Noël Coward is a completely uninvolved editor, asking if an infobox would improve the article. He's told that it's been previously considered and rejected, despite the fact that no previous discussion has ever taken place at the article. What you'll see at Gustav Holst is an uninvolved editor, removes a hidden comment "per WP:HIDDEN" - please do not add an infobox: see WikiProject Classical music - only to see it edit-warred back in, despite the fact that no previous discussion has ever taken place at the article. It's the George Hos and Graham11s of this world who would stand to be sanctioned for breaching a non-existent consensus propped up by the force of a BOXVAR rule. What a shockingly bad idea.

BOXVAR won't stop me from adding infoboxes to their favourite articles, because I don't do it. I don't add infoboxes to articles (except for when Andy was unfairly prohibited from adding infoboxes to articles he created). But I will stand up for other editors who think it's an improvement and are fobbed off with a kind of mysterious consensus that's evolved without any positive edit being made and no discussion ever having taken place. I understand the frustration of editors who steward articles through TFA having to keep giving good reasons to editors who don't know the previous debates that decided against having an infobox; I really do, honestly. But it's better to have to deal with those good-faith attempts to improve the article than to ring-fence it from newcomers. It's also a reminder of the fact that most editors (and probably readers) expect an infobox in our best articles. How many times have we seen a post to TFA saying "this article has an infobox; wouldn't it be improved by removing it"? Answer: Never. That ought to tell you something. --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don't add infoboxes to articles": Are you sure? Maybe you've forgotten "I think we should respect the original author's wishes", when the original editor had not added an IB, nor mentioned he actually wanted one. You also ignored BRD to edit war the box back in, so please don't try to paint yourself as whiter-than-white rex. – SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm absolutely sure. The original author was, who was under an unfair restriction from adding infoboxes, so could not add one himself. I'm absolutely certain that his wishes were for an infobox - see Talk:Albert Ketèlbey . Or you can just look at the next edit after your diff. As for edit-warring over the infobox, that's absolutely untrue and I'm going to ask you to strike it. The article has had a stable infobox ever since, and I defy you to show a diff of me edit-warring over the infobox. I did revert you over your attempt to change the citation style, but Tim had the grace to explain to you that you were wrong there - see Talk:Albert Ketèlbey . Now, please, put a stop to your increasingly hysterical attempts to blacken my name by making things up. It's beneath you and unnecessary. This problem you have with infoboxes is clouding your judgement and souring your relations with folks like me, who would otherwise be among your best allies in working with you on this encyclopedia that we both love. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm 'wrong on every count'. Shall we go through this one by one (despite it being utterly pointless):
 * 1. No, he wasn't under any restrictions at all. His restrictions to add IBs was "Rescinded on review at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)", according to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Your edit warring to put back the IB was on 17 June 2015‎, three and a half months after the restriction was lifted. (And the restrictions certainly were not 'unfair': the last Arbcom case justifiably pointed a finger where it was deserved).
 * 2. Yes, you ignored BRD and edit warred: an IB was BOLDLY (and poorly) added on 28 January 2015 (then fixed on 1 February 2015. I REVERTED on 8 March, and you edit warred on 17 June. It may be a slow burn edit war, but it's still edit warring.
 * 3. You claimed to speak for Mabett in your inclusion of the IB, and it probably does represent his position, but without any statement from him on the talk page or elsewhere that he wanted an IB (and remember this was three months after the Arb restrictions were lifted) do we take it that the jungle drums were beating privately by email when he made the request?
 * 4. Although way off topic here, you misrepresent the citation style: it was a mess of various different styles before the re-write. You forced your own preferred version on the article after the re-write had brought consistency over the numerous different styles.
 * 5. rex you have asked "Let's stop the nonsense and get back to respectfully discussing the actual issues", which is an admirable goal, but when you distort a situation like this and then make facile and ridiculous statements like accusing me of "increasingly hysterical attempts to blacken my name by making things up", I can only laugh. There is nothing hysterical in my approach, and—if you had looked at what I wrote—I asked if you had forgotten adding this box, not accusing you of forcing it in. Yes, by all means discuss the actual issues, but please try and put it down straight. If you are going to reply to this, perhaps you could avoid commenting on my state of mind, or the reason why I posted? Life would be so much easier if we didn't have to jump through the defence of our respective good names for every single post. – SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point 1. is utterly wrong - try reading the review which you mention - so any "distort[ion...] and facile and ridiculous statements" are clearly yours. I second Rexx's request that you strike it. As to your point 3., I don't know who "Mabett" is, but I had edited the infobox previously included, and so User:RexxS was and remains absolutely correct to have read that as my supporting the presence of such a template in this specific article. You should strike that, too. I'll let him answer your other points, if he thinks it worth the candle. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by absolutely everything I have written, especially considering the diffs provided. – SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you're distorting the truth beyond what anybody could conceive as acceptable. You're making up a definition of edit-warring that bears no resemblance to what anyone else on this project recognises.
 * I added an infobox to an article that I knew Andy had created in July and you call it edit-warring because an IP had added a completely different infobox in January that you had reverted in March? You have no clue what an edit-war is. What kind of infernal would require that every editor had to trawl through the complete history of every article to make sure that they weren't inadvertently re-adding some content that bore a vague resemblance to some content that had been reverted months earlier? There was no need for email to be involved. Andy lives near Birmingham, as do I, and Ketèlbey was a notable Brummie, hence our shared interest in him. I encounter Andy regularly along with other keen Wikimedians at meetups, local wiki-events he's organised, Wikimania, and most recently at the WMUK AGM. Why would you be surprised that we discuss on-wiki topics? Have you created some sort of law against it in the world you inhabit? As for the citation style, anyone can look at Talk:Albert Ketèlbey to see you humiliate yourself as I drew you attention to CITEVAR and factually stated "The first inline citations were added in on 6 June 2011 and they used the cite web template. There has been no discussion or consensus established to alter that style since then, so all inline citations should be consistent with the CS1 templates." It wasn't my preferred format I was asking to be respected, it was your preferred format. Ironic, eh? Or at least pretty funny. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "hoist by your own petard"? Good grief.... Your semantic gymnastics to justify your edit warring are odd, to say the least. An IB was added, then removed, and you re-added: that's edit warring. (Put it this way, if this was reversed and we were talking about the removal of the IB (with the justification of 'first user's choice') you'd have been popping a vein in high dudgeon, banging the OWNership drum yet again.
 * I really don't know why you keep harping on about the citation style when we are talking about IBs, but I'm honestly sorry that you got into such a state over what you perceived as a 'change' to the citation style, but I would have thought that as you and mabbet obviously liked the article and had spent time on it, I'm still bemused by the fact that the article had more citation needed tags than sources (absolutely nothing to humiliate me there—I take pleasure in replacing cn tags with reliably sourced citations, regardless of anyone's pet peeves over something so utterly pointless to our readers). I would have thought that more time should have been spent sorting those out than warring over the IB of the particular template to use, but I guess there is no pleasing some people...
 * Anyway, as interesting as it is to listen to the various alternative histories being trotted out, I'm in the midst of writing an article. Thankfully it has an IB in it that is actually worth keeping in place, so at least I will be spared discussions on that front. Toodles. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as interesting as it is to listen to the various alternative histories being trotted out, I'm in the midst of writing an article. Thankfully it has an IB in it that is actually worth keeping in place, so at least I will be spared discussions on that front. Toodles. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Brianboulton: As my name has been mentioned during the discussion, I feel I ought to say something. I began this before Rex posted his depressing belligerent rant, but I'll ignore him as I'm sure will all right-minded contributors here.

