Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Newyorkbrad
 * 4) NuclearWarfare
 * 5) Salvio giuliano
 * 6) SilkTork
 * 7) Timotheus Canens
 * 8) Worm That Turned
 * 9) Carcharoth

Inactive:
 * 1) Roger Davies

Recused:
 * 1) Risker
 * 2) Kirill Lokshin

Statement by Rschen7754
This is long overdue. --Rschen7754 08:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @MastCell: I don't agree with that, having been a party to the road naming disputes long ago: it's the belief that "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm going to raise hell until I get my way" on the part of at least one side; it can be both sides, but it only takes one side to create an intractable dispute. --Rschen7754 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Resolute: Exactly. --Rschen7754 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @NW: An old arbitration case that may be relevant: Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17
While I'm aware of what this dispute is about and who it is between, though only in the most basic terms, most editors here will not. Far more context (or at least links? Something?) is needed. Nothing against you, Ched. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from PumpkinSky
As this is Ched's first RFAR filing, I ask that arbcom allow him sufficient time to put the RFAR together. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am with Mastcell in that this and so many other wiki squabbles aren't about what they seem, they are about disliking others, power, and wikipolitics. I also agree with Bbb223--why on earth are the music projects special? Why are they unsuitable for music projects? What makes them so different? I also agree with Brian in the SP essay, infoboxes shouldn't be so long as to overtake the body of the article, but long enough to be useful. And where else do you see navboxes (not infoboxes) in the upper right? Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Wehwalt
This has gone on too long. I don't like the way you've dealt with content contributors, but this is causing the project to bleed. Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @NYbrad: I think ArbCom could formulate rules of behavior, which if violated could bring sanctions. I would not support direct pro/con on infoboxes in the subject matter areas as beyond your remit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Orlady (noninvolved)
This is about the long-standing battles at WikiProject Classical music (also WikiProject Opera) on the topic of whether infoboxes should be permitted to be included in biographical articles about composers and musicians. This recent ANI discussion is indicative of the nature and magnitude of the dispute:. I cannot elucidate the dispute because I have not followed the battles, but it appears that the parties are unable to resolve it on their own, and I am sure that the ongoing disruption discourages some other prospective contributors from working on classical music and opera articles. I can testify that I learned that it would be best to stay away from the whole topic back in 2007 (six years ago) when my innocent efforts to maintain the infobox in an article about a singer were reverted for violating the rules of the Opera project (never mind that the singer also worked in musical theatre and film). --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Giano, @Views of Eric Corbett - I suggest that you supply diffs. It's hard to tell which comments you are referring to. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion for an editorial board, made below by User:My very best wishes, seems like the best path toward peaceful resolution of this contention, as well as other perennial contentions over seemingly minor MOS-related matters such as dashes, use of capital letters in common names of species, and WP:USPLACE. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Alanscottwalker
As I recall, the policy on infoboxes says its up to individual article consensus, and the policy on projects is that they can create and promote consensus on such individual article format matters. So, good luck, but it does not look like there is a sweet spot for you in current policy re this, so this case needs conduct diffs, and conduct policy breaches, and prior steps re conduct, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and it also needs parties involved in the above other things it needs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lord Sjones23: In the discussion linked by EdChem below, you mention strategic mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, as playing a part in this?  What is meant by that? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Laser brain
Like previous arbitration cases involving Manual of Style issues, this issue suffers from the wrong kind of attention from many editors. I've observed that infoboxes appear in and disappear from articles seemingly as a matter of personal preference and not as a matter of editorial judgement about the needs of our readers. The reason this is becoming an arbitration case is not because it's that difficult to determine whether an infobox would be beneficial to the reader on some given page. We don't need arbitration for that—it should be a matter of common sense and editorial judgement. We're here because some editors have behaved badly with regard to infoboxes. Those editors have expended energy on infoboxes because they feel passionate about them or have strong personal preferences about their presence or absence. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do on Wikipedia per se. However, the behavior of editors who fall into these categories should be examined: Again, this is not an editorial or content problem, it is a problem with disruptive behavior. The AN/I thread Orlady linked is a fantastic primer. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors who have broken the WP:BRD cycle with infoboxes on any article.
 * Editors who have added or removed infoboxes against consensus.
 * Editors with a history of skirmishing with other editors about infoboxes.
 * Editors who have expressed non-editorial reasons for adding or removing infoboxes, especially when editors with opposing views are named.

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent
(disclaimer: I haven't followed this in detail and have no intention of reading all the pages of past discussions) The division into "pro and anti infobox" camps is a strawman argument. The dispute is between a very small clique of hardliners on one hand who believe that every article should have a visible infobox regardless of whether an appropriate box exists, and another very small clique who believe that infoboxes oversimplify information and thus should be omitted from certain complex topics. The waters are muddied by small number of very vocal "Wikipedia is a database!" boosters of machine-readable data, who insist infoboxes are necessary on every article for metadata purposes. (FWIW, I find this utterly spurious—the data would be just as machine-readable if it were invisible to readers.) This is not a content dispute; it's a user conduct issue. I'm sure nobody who was on Arbcom at the time of the Great Endash War has any desire for a rerun, and normally something like this would never make it to Arbcom without an RFC. However, at least one of the key actors in this dispute has a long, long history of disregarding any discussion that doesn't give their position a 100% endorsement and of outright bullying of anyone making comments with which they disagree, while at least four others (from both sides of the dispute) have a record for "well, it's not technically forbidden" weaselling to excuse deliberately provocative adding/removing of boxes, of blatant edit-warring, and of foul-tempered flareups towards anyone who disagrees with them. Given how much bad feeling has been caused by this, it's better for Arbcom to lance the boil now, and not to be afraid to ban people who think they're indispensable if they're not willing to admit that other peoples' opinions might have validity. Let the parties make their cases, pick a policy (it doesn't really matter all that much what it is), and make it clear that anyone breaching it will face nasty blocks or bans. – iridescent  18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Toccata quarta
User:Ched has given links that provide enough context for just about anyone to understand the history of this topic. Here is my take on this thread:

In order for this discussion to be productive, it should focus on the topic of the authority of WikiProjects. As far as I know, infoboxes are neither mandatory nor forbidden on Wikipedia. Thus, the chief issue that should be discussed here is: "How far should the authority of WikiProjects go? Can they disregard infobox guidelines, or even the MOS:, because their first hand experience with many articles of a similar kind led them to the conclusion that those articles, by their very nature, need to be organised differently than most other articles on Wikipedia? And if yes, then what to do with articles that are of interest to multiple WikiProjects?"

That's my perspective. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Bbb23: Well, my idea was to discuss the possibility of changing the WikiProject-authority guidelines/policies. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not-particularly-helpful observation by MastCell
I used to wonder how otherwise sane, talented, dedicated people&mdash;some of our best&mdash;could fight to the death over picayune issues like infoboxes, en-dashes, alt-text, capitalization, date formats, and road-naming conventions. But finally I had an epiphany. These editors aren't fighting about infoboxes. These editors are fighting because they don't like each other. But because of our ideas about "civility" and "comment on content, not the contributor", these personal animosities play out indirectly, in the form of sequential proxy wars over abstruse quasi-content issues. The implications are obvious. A solution which focuses narrowly on infoboxes won't address the underlying problem, just as the Korean Armistice didn't end the Cold War. These animosities will find another outlet.

Our community-specific definition of "civility" encourages people to nurture grievances under the cover of superficial pseudo-politeness. In any case, editors who are invested and passionate enough to fight to the death over infoboxes are just as capable of finding some other equally meaningless cause to fight for. Wikipedians are really, really bad at letting anything go, ever. That's probably a result of natural selection; content disputes on Wikipedia are generally won through tenacity, not through reason, common sense, or policy guidance. Over the years, we've selected for the ability to stake out a position and never budge no matter what.

The issues in this case illustrate the central sicknesses in the Wikipedia community: long-standing personal grievances play out in the form of a proxy war over a content issue; there's a pathological inability to ever concede an inch, no matter how insignificant the concession in the grand scheme of things; and the total failure of perspective and forest/tree discrimination. Seriously (leaping onto soapbox), if I could harness 1/100th of the outrage that people invest in infoboxes or en-dashes, and use it instead to help deal with Real Problems (e.g. the dangerous medical misinformation which floods this site every day), I think Wikipedia and the reading public would be the better for it. But what fun would that be? MastCell Talk 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Mark Arsten
I think it might be best if this request was handled in the same way as this past one. In that case, Arbcom enacted a moratorium on changes and a 1RR restriction, and instructed the community to open a structured discussion on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Bbb23
"WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." (WP:PROJ) Of course, I don't know what binding effect the WikiProject page has on the community, but assuming the statement is correct, there should be no need to clarify the authority (Toccata quarta) of Wikiprojects. Moreover, my understanding is that ArbCom generally enforces rather than creates policy, so I'm not sure how that would be in the scope of ArbCom's powers.

The projects may have no special rights in theory, but in practice, particularly with the bigger projects, that's not really so. My anecdotal experience is that if the projects take a position, it creates a presumption that other editors then have to rebut. That is problematic at best.

I don't know the statistics, but infoboxes are very common at Wikipedia, whether you like them or not. I generally only remove infoboxes if there's so little information in them as to not be, uh, informational. So, at bottom, why are classical composers, classical performers, and operas special? And I speak as an avowed, close narrow-minded snob who almost never listens to any music other than classical and opera. But speaking as a Wikipedian, I still don't see why these articles should be treated differently. Someone above (I'm not going to hunt it down) said something about the articles being more complex. I don't see why an opera article is that much more complex than an article about a musical comedy. Nor do I see why an article about an opera singer is that much more complex than an article about a popular singer. And we won't even talk about cross-over.

