Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Proposed decision

Comments by GoodDay
I'm going to assume that the March 7, 2018 date, will be extended. GoodDay (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Things are being prepared now. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've only been in about 5 add/remove infobox discussions, to my recollection. Hadn't really taken notice of the actual adding/removing of infoboxes (i.e. never looked at respective article contrib histories) itself. Was it mostly edit-wars or mostly heated debates? If the latter, then there's less for the community to be concerned about. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see that Remedy 3.3.10 is going to be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I reckon we haven't heard from all active arbitrators, yet. GoodDay (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There's one arbitrator who's yet to post, Ks0stm is the 14th active arb. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to GoodDay
Well, it's now March 7 (UTC), which means that the proposed decision is scheduled to be posted at some point within the next 24 hours. If they need to extend the deadline, they'll let us know in the near future. Kurtis (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See? They got it out on time. It was already postponed once (if I recall correctly); it wouldn't look so great if they did it again. ;) Kurtis (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat
The "findings" against me appear to be slightly out-of-scope for ArbCom responsibilities.
 * Findings


 * According to the policy guiding ArbCom actions, the committee's scope is ".
 * As my name has not been raised at ANI for c. 18 months (September 2016 or so), there is no "serious conduct dispute" which involves me that the community has even been asked to examine. This is in relation to any matter – infoboxes or other.
 * The scope of this case is "Civility in infobox discussions". This was clarified on the /Evidence page by at 23:04, 10 February 2018: "".
 * At no stage in any of the stages in this case, or on the talk pages, has anyone provided any evidence that shows any questionable conduct by me in an infobox discussion since October 2016 – the last time an infobox case was turned down by ArbCom.
 * To reiterate, I have not been terribly active in IB discussions since I returned from a break in June 2017 (six discussions and minimal input in nearly all; avoidance of discussion in the ten other discussions at which there was more heated discussion).

There are three diffs used as "evidence" against me: all three pre-date the October 2016 point, and are all rather dubious: 1. Yes, my behaviour here was wrong, but this is a rather out-dated example which is no reflection on any actions I have undertaken since October 2016. 2. A comment by Cassianto, which is hardly evidence of "battleground behaviour" by me. 3. A thread in which I made one comment which does not support an accusation of "battleground behaviour".

The suggested remedies against me are entirely out-of-scope when measured against the realities of both the "evidence" against me, and my activities over the previous nine months. To say I should not be allowed to 'remove verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox' does not address any complaint against me, and hampers my ability to improve the encyclopaedia. No-one provided any evidence that I strip out information willy-nilly (to be clear, I do remove information occasionally, but this is when it is not beneficial, or will mislead the readers). This appears to be little more than a punishment, rather than any attempt to negate any known or acknowledged "problem".
 * Remedies

I will happily accept a 2-comment-a-discussion limit on my input and not reverting any addition of an IB (both of which are more in line with the realities of the last nine months), but it seems that the rest of the remedy is getting into rather heavy-handed, breaking-a-butterfly-upon-a-wheel territory. – SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the phrase "removes verifiable information from an infobox from any article" repeated in several remedies. There was no evidence provided at any stage that removing individual pieces of information from IBs by anyone has ever been seen as a problem. It seems odd to have such a repeated remedy for something that isn't a problem. (And if it really is a problem, then someone can point to repeated examples where it has caused problems). This seems to be just one of the disconnects between reality, evidence and remedy in this proposed decision. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussions
 * Galobtter, if that is the reason, then it's a poor way to address a situation that does not actually exist! There has to be a better way than this sledgehammer to avoid any potential gaming of a technique that has - to the best of my knowledge - never been used. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Only partly. There are several discussions that have resulted in an IB being put in place in an article. At no stage has one of these "contentious" boxes ever been stripped of information; in other words it's a remedy for a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is that when I re-write an article I will now (dependent on voting) not be allowed to remove even one single field that is not beneficial, or will mislead the readers. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I outlined in \Evidence my full IB discussion participation since September 2016, which will give you the full picture. This is an area which I have largely avoided and/or reduced my input. I have suggested (above) a fitting remedy which would reduce my input further (2-comment-a-discussion limit on my input and not reverting any addition of an IB). You and your colleagues should note that if no measures are taken against me during this case, I will voluntarily be following this restriction. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Note to Arbs re. Mcandlish's comment: This is a note to the Arbs re Mcandlish's comment, not an invitation to start a discussion with him. – SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) He has again shown absolutely no evidence about my actions in IB discussions since October 2016, which is the locus of this case;
 * 2) I'm afraid his aspersions of battleground behaviour do not hold water, nor do his accusations of tag teaming (the "evidence" he provided was either undiffed, inaccurate or misleading and nearly all historic – and again absolutely nothing related to IB discussions since October 2016).
 * 3) It does appear that he holds a grudge against me for applying a different weight to the MoS—loosely flexible guideline vs immutable policy—than he would like ("especially if the issues involved are MoS-related"), which is the nexus both of the grudge, and the weight of his "evidence": most of his input at the evidence and request stage follows the same pattern, of a misleading statement backed up by a diff that does not support the statement.
 * 4) Given the slurs in this case and elsewhere that Mcandlish has written against me, I hope that the IBAN is seriously considered. The interaction log between us is overwhelmingly blue in my column (and note that "Numbers in blue indicate which editor first edited the page"): I am not the one who "appears" in conversations after Mcandlish, and I would feel much less threatened knowing such a ban is in place.