On other matters: the claim is often made that resistance to  boxes  is limited to a small number of editors working mainly on classical music or other performing arts articles (Montana, above, hypothesizes a figure of 9 or 10 irreconcilables). This is a misconception, which arises simply because these are the only articles that are regularly targeted. If you go to WP:WBFAN and look at the work of our main featured article contributors you will find that many of these editors pick and choose whether an infobox is appropriate, and often decide  it is not. Thus dozens, maybe hundreds of featured articles, across a wide range of subject areas, lack infoboxes. Other than in the music/performance fields, few if any of these articles have ever been graced by a visit  by the infobox squad – I wonder why this is? I am not of course suggesting that they should be, merely exposing the convenient myth that this an issue confined to the recaltricance of a few pesky classical music editors who can be readily demonised.

As we know, the formal WP policy is that infobox inclusion or otherwise should be decided by individual article consensus. If anyone wants to see the effect of this policy in action, they should visit the Gustav Holst talkpage, where weeks of often rancorous discussion have led exactly nowhere. For older examples of the same thing see Georg Solti (2012) and Peter Sellers (2015}. I have yet to find a case where the heavy-handed approach has resulted in any change of hearts and minds on any article; when a course of action fails again and again, why persist with it? I know there are cases – a few – where longstanding infoboxes have been removed from articles. That in my view is equally wrong, but is a predictable consequence of infobox warring.