Unfortunately, I have little to say in response to Newyorkbrad's request that we focus on solutions. Much harder than everything else. Mark's suggestion above me might be one way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Giano
What is the purpose of this proposed case? What is the ideal end goal that Ched would like to see? By Ched, I mean Ched, not every passer-by and commentator here?  Giano  21:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply . But I want to know what is your ideal solution; what do you want Abcom to do, say and decree. In my view the worst of the problems are caused by the arrogant intransigence of one single editor,Andy Mabbitt. Every time I have been involved in a heated infobox debate his inability to compromise has been the root cause. Myself and other editors have bent over backwards to compromise, but he won't move a millimeter. It's my opinion that there is a little point having a case while he is still editing, unless Arbcom rule that he can run the info-box show which would cause great loss of valuable editors. So be careful what you wish for.  Giano   13:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by (partly involved) Montanabw
I see the following issues here: 1)  The question of if or when wikiproject consensus can override general guidelines or if general guidelines must always trump wikiproject consensus (particularly if general guidelines themselves are also in a state of flux)   2)  When is "consensus" achieved, who achieves it and when it is "set" to not change versus when it can legitimately be changed. 3) An old and probably outdated "consensus" on a wikiproject that is being clung to by the oldtimers in defiance of all logic and reason.  4)  Vicious personal attacks by the oldtimers on anyone challenging that "consensus" even when the challenge is made by a new person with no prior history in the project, who is acting in sincere good faith. (And, to be fair, some newer folks probably also not behaving ideally) 5) Some longstanding grudges and personality conflicts, which IMHO simply will be all-but-impossible to address. 6)  What infoboxes are "for" anyway... which may also be a question beyond the scope of this particular RfC. To that end, I think the focus on #2 is where most of the heat is. Sending this back to the project will just generate another round of the same. This probably needs to go to the larger community and probably focus on whether this can be resolved by looking at items #1 and #2 to see if they can resolve the problem of #3. #4 is unsolvable here, though the individual parties may benefit from examination elsewhere. #5 also unsolvable here, though probably needs to be looked at elsewhere (I note it as a topic in the most recent Signpost, in fact). Montanabw (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Giano, I am surprised to see Mabbitt singled out as virtually the "only" person who is a problem; it inevitably takes two sides to tango. The position of the classical music wikiproject "oldtimers" (for lack of a different word) to unite against infoboxes in all shapes and sizes is, in my view, the place where I see "arrogant intransigence". There are at least two currents here, 1) the view of some in the project that no infobox, ever should cross their scared threshold (which is, inherently, a pretty intransigent position) and then 2) the debate over what an infobox might contain, which is a different topic altogether and I don't think is really the core of this particular dispute. Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Smerus, I am noticing what appears to be a complete inability on your part to see the incredible good faith attempts Gerda repeatedly is making here, I am troubled that you see malice in her every move. The nasty tone of your comments here and elsewhere really demonstrates part of the problem here as well. (Giano, per your comments about Mabbit, note Smerus. Tango definitely involved here!)  When someone can't even make a suggestion ON THE TALK PAGE without being slammed with false accusations of evil motive, well, I find that rather scary. Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@Quiddity, Resolute, and others who are mostly uninvolved, a lack of compromise - on ALL sides - is part of the problem here. I think blocks and bans are generally a poor solution; the solution needs to be something that transcends personalities. People are in the classical music projects mostly because they have expertise and experience with the content. People like Mabbit do the technical stuff because they have the expertise and understanding to make these things work. Experts in both things are needed; the project is weaker without them. But folks in and out of the project also need to stop the food fight, reversion wars and feeding frenzy that occurs whenever someone gently and with good faith proposes to move the technical specifications of the project into the modern world. There is a need to have a balance between overall guidelines on infoboxes across projects and respect for WikiProject ability to set a standard for use of things like technical language, relevance of included data (particularly when infoboxes are addded), consistent style, layout, and so on. Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute
Pretty much what Laser Brain said. The root of this issue is not whether or not infoboxes should be universal or whether certain classes of articles can do without them. This issue is about the behaviour of editors during such discussions. To that end, per the ANI thread linked somewhere above, Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), Gerda Arendt and Nikkimaria should probably be parties to this case at the very least. Probably more, but I have not followed the composer infobox dispute closely. In terms of looking at behaviour of these parties specifically, I will not say much at this point due to personal bias. I have a very high level of respect for Nikkimaria, no interaction with Gerda and I have never had a good experience with Andy. I will state, however, that my disputes with Andy have always revolved around infoboxes, and invariably centred around his attempts to force his personal viewpoints into practise, regardless of whether he has consensus support. Resolute 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gerda - I am happy you have worked well with both of the others. I do wish to clarify that I did not suggest adding you as a party because I am convinced that you have done anything untoward, but merely because the ANI revolved around the interactions of the three of you.  It seemed a good place to start to help Ched and the arbs lend focus to this potential case. Resolute 23:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Johnuniq's suggestion: Ordering a six month moratorium on the "infobox wars" seems like little more than sweeping the problem under the carpet. In the case of Andy Mabbett, he was already banned for a year in 2007 for his problems in this area, and here we are six years later with no change in behaviour. Another six months won't encourage him to walk away, and unless all involved editors move on, I don't expect any will. Resolute 21:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by bemused EdChem
I noticed Ched's original posting and found this recent discussion at the Wagner talk page. An infobox was posted to the talk page after a suggestion from Brad. was the first to respond, commenting inter alia that "It is just one editor's idea, and not a very good one, imo, as it will encourage some smartass to put the ugly column you have created on the main page." That gave me the impression that maybe infobox discussions aren't models of collegial development of consensus about an editorial decision, an impression reinforced by the rest of the thread. It moves first through a debate on ad hominen comments to a debate on local / global consensus and the adequacy of content. Relevant topics don't get discussed long before the discussion devolves again: "visually ugly duplicate of the lead", "redundant, awkward, confusing, uninformative" and "Trojan Horse". Accusations of canvassing and violations of talk page guidelines are then followed by bickering. This is one brief battle in a wider war, it seems, and it appears to me that there is plenty of poor behaviour for ArbCom to consider from a variety of pages (see this ANI "discussion" for a larger battle). A full case evidence page will, I suspect, allow clarification of which editors might need reminders and / or warnings, etc, and whether some stricter rules for getting collegisl discussions on infoboxes. ArbCom shouldn't (and I'm sure won't) rule on inclusion / exclusion of infoboxes but it can ban editors from discussions or restrict them to single on-topic posts without reflections on other editors on pain of blocks. It can establish RfC(s) if issues like WikiProject authority or local v. global consensus on Infoboxes seem in need of broader discussion from fresh eyes. It can empower admins to more forcefully keep infobox discussions on topic, and to ban editors from discussions where they aren't willing to collaborate but only dispute. It can sanction if excessive ad hominen accusations are common from individuals identified from the evidence page, or other consistent misbehaviour is shown. if needs be, it can remove the persistent editors who add only heat to discussions and try to make room for fresher editors with lesss baggage and fewer entrenched positions. My suggestion to ArbCom is to take the case and try to get to the source of these disputes, and failing that, to at least end this pointless series of fights. EdChem (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Quiddity
I've been following, and trying to occasionally provide a mediating/diplomatic/centrist influence on this dispute for many years. I have a large text file full of relevant guidelines, a few examples, and various attempts to explain the complexities, that I will attempt to condense and format appropriately.

Wikipedia's growth is based on a mix of archetypes (of the psychological kind, and of the wiki-philosophy kind), and balancing those different personalities/perspectives/motivations is crucial to our success.

I urge Arbcom to take the case, and to consider as possible remedies/suggestions:
 * Recommend some specific changes to the documentation of infobox templates and wikiproject guidelines/styleguides/recommended-practices (Eg. reinforce that not all empty fields need [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_Solti&diff=504122433&oldid=504121341 to be added], and not all existing fields need to be filled in if there are disputes.)
 * A formal request for acknowledgement from certain editors that some of the subjective and objective views of their opponents are valid (I'll elaborate in Evidence)
 * A motion that certain arguments related to removing infoboxes are not valid (Eg. That infoboxes are redundant. Because clearly they are, and are intended to be so.)
 * Editing-restrictions for certain editors and topic areas (Eg. Pigsonthewing is currently banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day (Afaik. This might have changed since then.))

I do not believe blocks or bans would be at all helpful, as all editors involved are regularly beneficial contributors in most other regards. –Quiddity (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: "where else do you see navboxes (not infoboxes) in the upper right?" - There are currently 44,674 transclusions of Sidebar, about 4–6000(?) of which are not in mainspace. Some are below infoboxes, some are in articles that don't use or need infoboxes. (See further details. I agree it is confusing, and they often overlap with footer navboxes. C'est la vie.) –Quiddity (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Moxy

 * Simply need this to be fixed and thus the stooping of editors being bitten all over. Not sure what is being asked here - but the main problem is editor behavior - not our policies around infoboxes, Wikiprojects or ownership of articles . Not sure that anyone would think the isolation of editors and subsequent conflicts is a good idea. The editors involved need to see the bigger picture - that is the building and retention of editors over a style preference for a segment of articles. Editors involved need to be welcoming and attentive  to editors who write and expand the articles they believe they own. It is at the point that people go out of there way to make sure some project(s) never learn about new articles (meaning not adding project talk page banner to relevant articles on purpose). As illustrated   above by all the links provided by Kleinzach not even the project members agree on a position resulting in the loss of may editors that felt bullied by a small portion of  project members. I am also sure that many are aware of the two  editors that felt they had to change identities to get away from the stigma of being associated with these projects. Having a project adding hidden message on mass to articles telling editors they need permission to edit a page before hand is simply outrages.  - -Moxy (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Johnuniq
Please apply WP:IAR and use a motion to stop the infobox wars for at least six months. The editors involved are expert at being civil while relentlessly pushing their view, and resolving the matter by counting the number of times each editor has used less-than-optimum techniques would not assist the encyclopedia. I have watched this dispute with dismay for at least a year and it is obvious that the participants cannot make any progress without demolishing the other side. Please see my thoughts (addressed to one of the named parties) at my talk.

Most Arbitration cases involve a dispute which at least in principle could be resolved by assessing behavior modulo policy. However, infoboxes are not mandatory, and this case involves good editors on both sides who have become extremely emotionally involved in the issue—a resolution that favors one side will drive away good editors on the losing side. Content builders who have agreed to develop composer articles without infoboxes should not be dismissed as collateral damage by an imposed "solution" because the health of the community is more important than ensuring articles have a uniform style with respect to the top-right-hand corner.

There are plenty of links on aggregation pages like User:Kleinzach/Debates or on article talk pages like this, but apart from brief flare ups, there are no smoking-gun links to show that any particular editor should be blocked or banned. This case needs arbitration to find a way to allow both sides to continue developing the encyclopedia, and short of Arbcom mandating the presence or absence of infoboxes, the only effective solution would be a motion to impose a truce. Of course that is not a permanent solution, but sometimes perfection is not achievable, and no RfC can lead to a satisfactory outcome after all the bitterness in this debate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In view of the below comment from User:Smerus, I should explain that by "The editors involved are expert at being civil" I mean that the editors are expert at following the rules written at WP:CIVIL. I fully agree that one of the named participants in particular has a style which is worse than uncivil, and I wrote "I saw more than a disagreement—it was a knock-down fuck-you argument, all to enforce a non-existent policy that each article must have an infobox" in the exchange at my talk. Here is a showing when I added that statement with summary "my strongest statement ever at Wikipedia". Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Resolute: Removing Andy Mabbett from Wikipedia would greatly improve collaboration in the community, and I would welcome that outcome. However, I suspect that previous bans have taught the editor how to operate under the radar. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci
I have some involvement because of edits to articles about baroque music. I am ambivalent about infoboxes, e.g. for Bach cantatas. Some of the negative characterizations of Gerda Arendt's editing seem incorrect. My own feeling is that, in music, infoboxes do not contain much valuable information (e.g. when compared with analogous abbreviated summaries in original sources). In specific articles, my limited experience has been that she has not insisted on the use of infoboxes and has responded positively and constructively to feedback. In some cases infoboxes had been added to articles which were not well written. I pointed that out with Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39. Gerda and friends significantly improved the article (and simplified the infobox which had previously dwarved the article itself). I am not at all sure about the all-purpose Mabbett-Arendt template for Bach compositions. As currently written, it would be of no use for Bach organ compositions or several other works published within Bach's lifetime.

Although disaffected editors claim every imaginable wikipedia article has already been written, that is far from true. There are no articles on Bach's celebrated trio sonatas for organ BWV 525–530 or Handel's Op. 3 concerti grossi or Op. 2 and Op. 5 trio sonatas, some of the few works published within his lifetime. That indicates that concentrating on infoboxes—and unnecessarily creating a divisive editing atmosphere—is somewhat missing the point. In mathematics, infoboxes are often useful in pointing to related topics. I think an infobox for Handel Operas could be quite good, as there are so many; but even better would be to improve the articles, sometimes little better than lists, using the books of Winton Dean (compare Rodelinda (opera) and Rinaldo (opera)).