 * , just a minor correction to this comment; while Mcandlish has said below that he does not see the need for an IBAN, I am very much in favour of a 2-way one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

More baiting: from this morning. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

, you state that you "don't see serious disputes anywhere else", including music, but that doesn't parse with the back-and-forth at Requiem (Duruflé), nor the behaviour exhibited at the 1, 2 and 3 threads on the talk page between July to August last year. I don't know if there are any other similar examples as I don't follow developments in this area, but I suspect there are probably others elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Rex, I used the example of the poor practice and behaviour as a counter to Gerda's statement that "serious disputes" only happen on biographical articles. Reading through the talk page is hardly a model of civility from several people there, and neither are the edit summaries that accompanied the accompanying edit warring. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and although the IP was out-of-line, he was not the only one by a very long shot. Given the treatment and accusations levelled against the IP, I'm not surprised they stepped over the line, and does not excuse the behaviour of several others there who should all have known better. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddude
I note that one of the findings of fact is to find that editors have been baiting and goading others. While I am immensely pleased that ARBCOM isn't taking a one-dimensional approach to this case, I am a bit saddened to see that not so much as a warning for this behaviour is on the table. A reminder to all editors is hardly a warning. It's barely a deterrent. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, separately, how are you going to ensure that all editors are informed of a 1RR restriction on IBs if it's implemented? present and future editors at that. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Galobtter
The wording of adds, removes, collapses, or removes verifiable information from an infobox from any article. of remedy 7 is confusing IMO. It means adds an infobox from any article? Better would be to use the same as the prohibition one, i.e, one revert per 24 hours that adds, removes or collapses infoboxes, or removes verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox. Infobox probation has deleting infobox, this has removes - IMHO removes is nicer but stick to one.

Remedy 7 would seem to be too broad - at-least for removing the verifiable information bit, which can generally occur outside of the infobox warring area, and would affect millions of articles. Another problem seems game-ability - since information can be added, but only removed once, repeated re-addition of information that shouldn't be there in the infobox can easily occur. Also have the same question as Mr Rnndude on informing people of the restriction. Seems better to just quickly impose page restrictions on individual articles under the DS.

Even if a 1RR like that was done for individual pages under the proposed DS, that could be a problem. I reckon admins should use some sort of Editors are prohibited from adding, removing, or collapsing the infobox without obtaining prior consensus. There is a restriction of one revert per 24 hours on removals or additions of information in the infobox. Enforcement of these are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. as a boilerplate page restriction on pages like Cary Grant. Simple 1RR on the infobox wouldn't really be useful. Collapsing - what about uncollapsing - should and intended be covered, but to cover wikilawyering if that's needed - changing the default visibility of any portions of - that is, if one wants the most tedious set of restrictions ever :)

I should probably comment more in the workshop phase, but eh Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the restrictions on warring over the infobox are probably the less important stuff though. What really needs improvement is the tenor of the discussions, which hopefully the restrictions can do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a FoF about the interactions of SmcClandish and Schrocat if there's an IBAN proposed? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

the removing verifiable information seems really the more confusing/objectionable one. Maybe replace with attempts to game if that's whats desired, or restrictions (maybe 1rr/consensus required before restoring edit) on adding or removing information from an infobox. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 1 comment per article is a good restriction in the probation, while the restrictions on adding/removing is way too complicated. Is there a reason it needs to specify restoring an infobox that has been deleted while already prohibiting adding an infobox?
 * I like a lot of these suggestions, will have a look at making some tweaks :) WormTT(talk) 19:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probation