I don't, alas, have any easy answer to hand, beyond saying that we should stop what we are doing, pause for reflection, and then look for a rational way forward. Perhaps the main antagonists should step aside, and allow cooler minds to formulate a solution. Now it's way past my bed-time. Goodnight. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In my mind, if the article's creator has been the main contributor to the article, they should be the one to make the call -- assuming (1) that editor is an adequately experienced and adequately longterm editor, and (2) the article itself is substantial enough in size. Given those parameters, in my mind only an RfC should change the status of an infobox's presence or absence on any given article. I have advised innumerable times that squabbling editors create an RfC instead of squabbling over infoboxes, but no, they prefer to endlessly squabble and the squabbles go nowhere. Brianboulton, all of the cases you present could have been easily solved with an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we end up with a resolution mechanism based on discussion, such as an RfC, it will tend to produce the outcome favoured by the majority, whatever that is. If we end up with something like a BOXVAR, it will tend to produce outcomes favoured by the particular content contributors at each article.  RexxS draws a useful distinction between ENGVAR, in which both choices are valid, and a way has to be provided to make the article stable; and pure content additions, for which a reasonable discussion is clearly the best choice.  But putting infoboxes in the latter category isn't helpful, because CITEVAR wasn't developed because citation styles are like ENGVAR; citation styles have strong partisans who will make a strong case for the advantages of one style over the other.  It was developed to stop unproductive disagreements, and by and large it has worked.  I can't believe many editors think that dropping CITEVAR, and calling RfCs to decide citation styles at articles, would be a step forward. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RfCs aren't "discussions" (which have been tried and contentiously go nowhere), they are formalized dispute-resolution polls which include input from a neutral cross section of editors, run for a prescribed amount of time, and are closed neutrally by an uninvolved neutral party. And infoboxes are not citations -- they are content. Changing citations does not change content, but adding or removing infoboxes clearly does. Additionally, I made it clear that the default situation should be that of the article's creator or earliest primary contributor, and that only a successful RfC should change that. Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the best you can do? Not a single bit of reasoning to answer the charges I've levelled against you and your elitist gang? You have no answer so you have to resort to insult. It seems I touched a nerve there. Where are the diffs? you vaguely wave at a 2012 discussion. If the last time you had a problem with Andy was FOUR YEARS ago, you really need to learn to drop the stick. The Talk:Peter Sellers issue was raised as an innocent question by a new editor,, who was interested in Peter Sellers (as you can see from his 15 contribs). You want to label him as another infobox criminal, and you'd like to have a stick to beat him with. There's no need, your pals soon gave him short shrift and chased him off. He never came back. Then Doc9871 and Spartan7W chipped in in support of the existing compromise, but were told that "If you think that then you have no place editing here". Garchy then joined in favour of an infobox, asking "please don't bite the newcomers, they are only trying to help". He managed to keep some dignity despite being repeatedly accused of insulting other editors. That's your evidence of the "heavy-handed approach"? By whom? It seems you think the "infobox squad" is made up of every editor who dares to advance an opinion different from yours. So let's have some real debate. You have a problem with an "infobox squad" who are going around targeting the articles you and your chums own. So name the "infobox squad" and give us the examples of where the "infobox squad" have descended on those articles. Show me the diffs. It's put-up or shut-up time. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Rex, I'm sure we can hurl this kind of stuff at each other all day, and there's plenty more I could say, but I'm not going to. I've had my say, you've had yours, we know where we stand. There's a considerable amount of good sense on this page, but I don't think we're contributing to it while we lock horns with each other. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there's plenty more I could say too, but there's really no need to be personal, is there? Especially when I sincerely respect the work you do on Wikipedia, it seems a shame that you had to stoop to throwing an insult ("depressing belligerent rant, but I'll ignore him as I'm sure will all right-minded contributors"). If you disagree with my genuinely held views and want to debate them, that's fine, but personalising disagreements is so ... disagreeable, wouldn't you say? Let's stop the nonsense and get back to respectfully discussing the actual issues, please? --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rexx, I know your stance on infoboxes, but do you not think that the endless disputes about them are disruptive and unnecessary? Do you not think they waste a massive amount of time when it could go towards actual content? That's what I think some mediation from arb is needed, not that you're not entitled to your view on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think that endless disputes about anything as unimportant as infoboxes are disruptive. However, in my humble opinion, they are sometimes necessary. They certainly are not needed between you and me: we know and respect each other's position well enough. But when a newcomer to the infobox disputes - be they new to Wikipedia or veterans - comes along and genuinely wishes an explanation of why the article has no infobox, or why there's a note from WikiProject Classical music telling him not to add one, the burden falls on somebody to provide that explanation, politely, calmly, and accurately. Every single one of my engagements in the wars over the last few years has been directly related to that exact scenario. I do understand the burden it imposes on the stewards of the articles, I really do, and I wish there were some way I could magic away the problem for you, but for me the overriding principle of allowing everyone to edit Wikipedia is paramount. I promise I won't roll my tanks over your Sudatenland, in an effort to convert all articles to the One True Faith™, but I'm not prepared to consent to measures that would see innocent, uninvolved editors being sanctioned for their good-faith attempts to improve an article (as it appears to them). I hope you would join me in that sentiment. Regards --RexxS (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race, but the infobox disagreement became very apparent in my early wiki-editing days 10 years ago, and then as now, I keep wondering how serious, dedicated, good content contributors can get so worked up about it, one way or the other. Unfortunately this thread, through no fault of its original poster, is already becoming another exercise in trench warfare. I don't know how this can be avoided, but I can sense that the original poster is really seeking a resolution that stops wasting the time, energy, and brain power of people who have a lot to contribute outside this (in my opinion ridiculous) conflict. Please, try to ignore your positions for a moment, and compare your interests instead. What's actually at stake here? ---Sluzzelin talk  03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that 's idea of opening an RfC, at least where involved editor discussion goes nowhere, isn't a bad idea. I do agree that BOXVAR would not work and others had even better reasons to add to mine, but I do think it is a very good idea that where the creator (or a 5x expander, at least) remains the main contributor, their wishes should have great weight.  But on the other hand, though we got to a compromise, I think it was inappropriate to remove an infobox from a longstanding article (Frank Sinatra) just prior to a FAC push... that might be another RfC example -- we reached a compromise there (collapsed infobox), but I do think that is an example of where the dilemma lies.   Montanabw (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would like the RfC approach Montana. Unfortunately it brings out little more than knee-jerk ILIKEIT voting that talks generally about IBs, without any recourse to policy, guideline or practice on that particular article. The droves of voters don't actually consider what there is - summoned by bot, I sincerely doubt many actually look at the article, but simply knee-jerk vote on their pre-conceived preferences without considering the circumstances. Most admins don't bother to consider the arguments in that great a detail but just count what there is. There have been some shocking decisions to add an IB where nothing new has been said, but the vote stacking by people who have not considered the points on that particular article has swayed the closing admin. Unfortunately that is one of the weaknesses of WP: despite claims of it not being a democracy, anyone can stick in an oppose or support with only half a idea of what they are talking about. This is particularly true when it comes to quality articles, when the standards of those voting are too low to actually create decent content, but we seem to be happy to give them a say in downgrading it. – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * QED: vote counting the knee jerk IDONTLIKEIT votes from people uninterested in the subject, most of whom haven't even bothered to look at the article, let alone read the arguments. In contentious situations, where there is supposed to be a solid consensus to change a long-standing status quo of something that has passed through two community review processes, to make a decision that bastardises one of our quality articles on what the admin describes as a "rough consensus" is sub-standard. As for "this appears to be a minority view", since when did we start ignoring Wikipedia is not a democracy just to force an issue to a personal preference? RfCs from (mostly) editors who couldn't write a decent article if their lives depend on it get open season to bugger up our quality product are a piss-poor way to develop anything decent. – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's stop group names
As a little step forward, I propose that we all - those who more often think infoboxes are useful than the others who use them only occasionally - stop using group labels such as "infobox haters", "infobox warriors" etc., as always too general. I admit that I used "idiot" myself in the RfC, one of 15 so far ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How about "Idiotbox fanatic" then ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lovely! I am always so pleased when IB mob or flash mob come up. Got it pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine the last couple of posts here are meant to be taken light-heartedly, but I do agree with Gerda's original request that we should stop classifying groups of editors by oversimplistic labels. Even when used ironically or half-humorously, these can be annoying; they are divisive, and prevent people from talking sensibly to each other.  They tend to escalate rather than resolve conflict – as do names like "idiotbox". Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was kidding, I thought that was obvious by the ;-)..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was responding in the same sense, didn't even mention "monster" yet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's edit normally and with respect
Until we'll find a better solution, can we just treat infoboxes as normal article features such as images, navboxes etc, nothing special. Someone adds a box, another reverts, then discussion. Or someone removes a longstanding box, another brings it back, discussion. We should respect the wishes of principal editors, but also an article history. As all who read this hopefully know, there's only one restriction by arbcom on infobox editing still in place: "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." With that in mind, peaceful normal editing might begin today. Example: I added a while ago an infobox to yesterday's TFA, Handel's lost Hamburg operas, was reverted with a general note by a user not known to have edited the article, so added it back, was reverted by a second user, took it to the talk page, where we had a civil short discussion. (If the main author had reverted me the first time, I would not even have discussed in that case of a FA, see Agrippina (opera).) Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For a more complete picture of what happened, let's also note that you had never edited the article before arriving to add the info box. I automatically add a lot of FAs and other articles to my watch list as I'm sure many others do. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I add opera infoboxes following this discussion (not by me: "It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article. If someone adds an infobox and another editor thinks it's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. If someone removes a long-standing infobox and another editor thinks that's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. In both cases everyone can enjoy the ensuing snipe-fest."), - as project maintenance, not drive-by. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Normal but not essential. That's the part that you and others on here can't seem to comprehend. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said "essential". But regardless, can we just forget let go of the past and start? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to forget the past when you, Gerda, track and record a hitlist at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. 5.2 million articles, and yet the IB mob all turn up at the small number of articles where a small group of editors have developed the articles past the point where an IB is advantageous... – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advertising the list of infoboxes that were reverted. (No target, no people mentioned, just the fact. If it was a target list, we'd keep it secret.) - I didn't respond in the RfA where you did that more prominently, because it has nothing to do with it. (You accused the wrong person of being an IB warrior, btw, I asked questions 6 and 7, you mentioned 4, no?) - How about remembering the past but still do better from now on? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, when I mentioned question 4 in the RfA, I meant question 4. – SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I must miss something because question 4 was asked by a user who rather reverts infoboxes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I read your comment again and see now that you probably meant that "as it was" relates to "missing a key point", while I thought you meant the question was by the IB warrior. - How many times do you think our differences are caused by misunderstandings? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And Gerda, how about you stop the behind-the-scenes stirring I've seen you engage in on subjects outside classical music? Or is this another "misunderstanding"? – SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to appear in another infobox discussion, so answered the question if we could discuss cons and pros of an ibox with "no". How more indifferent can I answer? Your interpretation of "stirring" is your interpretation. I worked on Kafka, outside Classical music. Don't understand that part of your comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, it's something I have seen you do before, stirring the pot when it is not needed, while keeping clear of the main debate. Great that you stick clear of the debate, but don't try and stir things up behind the scenes in its place - adding to the fire isn't helpful to anyone. – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Folks, again with all the "you" statements. Any of us are allowed to edit any article, our motives are irrelevant so long as we maintain decorum. Deciding to discuss an issue on a side channel is not "stirring the pot," it might be a sincere effort to NOT stir the pot too much.  The real problem here is that we all do have a position on the issue in general, and we all probably agree that the ArbCom decision was about the least helpful outcome possible to anyone.  We all know that it is impossible to make individualized article decisions about articles that broadly fall into a group where all articles in the group can be subject to similar arguments.  But it's the hand we were dealt.    Montanabw (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "the least helpful outcome possible to anyone". But Arbcom decisions are not the laws of the Medes and the Persians, never to be changed. This decision plainly isn't working, and is the cause of never-ending strife. So why not lobby for a new Arbcom and a workable decision? Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The present arbcom is the best we had so far. We could ask them to clarify more. We could also simply edit and be interested in good personal relations. That's why I go to user talk pages, not to stir pots ;) - I am in a good mood, having just listened to Monteverdi's Vespers with Robert King and his forces as part of the Rheingau Musik Festival, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If "the best we have so far" isn't working, that's small consolation. If a policy's effect is to promote rather than resolve conflict, then it needs to be amended or replaced. Here, a group of editors pressing an infobox agenda is matched by a smaller, targeted group, determined to resist. Under present policy  the groups have  to fight it out  article by article, with the destructive consequences we have seen.  So let's attack the policy rather than fight each other. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They would work if we ask, why should they without. I would ask them to clarify if the concept "The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies who have done nothing to get this article where it is today" (by Cassianto, today) is compatibly with this project's concept that anyone can edit. But I'd prefer to just edit normally, as proposed above, based on Voceditenore who is on vacation. We don't need any more policy, only respect. Respectfully, one from the load of nobodies, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion, FWIW from a basically uninvolved, those willing go to mediation to construct an RfC (hopefully both "sides" would go but if one side will not than work with whoever shows up - keeping in mind that no one will probably get an 'I always win' outcome, at least at this stage). But you can probably come up with some useful default rules, that could find a consensus if you are willing to think hard about it (and 'write for the enemy')- and then put it to the community widely advertised. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A solution
This thread was intended more as a discussion on providing a solution to reducing infobox disputes and arguments, not as fodder to encourage further arguments! Would appreciate more input on the "How do we stop these silly disputes occurring daily across articles on wikipedia?" Would appreciate some input from arbitrators here on what the best source of action would be here, and whether or not they all acknowledge that there is a problem with infoboxes and if the current ruling is effective enough or not. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, User:Dr. Blofeld, but if you really want to "[provide] a solution to reducing infobox disputes and arguments... not encourage further arguments!", maybe it would be a good idea to drop smears like "...the 'cult', and it is a cult..." and false accusations like the one you levelled at Gerda? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The same can be said for the insults traditionally thrown the other way, including (and these are just the ones in this thread) the oft-made (and little justified) OWN accusation, references to "anti-infobox editors", "walled gardens", "holding back the tide". I could look at the last couple of discussions and come up with more, but let's not kid ourselves that either side is whiter than white on this. – SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell me where I said OWN or any of the others, and I will apologize. Should we make a list of things that nerve us, trying to avoid them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that can be said, but so can many other false comparisons be verbalised. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that on one hand, it would be good for all of us to depersonalize the issue. But on the other hand, there is a false equivalence between making a point of a policy or guideline (linking to WP:ABCDEFG in an argument) and using more ad hominem phrases such as "cult."  But even if we take the theoretical position that both types of comment are equivalent, when we start to attribute motives to other editors at all, especially to make assumptions of ill-will, it gets emotional.   Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "more ad hominem phrases such as "cult." Or  "you and your elitist gang"?Smeat75 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or "depressing belligerent rant, but I'll ignore him as I'm sure will all right-minded contributors" - that was the uncalled-for insulting that provoked "you and your elitist gang". You see how one unnecessary insult sets off a chain of unpleasantness that pollutes the argument? How about you do a little homework, and see who starts each round of ad hominem? No matter which side you're on, you'll find it's always the other side. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rex, I hadn't intended to interract with you again in this dispute, but your  comment that "it's always the other side's fault" is apposite.  In other words, we all think "he/she started it". My "belligerent rant" phrase clearly stung more than I intended, and   provoked you, as you say,  to  respond with a couple of insults of your own. But I was  provoked to rudeness by your earlier comments about "infobox haters" and ownership, and so it goes on, further and further back – who cast the first stone? Nobody knows now.  Many of the terms that we use to describe each other, e.g. "cult", "gang", "mob", "squad" etc are in my view  a  form of shorthand, only marginally offensive if at all,  and I suggest we can ignore them  while avoiding the more loaded terms such as "haters" and return to the issues, like searching for a solution. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So, how are we going to stop this silly situation cropping up every few days? There is a way to deal with it but nobody, including the arbitrators seems willing to want to take that step. Every week that passes without revision to the current ruling is hours and hours more time wasted, time which could be going into actual content cleanup and production. Can we at least revise it to stop warring over articles which are TFA and protect the people who promoted it there with consensus to not have an infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly give us one example of edit-warring on a TFA. The last time I recall that an infobox was added to a TFA (and only two days later than TFA day 24 December, and then discussed, not warred) was Cosima Wagner on . The hidden notice for that article is gone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Gerda, the term Dr B. used was "warring", not "edit-warring". He was I think referring to the general conflict around this issue, rather than the specific question of reverting and re-reverting.