MastCell correctly points out the petty nature of these MOS-type discussions compared with real problems of misinformation in medical articles. It is nevertheless pointless to have long discussions about infoboxes where there are serious quality problems with the content or when the content itself does not even exist. I have been surprised how tempers can flare on this topic. Possibly the arbitration committee could help. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion by Eusebeus to Arbcom
Per Giano's question, "what is the purpose of this proposed case?" the issue here, while triggered by something risibly trivial, may be worth considering. The question that perhaps should be reviewed by arbcom is whether individual projects can assert via centralised discussion and subsequent consensus a "best practices" standard over the articles under their umbrella. (It seems to me highly unlikely that arbcom would weigh in on whether every article must have an infobox...). As it stands, editors at WP:CM (and daughter projects) have a series of established conventions (e.g. naming), one of which is that articles should not ordinarily have an infobox, and we have (rightly or wrongly) used this, almost always amicably, as a de facto consensus over the articles within the project scope. Fighting it out piecemeal, as has happened recently, is irksome. Arbcom may wish, then, to intervene to determine the big picture question of what, if any, degree of consensus-driven sovereignty concentrates within a project and how far, if at all, that sovereignty extends. Eusebeus (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tangential opinion by uninvolved Modernist
It makes sense that productive and prolific editors in particular projects be able to interpret guidelines and determine what works or what does not work in regards to articles, infoboxes and other related matters within the purvey of that project. As best as I can figure - this longtime dispute should be dealt with...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Infoboxes in general - I enjoy having a choice as to whether or not to include them - and sometimes I do include them; I do not enjoy having an infobox imposed on any and all articles; dumbing down content; interfering with primary editors work...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
I do not see any single diff in the opening statement by Ched that clearly and unequivocally demonstrates problematic behavior by others. The actual problem is prolonged bickering and inability of sides to resolve content disputes. Actually, this is a perfect example how intractable and damaging content disputes can be, even in the most innocent subject areas that do not involve any politics, ethnic conflicts or COI. Yes, some people do not like each other, but this is only because they can not resolve their disputes. There are no efficient dispute resolution procedures in the project. This is the reason. The only really efficient method of dispute resolution is editorial boards. Unless we create editorial boards, such problems can not be resolved. I do not think opening an arbitration case would be very helpful, although one can always ban one or two people for WP:TE/WP:DE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, looking at discussion of infobox for Sebastian_Bach, I am not sure how this can be resolved by Arbcom, given the large number of people voting "pro" and "contra". Of course looking from my perspective of a scientific writer, the arguments against infobox are ridiculous. Key point here: the majority of readers will not read the article, but only look at Figures, infobox and maybe Summary. This applies to any typical scientific publication: main idea of an article must be clear after quickly looking through the Summary, Figures and Tables (the "extended Summary" provided by many scientific journals), and the infobox is a key element of this in Wikipedia setting, even as a crude simplification (the Summary is also a simplification). My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Views of Eric Corbett
The views of Eric Corbett are being expressed here. They are relevant and pertinent.  Giano  18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by barely-involved Brambleclawx
I strongly support this request that the Arbitration Committee look at this issue. This is an issue which has persisted in WikiProject Classical Music for far too long. I see above some calls for another RfC; while RfCs are helpful, I feel an RfC on this yet again would be counterproductive and quite probably a waste of time and energy. There's been at least 2 discussions (I think) I'm aware of, but it seems to me that every time the issue resurfaces it eventually comes to another call for an RfC. For example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 44. This discussion eventually led to calls for an RfC, which as far as I am aware, never occurred. In case it really matters, I used to be opposed to infoboxes on composer articles, but now have no opinion and would rather judge on an article-by-article basis, though this leaning shouldn't matter in my opinion, because as Andy (Pigsonthewing) says above, many users in the discussion have been using ad hominem arguments; judging users' comments should not be based on their personal leaning but the strength of their argument. Which brings me to the next point: the reason another centralized WikiProject discussion or even RfC will likely be ineffective is that many of the involved parties, in my opinion, have been using personal attacks (concealed or otherwise) in their arguments. I would suggest both sides of the argument have engaged in such practices: in many involved parties accuse one another of personal attacks and incivility, but do so in a less-than-civil manner themselves. The net result is that the discussion goes nowhere helpful as everybody basically digs in, and refuses to budge while mixing accusations, attacks, and heated arguments, which also has the effect of driving off those less involved in these issues (take, for example, me). In short, suggestions above for more discussion and RfCs are well-meaning but will likely lead ultimately to another impasse due to the tone that previous discussion have taken on, which tend to be not constructive, and drive off those less involved.

This is where I feel the Arbitration Committee can help. It's been asked below what ArbCom could do to resolve this issue. What I feel Arbcom can bring to this that other modes of dispute resolution cannot, is a set of experienced eyes, a balanced judgement of opinions from all parts of the community, and the ability to impose a binding motion on this issue, preferably as unequivocally as possible (it has been argued in past discussion that some parties are misinterpreting the results of past RfCs for example). Ultimately, I would like to see Arbcom judge the ideas of the entire community on this issue, then offer some sort of guideline which will unequivocally create a guideline for the inclusion of infoboxes on said articles, for example, with provisions like "Infoboxes should only be used on composer articles which are not stubs" (though stub would probably need to be defined), or "All further changes to the presence or lack thereof of an infobox on an article in such and such project must be brought to such-and-such centralized discussion place." (though this solution would likely lead to many interminable arguments over each separate article). Maybe you can think of better ideas than I can. I certainly hope so. This is an issue I feel would benefit greatly from finally being dealt with by the ArbCom.  Bramble claw  x  04:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Chris Cunningham (thumperward)
This is an utterly intractable dispute that the community will never solve on its own. Textbook ArbCom territory. At the root of it is the interpretation of core parts of the collaborative development model, specifically the exact distinction between stewardship and ownership on one side, and of whether a supposed greater good can be imposed upon parts of the project against local resistance on the other. The same people (I'm one of them, as are rather a few commenters above outwith the named parties) have been talking over each other for a long time here and there's little if anything that the two sides can broadly be seen to agree upon in the long history of the debate. I'd hope that the committee come up with some strong measures to end this while at the same time avoiding over-personalising the nature of what's brought us here: slapping individual wrists (or cutting hands off) on either side of the matter is not in itself going to bring it to a close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by probably peripherally involved John Carter
The core issue from some of what I read above is, basically, whether the closely held opinions of a comparatively small number of individual editors, many of whom have made contributions of some quality and extent that the project would have seriously suffered without them, should be able to, basically, determine the content of the pages with which they have been involved. So far as I can tell, the relevant page is WP:OWN and the answer is rather clearly "no." Not everyone who has been involved in developing certain topical content agrees on some of what are apparently being regarded as the apparent consensus conclusions, and it is to my eyes irrational to say that silence gives consent in this case. Having said that, their opinions are very relevant, given the depth of knowledge many of them have displayed over the years. If I were to have my own choice in this matter, I would probably argue for ArbCom taking the case, and if possible requesting some major, major discussion by as broad a base of editors, both those who have been involved directly with the related content and those who haven't, to see if we can reach some sort of compromise, which, like all compromises, would probably not be loved by most of the individuals involved, but might at least be something that could be tentatively agreed on and which would allow the community to go forward without continuing to have to deal with this apparently otherwise intractable problem. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Heim
This dispute's had some poor behaviour on both sides. A lot has been made of certain writers, especially those who write about classical music articles, OWNing or stonewalling about infoboxes. There's some truth in that, to be sure. But what bugs me a lot is the fait accompli attitude held by those on the other side of the debate, effectively "infoboxes are a done deal; get out of the way already". There's no policy mandating infoboxes; only allowing them. Even the questions some people here are asking about "Why are classical music articles special?" implies that infoboxes are required by sitewide policy or at least suggested by guidelines. They aren't. Not having an infobox is not asking for any special dispensation; it's just asking for the ordinary latitude granted to writers. Consider the talk at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Real arguments were given against the infobox. I really had no plans to comment until Antandrus's comments pushed me into action. That's exactly how consensus ought to work; people make convincing content-based arguments that bring others into agreement with them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Marginal comment by Robert McClenon
It is my experience that infoboxes are contentious, not just in music. The basic problem is that infoboxes, by their nature, oversimplify. Sometimes subtleties can be better explained in the text of an article, complete with references, than in an infobox. As a result, edit wars break out over what is the "right" oversimplification. (A recent examples, not in music, had to do with the identification of the successor states of the former Soviet Union, on which there is disagreement even among scholars.) This can apply either to what information to put in an infobox when the various choices don't fit perfectly, or to what infobox template to use. My own opinion, and it may be a minority opinion, is that if there is no consensus as to what infobox template is needed, there should not be an infobox, and if there is no consensus as to what items to include in an infobox (e.g., the successor states of the Soviet Union), that information should be omitted, because it is better to say nothing that to have editors think that the "wrong oversimplification" has been used.

The filing party, Ched, hasn't requested a specific remedy from the ArbCom. One possibility would be to place infobox controversies in general under WP:Discretionary sanctions, at least as an intermediate-term measure, pending any policy clarification via a centralized RFC on infoboxes in general. Another remedy might be to state that, although in general Wikipedia projects have no binding status as policies or guidelines, Wikipedia project guidelines on infoboxes should not be ignored without consensus on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal has been made that some of the most aggressive infobox-pushers should be banned. I disagree with site-banning any infobox-pusher unless he or she is essentially a single-purpose account for infobox-pushing.  Topic-banning infobox-pushers from proposing infoboxes, adding infoboxes to articles, and developing infobox templates would be a less extreme measure.  Also, infobox controversies are the sort of general (area rather than subject) recurrent controversy for which WP:Discretionary sanctions would be in order.  That would give uninvolved administrators the authority to block disruptive infobox-pushers or infobox-fighters without banning them, and, if necessary, to provide that new (not yet identified) infobox-pushers or infobox-fighters can be topic-banned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a recent infobox controversy at The Rite of Spring. It had been a Featured Article without an infobox.  Then User:Pigsonthewing showed up and said that the article needed an infobox.  There was argument over which infobox (music or ballet) was in order.  There was an 8-2 consensus that the article, which had been agreed without an infobox to be one of our best articles, still did not need an infobox.  I mention this controversy in partial defense of an editor who is often said to be the worst infobox-pusher.  He did abide by consensus.  (The controversy at Soviet Union was worse, and Andy was not involved in it.  To be sure, one of the editors in that controversy was a sock-puppet.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Folantin
I probably won't have the time to get involved in this RFAR should it go ahead. I doubt if ArbCom can solve the infobox controversy, which is a content issue. As far as I'm aware infoboxes are still not mandatory and they still have to follow Wikipedia's policies regarding factual accuracy and undue weight, to take just two examples. Whether a page has an infobox or not should be decided by these policies plus local talk page consensus. I agree with the thoughtful points Robert McClenon has made above - some pages simply cannot have an infobox which complies with these core policies. Biographical articles in particular are difficult. Look at the Adolf Eichmann and Pol Pot infoboxes, for instance, and tell me whether they adequately summarise their articles or are grotesque exercises in missing the point. The absurdity here comes from sticking to the kind of facts that an infobox can deal with, i.e. the tail is wagging the dog. Good old-fashioned prose is much better at handling such things. If you make infoboxes mandatory, then you'll have plenty more of that kind of nonsense and drive plenty of decent content editors off.

If projects are not allowed to impose blanket bans on boxes, then it should be equally true that "travelling circus" teams of metadata fans should not be allowed to go round imposing infoboxes on every Wikipedia article against local consensus, especially when such metadatans - unless we are to believe they are some of the world's greatest polymaths (and the evidence is against this) - rarely show much understanding of the specific issues involved in every topic area.