The goal (addendum: or at-least what I would want for a good restriction) generally seems to be to allow editing and adding information to the infobox while not edit warring over its status, and to allow adding an infobox to articles they create/expand. I'm not 100% what all the 50% more complexity is trying to do (addendum: is it really trying to enshrine ownership?); I think the following is a simpler restriction that would be harder to game:

Any article where dispute occurs over the infobox invariably had an infobox at some time so reasonably restricts both pro and anti infobox despite only allowing the addition of an infobox, and I think fixes/ameliorate the ownership concerns of. (addendum: which i strongly share)

I really think that the whole verifiable information thing is way too vague and complicated. There are always disputes over what is counted as reliable source for V etc. I think further improvement would be to replace That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox; with That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; making more than one revert per 24 hours in regarding to adding or removing information from an infobox of an article or That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; reinstating any edit which adds or removes information from an infobox which is challenged (by reversion) if more restriction is desired. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Responses
 * To Schrocat
 * I assume the removal of verifiable information is to prevent gaming by removing significant portions of the infobox/entirety of it except the actual infobox Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well that technique surely wouldn't be used before any restriction on adding or removing infoboxes is imposed.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Could also be for preventing edit warring over how much of an infobox there needs to be, which may easily erupt after restrictions on removing or adding the actual infobox Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To Arbs
 * If it is, as seems to say, that creating an article allows you to comment as much as you want on the discussion in the currently worded probation, then that's terrible and should be gone, since many of the disputes are over articles that people OWN and have created. What about easing up the restriction to one comment a month or perhaps two months on an article - should produce nearly the same effect - essentially a one comment per discussion restriction, and make sure it applies to all articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I really think the restriction should be contributing content agnostic. Also doesn't the restriction already allow one to edit infoboxes, as long as that editing doesn't remove verifiable information? Having an exemption just to the removing verifiable information restriction seems too small for the amount of complexity that adds. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, but there are situations when you've significantly changed an article where you might want to reword or remove a certain parameter even though the information in that parameter is verifiable (changing what the subject is 'known for' for example, or reducing the number of tributaries listed in an article about a river to just the main ones, or ones with articles). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are instances where you'd want to remove information from an infobox; but I don't think it needs to be restricted to only when you've created or significantly changed the article, and I think a less complicated restriction like I've suggested above (e.g 1RR on it) would work a lot better - the current proposal is simply way too complicated (to the point of being unworkable) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf
Infobox probation: constructively adding or removing 50% of the article prose in the same edit as the change to the infobox". Standard discretionary sanctions: "authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes." 1RR: General:
 * Should there be an about or approximately in there to stop wikilawyering? Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that, but would be interested in seeing other arbitrators thoughts - my initial threshold was much lower (25%, so reasonably invested in an article). WormTT(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "the same edit" should be changed to "the same edit or series of edits". When I am expanding an article I tend not to expand the prose and the infobox in the same edit but I do expand them in the same editing session. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added that, I cannot see any reason why not. WormTT(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If both "removing" and "deleting" are mentioned, what is the difference between them? If there isn't a different are both really needed? Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not removing, but "removing verifiable information from", one is deleting wholesale, the other is tweaking the infobox to make it useless (and therefore easier to remove). WormTT(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding unverifiable information should possibly be covered. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see merit in clarifying that this includes adding, deleting, etc. material whose verifiability is disputed (e.g. there are differing views about the reliability of the source). Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but am concerned at the opportunity for wikilawyering. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume the intent of this is to cover both where the edit being reverted is one that added, removed, collapsed, or removed verifiable information from an infobox and where it is the revert that did that. (For example if edit 1 removed verifiable information to an infobox, reverting that edit is not adding, removing or collapsing an infobox or removing verifiable information from one.). Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is adding (deliberately or otherwise) verifiable information about the wrong subject to an infobox included at all (for example adding verifiably correct information about Beethoven's 4th symphony to an infobox about Beethoven's 5th symphony)? Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Has this been happening? I've not not seen it. If it's a hypothetical, then I'd say "verifiable information about a wrong subject is not verifiable information". <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * re canvassing. I agree with Newyorkbrad that posting messages is in itself not canvassing, but the non-neutral messages may have breached the guideline. Any FOF and remedy needs to be clear about this, because neutral messages are (in many situations) beneficial to resolution of the issues, but as currently proposed this distinction is missing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, the current text now satisfies your concerns, right? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but it's good enough that I wouldn't oppose it if I were an arbitartor voting on it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsigned comment
Seems like Worm That Turned's comment on the IBAN proposal needs signing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Self trout applied. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SMcCandlish
It's not correct that all the evidence about SchroCat is from 2016; the bulk of it is, to establish that the pattern is long-term, but I included some from 2018 even in the original RfArb page. An interaction ban isn't going to do anything useful, because it's not a matter of a personal problem between me and SchroCat (who I successfully avoided for well over a year), but of SchoCat engaging in battleground behavior against various editors, from me to PBS to Light_Show to Gerda_Arendt, among many others, and frequently in a tag-teaming pattern with Cassianto. Nor is it uniquely about infoboxes, but largely surrounds FAs and FACs about which SchoCat or friends of SchroCat seem to feel proprietary, especially if the issues involved are MoS-related (which includes but is broader than infoboxes; e.g., quotation formatting is one such dispute I diffed from heavily). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: I don't request a one-way interaction ban, despite the level of heated "communication" in my direction from SchroCat; I-bans generally do not seem helpful (just another sore spot) except in odd cases that usually involve some form of WP:TRUTH/WP:GREATWRONGS zeal about an off-site issue ("my cultural group or beliefs versus yours" stuff). The one time I've asked for an I-ban (to prevent further vindictive behavior from that particular party who ended up at AE four times almost back to back over nationalistic MoS disruption), ArbCom would not grant one, despite several AE admins suggesting it. That was a far more interaction-ban-worthy situation (and granting one would have been at least as beneficial for the other party, whose topic ban will never be lifted as long as there's any hint of continued "dwelling" on the parties who asked for the topic ban). No such unusual circumstances exist in this case. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Well that technique surely wouldn't be used before any restriction on adding or removing infoboxes is imposed." – It has been, specifically to remove all the textual information from the infobox, leaving nothing but an infobox frame around the photo and caption. I've seen this at least twice, but would have to really go looking for it; I think it was in the disputes over classical composers, but it's been a long time, and I've actually avoided most i-box discussions since the WP:ARBINFOBOX era, so I'm not sure if it's happened since then. Better that it just not happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Like SchroCat, I take issue with NewYorkBrad's comment here, but for a different reason: the incivility has been entirely one-way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda
I try to say as little as possible. Just in reply to the above: while I admit that in 2016, SchroCat and I had disagreements, especially about a friend of mine (perfectly civil, but hurting), we recently did well staying in strictly factual conversation going for article quality. Very generally: the term "battleground" is used too often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@SMcClandish: composers - as far as I observed - get typically simply reverted, examples Pierre Boulez, Max Reger,. Discussion followed for the first 2, with different results. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What do arbitrators think - in the light of remedies - of the following reverts of infoboxes?
 * 11 March (twice)
 * 28 January (several times, I count 10)
 * 20 January (2nd following day)
 * 20 January (three times)
 * 12 January (2nd the following day)
 * 8 January