 * It is certainly true that, in the past, TFAs have been the trigger for infobox conflicts. Here are a few examples:


 * First, lets deal with the one Gerda refers to, Cosima Wagner. This was TFA on 24 December 2012. During that time   an infobox was added, removed, added again and removed again, all without any discussion beyond edit summaries. Two days later, Andy Mabbett,  the adder in question, began a discussion on the talkpage which began civilly enough, but soon degenerated into an unseemly squabble. You can blame who you like for this deterioration, but its origin is clear: the attempt to add an infobox without discussion.
 * Georg Solti: A slightly earlier case, with very similar circumstancs: TFA on 25 July, on which date, without prior discussion, Andy Mabbett adds an infobox, which is quickly reverted. A tremendous kerfuffle ensues – again, blame who you like, but the casus belli is obvious. The argument dragged on for months, generating much ill-will and resolving nothing.
 * The Rite of Spring: FTA on 29 May 2013. Next day, Andy Mabbett opens a discussion on the talkpage: "Why doesn't this article have an infobox?", and off we go again. The damage had been done through his earlier endeavours, so there was mistrust from the start. The discussion quickly degenerated and there were months of dissent,  blame who you will.
 * Hattie Jacques: TFA 7 Febraury 2014, infobox discussion initiated the same day. By this time it was becoming increasingly difficult to conduct any objective discussion on the topic.

I've posted this purely to answer Gerda's specific point about TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies who have done nothing to get this article where it is today"" Yes, exactly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To Brian: thank you, I wasn't part of the discussions but The Rite of Spring, so thanks for adding details. 2014 still the latest date. - To Dr. Blofeld: we can just edit normally or ask what the arbs think about that. I might next year. For 2016, I have other topics, am ready to not mention the word infobox a single time. Singing today, for example. Off to rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 28 August 2013: In the infoboxes case, a majority o arbitrators decided to ban Andy, for things like the above mentioned discussion on The Rite of Spring. Perhaps look yourself it "degenerated". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes Brian, I mean general bickering over infoboxes, rather than edit warring. If you add the disagreements which crop up on Featured and Good Articles too I think there's a case to at least amend the current ruling to stop this happening time and time again over articles which people promote. Something which acknowledges that the consensus upon promoting an article should be respected.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This TFA thing is no solution, the conflict will just be pushed earlier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC) I'm dumbfounded by the lack of willingness for people here to suggest a solution. It's almost as if some of you want to continue having these silly squabbles on a daily basis over infoboxes. Well I don't, I have better things to do with my time. This infobox issue has become a major site problem and unless something changes we're going to continue to lose editors and featured article contributors.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question we should be asking is do we mandate the structure that has evolved over time and or do we continue to have a small segment of articles that appear to be lacking cohesion resulting in conflicts. Conference: IADIS International WWW/Internet, At Timisoara, Romania, Volume: 2010 = "Will Wikipedia articles converge on a standard structure? Will there be formal rules regarding the structure of articles, or will unstructured articles be quickly edited to include structure? What kind of articles, if any, will remain unstructured? Given the ambivalent or negative reactions to some structure, how will editors react to a convergence on structure? Unlike language, Wikipedia has a completely recoverable ". -- Moxy (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is blocking the natural evolution of the project a good thing? It will cause nothing but heartache if your on the minority  side of a problem.like this.. Hard to block positive evolution by  the majority  when so many see a benefit. So a solution would be to mandate structure of this nature in GA and FA article so those not familiar with its benefits dont get stuck in  loop of trying to combat natural progression of structure and data dissemination.  -- Moxy (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mayhaps a liberal issuing of topic bans to anyone who acts out of line on the issue will help. Or discretionary sanctions on the topic. Either of which needs a new Infoboxes 2 case, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Infoboxes II was requested in 2015, but not accepted. It would be III. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, since you ask, here are some thoughts. I'll preface this by saying that most of the FAs I've worked on are either kings or magazines; I'm happy with infoboxes for kings but usually find them less useful for magazines, and at least four or five times over the years I've participated in discussions on talk pages about whether an article should have an infobox. Here is the most recent discussion I recall.  I mention this because I don't want to characterize myself as neutral on the issue; I'm philosophically more aligned with those who sometimes don't want to include an infobox.
 * Here are some requirements I think any realistic solution has to include.
 * Scope. It has to have fairly limited scope.  A global change to policy affecting infoboxes on every single article is simply not going to gain consensus, for good reason, and shouldn't be attempted.
 * Article quality. It has to acknowledge that there's a difference between adding or removing an infobox to a stub, and doing the same to an article that has had a lot of work and thought put into it, particularly if that article has been through a review process.  This would be true for any edit; it's not more true for infoboxes, but it is true, and has to be remembered.
 * Participation. It has to address the concern that "uninvolved" editors will show up to add their opinions to any discussion.  This is a key point, because in most cases (e.g. "should this article use BrEng or AmEng?") an RfC that brings in outside editors is exactly what we (the community) want; more opinions on a decision that will stay with the article indefinitely, to allow the editors of the article to move forward.  Not everyone thinks this is OK for infoboxes. And when I say "address", I don't mean "disallow" or "allow"; I just mean the solution has to clearly say whether this is OK, and if not, how it will be stopped or remedied.
 * Permanence. It has to make clear how permanent a decision is, in order to prevent a recurrence of the discussion wasting more time. When and how can an infobox decision for an article be revisited?
 * Fairness. It has to apply equally to the addition and removal of infoboxes.
 * I also think that to believe a solution is necessary, you have to believe that infoboxes are not just a content addition, but are a method of content presentation. That makes it a stylistic choice.  If you think infoboxes are just content and no more, then there seems no reason to exempt them from the usual Wikipedia content dispute rules -- involve more editors till we get a consensus, which of course often means majority rule, in the absence of clear policy arguments for one side or the other.
 * Given the above, here's a possible solution that I think addresses all five points above.
 * Proposal. Any article that has reached featured status should be presumed to have or not have an infobox as a conscious decision, made by the contributing and reviewing editors.  To add or remove an infobox to/from a  featured article, post a note to the article talk page.  If none of the contributors or reviewers of the article object, make the change after a week.  If some agree and some object, let a consensus emerge in that discussion and abide by it.  Do not call an RfC to expand the scope of contributors.  No editor can propose a change of this sort to a featured article more than once in a calendar month.  If more than one editor who has not contributed significantly to the article contributes to the discussion on the talk page (e.g. if two anti-infobox editors show up on a talk page of an article they have not been involved with, or two pro-infobox editors ditto) then their opinion has no more weight than that of a single editor.
 * I just threw that paragraph together in a couple of minutes, and I'm sure it's flawed, but I hope it meets the five requirements I gave above. Perhaps other similar language could be discussed here and if we come up with something that seems both narrow in scope and reasonable we can talk about how it could be implemented. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally we're getting somewhere! Thankyou. Though now the arduous task of getting people to agree on it..♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I proposed the method above - the method that has been used before for contentious issues. This is just not the place to adopt guidelines (commenting on the proposal, I doubt the no community rfc stuff will fly) but really if one wants to get serious, it has to move from this page, and the questions put to the community (if there is a serious effort) -- questions that will ultimately likely come from both "sides" and they probably will not have 'such and such is off-limits' - your best shot, I suggested before, is probably some modest incremental default rules to begin, but really those serious would set up the mediation to hash out the RfC on a guideline. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Alan, but that paragraph is pretty incoherent. Can you clarify what you are proposing? Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Is it unclear that new guidelines are adopted in community RfC's, sometimes at VPP or on its own page? If your question is about the oft used process of mediation to construct an RfC to get the community to adopt a new guideline for infoboxes, see WP:MEDIATION, they will help lead you through it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alan, I think we're just trying to find a meeting of the minds between the disputants. If a consensus is reached here, we'd then have to figure out how to implement it, as you say; that's what I meant above by "if we come up with something...we can talk about how it could be implemented".   That might mean a community RfC, or it might mean asking Arbcom to get involved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems whomever is involved in this has been discussing it for years - and no meeting of the minds has been achieved - that's where mediation and RfCs are suppose to come in and ARBCOM does not adopt site guidelines. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The main thing is to figure out how to ratchet down the emotion. The problem becomes when people start to personalize things and attack each other, which is what the nastiness at the opera and classical music projects had in spades, and now we are starting to see it in some film and literature areas. I fear the five principles, while good as a structure for a solution, are kind of dead at the outset. Here's my take:
 * Scope. The original problem was that there was a fairly brutal application of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that said "no infoboxes in our project's articles.  Period.  Anyone who wanted to create an article within that project was pretty much bullied beyond reason and led to the Infobox ArbCom case. That approach was pretty much canned with the ArbCom decision to go article-by-article.  While there's a possible (endless) discussion if it would be useful to move toward a consensus that certain classes of articles (pop stars, film actors, rocks and minerals, whatever) should have certain types of infoboxes (or not) and what they should contain (or not), it would probably in reality just go back to the same problems, just multiple articles at a time.
 * Article quality. In reality, it is irrelevant to how hard people fight. Where an article has had an infobox for, literally, a decade, only to have it removed for an FAC push, that is a particular problem. On the opposite side,  where others are trying to add one post-FAC, we have a real storm. We had a recent FAC derailed because there was an infobox, another current GA has survived with a collapsed infobox, and there are others that have issues because the reviewers want them and view their absence as a lack.
 * Participation. The same parties are at an impasse, so if we can't bring in non-involved contributors, how to we get additional input? OTOH, often an RfC does bring in people who don't understand the issues and they may weigh in without a lot of background.  (Or, maybe that's a good thing)
 * Permanence. I do think the idea of a once-per month, or one- per six month limit is good. I also wonder if a two comments per person limit is useful.
 * Fairness. "It has to apply equally to the addition and removal of infoboxes."  There's the rub.  Each side really feels their way is better.  Can a system be created to ratchet down the endless, circular ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debate? There are few new arguments being raised, well over half of all WP articles now have infoboxes, and  see no minds being changed.  Montanabw (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Article writing vs database construction
Hasn't the key conflict at the heart of the infobox disputes always been the disconnect between writing articles and constructing a database using information in Wikipedia articles? Is it possible that the increasing prominence of Wikidata may either exacerbate the problem or help solve it in some way? Infoboxes started as a tabular summary of information in an article, and are now being (or will soon be) used to display data contained in Wikidata (see Template:Wikidata property migration, Category:Templates whose data is currently being migrated to Wikidata and Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 6). That is only a very limited application so far, but if eventually information in infoboxes is emitted from Wikidata, what then? How will that change things?