What ArbCom can solve, as other editors on this page have suggested, is the problem of Andy Mabbett. I can't think of a single infobox discussion that wouldn't have benefitted from his absence. This is not simply about classical music, it concerns a wide variety of subject matter. Nothing has changed since the Pigsonthewing2 ArbCom. Last August, Andy Mabbett had an ANI community sanction imposed on him, banning him from Featured Article of the Day discussions, but even that limited prohibition has failed to have much effect. ArbCom needs to provide a remedy that has teeth. Stop Mabbett turning up to every infobox discussion with his can of gasoline and his box of matches and you'll massively reduce the heat these controversies cause. --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ewulp
Numerous editors have posted substantive and convincing arguments against the use of infoboxes in various categories of articles. In summary, many human activities are not reducible to database entries—this is generally true of the activities of artists, whose notability is based on subjective criteria in a way that a planet's or a king's is not—and the attempt to force a square peg into the round hole of an attribute-value pair produces misleading and inaccurate information. The four arguments for infoboxes are that they emit metadata, they help google, they create a uniform look, and they provide a summary redundant to the lede. Opponents counter these four arguments by pointing out that metadata does not require an infobox; that Wikipedia's content editors have volunteered to build a free encyclopedia for the public, not to provide unpaid labor for a profitable corporation; that readers are better served by a credible encyclopedia than by uniform boxes filled with authoritative-looking inaccuracies; and that pointless redundancies are not usually considered a good thing. Their arguments in favor of infoboxes having been exhausted, the infobox team resorts to hectoring infobox opponents with accusations of WP:OWN, and exulting that the infobox juggernaut cannot be stopped by puny content editors. This leads to hard feelings. I'd recommend a policy deprecating infoboxes in all biographical articles unless a compelling reason for adding one exists; in articles where they're actually useful (professional athletes, for instance, whose career statistics and uniform numbers are well suited to infobox presentation) no objections would be likely. And this problem would be solved. Ewulp (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SPhilbrick
As Coucelles notes, this is a "kitchen sink" dispute. While nominally about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, it touches on many issues, which I will (irony noted) summarize. I'm troubled by the observation that many of these are outside the direct remit of ArbCom, but my hope is that the extremely caustic behavior issues will prompt ArbCom to insist on some community review of non-behavior issues, with some interim behavior restrictions Content Philosophical Process Behavior
 * Should the default assumption be that an infobox is included or excluded?
 * How long should an info box be?
 * Should info boxes include subjective fields (e.g "influenced and influences")
 * Should collapsible elements be included in an info box?
 * Can meta-data be delivered without an infobox?
 * To what extent are differences of opinion honestly different readings of inconsistent or unclear policies which could be remedied by clarification of guidelines?
 * Is an imperfect field in an infobox a net improvement or net detriment to the project (deliberately using "project" not "article") (The obvious answer being "it depends" but the discussion might be illuminating)
 * Are there identifiable classes of subjects for which infoboxes are inherently a bad idea?
 * Does an info box serve the same purpose as the lead paragraph (cf.Infobox "summary of the key facts", WP:LEAD "summary of its most important aspects")?
 * How do we define "key", i.e. what is the process for determining the set of items belonging in an info box?
 * Does our audience expect infoboxes, and if so, is this an argument for inclusion in an otherwise close call?
 * Does an infobox "dumb down" an article? Is this bad?
 * To what extent is our mission to serve our readers versus re-users?
 * To what extent does an "original author" deserve a privileged position regarding content decisions?
 * Can local consensus override project-wide consensus?
 * Does the answer to the question above change if the project-wide consensus doesn't give clear direction?
 * Does inclusion of an infobox inhibit women editors and thus conflict with Wikimedia goals?
 * How to determine consensus if the discussion on the talk page is non-existent or extremely limited
 * Highly respected, prolific editors have abandoned the project over this battle. How do we stop the behavior leading to the exodus?
 * How do we draw the line between dissent and disruption?
 * Would 1RR (applied to individuals or classes of articles) be sufficient to reduce the EW to an acceptable level?
 * Would interaction bans be helpful?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Anthonyhcole
Judging from what I've seen elsewhere and what's invoked above, this a simple behaviour problem. There may be more than one problem editor, but there is definitely one. A carefully-drafted, comprehensive restriction on that editor will improve things enormously. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sjones23
Back in April of this year, I have diligently dug up evidence on Ched's RfC proposal above and over the past couple of years participated in quite a few debates on infoboxes as a member of the Classical Music and Composers WikiProjects, but I am mostly uninvolved. I think this is definitely a behavioral problem, ranging from editing restrictions, debates and proposals to well-respected editors like being driven off the project way back in August 2012. Given the evidence about this infobox issue, I can clearly state that this is a serious problem that the Arbitration Committee needs to have a look at since I believe that all dispute venues have been tried and to make sure that the issue does not become a liability to the community. I also hope this case can resolve the issue that has been going on for years. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Hchc2009
I'm largely uninvolved. The dispute has become increasingly poisonous and disruptive. This isn't conducive to other editors and, without intervention, risks losing good, experienced people, including some of the named individuals in the case. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Marginal comment by MistyMorn
I have found myself getting caught up in these disputes in the past, perhaps especially in the Solti incident when an infobox was imposed on the very day the article appeared on the front page (in the absence of the contributor mainly responsible for taking the page to FA). FWIW, I find myself agreeing with Iridescent above when he points out that "the data would be just as machine-readable if it were invisible to readers." The longstanding conflict between metadata interests and readers' interests (viz. genuinely encyclopedic presentation of content) now seems to be coming to a head and needs to be resolved in the interests of everyone. Although the community hasn't been successful in solving the conundrum, I am not convinced that a disciplinary process here is the right approach to finding a solution. Certainly I could wish that individuals on certain projects were more friendly and considerate, but that is scarcely the key underlying issue here IMO. Metadata considerations are clearly of considerable relevance to Wikipedia as a whole and I suspect a technical solution for search-engine learning is needed that is separate from infoboxes. I think it's worth bearing in mind that relevant infobox concerns are not confined to WP:CLASSICAL/WP:COMPOSERS. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (October 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=579371486#Clarification_request:_Infoboxes Original discussion]

Initiated by uninvolved  Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

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

Statement by Anthonyhcole
In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox. Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda. Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Jclemens below, I see that in Banning policy, the section Edits by and on behalf of banned editors expressly allows others to edit on behalf of banned users. On the policy talk page I proposed changing from the present wording, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits."to"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) without first establishing consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI that doing so would be productive."


 * Only 2 editors commented, User:Kww and User:NE Ent. Both opposed my suggested change, Kww proposed an alternative change. --08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Neutralhomer
As I said on the ANI thread, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per User:Mark Arsten's question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support Drmies "redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs" ideas. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

 * I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, Newyorkbrad and Mackensen. I ask you.


 * I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!


 * If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.


 * I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for L'Arianna. Instead, I at least brought the venerable maestro pictured on the Main page and am quite proud of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Learning again. I need to understand more, language or intentions or both. The latest Signpost review quoted Worm That Turned: "The decision to include an infobox in an article is a content decision". Guided by that statement, I read my restriction as: I can make this content decision for an infobox where I created the content. It made sense.

Now I am told that this is not true. Even if I created 99% of the content of an article, I didn't "create" the article. Then who did that? Who created the present state of BWV 49? Who can make that content decision for an infobox? Does the decision rest on the arbitrary fact that someone else thought first of creating a stub (then no) or not (then yes)? That does not make sense. - If it is important to leave the decision for or against an infobox with the content creator (as I read much of the discussion during the case), please find a way to make that real, not only for those who are against an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You mention an article in question, but I don't know which one you mean. As explained above, I did not intend to breach the restriction. What I added to these articles made me their principal author and the addition of an infobox uncontentious. I can in the future avoid it for expanded articles, even if it doesn't make sense. - Please don't misunderstand what I said about Verdi. "I would have loved" doesn't mean I would have done it, even unrestricted. Remember, I left project opera. I still would have loved it ;) Te Deum laudamus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Final statement: I will obey the restrictions in the narrow sense of "article they create" pointed out here from now on even if they don't make sense and go against my quality standards. I love opera. We celebrate Verdi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ps:, written to Smerus 22 August 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update (FWIW) It's very easy to find out which articles you have created. You just go to your "Contributions" page, look at the bottom, click "Articles created" and you will get a list. Those are the pages encompassed under the heading "[they may ]include infoboxes in new articles which they create."
 * Here is a list of articles created by Gerda Arendt . --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
I won't opine as to whether it would be a good or bad thing to relax Gerda's restriction with respect to significant expansion of an article, but article expansion is unquestionably not article creation. In either case, Neutralhomer should not be offering to act as a proxy to circumvent anyone's restriction. Especially in an area where doing so could reignite this little war. Resolute 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC) @Smeat - Montanabw's assertion is not correct. DYK allows two types of content: New (provided it meets minimum thresholds) and expanded (provided it meets an entirely different set of thresholds). But they are not the same thing, and she's engaging in false equivalency. Resolute 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Question from Smeat75
Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Ruhrfisch
The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they [sic] create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." diff. I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Mark Arsten
If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent
I have made you a template:

The concept "on their behalf even if not requested" sounds good in pixels, but it's one of those things that in the long term tends to prolong, rather than bring to an end, a dispute. The NE Ent-created Charlie Morgan has no infobox yet Carly Foulkes does. Who knows if I like infoboxes or not? If I edit an article Gerda has touched, am I doing it on my own volition or 'cause I like Gerda? That type of statement -- "even if not requested" -- thrusts AE admins into the untenable position of having to be mind readers to effectivity perform the task they've volunteered for.

Statement by randomly involved Drmies
Of course turning a redirect into an article should count as creation--even if there was content which was turned into a redirect and subsequently turned into a real article: substance matters, and I draw that substantive from below. AGK: "In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect". I couldn't agree more. Note that I carefully left off the second part of their sentence, since in my opinion this "substantive" article work ("'creation'"--note the quotes within quotes) applies to DYK as well, an area where Gerda is one of our most prolific editors. In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will add that I don't think that Homer or anyone else should in any way do this for her, or on her behalf. That's editing by proxy. The restrictions are there, for better or for worse; clarifying and/or amending them is one thing, but this would be quite another. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Smeat75: "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation"--I don't agree with that statement, since it implies a kind of policy or guideline. I agree with the spirit of the thought, as I said above, but not with the "is considered" part. (I say this is a kind of DYK junkie myself, and with due deference to Montanabw.) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I support Drmies idea of " In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. " We don't need to get involved with a blanket policy here, but I think it makes perfect sense that long-abandoned articles should be treated as new for the purpose of Gerda being allowed to add an infobox. I'd say if she significantly expands an article in a way that meets the DYK criteria (and if there is a dispute, submit it to DYK, obviously, which Gerda usually does anyway), then she should be allowed to add an infobox. Ditto making a redirect into a new article. I would also note that if she begins an expansion and someone else (who might be stalking her edits, gee no one here does that, right?) suddenly jumps in the minute she appears, adds more material before she's done, then claims they did the expansion so she can't add the infobox without penalty, that person should be slapped for baiting. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of what is "proxy editing" is now an even bigger problem. I really am concerned about ideas such as Silk Tork's "For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate." So, let's say that (for the sake of argument) User:Nikkimaria, who is publicly known by everyone here to track Gerda's edits, adds an infobox because she noticed Gerda is working on an article and Nikki decided that it needed an inbobox. Do we sanction Nikki? (This, by the way, has happened, though Gerda's 5x expansion edits occurred long before the current drama.) Or what if a public post on Gerda's talk page like, "gee this article about Foo has no infobox," and someone adds the infobox? Are they going to be slapped? Are they proxy editing just because Gerda mentioned it? This is becoming a bit ridiculous, I think NE Ent is onto something here.— Shall we have a rule that if Gerda touches an article, no matter how obscure and forgotten, then it can NEVER have an infobox unless Folantin, Smerus, and Kleinzach all agree first? And if one of them adds it, are they proxy editing? I can also see someone (can't think who, but in theory) could go through the catalogue of the works of major classical composers and create dozens of one-line stubs, just to be mean to Gerda so she can't add an infobox. That would be total crap. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense, so I'm not holding my breath. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens
The statement "When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested." is not consistent with established policy, as codified in WP:PROXYING which currently reads "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I'll note that the committee has, in the past, specifically authorized certain sitebanned users to contribute content work via proxy editing using this clause. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Where a literal sanction has absurd consequences, it is reasonable to question the sanction.