What do you suggest how to inform uninvolved editors - who may not know there's a conflict, an article talk page, an arbitration committee, a threat of a sanction - about the minefield called infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Next question regarding Standard discretionary sanctions: can the arbs perhaps limit that to biographical infoboxes? I don't see serious disputes anywhere else, geography, natural sciences, books, music, you name it, - why placing all well-accepted infoboxes there under discretionary sanctions when we talk only about a very limited number of biographies? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well-accepted: links to Infobox musical composition, - if you check the 1.3k entries, you'll find most FAs and GAs about classical music, such as in 2017 Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) and Der 100. Psalm. RexxS, thank you for answering while I was at rehearsal. Choirs and orchestras, singers and conductors also seem to have infoboxes without causing problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: you say "the editor should be allowed to explain their rationale based on editorial judgement on why they did not think the Infobox was necessary" - perhaps reword. No infobox is ever necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Alex is intending to imply that they are. The whole point of his argument is that he thinks an editor should be able to leave one out, and that the same editor should be free to explain why they didn't include one. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alex, for changing the wording, and I see that RexxS had the same concern. No editor has to explain to me why s/he didn't include an infobox, there may be so many reasons. All I'd expect is that such an editor assumes in good faith that I have the reason to improve the article when I add one. All it takes me to understand and accept a different view is a revert with a meaningful reasoning edit summary. I could give examples of missing the assumption of good faith, some from 2018 are above, here's . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