Manual of Style/Infoboxes says the purpose is to "summarize [and] identify key facts at a glance" but then goes on to say "Using an infobox also makes the data within it available [...] in a granular, machine readable format". The lead section of that Manual of Style page doesn't even mention anything about when to use an infobox, and it is way down the page (section 5) that you get the section "Using infoboxes in articles". I doubt many people read down that far. WikiProject Infoboxes appears to be geared mainly to answer technical questions. There is nowhere to go to ask "should I use an infobox on this article?". The key difference has always been on the one hand people who think "if an infobox can be used, it should be, as infoboxes are a good thing and help us to make things machine-readable and easy to classify and understand" versus people who (mostly) see an infobox as a distraction from writing the article and a potential source of misleading and unclear summaries. Is it actually possible to reconcile those viewpoints? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In 2012, I understood that an article can supply both: good prose and key facts, such as when and where a person was born and died, and what he or she mainly did, such as Beethoven. It doesn't take away form the article, - nobody supporting some structured information (for people struggling with English, vision impaired, looking for a specific fact, ... - as WhatamIdoing said in the ) wants to reduce the lead. The box holds information for readers who may profit from structure, regardless of what Wikidata does. I tried for two composers when they died, Pierre Boulez and Peter Maxwell Davies. That was enough for the year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To some extent, you can attempt to provide an article for both sorts of readers, the ones just looking for quickly obtainable information and those wanting to read and enjoy a full and detailed article, but those two approaches are always going to conflict. They conflict because they are different. Striking a balance between the two risks ending up with something that is worse than either separately. You are either writing for serious readers, or you are writing for consumers of structured information. Why would anyone try to merge these two approaches? If we were starting things from scratch, we wouldn't seriously propose combining these two approaches, would we? The two methods have grown together, organically, side-by-side. They aren't a good fit together. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds abstract to me. Where in Maxwell Davies do you think they don't go together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * They can go together. But they can also be consumed separately. Imagine the article without the infobox and the infobox on its own with no article. Now if the infobox was on its own, then it could be expanded and added to. While it is paired with the article, it is constrained to be an adjunct, an add-on, to not overwhelm the article. Do you see the difference? Imagine a site where you just saw infobox-type entries, with a link to a full article. There are many different ways of presenting such information. The current approach, of forcing what are two distinct design elements (running text illustrated with images versus a tabular summary, usually with one image) to co-exist, is not ideal. The other thing is the way in which the lead image and the infobox were combined early in the history of all this. If things had started out slightly differently, we might well have had the lead image kept separate from the infobox, and the infobox placed elsewhere in the article instead of grabbing the prime position of upper right at the start of the article. But people are used to what they see now, so that is unlikely to ever change. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I even came to like it that way, the two elements supporting each other without extra clicks, and readers knowing from other articles where to look for what. Where would you prefer to place the information about names, birth and death? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw concepts to have a lead image above an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can look in my sandbox for an example of how an infobox template can quite simply be adapted to place the image above the infobox. I originally developed that to overcome the problem of articles that really needed a wide lead image, usually in landscape format, by allowing the lead image's width to be independent of the infobox width. It occurs to me that any such scheme would also allow any editor who didn't want to see an infobox to add  to their Special:MyPage/common.css and never see an infobox again, although they would still see the lead image and caption. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if that's all of it. Part of the divide seems to come from those wanting to follow encyclopedic publications like,, , or others, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For me personally, that's definitely one part of it.  Montanabw (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a style thing with nothing to ground it
Putting things in the right bucket helps people think about them clearly. Sarah nailed it in this post above.