The concept that "if an editor makes an edit even where not in any way solicited by a banned editor but the banned editor might approve of the edit, that such an edit is improper" is quite sufficiently absurd. Where an editor has substantially altered an article from a prior state into an encyclopedic state, that qualifies, IMHO, as being as much an act of creation as the fact that a composer may take a traditional melody and create a piece of music, or that an editor may take a bare mention of a topic and create an actual article on it. was the "article at issue" before the added material. It consisted of six lines total. 87 words in toto. It now has three dozen sentences, and over 1100 words. To treat this as other than substantially a creation of an article makes a mockery of the English language, and those who try parsing exact "letter of the law" are not doing Wikipedia any favour in either the short run nor the long run. Make it a strongly worded sanction -- and say "the editor must have increased the article content by at least a factor of ten" and this would still not be a violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by only-slightly-involved SarekOfVulcan
I'd say that for all practical purposes, Gerda created the current article. Courcelles' metrics below look like a reasonable shot at guidelines for handling this question. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice some concerns regarding acting on behalf of a restricted user. If an unrestricted editor independently decides that an article is better off with an infobox, even if that article were created by a restricted user, I can't see anyone sanctioning them. However, if that editor is observed to have added infoboxes to a series of articles by a restricted user, then it would be appropriate to discuss the matter with that editor and advise them that their editing pattern could be read as proxying. The aim of sanction enforcement is to prevent disruption, not to prevent normal editing. Someone setting out to deliberately proxy edit for a restricted user is likely to create disruption. I can't see a reason for concern over normal editing procedures.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the argument is going to be made (as it has been above) that those mostly responsible for the content of an article also take the decisions about infoboxes, then that works both ways. If a stub has an infobox and is expanded by someone else, then arguably that person who is responsible for most of the content can take a decision to remove the infobox. And those who have never edited an article shouldn't turn up and add an infobox without discussion first. But that is not how things work around here. The way things really work is that in the first instance, anyone can add or remove infoboxes, but if an infobox is disputed, then (as in all content disputes) it needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. The restrictions on adding or removing infoboxes are not because the articles should or shouldn't have infoboxes, but because the editors given those restrictions have demonstrated poor judgement over the amount of discussion needed (both too little and too much) and how to carry out those discussions. As for redirects, it depends on the editing history. If it was created as a redirect and was never an article, then turning it into an article would be creating an article. If it was an an article at some point before it was redirected, then you may need to consider things some more. This is why the 'articles created' link isn't always accurate. If someone turns a redirect you created into an article, you are credited as the creator when you are not. An example of this sort of thing from my own editing history is Lady Franklin Bay Expedition. See also Category:Redirects with possibilities. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by adding the infobox to the article in question, Gerda did, IMO, breach her sanction. I wouldn't be adverse to at some future point relaxing the restriction to allow Gerda to add infoboxes to articles she has expanded for DYK, but the comment about adding infoboxes to 'celebrate Verdi's birthday' doesn't convince me that this point has been reached yet. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this, and after some discussion among arbitrators, I am coming to the conclusion that this sanction is unworkable. It may be best to modify it to a straight out ban on this editor adding infoboxes to any articles (regardless of whether they created the article or not), coupled with a reminder that this whole matter is not about any single editor. It should be about encouraging thoughtful discussion of infoboxes and what their role is and how editors should discuss them where their use is disputed. I am sure Gerda would be quite willing to not add infoboxes to any articles for the next six months if that meant that people's attention would be diverted from her editing and towards discussion of the larger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed with SilkTork. I would deny this request to proxy for Gerda. AGK  [•] 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, it's actually a good question. In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect. For example, if Gerda wrote a few paragraphs, and used them to create an article (simultaneously overriding an existing redirect to a larger article), Gerda would for our purposes have 'created' the article even if the page already existed as a redirect. AGK  [•] 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd concur with SilkTork and AGK. Gerda did breach her restriction here. Gerda, my comment which was quoted in the signpost was my opinion on the general case, with a view to improving infobox discussions in the future. In your specific case, you have been given a restriction which takes precedent. If you do not create the article (including creation from a redirect per AGK), then you may not add an infobox. Worm TT( talk ) 07:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Turning a redirect into an article is, at least to me, obviously an article that Gerda has created and can add an infobox if she likes. This is one of the rare, and I mean RARE cases I could get behind a numerical definition for an arbitration restriction. A rule like "Gerda may add an infobox to any article that never has had more than 30 words of readable prose, after she has expanded to at least 200 words of readable prose" might be workable, and the hard numbers would keep drama down on all sides.  Note that the "redirect to article" scenario would be covered clearly under that wording. Courcelles 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A distinction could, I suppose, be made between creating pages and creating articles, though I'm unclear why the need to turn redirects into articles is so pressing. (In any event, this could probably be archived now as it's not really going anywhere.)  Roger Davies  talk13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification (December 2013)
Original request

Initiated by  RexxS (talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

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

Statement by RexxS
I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded
 * 5) 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.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following, I to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit: With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary: And followed that up with : Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.
 * infobox provides quick overview of key facts in a predictable position, microformats and structured data - see talk
 * bullshit Undid revision 588111954 by RexxS (talk))
 * "Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else"

I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly was hypothetical about the violation of the remedy? If these sort of remedies have no function, then I must ask what is the point of having them?
 * To the general point, I am not seeking to see Dr. Blofeld sanctioned; I don't believe that sanctioning adults who are long-term editors produces much more than resentment. What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought. ArbCom spent a lot of time on this case and I spent a lot of time explaining this very problem six months ago. The least I should be able to expect is that all that effort was not for naught, but I can't say I'm exactly encouraged by Dr. Blofeld's response. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At 19:14 UTC when you made your comment, the talk page looked like . Anyone can read that and see how far off the mark you are. Once sensible discussion had begun, it focussed on the reasons why that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Subsequently, a broader discussion with several other contributors has continued in a positive atmosphere. Because I complain about egregiously poor behaviour, you think that I need to be sanctioned as well? The problem here is solely that Blofeld attempted to derail discussion from the start. I find it very disturbing that you mischaracterise my good-faith contributions so badly and once again are falling back on stifling contributions as your sole means of resolving problems. You can do better. Do you want to reconsider your view? --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I appreciate the work you've done, but it's not "your FA" and you're not even in the top 5 contributors. Who are these "us editors agreeing on no infobox"? and where was the agreement made? what happened to consensus? Who are these "people like Rexx"? I'm an editor in good standing who has written featured content, as well as contributed to many technical aspects of editing. Does that somehow disqualify me from editing articles that you own? If you don't understand that you can't have a veto over all the content, then you need to learn why we have WP:OWN as a policy. My edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article and the summary was accurate (quoted above). Your mischaracterisation of it as false is beneath contempt. The infobox contains much that isn't in the lead and you might learn what if you deigned to engage in discussion instead of painfully inaccurate hyperbole: "This cult to force an infobox on every article" indeed! Check my contributions: the number of infoboxes I've added can be counted on the fingers of one hand. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're wrong again. I really wish that I didn't have to keep correcting the spin you put on my actions, but I came to the article from Today's featured article/January 2014, read the talk page, saw two other editors asking about the missing infobox and checked the archive. I found no discussion on the talk page about removing the infobox, but eventually I found the FAC where one reviewer was in favour of the infobox and one was against. You have imposed your preference on the article without seeking consensus. Not only that but you fobbed off one editor on the talk page by claiming that the infobox contained nothing that was not in the lead, which we know is not true. I that you were wrong and then  to demonstrate what an infobox could bring to the article. My edit summary on the article refers to my previous post at the talk page, and you can see from the diff values (588111923 and 588111954) that my talk page contribution preceded the addition of the infobox. Is that clear now? Strike your mistake and we can move on - there's no need to apologise. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you have formed far too simplistic a view of "metadata". There are many different forms of metadata, but our infoboxes also provide microformats for some (but not all) fields. Different infoboxes provide different microformats and even the same infobox may have different fields and hence different microformats on different articles. You simply cannot consider the value of an infobox to a given article with a generic argument, for example I wouldn't say that an infobox improved an article if it only emitted the name of the subject. Nevertheless, it is often the case that I have to explain the general principle before I can explain the specifics, because there is so much misinformation and lack of understanding out there. Without wishing to be rude, you demonstrate exactly the problem I may face when trying to help other editors evaluate the pros and cons of an infobox on a given article. In extremis, it is possible that I may have to actually create an infobox to demonstrate the value, as I did on Deepika Padukone. It is a pity that it was reverted in a knee-jerk reaction only an hour later before being of any use in the discussion. There is, and was, no consensus on that article to remove the infobox, and good-faith editors with some knowledge of the issues need to be free to edit without being subjected to unacceptable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Look folks, this request of mine has now reached the point where it's generating more heat than light. These sort of procedings bring out the worst in me and I apologise to Blofeld and Carcharoth for being far too blunt in my replies to them.

I have now seen many more opinions on the general issue of being able to discuss infoboxes in a calm and collegial atmosphere and I am encouraged at last.

As for specifics: Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Talk:Deepika Padukone page now has several other editors contributing and the discussion is progressing peacefully;
 * Dr. Blofeld has kindly struck the remark I most objected to;
 * Blofeld and I are productively discussing our differences by email.

Statement by Wehwalt
New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: I think the question is, whether the remedy cited by Rexss can be used to justify an AE sanction, and that I think ArbCom needs to clarify.  That seems to be important here as glancing at Dr Blofeld's block log, I see he's yet to serve out a block. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. You have a point, as little is served by blocking long term contributors, certainly not ones as active as you.  I don't know what's to be done, but you can't spout off that way. Also, I don't have any rules on infoboxes, and have stubbornly resisted efforts by all and sundry to draw me into the fray.  I'm fine with infoboxes, but they aren't appropriate for all articles.  Perhaps you could strike the offensive language?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Dr. Blofeld's statement, I am inclined to consider this a regrettable one-off incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr: that's fine. I don't care to get in to the rights and wrongs of infoboxes and the proper etiquette, my concern is big-picture, that this has caused huge problems in the FA area over the past two years.  ArbCom's attempt at settling the matter did not, very clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. One more question. He added an infobox and did not discuss it to your satisfaction, I get that.  But why did you assume that he was an "infobox enforcing regular", I don't quite understand that?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. That's fine, if you've worked it out, I can ask no more.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I haven't followed the original case or the ongoing discussions (if any) about this topic, but those who have may want to submit evidence about whether this is an isolated case, or whether incidents of this sort are a recurring occurrence among multiple editors. If the latter is the case, then the Committee may want to consider authorizing discretionary sanctions for this topic, as they already have for pages relating to the manual of style and the article titles policy (in WP:ARBATC). As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification.  Sandstein  23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
If you view the history of the Peter Sellers (here) and John Le Mesurier talk pages you'll see why infobox pushers highly frustrate me and this recent action on another of my FAs is really making me fed up with this website. Perhaps my reaction was strong if you look at it without understanding my previous battles with fighting infobox pushers but I'm fed up of writing FA articles and us editors agreeing on no infobox and then people like Rexx coming along and providing false edit summaries as if the infobox contains masses of useful data. At 18:21 on 28 December 2013 I stated "We decided that it had nothing of value and looked better without it. Infoboxes are not compulsory you know." on the talk page. Just 2 hours 12 m later, innocent Rexx comes along and imposes an infobox ignoring clear consensus and obviously being aware of the discussion, violating what you decided here. My edit summary reverting him, "bullshit", I take as meaning "nonsense" in response to his claim that the infobox was full of useful data for mobile readers when in reality its virtually empty. My response on the talk page did not contain personal attacks, rather an expression of contempt at the Nazi-like cult which exists on the website trying to force infoboxes on every article and told him to do something more useful. I very rarely add or revert infoboxes and care little for the nonsense associated with them so I really don't see the point in pursuing this further. I apologise if Rexx was upset with what I said, but I feel I was more than justified given the circumstances and my history with dealing with infobox pushers.


 * response to RexxS 20:50, 29 December 2013 comment " What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought." Magic, that was quick, you've got it, see the Padakone talk page. If you'd refrained from ignoring the talk page discussion from the outset and joined in you'd have got the civil, collegiate atmosphere you desire, in fact it would have been amicable. You're really oblivious to what is going on on here? Please check the history of the Peter Sellers talk page, you view the recent archive. From your perspective, if as you say is true and you're not a regular infobox forcer my reaction was rude and unnecessary, if you view it from my perspective you'd more than understand what I've had to put up with for basically half a year and how your attempt to add an infobox against consensus between Krimuk and myself and the FA reviewers is yet another bloody chapter in this ongoing saga. It was your timing of adding the infobox. On the talk page Krimuk and I explicitly said we agreed on no infobox yet you ignored what was said and add it. If you expect me to believe that you, somebody who rarely adds infoboxes just happened to add it by coincidence I don't believe you. Had you joined in the conversation I would have maintained "decorum and civility" in discussing infoboxes.The fact that you thought this was worth bringing to arb is another example of the gross time wasting which goes on on this website.If my reaction was completely unnecessary, so was your bringing this here and wasting time. Mark my words, nothing positive is going to come from this arb case, if anything it will result in both of us having action sanctioned against us which are completely pointless given that neither of us regularly add or remove infoboxes and by the looks of it you're going to get me blocked... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt: Harshly? And the point of that would be? It would achieve what exactly? If you're to block/ban me for dismissing an edit summary which implies that something is of great benefit which is in violation of your "civilty" rules as "bullshit" as if that's a gross personal attack or something, then Rexx is equally guilty of violating your rules on infobox enforcement and blatantly ignoring the consensus on the talk page. It would be double standards wouldn't it? Blocking me or banning me from infoboxes will not stop uncivil discussions taking place over infoboxes. I've been civil in the actual discussions about infoboxes aside from my initial explanation of annoyance over the matter and have tried to make some constructive suggestions on how to include an infobox which has more value. The real issue lies much deeper and it's one I believe/hope will be resolved at some point with infoboxes being controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt, you mean my comparison of infobox enforcement to Nazism? Yes I'll strike that, I personally wouldn't find it offensive but I can see how some might. My point was that there seems to be some sort of obsession with adding infoboxes and editors seem intent on brutally enforcing them upon every article even when editors agree on not wanting them. I assumed that Rexx was one of the infobox enforcing regulars. It seems he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he ignored what we stated was agreed on the talk page and turned up and tried to enforce an infobox. If he wanted a collegiate atmosphere and to be treated amicably he should have simply joined in the discussion first and should have avoided what he surely would have known would be a controversial change... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@David Fuchs. Ownership? Editors who naturally put in hours/day/weeks of hard toil on articles, take them to GA and then FA and bother to promote them are naturally going to feel that they have had more input that most others editors and feel protective of them. That doesn't mean that we'll revert every edit made to it. Don't confuse claims of authorship with ownership.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt:My perception of the situation was that like with the Sellers article the infobox "enforcers" have sort of like a cell operation on here and are often aware of where disputes are taking place. You'll get people turning up trying to force infoboxes during disputes and them being reverted. I assumed that Rexx had read my "infoboxes are not compulsory and we agreed that no infobox looks better given the lack of info" and purposefully come along and added an infobox to assert that infoboxes are a necessity and override the preferences of the article editors. I think it was the fact he came along just 2 hours after I said that and added one I assumed him to be some infobox Nazi. I found it disrespectful that my assertion on the talk page of the situation was directly overridden in such a short space of time and in my revert or comment being ultra nice and respectful to him given the circumstances wasn't exactly my first thought. As Rexx says though we've spoken by email and we both agree that it isn't constructive to continue this arb case and won't get to the root of the problem and that discussion in a civil fashion should continue elsewhere.