About wikiprojects: In the last case, the arbitrators invited to treat each article separately. While I (and others) thought that also meant that project directions (such as " no infobox for classical composers") are not binding (and never were binding), the 2010 project recommendation is still used to justify a and to write hidden notices (, edit war following). Can something a bit less ambiguous be said about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In other words: Can this case result in something better than WP:ARBINFOBOX? This passage is quoted often in discussions, but it is partly common knowledge, thus trivial, and partly inviting to have conflict on each individual article, which has proven not practical in the almost five years we have lived with it. - Yes, it's true that an infobox "is neither required nor prohibited", but is that an argument to remove one that was there for ten years, just because you improved the article? Some clear wording about "no ownership" - whether you created an article or later improved it - would be welcome, also that adding and removing an infobox have different qualities: one adds information, the other removes information that earlier editors created, information that the one who removes doesn't need, but how about others? How many times did we hear "It's redundant to the lead."? Yes. Of course, it's meant to repeat the information, but structured. - Arbs, please use a chance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to understand the meaning of "Cassianto is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes." You who voted for it: can you explain? On Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's two clauses smushed together. It's just a slightly shorter way of saying "Cassianto is indefinitely banned from removing infoboxes and Cassianto is indefinitely banned from discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes." But that's Remedy 3; most of the support votes for it are conditional placing it second to Remedy 4, so it is unlikely to pass anyway. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My name is not dave's section
I note that the remedies are not being tracked by. Any reason for this? ! dave 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just hasn't been updated in a couple days, you can ask the clerks to do it on their noticeboard if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox probation
I'm not sure I like the idea of "this does not apply if they have contributed or removed 50% of prose in the same series of edits". That would imply that, under sanctions, I would not have been able to do this edit, as major work on established articles may simply involve copyediting, coalescing sources and removing trivia - none of which alters the prose size by a significant magnitude. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Coretheapple
I agree with the comments made by the opponents of the "Infobox probation" remedy. I think it's a terrible idea. Also I suggest to the committee that they not take any steps that just kick the can down the road. I see that in some of the proposed remedies. Anyone familiar with infobox discussions can attest that they are rife with wikilawyering. Don't simply shift the theater of operations to a different venue when the only meaningful and warranted choice is to bar persons from infobox discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni
, i.r.t. the probation, have you considered that it would be likely end up being unenforceable without an ARCA request because of how novel and narrow the proposed options are (sorry if this comes off as snarky, it isn't intended as such, but is a legitimate question)? I think having it as a discretionary sanction is much better than having it as a standalone sanction (we already have a defined process for discretionary sanctions, so that is a plus, whereas having probation not as a DS would raise other issues with logging, awareness, etc.)My concern here is that in general, whenever unique and very narrow sanctions or solutions are proposed either at AE or ANI, they tend to not work, in part because very few admins are willing to enforce them, and if they are enforced, the appeals are difficult because of the nature of the sanction and quibbling over whether or not condition X was met.It might be simply easier to add to the discretionary sanctions remedy something along the lines of Any admin may also ban a user from taking any action regarding an infobox to a page that they have not created themselves, and may also limit the number of comments they may make in an infobox discussion. This seems much simpler, much more flexible, and much less likely to end up at ARCA in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not snarky at all. :) One of the things I'm trying to avoid in supporting a probation remedy is heaps of different versions of the same discretionary sanction which would also make them difficult to enforce. Admins would need examine/parse the specific wording of different editor's restrictions to see whether they've been breached or not. That creates a situations where editors who have been sanctioned (for effectively the same thing) are able to get away with different things or where one can bait the other. If there is a defined discretionary sanction, recommended (not required) by ArbCom, I'm hoping that it'll make things a little easier to enforce. If there are a couple of enforcement questions which need to be determined by discussion at AE or by the committee at ARCA that IMHO a bad thing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that, and I see where you are coming from on having a sanction recommended by the committee that is defined. What I'm thinking is that if this were left just to plain DS, what would likely happen would be just a straight-up ban from adding or removing infoboxes with no exemptions or wording around sourcing/verifiability/percentages of articles.While this is definitely more restrictive than the probation, it also makes it much easier to enforce. Tailored sanctions tend to be much more difficult because they raise questions about the conditions, and they also make admins less likely to enforce them because the questions on the particulars makes an appeal more likely, and the thought of a drawn out appeal can often deter admin action.For example (using the workshop remedies) does a fact need to be cited in the sentence that it is contained in or can it be cited at the end of the paragraph? What about something that is cited in one of the references, but a new editor didn't write in the body of the article (isn't supposed to happen, but does all the time, especially if the editor is new). These are just hypotheticals right now, but I'm sure things like that would come up at AE. I don't think the probation would be the end of the world or anything like that, I just think it'd be difficult in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's intended to fill a gap between banning someone from having anything to do with infoboxes and still allowing them to do limited work with infoboxes. Admins can still apply the full range of options open to them, this is adding a possibility. I've added another option which I think will simplify the probation remedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was actually what I was thinking of in my proposed ban wording above, and think it is clear and easily defined, and there wouldn't be a fear of enforcing it. Thanks for listening . TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Isanae
The last FoF (Cavassing) and PR (Volvlogia admonished) are missing from the implementation notes. Isa (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Isa (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Volvlogia
I accept responsibility and apologize for my canvassing. It was done out of inexperience and I did not know it was wrong at the time, but I accept that I made a mistake, and I support and accept the proposed admonishment. --Volvlogia (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Community discussion recommended
Here's part of what had to say when he proposed just the same idea in 2013, without any response from the community: Unfortunately, Brad is under a misapprehension about the problem here. There is little disagreement about the list of the types of factors that might weigh for or against including an infobox in a given case. You can read my essay on the factors at User:RexxS/Infobox factors. However, the problem arises not because of an ignorance of the list, but because of the disagreement between editors of the weight that should be given to each possible factor in any given article. This will range from those who believe no weight is appropriate for any factor beyond the aesthetics of the infobox to those who couldn't care how it looks but want key pieces of information available at-a-glance and for automated re-use. Throughout that spectrum, editors can sincerely hold their own opinions in good faith, and threatening them with sanctions for their opinions is not a productive way to run a project. That's why this proposal is as doomed to failure as the last one was five years ago.