Issues of style in Wikipedia articles cannot be resolved with reasoned discussion based on policy. For infoboxes and other style issues on a specific article, an RfC cannot be a means by which the community arrives at a clueful, policy-based decision for that article because there are no arguments based on policy; RfCs about infoboxes on a specific article are indeed simply a poll of "I like that style" and "I don't like that style".

There are only two solutions I can see.


 * Use the per-article solution the community has hit on to resolve these issues - ENGVAR, etc per the 2006 Arbcom ruling: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."  This can implemented simply by adding language similar to CITEVAR in the WP:INFOBOX guideline.


 * The community needs to "mandate a specific style, project-wide " (hearkening back to that Arbcom ruling). In other words, make infoboxes an essential element of our house style, such that the addition of an infobox cannot be opposed at a specific article on mere individual preferences.   Because this issue is so loaded we  ~could~ include language when this is implemented,  like a) "An RfC may be held if editors want to exclude an infobox after it has been added; an RfC is never required to include one" but I worry that this would just shift the infobox wars to another front, so it might be necessary to have language, at least for a while, that b) "It is never appropriate to oppose the addition of an infobox."   (This assumes that infoboxes are never going away; I don't think banning them project-wide is a realistic option)

If the community went in the latter direction, especially in its most extreme version, it would probably cause some very valued contributors to leave the community, at least for a while.

But it seems to me that we need a community-wide RfC to determine the answer; I don't think it is within the scope of what Arbcom can do, to impose it. Maybe we already had such an RfC and I am unaware of it. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC) redacted for clarity Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose your beginning premise might be defensible, but given WP:CONTENT and other ordinary ways to think about "content", I do not know if you will have consensus to bucket it as only style, so perhaps there is a preliminary question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are some articles (excluding lists and disambiguation pages) for which no infoboxes exist, and some for which none will likely ever exist. e.g. physics, bridge, ocean thermal energy conversion. i.e. higher-level 'concept' (or subject) articles. Ironically, these are the more encyclopedic articles. They are not really amenable to infobox-ing, though maybe someone will try? Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake to think that the presence or absence of an infobox in an article is in any way analogous to whether dates are in DMY or MDY formats: the former represents two very different conditions for the article and the latter is a simple choice between two equivalent formats. Infoboxes are an element of the content of an article, not a stylistic decision.
 * The decision on whether or not an infobox is an improvement to an article or makes it worse depends on many complex factors, including: aesthetics; the emission of microformats; the problems of trivia being stuffed into infoboxes; the value of an at-a-glance summary of key facts; huge infoboxes dominating a tiny article; avoiding searches for a single piece of key information that's not in the lead; the inability to have a big landscape lead image without making the infobox unreasonably wide (although I may have a solution for that); and many more. Believe me, I've seen just about every argument that's been brought to bear, and I can say that they all have a grain of truth in them, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the article and who is looking at it. As a result, there are some articles that almost everybody will support having an infobox, with a complete spectrum down to those that just about nobody will support. Whether or not a particular editor supports having an infobox at a particular article depends on what weight they give to each of the many factors influencing the decision. I do not believe it is possible to classify articles by type as "suitable for an infobox" or "unsuitable for an infobox" without examining the relevant factors in the individual article for the reasons I outline.
 * So my conclusion is that I reject the suggestion that infoboxes are amenable to the same simple solutions as DATEVAR or ENGVAR. Wikipedia is a broad church and we have very little in the way of a "house style" in most areas, because we value the different sensibilities of different editors. The only way to accommodate such variability is to embrace variety and, where needed, to seek consensus on resolving disagreements. The problem we face is that those disagreements have become too personalised over time, and the current guideline at WP:INFOBOXUSE, "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" has turned from a scheme to produce a consensus into a two-camp battleground in some articles. Until each side is prepared to acknowledge that the other side is entitled to hold an opposing view in good faith – even if they disagree strongly with that view – we're not going to make any progress and the encyclopedia is going to have sporadic outbreaks of infobox-warring ad infinitum. It's a behavioural problem, not a structural one, and ArbCom is in a position to make an impact. For my part, I've done my best to disengage (and failed at times), but without the will to move forward to some sort of reconciliation, we'll carry on like Tony Benn's observation on British politics: "There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again." Let's not. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:RexxS I appreciate your thoughts but I do not see how this is a content issue per se. Infoboxes present information already in the article (and sourced there), in a different way.   That different way has important operational aspects (like integration with Wikidata) but presenting information in a different way = "style".   While I agree that many arguments can be brought to bear, from what I have seen the most vehement opposition comes from those who frame their opposition in terms of style and a solution that doesn't address that is going to fail to resolve things.   Even if the parties are able to keep their heads, remain civil, and yield to community consensus in per-article RfCs, we are going to face innumerable RfCs on infoboxes.  Not a happy future.  That is why I propose the community choose either a centralized (always allowed) or atomized (set by the creators per article) approach (one or the other); the middle position where we are now is an unsustainable,  and otherwise good editors are allowing themselves to become embittered and self-destructive (and in doing so, are harming the community)  Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If an infobox was merely a collection of the information in an article, then you'd have a point. But the whole concept of an infobox is founded on it being a selection of the "key facts" relevant to an article. The selection of which facts are presented (or omitted) from an infobox is purely a content decision. Any stylistic decision is how to present the facts, and infoboxes are remarkably uniform in their style of presentation. I need not remind you that some infoboxes, such as infobox medical condition contain information found nowhere else in the article (ICD-10. etc.) You also miss the point that the infobox presents an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What about Infobox drug? How much of that is just a stylistic repackaging of information that's somewhere else in the article? Presenting information unique to the article = content, not style. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RexxS - thanks for continuing the discussion.  Your example about drugs is great.  I don't care about the detailed pharmacology information that some people add to infoboxes but when I look over at it I often wonder if that pile of data is accurate or just garbage.  It troubles me but is not important enough to me to dig into and to be honest I am glad to have it piled over there instead of in the article.  Ditto the links to all the various databases.  But here is the thing - in my view it is a stylistic choice to place data and images in an infobox;  there are definitely functional/operational implications of that choice that are profound and that in our biomedical work open up lots of possibilities and can save a lot of manual work.  I think science-oriented folks are less fussy about aesthetics/styles, and we actually like data and appreciate more efficient ways to handle and present it;  we don't have infobox wars like articles in the humanities do, where "data" and its atomization can run so counter to what they often try to do in such fields, which is prose-driven and is about synthesizing, contextualizing, etc.  :)  Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RexxS - thanks for continuing the discussion.  Your example about drugs is great.  I don't care about the detailed pharmacology information that some people add to infoboxes but when I look over at it I often wonder if that pile of data is accurate or just garbage.  It troubles me but is not important enough to me to dig into and to be honest I am glad to have it piled over there instead of in the article.  Ditto the links to all the various databases.  But here is the thing - in my view it is a stylistic choice to place data and images in an infobox;  there are definitely functional/operational implications of that choice that are profound and that in our biomedical work open up lots of possibilities and can save a lot of manual work.  I think science-oriented folks are less fussy about aesthetics/styles, and we actually like data and appreciate more efficient ways to handle and present it;  we don't have infobox wars like articles in the humanities do, where "data" and its atomization can run so counter to what they often try to do in such fields, which is prose-driven and is about synthesizing, contextualizing, etc.  :)  Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