My biggest concern overall is that this infobox issue has become a major site problem with the disputes and time wasting which can cause unnecessary inflammation and actions. I agree with what the arb decided on infobox issues but in practice this often doesn't work. The majority seem to support infoboxes, however seemingly empty they are and seem to see it as an essential piece of furniture, and as with the Sellers article and other, infoboxes typically end up being added regardless of whether the people who wrote the whole article want one. Given the basic cleanup work which is needed in most articles it's a time sink which is causing editors to leave or storm out in despair, zapping any energy or enthusiasm for the project they have left. I have a feeling that at some point infobox data will be controlled by wikidata and there'll be an option of whether to hide them or not and such disputes will become history at some point, but it might be too late and we'll lose more valuable editors in the meantime.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting a statement, including hopefully an apology, from Dr Blofield. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merely a procedural comment which does not depend on Dr. Blofeld's reply: reminders, just like admonishments, cannot be enforced directly; it's, of course, possible to ask for an amendment to the original case so that either an editor can be placed under a remedy which *would* then be enforceable or discretionary sanctions are authorised, but rebus sic stantibus hypothetical violations of the "editors reminded" remedy cannot lead to restrictions under our delegated authority, though it's certainly possible for an individual admin or the community to exercise their power to restrict users editing disruptively. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm often accused, with justification, of using too many legalisms on this page, but I guarantee that more than 99% of the readers here had to either look up "rebus sic stantibus" or skip over it. And even having looked it up, I am still not quite sure what it means in the context of what you were saying. It might be helpful if you could clarify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we are discussing this, I take the opportunity to apologise if I sometimes use weird expressions; most of the times, it's just a sort of déformation professionelle; in this case, I used "rebus sic stantibus" to mean, literally, "with things being as they currently are". Also,, my use of "hypothetical" here was not meant to imply that using "infobox Nazism" is not a violation of our civility standards; as I wrote, I was merely trying to provide a comment concerning procedure, one that should have been valid, even in future, regardless of the circumstances of the case being examined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My view here is that both editors (RexxS and Dr. Blofeld) have acted against the spirit of the remedy in question. Dr. Blofeld by the incivility he displayed, and RexxS and Dr. Blofeld by both turning the discussion in question into one about infoboxes in general, rather than about whether that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Nearly all the reasons given at the (very short) talk page discussion apply to infoboxes in general, so the discussion was clearly going to end up as a rehash of the same discussions had many times before on other articles. What both editors here need to do is focus more on remedy six: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." To encourage this, I am considering proposing a motion here to restrict both RexxS and Dr. Blofeld from adding or removing infoboxes from articles until such a time as a widespread community discussion has been held on the issue. They would both be encouraged to help set up and participate in such a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @RexxS. That is bizarre. The talk page does now have lots more discussion that wasn't on the page or page version I was reading earlier. Presumably I ended up in some earlier version of the page history. I remember Blofeld's 10:34, 29 December 2013 comment being there, but not the comment you complained about. I can't locate the exact page version in question, but clearly what I suggested is no longer appropriate and I apologise for that (I won't strike the suggestion, as it may be needed at some future date). I did, during the case, suggest that what was needed was a list of examples of best practice, of collegial infobox discussions that focused on the needs of the specific articles, and examples of discussions where consensus was reached on the one hand for addition and on the other hand for removal of infoboxes. Is this discussion on this article's talk page going to end up being a good example to show people in future? My experience is that it is articles on people that often cause problems, as people (covering a vast proportion of Wikipedia's articles) are less easy to summarise in infobox form than, say, technical or scientific subjects. Also, to be clear, I see the arguments that infoboxes provide microformats as a generic argument that can apply to any article, so repeating that in every article infobox discussion is repetitive. It would be better to point to a Wikipedia-space essay that summarises the generic benefits of infoboxes, rather than repeating them every time. Ditto for the generic arguments used to argue for the removal of infoboxes. It is the repetition of such arguments across multiple article talk pages that was identified in the case as a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a restrictive motion, but to me a more concerning point here is the appearance of ownership Blofeld is applying to "his" articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

'''Case affected :

Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

 List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * (initiator)
 * Andy

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request



Information about amendment request


 * "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

Statement by Gerda Arendt
As already stated while the case was open, this puts Andy in the position not being able to add infoboxes to articles which he creates. A proposal to change that, Include infoboxes in new articles which they create, was then supported by ColonelHenry, Johnbod, Crisco 1492, Montanabw, improved wording requested by Philosopher, Mackensen and SchroCat. The proposal was opposed by Giano and Folantin, and was discussed.

Today we saw one of Andy's articles as lead DYK on the Main page: Magistrate of Brussels. I ask to add a clause that ends the restriction on his newly created articles: he is in no conflict with any other user, responsible for the content of an article he creates, and is not in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia adding an infobox for a painting, a street or a military person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you know that I enjoyed amicable discussion and collaboration on an infobox template, infobox Bach composition, resulting in a good compromise (pictured), shown on more than 100 classical music articles (example), by Nikkimaria, Andy, RexxS and myself?
 * Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett
I wasn't aware of Gerda's plans to make this request, but I thank her for it and endorse it (I had intended to make such a request at a later date). I wish to include infoboxes in articles I create, and there appears to be no cogent reason why I should not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Penwhale
If the restriction was to be removed from articles he recently created (which should be classified both by (a) article age and (b) number of edits by other editors), then I would also recommend that he be allowed to defend his reasoning to include said infoboxes at the appropriate places. Without this, editors could unilaterally remove boxes from Andy's recently-created articles and he would not be able to do a thing about it. I doubt it will come up often, but I at this point don't see harm also granting him this capability. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I like your ideas, save for the first one - I would amend it so that if specific article(s) have/has few or no other contributors, he would be given a bit more leeway with the infoboxes in such article(s). Call it the someone's got to keep an eye on it clause. I also would support a revision count instead or in addition to the article age (since creation) for definition of such articles.- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
If the committee is going to allow an exemption for articles Andy has recently created, please could they define what they mean by "recently". Doing so would remove the potential for much argument that could very easily lead to more work at AE and/or another amendment/clarification request down the line. I also endorse Penwhales's comments about discussion.

As your starter for 10, how about:
 * Andy may add infoboxes to articles created in the past 3 calendar months where he is unambiguously the creator and/or only significant author.
 * He may participate in any discussion, started by any other user, about infoboxes on individual articles meeting the above criteria.
 * He may initiate a discussion about the undiscussed removal of an infobox from an article meeting the above criteria but he may not reinstate the infobox without consensus, except he may:
 * revert obvious vandalism that removed the infobox (e.g. page or section blanking)
 * revert or fix obvious error that unintentionally stopped an infobox from apearing. He may discuss an infobox with an editor to the extent required to understand their intent.
 * revert the removal of an infobox on one of these articles if the removing editor has not offered an explanation after 1 week and no other user has commented in support of the removal.
 * Any user apparently stalking Andy's edits or otherwise systematically removing infoboxes added by Andy may be blocked by an uninvolved adminstrator for up to a week (first offence) or up to a year (third and subsequent offences) following consensus at WP:AE. Andy may initiate and/or comment in any such AE discussion.

Hopefully something like that should be acceptable to all parties and leave no significant grey areas. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I plucked the time period out the air, but it seems a recent definition of "recent" to me for this context. I intend that the time period is a rolling one of three months from $current_day not three months from the date an ammendment is past.

if you want to accuse Andy of sockpuppetry you should make a formal presentation of the evidence at WP:SPI. If you don't, you should withdrawn the insinuations you've made here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An SPI case was submitted. It was closed without action by clerk Reaper Eternal who was "not convinced" by the behavioural evidence presented and concluded "There's no real evidence to support sock puppetry" The case has now been archived to Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree absolutely about the disservice WP:OWN does to the encyclopaedia. However, if you read the case pages you will see that last year's committee approved principles and findings of fact that endorsed WP:OWNership of articles by those opposed to infoboxes, despite repeated comments by myself and others (RexxS and Gerda Arendt included) on the talk pages about how bad this would be. So officially now any author can legitimately object to an infobox on "their" article on the grounds of "I don't like it". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nikkimaria
Under such conditions, and given that the subject has consistently regarded "authorial choice" in excluding a box from an article one creates as "ownership"....why is this request here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed, including the one with which Gerda opened this request, have infoboxes&mdash;most added by either editors who supported Andy during the case or a Birmingham public library IP, and then developed by Andy. Indeed, this pattern holds true also for a number of articles not created by Andy.
 * In an earlier clarification request, the committee concluded that "acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction...is not permitted". In the discussions that resulted in this remedy, a number of arbs stated that Andy "does need to take time away from infoboxes". Neither seems to have been heeded.
 * @WTT: I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see Andy support that statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
Since late September 2013 (i.e. just after the ArbCom sanctions passed), a Birmingham IP has taken a sudden interest in infoboxes. Funnily enough, this has tended to occur around the same time Andy Mabbett has contributed to many of the same articles.--Folantin (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is socking, meat puppetry or something else, but there are more than enough WP:DUCK grounds for suspicion here. According to Nikkimaria,several of these IPs have been behaving in the same way. All Birmingham educational addresses. According to his own Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett lives in Birmingham and works in education.

Examples: The only users to edit the Birmingham Union workhouse article are Pigsonthewing and an anonymous infobox-adding IP:. Almost exactly the same thing happens with Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet : the only edit the IP makes is to add an infobox, while all other edits to the article (barring a minor fix) are by Andy Mabbett. On Denville Hall, the only edit an anonymous IP makes to the page is to add an infobox right among a bunch of edits by Pigsonthewing. An IP manages to produce a fully formatted infobox in its sixth ever edit to Wikipedia, again right in the middle of a bunch of Andy Mabbett's contributions to the same article.