Editors reminded
This is another regurgitation of a 2013 proposal that also failed to make any dent in the problem – Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Those of you with short memories may need to be reminded of my request for clarification on whether this is meant to have any effect. The response from the Arbs was effectively 'no' and I had to find resolution elsewhere.

Once again, I have to point out that the factors that have to be weighed in reaching a decision on whether or not to have an infobox are bound to include factors (like "at-a-glance readability" and "reuse of the metadata by third parties") that are applicable to all infoboxes, even though they clearly also apply to the article in question. It is outrageous to suppress reasoning simply because it could be generalised, presumably on the mistaken belief that everybody in the debate is already aware of such factors. As long as the pertinence of a consideration to the specific article is made, you ought not to be providing further meta-objections for parties to raise in an effort to derail discussion, and you especially ought not to be providing the mavericks at AE with yet another excuse to sanction good-faith editors.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is clear that you have given a lot of thought to what factors weigh for and against having an infobox in a given article; I'm less sure that other editors have done the same. I'm going to suggest tweaking the language of some of the proposals to address aspects of your concerns, though I'm sure I won't capture all of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to SchroCat
I'm baffled by your characterisation of the July/August edits to Requiem (Duruflé) as a "serious dispute". This is the edit history of the article for the period. See also the talk page Talk:Requiem (Duruflé) and subsequent sections. Apart from the trolling from the IP, there was only serious discussion between Francis, Smerus, Gerda and me, which lead to compromises that we all could live with. Not only did we end up with an unusual infobox (the lead image is separate and larger) with general agreement on its contents, but I amended Template:Infobox musical composition to meet one of Francis' complaints about conflating the opus number of a composition with a catalogue number. That's only a small improvement, but it's the sort of outcome we can get when discussion is allowed to focus on the detailed concerns and we all strive to find ways of addressing them. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox necessary?
If I may be so bold, debates on talk pages should focus on improving the article, rather than metaphysical speculation about the necessity/desirability/etc. of a particular element or content. Could I suggest to you that the wording you're looking for might be: Encouraging editors to view a difference of opinion as whether the article is improved or not is often the best way to look at it. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the editor should be allowed to explain their rationale based on editorial judgement on why they did not think the infobox was an improvement
 * Thank you, I agree and will rephrase my suggestion. Alex Shih (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Banedon
FoF 3.3.8 and remedy 3.3.12 (as of time of writing) pertaining to Volvlogia's conduct is troubling to me. The point is that Volvlogia could not possibly have been canvassing. From WP:CANVASS, "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Unlike other discussions on Wikipedia, the outcome of any arbitration proceeding is because of the action of arbitrators. In other words the only way Volvlogia could have canvassed is if (s)he got otherwise-inactive arbitrators to join the proceedings. If all arbitrators are already watching WP:RFAR, as they probably are, then it should be impossible to canvass.