did a nice job of sharpening the horns of the dilemma, and I think he is right about the possible outcomes; the only real options do seem to be per-article or a "house style" decision that is a default tiebreaker, though I would add an understanding that IAR may sometimes need to apply in either case. We've tried LOCALCONSENSUS, which is the only useful third option I can think of, to cover a group of articles, and the contentious debate at the Opera project was what led to IB ArbCom I -- plus the cleanup of hidden text from the now-defunct local consensus was one thing that got this ball re-rolling again. is also twice correct that people's behavior is the biggest problem, but also that IBs have elements of both data and style, each important. Another example of where an IB may contain info not found in an article body are the thousands of race horse articles (the project has about 10,000 assessed) where many details are summarized in the IB that may or may not be in the article. I'm torn on the RfC question; like, I do see how it could be useful in resolving situations where an impasse occurs, but , , et. al. are correct that an RfC sometimes just attracts people who like drama and !vote without any understanding of the issues. We are actually having a good discussion here and it is worth continuing to throw out ideas and keep talking. Montanabw (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely that individual-case RfCs are ineffective or attract the wrong kind of people. In point of fact, RfCs are rarely if ever implemented in infobox questions because the participants would rather whine, insult, accuse, and badger each other ad infinitum than actually resolve the situation. An RfC puts an end to that continuing nonsense, and a neutral uninvolved close cuts through any BS that may have occurred. Primacy of course should be given to the article's creator or main builder, and an RfC should not be necessary unless there are extremely cogent reasons to change that person's decision. And no, individual WikiProjects do not get to make their own absolute rules. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "primacy"? And how do you reconcile it with WP:OWN and WP:VESTED? Graham (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's not that people aren't entitled to their opinions in general, it's the drama and time wasting the discussions cause. Some of the most bitter, prolonged disputes have been RfCs as it inflames the situation when scores of people who've not edited turning up to put in their two penneth. They're entitled to their opinion in general but it really aggravates the situation when editors have worked for weeks on an article, promoted it, and then 15 people who like infoboxes turn up to try to force something the writers didn't opt for. That's the root of the problem when Rfc is involved on such articles I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Opabinia regalis
User:Opabinia regalis asks: "...a question for people on all sides of the debate: what kind of information would convince you to change your mind? What could you learn about editors or readers that would make you think 'OK, at first I thought this article should/shouldn't have an infobox, but now I think the opposite'?"

user:RexxS, I, and other editors whose names I have regrettably since forgotten, have many times offered evidence of the usefulness of infoboxes. They emit machine-readable metadata; they wrap statements in semantically-rich HTML classes, and so can be styled according to user preference (if you want a big red box at the top of an article, notifying you that the subject of the article was born in Birmingham, or is dead, you can have one; just say so in your common.css file). They can display data from Wikidata. Our partner organisation use them to understand what a our articles are about (IBM won $US 1 million doing this; and donated it to WMF). Academic studies have shown that our readers look at them very early on when reading an article, to gain understanding of what the article is about. And much more besides. They are also liked and used on the majority of our articles, and are thus obviously approved of by the majority of our community.

My appreciation of infoboxes is based on a sound understanding of these benefits, and over a decade of practical application of the mechanisms by which they work. It is most certainly not merely my personal aesthetic preference, nor the result of disdain for fellow editors, our readers, or the re-users of our open-licensed content.

I'll gladly change my mind about the benefits of infoboxes (on most types of articles - contrary to recent accusations, I've never said "all") when the benefits I describe are shown, with similar academic vigour, to have been false, or to no longer apply. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with Andy here; despite what some people claim, this isn't really a binary debate since I don't think anyone claims all infoboxes should be removed, and only a couple of hardline cranks genuinely believe that every article needs an infobox. The issue is where the "an infobox is not appropriate on this article" cut-off is, and that isn't something which can be decreed by fiat, since so many of the reasons not to have an infobox on any given article (the topic is not easily summarised in bullet points; the topic is complicated and thus trying to fit it into a box will either lead to an inappropriately long box or omitting some elements which gives undue weight to those elements which are included; the lead image needs to be at an unusually large width which would make an infobox too wide; an infobox would dominate a short article on wide screens; there are only a few facts which would be appropriate for an infobox all of which are in the first sentence so an infobox is pointless repetition) are subjective judgements which can't be boiled down to an algorithm. If Arbcom wades into this cesspool again, the issue isn't "when are infoboxes appropriate?", it's "how to handle disputes over when they should be added or removed". &#8209; Iridescent 16:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can solve the "wide image" problem for you (but sadly none of the other problems yet). Compare Sidney Opera House with User:RexxS/sandbox . It would be relatively simple to incorporate a switch in any infobox that resulted in the image being displayed independently of the infobox. I actually think that should be the norm. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply to NeilN
Re Michael Hardy, what Neil is griping about happens all the time. A gets prosecuted in the magistrates' court, B comes along to give evidence and the magistrates bind everyone over to keep the peace. C'est la vie. 92.23.55.190 (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Point-of-order
I've been gone for a few days but wanted to add/edit my comments on the recent Infobox amendment request, but I see it's been closed. It looks to me that six arbs voted against opening a case, four voted in favor (it says above that the motion requires seven to pass or fail). Eight arbs commented in the discussion about imposing discretionary sanctions. Why has this been closed before everyone weighed in, voted? What is the procedure? To close before everyone weighs in? It says here that the decision has been made not to accept DS, though not everyone weighed in on the request. Did the decision happen in camera. If so, per point-of-order I'd like to request that the committee follow procedures carefully and fully. Victoria (tk) 12:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo
Please can a clerk edit the proposed "Motion: Fae" so it says "should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas" (adding "in")? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm only an emeritus clerk (2007) but since this is an indisputable typo, I took the liberty of fixing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

500 words
You have to say whether in the source code or in the browser. -- Keysanger (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If I interpret your question correctly, it seems to mean 500 words in the Word Count Tool whose link is right next to the 500-word rule. Actually it says "shorter than 500 words", so taken literally it is actually a 499-word limit, but I don't think they meant it that way. Of course, I am just a random passerby with no connection (past, present or future) to ArbComm, so if someone "official" gives you a different answer, follow theirs, not mine. Neutron (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that's correct it means in the browser using the word count tool. Though 500 is more of a guide than a strict limit - we won't have you disintegrated for writing 501 words. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * More of a guideline than a rule, where have I heard that(or something like that) before? But anyway, if that is the case, I think the applicable language needs to be modified.  It says: "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words (Word Count Tool)."  Without exception.  Those two words do not signify more-of-a-guideline-than-a-rule to me.  Neutron (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the way we want it to read. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You want it to be a false statement? Neutron (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that saying it's a general guide makes it really hard to enforce - you get responses along the lines of 'but it's already written and 500 words is only a general guide so is the length therefore is not a problem'. Generally statements are short enough that the clerks don't need to enforce it, but when they get to the point where they are too long, having a strict limit helps that to happen. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

List has 8 words in source code but List only one word of rendered text in the browser. The difference is very common: diff has 11 words in souce code but diff only 1 in browser. An statement which has ca. 500 words source code but ca 400 in the browser.

The text
 * Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words (Word Count Tool).

should be clarified with


 * Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 (in the browser rendered) words (Word Count Tool).

-- Keysanger (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added a clarification. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Racism accusations
I am appalled by the recent developments in the arbitration request case. Keysanger has made frivolous accusations of racism, unsupported by the diffs. I request intervention so that this information please be removed as soon as possible, because there is no justification for this type of personal attack that can have serious real life consequences. I would appreciate prompt administrative intervention on the matter. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My request seems to have been overshadowed by the larger text below. I would appreciate your help with this. There's no need for this type of unsubstantiated personal attack to still be in the page. The diffs have nothing to do with race. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've looked over the diffs and cant see anything in the section that inst related to them. I'm willing to run it past the arbitrators if you'd like but it looks like the claim could be supported by an interpretation of the links. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do run it by them. I didn't attack any person on those diffs, and "Bolivian" is a nationality (not a race). Bolivians are of multiple races and nations (ethnicity); in fact, that's the reason the country changed its official name to the "Plurinational State of Bolivia". Also, I commented negatively on the Bolivian government and president, but not on Bolivian people. That last statement on the mortality rate is being misunderstood due it being out of context. Regardless of what comes out of this, I thank you for taking the time to respond.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just confirming here that we are aware and discussing, and that your request has not been lost to the larger section below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for staying in touch about this matter. I have never commented negatively about anyone's race, neither in Wikipedia nor outside of Wikipedia. Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