This is well beyond coincidence. --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * More evidence collected here . I could request an SPI but I don't think it's necessary per the duck test. The behavioural evidence that these IPs and Pigsonthewing are connected goes well beyond reasonable doubt. --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I've now gone ahead and asked for an SPI per Arbitrator Beeblebrox's request. The evidence is here. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
It is exactly this sort of adversity by innuendo that make editors like Folantin so poisonous to the collaborative environment we should be striving to create on Wikipedia. There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. Why not accuse me of being the IPs? A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses. Here's the homepage for Birmingham Grid for Learning: http://www.bgfl.org/ - see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools, http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. Is Folantin now claiming that Andy is getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages? I'm afraid that it's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may add infoboxes, considering the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have one (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). I suppose the next step will be Folantin blaming Andy for all of those as well? --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that I'd boldly add an infobox to the article using the template, only to be reverted with the edit summary "rv,fmt". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposals at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision merely show the lack of understanding by the Arbs of WP:STEWARDSHIP - that there are responsibilities associated with that concept. Although the Arbs seem capable of recognising when "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership ..." they are completely blind to the qualification "...and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." The ArbCom has given carte blanche to owners of articles to blindly revert good-faith edits, without even a pretence of explanation beyond "we say so". Until that behaviour is recognised and tackled, conflict will ensue and we'll lose good contributors until we're only left with the article owners. Yes, you can reduce "disruption" by banning one entire side of a content dispute, but taking sides in that manner will not be ultimately conducive to the development of a multimedia, online encyclopedia that anyone is supposed to be able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If your concern is with "preparing the ground for future discussions", then you ought to think through the consequences of your actions. You have created a situation where anybody opposed to infoboxes can remove an infobox without discussion and insult anyone who objects with impunity. Why would the infobox opposers want to change that situation? "Future discussions" will just weaken their grip on the articles they own. On the other hand, you have removed one - and are in the process of removing another - of the most prominent proponents of infoboxes from the issue. You've even threatened to remove me from discussions on infoboxes unless I stop complaining when I'm treated like a POS by the anti-infobox crowd. So who's left to "prepare the ground"? Are you going to do it? --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing that you only take that from my comment. You're going to find that ArbCom has collective cabinet responsibility for its decisions once they are made. The opportunity is there for you to persuade your colleagues of the folly of removing one entire side of a content dispute, but simply echoing Carcharoth's misguided, albeit good-faith, preoccupation with forcing unwilling/unable participants to solve a problem that half of them don't want to be solved won't do anything to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You make the clear distinction between type (i) "specific" contributions and type (ii) "general" contributions. I already agreed with your categorisation - as you may remember from when I explained to you that discussion of metadata was often article-specific type (i), not always general type (ii), as you had assumed. To the point: are you telling me that you are opposing Motion 1 - which only modifies Andy's ability to make "specific" contributions - because it doesn't advance "general" contributions? I hope you'll forgive me for characterising that as cock-eyed logic. If you want to give Andy the ability to contribute to "general" discussions, then propose an amendment to the first part of that motion that excludes him from "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." - which of course includes "general" discussions on the issue.
 * As for "those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues", I don't recognise to whom you are referring. Kleinzach? Smerus? Nikki? You gave them everything they wanted in the original decision - why would they need any further discussion? The only other two parties were Andy and Gerda, and you've banned then from the discussions. Nobody would find it surprising that no progress has been made on remedy 6 "Community discussion recommended". --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
 Please see also Finding on Ownership and stewardship. NE Ent 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care much about infoboxes one way on the other. Carly Foulkes has one cause the other model articles did, Charley Morgan doesn't.
 * I've prior contact / interaction with Gerda / Nikkimaria /POTW : all are clearly positive contributors to the encylopedia; this case made me sad more than anything else.
 * It says here; I've got 2000 WP:ANI edits, 1000 WP:WQA, 700 WP:AN and around 250 WP:AC (group). (I was an editor, of sorts, for a couple years before a watchlist notice requesters WQA volunteers led to WP:DR participation.) Since I read more than I comment on, the numbers probably underestimate the number of conflicts observed.
 * One of the most common threads I see underlying conflict is the "ownership" concept. It's toxic and the antithesis of Wikipedia should be. You've all seen these hundreds or thousands of times, but I'm going to repeat it: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
 * Although Arbcom is not GovCom, decisions made are influential in community discussion and thinking.
 * As much as I'd like Andy to be able to add infoboxes -- especially if it could do so without annoying Nikkimaria -- the encyclopedia as a whole is more important to me, and therefore I urge ya'll not to pass any remedies based on nebulous "ownership" criteria. In the long run, as it opens the door for more "that's mine" spats, it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
 * Alternative modifications, such as allowing allowing single insertions, with 0rr if another editor removes the box, and perhaps a limit of a single talk page argument for the addition of the box, would prevent the benefit of allowing Andy to add boxes to articles he provides the initial writing off without ensconcing the "ownership" concept in the decision. NE Ent 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the kerfluffle is. All articles should have infoboxes. Really. They're a quick, immediately visible summary of the subject. We don't get to determine whether it has one or not based on who created it, or has the most edits - that would be WP:OWN. This is one thing NOT WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT ES  &#38;L  09:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I've stayed out of this until now, but I must strenuously object to the proposal below to tighten Gerda's restrictions. She came here in good faith to ask that Andy be allowed the same level of activity that she currently enjoys, and now ArbCom wants to slap her down for simply asking? What an absurd result this is! This is not an "obsession," onthe part of Gerda, it is a legitimate question being raised. Many of us have a "STF?" reaction to the anti-infobox "obsession" of a few very strongly-opposed editors of classical music articles. It was their very harsh and bullying manner that led to the case that boomeranged and created this whole mess. Given that well over half of all wikipedia articles - and undoubtably, an even higher percentage of those that are B-Class and higher - currently include an infobox, this idea to sanction Gerda for just asking a restriction on another user to be softened is one of the most ill-conceived notions I've seen! Within many projects the infobox is standard (with assorted "drahmahz" over content, but not existence). I urge the members below to reconsider their actions. Montanabw (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@ESL, RexxS, NE Ent, I agree 100%. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) @ Worm That Turned, I have to admit shock that you have even proposed this draconian sanction. Until this, I have had considerable respect for you, but I am dumbfounded that you think that running off a top notch contributor from an area of interest will solve the infobox wars. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Chedzilla (aka User:Ched)

 * 1) I'm all for loosening the restrictions to allow Andy to add boxes to articles he creates (and I would even support such to include articles he significantly expands - perhaps we can revisit this request in the near future if things go well).
 * 2) Motion 2 .. HUH?  WTF?  During the case it was suggested that a wider discussion on this topic should be held - I started one, and was promptly told 'NOT NOW' (paraphrased).  Has Gerda violated the "2 comment rule" (or any other rule) somewhere?  Can someone link to it please?
 * 3) At the conclusion of a long case (which at times begged the question of how much the committee was actually listening and reading) Gerda was told: They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.  She does so and you slap her with a more restrictive sanction?  This makes absolutely NO sense to me.  Simply amazing.
 * Disclaimer: I have not been very active on wiki - and certainly not around any more of the dreaded "infobox" issues; so if I have missed a significant violation of rules, please feel free to link me to it and I will strike the parts of my statement which are shown to be in error.
 * I'm almost getting the impression that the committee wants the community to talk this out, but they don't want those who are familiar with the topic to be involved if they are "pro" infobox, they don't want to be asked for any input, or know anything about any discussions. Is there some sort of plausible deniability clause in your job description?  —   Ched  ZILLA  20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

 * Re ownership – That's unfortunately part and parcel of the way things work around here. In the absence on a community decision one way or another on a matter, things are usually up for grabs by local warlords. Here, we have a pitch battle, Classical Music Warlords versus the Metadata Warlords. The factions will put up stiff fights at policy pages where necessary, and often manage to block consensus from forming. And when a dispute comes to a head, Arbcom usually restricts/blocks/bans a number of editors from each side of the trench but otherwise make no pronunciation on the disputed territory, leaving untouched the void to be filled. It's in the system, so how do you propose to change that? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite Birmingham being a big place and many work in education, I would say that the sudden "coincidental" appearance of IP editors from Brum, doing things apparently in support of infoboxes, would well warrant investigation. The trenches are too deep to dismiss existence of possible socking. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: Whilst I have no personal preference for infoboxes one way or another (many of my article creations have them and many do not), I feel that some topics do lend themselves better to being summarised in infoboxes. However, there is a risk of disruption if we allow the amendment without excluding the mass creation of stub boilerplated articles that all contain infoboxes. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Before proceeding further, we should wait for a response from Andy (Pigsonthewing) as to whether he wants this amendment request to be made or not, and if he does, he should then make a statement and Gerda should step back and let matters proceed from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that Andy has 'taken over' this request that was initially made by Gerda, my inclination would be to deny the amendment request. The reason is that both this proposed amendment, and the remedy that was passed for Gerda, are taking the wrong approach. Whether an article does or does not have an infobox should not depend on the initial author or creator. It is the article topic and content that should determine whether it has an infobox (well-thought out infoboxes are, by design, intended to be applied to an easily definable and finite series of articles - as opposed to an overly broad and open-ended category). If it is an article that fits within a defined series (e.g. planets, chemical elements, and so on), then there should be no problem. If it is a disputed area (e.g. people - not all articles on people are amenable to being presented in infobox form) then there should be a discussion. If there is any doubt, leave it off and/or raise the matter on the talk page for discussion. On a wider point, what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for a discussion to help address ways to include the data contained in infoboxes in ways that do not force articles to have infoboxes, and to address the wider question of why when 'boxes' in general were first created, infoboxes gravitated to the top right-hand corner, and other boxes (e.g. navboxes and succession boxes) gravitated to the bottom of articles (series boxes ended up in-between). If categories were displayed at the top of articles, they would get argued over a lot more. It is the location of infoboxes in 'prime territory' right up front that causes much of the dissension IMO. Find some way of resolving that tension and people might argue less over them. Also tackle the issue of 'narrow' vs 'broad' infoboxes. But all these issues can only be addressed if the wider community actually has those discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RexxS, the distinction that should be drawn here is between: (i) edits, actions and discussions specific to an article or narrow class of articles, or a single infobox (call this 'specific' discussion - your earlier clarification request was a good example of that); and (ii) over-arching general discussion of the function of infoboxes and how to approach discussion of them and how to allow flexibility in their use and how to encourage best practice and manage disagreements (call this 'general' discussion - it would be limited to discussion and guideline pages set up for the purpose). The case specifically tried to make this distinction, but I don't think it sunk in. What I would propose is that no-one would be banned from type (ii) discussion (the general sort, trying to find an overall approach to infoboxes that works better than the current impasse), but the current topic bans would be converted to only apply to type (i) discussions. The current motions don't achieve this, which is why I am opposing them. My hope had been that those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues would by now have made some progress on a document (intended for community discussion) that lays out the relevant arguments and available options. The ideal outcome would be a document that provides guidance on how to discuss infoboxes and diplomatically handle the disagreements that sometimes arise. Has any progress been made on that? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth - this should be coming from Andy, not you Gerda. Worm TT( talk ) 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support Andy being allowed to add infoboxes to articles he has created, though as Beeblebrox suggests, if others remove it, he will be topic banned from the subsequent discussion.
 * , allowing Andy to add infoboxes to articles he creates and only those articles does give a clear sign that authorship has weight. I have seen no evidence that Andy is asking other users to put infoboxes on the articles he creates, nor that he has not heeded the topic ban in the short period since the case. Worm TT( talk ) 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that Andy has spoken up about this I think I would support allowing such an amendment, provided that it is made clear that this applies only to articles Andy has recently created. If others come along later and object to or remove said infobox, the TBAN would still apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thrydulff is quite right, either proffer your evidence at WP:SPI or do not make such accusations. "Put up or shut up" is pretty much standard procedure for accusations of socking, which can be extremely damaging to a user even if they have not actually done it. Please either show us the SPI case page with relevant evidence or strike your remarks. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fairly easy to word an amendment so as to avoid the any wiki-lawyering about the definition of "recent". Something along the lines of "Pigsonthewing is permitted to add infoboxes to articles to which he is unambiguously the initial creator, provided that he does so with his first edit when initially creating the article, and at no time afterwards.   If any other user should make any edit whatsoever related to that infobox the topic ban still applies.  This exemption is valid only for articles created after this amendment has passed. If any user should appear to be using this exemption to harass Pigsonthewing by repeatedly removing infoboxes he has placed in articles, Pigsonthewing is instructed to email the arbitration committee rather than commenting on-wiki. If the matter appears to have merit it will be referred to Arbitration enforcement for review. If Pigsonthewing is found to have violated these conditions the exemption will be rescinded and the full topic ban considered still in force." That draws pretty clear lines around what the exemption  is and what Andy's means of recourse is should someone decide to exploit it to harass. If he wants an infobox in an article he creates it has to be there from the get go. This can be done easily enough through drafting elsewhere and copying it when ready to go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this amendment as applied to articles of which Andy Mabbett is clearly and unambiguously the creator. If there is room for doubt (e.g. the situation that arose last fall with an article that had been drafted in AfC space and that Andy published into mainspace), steer clear or ask first. I will add that although Gerda Arendt's raising an infobox-related issue may work out okay in this instance, in general she would be very well served to take the strong advice that she was given here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this request should be denied. In the past, when dealing with infoboxes, Andy's approach has often been problematic and, for that, he had to be removed from the playing field. I don't think it's wise to allow him back now, even in part and, on top of that, since, as Nikkimaria mentions, 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed have infoboxes, I also see no reason to relax the restriction, which might lead to wikilawyering and endless AE threads (examples may include: he created the article three months and a day ago, he was not the only significant author and so on). In my opinion, when a sanction becomes necessary, it's best for it to be plain, simple and clear. A sanction, in short, that does not allow for many exceptions of grey areas, which in this case, is a restriction preventing Andy from making any edits concerning infoboxes tout court. I'd also like to add that Gerda would do well to choose to stay away from this topic for a bit, because her behaviour since the case has closed has done nothing but convince me that the sanction we imposed on her should be changed to match Andy's. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on this mirror Salvio's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Salvio's exposition,  Roger Davies  talk 00:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My heart tells me "per NYB". My head tells me "per Salvio". The actual effective difference between the two is small enough that I'll go with my heart this time.  I suggest Andy be allowed to add infoboxes to articles he unambiguously has "created", but if that is opposed for any reason then the topic ban continues to apply. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone on the project, pro-, con-, or indifferent, care one to two orders of magnitude less about infoboxes than they do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Someday this dispute will drag on to the point that we wind up having the mainspace article English Wikipedia infobox controversy. On the talkpage, someone will open a thread about whether that article should have an infobox or not..... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Floq in this case. I don't think it's about authorship having "weight" so much as that Andy can't cause disruption by adding an infobox to an article he just minted. If any non-bot edits have been made to the article by anyone but Andy, anyone has objected to an infobox in the article, or anyone has removed it, Andy would be barred from placing or reinstating an infobox and from discussing the matter. (And may NYBrad's proposed scenario never come to occur.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * re and are in the process of removing another: no, the three people you pinged all opposed motion two, a motion which would have removed from the discussion entirely. L Faraone  20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Motion 1 (Andy Mabbett)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 1.1 is modified with immediate effect to the following text: to be enacted on the passing of this motion.
 * Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. He may include infoboxes in new articles which he creates.