Volvlogia's conduct probably led to more of Cassianto's (or whoever's) "wiki-enemies" joining the case. However they can't actually do any damage to the proceedings; in fact, it's hard to see any strongly negative effect coming from their participation:
 * 1) If these wiki-enemies say something like "[name] is really bad at infobox discussions, I have suffered at his hands for years, arbcom please punish him" they obviously aren't bringing any extra evidence to the table. In that case arbitrators should know to disregard the statement.
 * 2) The other way these wiki-enemies could contribute is by adding actual evidence. "[name] is really bad at infobox discussions. In this article, he [did this (diff)], [then did this (diff)], and proceeded to bash this editor [diff]." If this happens then arbcom has more evidence to base decisions on - a good thing.

Volvlogia's conduct can only be a problem if arbcom is easily influenced to take what appears to be the most popular route (based on the positions of editors commenting). If arbcom is indeed this easily influenced, I'll argue we have a (fundamental) problem because arbcom is the court of last resort on Wikipedia, and filers should expect to receive an impartial decision. Put another way, I view arbitration similarly to a legal process in real life. Of course the plaintiffs and defendants are going to call all the witnesses they can, and nobody should accuse them of "canvassing" by selectively choosing people who're going to present evidence favourable to their case. It's what they're expected to do.

tl; dr: if arbitration is based on facts not popularity, Volvlogia's conduct is not wrong. If there is to be any admonishment at all, it should only be for propagating the dispute by using inflammatory language.

Banedon (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is not intended as a vehicle to invoke a Two Minutes Hate toward an editor, which is why I care about the canvassing. However bad their conduct, editors should not have to endure every editor they've ever disagreed with or slighted coming out of the woodwork all at once to attack them from all directions. We want balanced evidence on recent disputes, not every enemy of an editor to have a go. This isn't so much a problem because it affects our decision as because it affects editor retention. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems at odds with the legal system, e.g. it's fairly common in high profile trials such as Trial of George Zimmerman, Trial of Michael Jackson to have witnesses for the character of the plaintiff or defendant. In the MJ trial the prosecution case collapsed in part because of the credibility of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's mother, and many of the witnesses; however from their point of view they probably felt like everyone who ever disagreed with them "coming out of the woodwork all at once to attack them from all directions". I'm curious what thinks about this based on his legal background. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, and perhaps more pedantically, under our current definition Volvlogia could not have been canvassing. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A case request is a discussion, and I certainly think notifying a non-neutral group of editors with a heavily non-neutral message falls well within our definition of canvassing. We aren't a legal body and so I don't find much value in comparisons to how the legal system is run. It's worth noting that in addition to my above concerns, notifying the laundry list of enemies has historically led to a lot of rants posted as "evidence" with either little in the way of actual diffs or only extremely old diffs that are no longer relevant. That imposes real costs on the time of arbs and clerks while making it harder for us to sort through the muck and get to the heart of the matter. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As may be clear from my comments and votes, I would probably have let the "canvassing" issue go. See also my response to TRM's second question here. That said, I can agree that asking a dozen people to visit the arbitration page and tell us that User:Foo is a schmendrick is obviously not how to behave. I will resist the invitation to analogize to the real-world legal system, beyond noting that (1) "character" and "credibility" are very different concepts governed by different evidence rules, and (2) unlike in RL litigation, in most wiki arbitration cases the content of the "evidence" (i.e. the diffs) is not disputable; what can be changed is the selection of what diffs we look at and in what context we interpret them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment regarding: There's no polite way of putting it
@ARBCOM: But I assume the purpose of the Committee's decision was not to encourage editors who have recently been formally warned regrding their behaviour in an infobox case...to immediately go and do something like this? WP:POINT, much? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 13:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by {username}
Editors are free to make relevant comments on this page as necessary.