500 word limit
Can any one of the admins remove the tag about word limit in my statement and put one in the other party section?. Thanks in advance. -- Keysanger (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag in your section was removed about half an hour after your request to remove it, this was slightly over 14 hours from when your evidence was reduced on New Years Eve. Please have some patience with the volunteers who are tasked with monitoring these pages to carry out actions like this especially during this period of the year. We do keep a close eye on them but cant action these changes instantly especially when few of us are necessarily available.
 * With regards to the evidence length of MarshalN20 the same time-scales apply. Once the evidence length for them has been checked one of the clerks will see about notifying them of their statement length as required. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the first time I wander through the ArbCom laberynth and I hope the last. Thanks you and all volunteers. -- Keysanger (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Hallo : Have been granted the other party an exceptional right regarding word limit? Can you tell me the circumstances and reasons? -- Keysanger (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Granting extensions is something that is normally done by the arbitration committee and isn't a one time exception. You can see all the circumstances with my post of accepting the case request, he simply asked for it. There is also information in the procedures about exceptions that are provided. BU Rob13 in the next case request has also asked for an extension. You can ask for one too if you need it. To suggest that ArbCom is corrupt over giving someone a word count extension...give me a break... -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree with you DeltaQuad. The rule is 500 words for statement with no exception. No exception. In the previous step the other party was allowed to insult me and I was blocked from Formal Mediation. Now the other party is asking for a limitation of the investigation. I think the proccedings have had a wrong start and I doubt that we can continue in the same way. I ask the ArbCom: why has been broken the 500 words rule? which are the reasons?. Can I request to give my statements in Spanish?. What do you think?. -- Keysanger (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . The committee has for as long as I have been serving been able to grant extensions to the word count limit at their discretion. The template used to advise others of this even includes advise on how to request this. If there are two pieces of guidance from the same group of editors advising two separate responses for the same question then you would be best placed to ask them which one is correct. Several times you have been advised editors can have extensions to their word limits and you should probably leave this line of discussion alone. has asked a question above with regards to limiting the scope of the case, they are free to do this but this will ultimately be a decisions made by the committee. I
 * If you wish to give your statements in Spanish rather than English this may be something the committee could accommodate but this is not something I have come across before, I can certainly ask this of them. Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If at all possible, please don't give your statements in Spanish. There is a fair degree of community participation in Arbcom proceedings so it's important the case statements are as accessible as possible. Statements in other languages might also cause some good-faith issues over differing interpretations or emphasis. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Euryalus. I'd rather not have to worry about flawed translations or misinterpretations, especially since I'm not sure any of us is fluent in Spanish. Given that this is the English Wikipedia, I don't think it's too much to ask to have you participate in this case in English. If you'd be more comfortable preparing your statements in Spanish and asking someone you trust to translate them to English for you before you post them, that would be completely fine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy Request
I moved this request from my statement in the Arbitration Case Requests page to here, because it conflicted with the word limit. I'll be brief. The request is based on the remedies of the Argentine History case. On June 2013, I was topic banned "from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces", including the War of the Pacific—as demonstrated by a later Arbitration Enforcement. The Committee ruled that my behavior was inappropriate and required remedies in order to improve it. I learned from my mistakes and improved my editing in Wikipedia, writing 3 featured articles and becoming a participant of WP:3O. Sure, there were a few slip-ups here and there, but the Committee ruled on September 2015 that my improved behavior merited the suspension of the remedies. Therefore, I consider that for the Committee to again use my behavior prior to September 2015 to again place remedies that encompass the same areas of editing as the remedy from June 2013, is a textbook definition of double jeopardy. People change, and I've become a better Wikipedian thanks to prior remedies. I request for the Committee to please either excuse me from the case or to only accept evidence for my behavior since 1 September 2015, the date the Committee ruled the remedies had served their purpose. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Right both of you need to reign it in a bit. This page is for questions not the presentation of evidence. I suggest (because its not within my remit to impose an interaction ban) if you have a question about the case post it here, if you want to make a comment/statement or other rebuttal of something someone else has said it goes on the evidence page within your individual prescribed limit. You've both been advised of what these are and of how to request exemptions. If it wont fit within that limit then putting it here is not away to get around the limits. I've struck your last comment here as it was evidence and this isn't the place for it. I've removed yours as there's no context without the prior post that was made. Amortias (T)(C) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mildly, Arbcom is not a court and principles like double jeopardy aren't applicable. If an editor has previously been sanctioned improved their conduct, that will be appropriately considered during the case. Unrelated - I echo Amortias' sentiment above: this is a case request page. The case is clearly going to be accepted, so there's no need to post anything much here. Anything else you have to say can wait until the case opens (likely in the next day or so). -- Euryalus (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just writing a response of my own highlighting that double jeopardy is a legal defence and has no binding authority at an ArbCom case. Additionally, double jeopardy is about being retried on the same charges on the same evidence. As Euryalus pointed out, improved conduct since being sanctioned will be appropriately considered — however, likewise past history can be used to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour and escalation on more recent misconduct. Mkdw  talk 05:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that we disagree on the perspective, but I respect your opinion and appreciate the consideration on improved behavior. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 13:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where to log?
Is there a centralised repository of lists of articles that are related to areas under DS? I ask because the appointment of Pruitt, as a prominent climate change denier, to the EPA, clearly brings that article in scope of WP:ARBCC. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, other than the automatic categorization by Template:Ds/talk notice (which places articles into Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions), there is not. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That template is of questionable significance, by the way. If we follow our protocols DS only becomes an option after an editor is shown to have "awareness" that there is an ARB ruling on the subject matter.   I participated in the debates over these protocols.  At the time it was proposed that awareness should be shown simply by this sort of tag, but that idea was shot down. Still, the tag can't hurt.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right – speaking informally, the tag is a courtesy and does not provide the required alert. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and perfectly sensible since the minimum we should do is notify the user individually in person, that is basic courtesy, to say nothing of satisfying most people's idea of due process. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the circumstances, but the same basic question arose in another context... coincidentally also about ARBCC. At the time several admins opined that while some articles obviously fall within an ARB ruling's scope in their entirety, everywhere else any given edit may or may not, depending on the edit's content.  They also said its impossible to catalog venues where an ARB rulings do and do not apply, since edits that fall under a ruling's scope might appear anywhere.  In the case of Pruitt, if its a biography page, I can imagine the RSs might support all sorts of biographical stuff that is unrelated to climate change.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll file it under attempts to legislate Clue and just tag the talk page, since virtually every edit to that article by now is in scope (the bio stuff is mature now). Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I understand it, a page has to be logged as being under DS. There is a page for it and while it's not used that often without people just throwing the template on the talk page, sanctions are not to be enforced unless it's properly logged. We don't just want anyone going and tagging pages. See here: Logging required and here is the central log:  Sir Joseph (talk)  21:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What matters is the subject of the article and the subject of the edit. All edits to articles like An Inconvenient Truth are deemed to be part of the Climate Change topic area, even though something like the "Music" section is not really relevant, because the main subject of the article is directly related to the topic. Conversely, most edits to the Michael Brook article would be fine for someone topic banned from the topic area to make, but it would be a breach of their ban if they were to add content regarding his scoring the film as that is related to Climate Change. The latter, even if there was a section about it, would not merit tagging the talk page as a climate change article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding specifically to your point, determining that DS applies to a page that falls within an ArbCom remedy is not considered a "page-level sanction", so no specific logging is necessary. Things like 1RR or requiring consensus on a particular page are sanctions and must be logged. Hope that clears things up, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding States by powerstatus to Discretionary sanctions
Due to the inherent political nature of them, and the constant vandalism to them, would it be possible to non-contrivesially place the articles of Category:States by power status under DS? Much of the recurring vandalism is to edit out, or move to a higher or lower status, states that are already covered by DS', such as the Balkans, Israel and Palestine, and India and Pakistan. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)