 * Support
 * Proposed, copyedits welcome. Whether you want to look at this from a "he can't cause disruption whilst he's creating articles" perspective or from an authorship having "weight" point of view, Andy should be able include an infobox as part of the article creation. If another user removes the infobox, Andy would remain banned from re-adding it. Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With a strong understanding that this privilege should be used conservatively and only when it will not cause contention or disruption, else it will be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With caveats per WTT and Seraphimeblade. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope Andy, and his detractors, will take this as no more and no less than it is and that both the committee and the broader community will not need to deal with more infobox related drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to AGF here, but I still have concerns about drama down the road. I agree with NYB it will likely not be problematic, and in that spirit I'll support it (with the thought that if it creates a drain on resources, we quickly rescind). NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I'm opposing. We spend too much time attempting to accommodate requests that will in all likelihood result in drains on community resources and the exhaustion of community patience.  Roger Davies  talk 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RD and Carcharoth articulate my thoughts here well. While I agree with NYB's thoughts that this motion would probably not result in disruption, past experience shows that these participants have generated a large drain on community resources in this matter. This limited modification does not appear to serve a clear project benefit, nor does the restriction seem to be an impediment in practice for the inclusion infoboxes as others have noted. L Faraone  03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I still largely agree with the above, on further thought Carcharoth's arguments are very strong to me on the matter. Also Ohconfucius is apt when he points out how it could be disruptive. NativeForeigner Talk 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Gerda Arendt)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 3.2 is vacated with immediate effect and replaced with the following remedy: to be enacted on the passing of this motion.
 * Gerda Arendt is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of infoboxes, both at specific articles and in wider discussions. She may include infoboxes in new articles which she creates.


 * Support
 * Proposed, copyedits welcome. As much as I feel Gerda is one of the most positive personalities on the encyclopedia, infoboxes seem to be her blind spot. Having watched her behaviour with respect to infoboxes since the close of the case, I feel it has turned into rather a pre-occupation for her and I believe that restricting her from all discussions on infoboxes would be the best solution. Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose, detailed explanation there. Worm TT( talk ) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  03:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing but don't see sufficient cause for this at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. And also, I would urge Gerda to not become too embattled over the issue. She means well but this whole area is so tangled in drama further actions only tend to stoke the fire. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm moving to oppose (effectively withdrawing this motion). There's a number of reasons for this, I've been mulling it over since this statement by Gerda that 2014 was about new beginnings. It does imply that she is trying to move on. I would have switched then, but for the fact that she raised this very amendment request in 2014. Having read through some of her recent editting, I do agree that her actions in 2014 have been less focussed on the infobox case. On top of that, Floquenbeam's comments do ring true, this request is more "for her own good" than preventing active disruption. Worm TT( talk ) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * per below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments by arbitrators
 * If the outcome of this didn't look obvious, I'd say (and have said before) that I think this would be a really good idea for Gerda to consider on her own. I think Risker and NYB have said something similar. As a recommendation (and I think Gerda respects my opinion even when she disagrees), I'm convinced it would make her happier to let it go on her own.  I doubt it will make her happier to be forced to let it go, and I'm not convinced there's any real problem this is solving.  I honestly don't believe she's actually disrupting things, and in the absence of disruption, it's not really our place to tell her how to live her life. If I didn't consider Gerda a friend, and thus feel obliged to abstain, I'd oppose, but I do ask those supporting to make sure they believe they're actually preventing significant disruption, and not just forcing her to take their "advice". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (February 2014)
Original Clarification Request

Initiated by  RexxS (talk) at 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

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

Statement by RexxS
I am dismayed at finding myself asking once again for clarification of the decision made last September in the Infoboxes case. I am again confronted by Dr. Blofeld taking what I believe to be an utterly inappropriate interpretation of one of your decisions: I believe this to be entirely inaccurate as I cannot see that the Arbitrators would advance a policy of restricting content decisions to just those editors who self-identify as "the article writers". For comparison, the text of the finding of fact is: It is this finding of fact that I wish to see clarified, precisely to identify who were intended by the wording "the editors at each individual article".
 * In, he states It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.
 * The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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.

Several editors had questioned on the Talk:Hattie Jacques page the absence of an infobox, and Dr. Blofeld is now using his interpretation of your decision to deny new editors any say in the decision concerning infoboxes. His comment was made immediately after that of, who will now be left with the impression that his views cannot carry any weight on that talk page. I have and make that clear, but he has declined to do so and insists that you would acknowledge his interpretation. Consequently I wish to settle this issue completely by an unambiguous statement from ArbCom on who may take part in a decision to add an infobox to an article. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: I do not see how the words "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide" are capable of any misinterpretation. The context is clear: followed a few minutes after  who suggested that "... mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience." You were involved in a back-and-forth with that editor and attempted to shut down the discussion by telling him that "it's up to the article writers to decide". All your wriggling here bears no resemblance to what you wrote on that talk page. Anyone can . I have asked you to correct yourself and your response, once more, is to descend to invective. I should not have to put up with  when I've done no more than civilly raised an issue with you, and sought the clarification that we all should be entitled to.
 * As for the question of TFA, I've had an article that I took through FA on the main page and I sympathise with the stress of stewardship while it is there. But that is not sufficient to overturn the principle of encouraging readers to edit; and if numerous editors come to the talk page to ask about an infobox, then it ought to be a hint to you that there is some opinion in favour of an infobox and you need to recognise it and work with those editors to seek a broader consensus, rather than telling them that ArbCom has gifted the decision to your small group. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it your contention that only those who have edited an article should be allowed to comment on the talkpage? If not, what's your point? I do have some expertise in templates and I wrote a module to help import Wikidata into infoboxes. Should that be a disqualification from correcting misinformation on technical aspects? When you attempted to get another editor sanctioned by falsely claiming that they had caused another editor to stop editing, you should have expected to be called a liar. Tell me, just what have I done to deserve Blofeld calling me a "troublemaker"? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: That's your usual hyperbole. Unlike you, I am an editor in good standing with a clean block log. I have brought exactly two matters to ArbCom in my six years editing here. Both have centred on you because of your behaviour. Need I remind everyone that the previous concern occurred because you refused to engage in debate at the talk page and made : Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else? You got away with that by blubbing to me that you didn't want to be blocked. I stepped back from that request as a gesture of goodwill to you and this is how you respond. On this occasion you have falsely stated that ArbCom has "decided it's up to the article writers to decide" on infoboxes. I challenged your assertion on your talk page but you chose to defend your indefensible statement. I have received further insults from you on that same page for taking the time to inform you that I was seeking clarification. You have had plenty of time to correct your blatant falsehood on Talk:Hattie Jacques, but have chosen not to. We are here for a second time because of your actions and solely because of them. You need to learn that when you screw up, you stop blaming everyone else and fix the problem you've caused yourself. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: When was the last time that an editor uninvolved with the infobox debates turned up at a TFA and suggested that the infobox be removed? It never happens. It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something. Your proposal goes against the basic principles of wiki-editing which depends on discussion and consensus among as many contributors as possible. On the very day that an article gets its maximum exposure to other editors, you want to shut down discussion on the talk page? You'll have my opposition to that elitist idea for as long as I'm able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cassianto: I like you too, and I've been an admirer of your prolific content work ever since we bumped into one another. It saddens me that you think I've tried to force an infobox onto Hattie Jacques. I hope that if you re-read my contributions on the talk page, you'll see that my aim throughout has been to encourage debate of the issue, because other quite independent editors had raised it. Those editors deserve to have an equal opportunity to express their views; and they deserve to have a chance to understand the issues as they apply to that article. That's why it's so important that Blofeld is not allowed to shut down debate by falsely claiming that ArbCom has given a small group the sole right to decide whether there's an infobox or not - speaking as if he were one of the principal authors of the article (he's not). I'm sorry that you may find it tiresome to debate the issue of whether an infobox is appropriate or not for an article that you have substantially written, but that debate is healthy as it involves more people in the article. Isn't it better to give some respect to those who are interested enough to ask - whether they be experienced editors like Giant Snowman, or newcomers like Simonfreeman or MrDannyDoodah or even IPs? We build articles and our editing community by encouraging debate, not shutting it down. At the heart of it, that's what's at stake here, and ArbCom needs to defend that, not give silent approval to those who want to ring-fence articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: Of course you're shutting down discussion. It's plain for anyone to see who clicks on the revision of that you had no interest in discussing the points that MrDannyDoodah raises - you had already mocked his "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete" with your "one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here"; and Danny's "it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to ... perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience" drew your response of "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide". Either you're being disingenuous or you really can't see how offensive it is to other good-faith editors to dismiss their views so thoughtlessly, particularly when you arrogantly claim the authority of ArbCom to tell others they don't get a say. And let's get this clear: are you "an editor in good standing with a clean block log"? Answer: No. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: So you think the editors who take articles to FA are paramount in making any decisions for the article. When you use words like "hassle" and "defend", you're already in a battlefield mentality and completely ignoring the possibility that other editors' opinions are worth considering. You're really advocating that Giant Snowman, Simonfreeman and MrDannyDoodah would be liable for sanctions if they asked why the article didn't have an infobox near TFA day. Are you going to tell all of them that they can't raise the issues precisely because some principal authors are saying "we've decided not to have one"? Ok, you want a Wikipedia hierarchy where some of the editors who write the best content are top of the pile and those below who gnome or add references or sort the technical issues out are second-class contributors. At least you're honest about your position and the rest of us know where we stand. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: As you ask, I don't think that's an inappropriate comment and I am dismayed that you do. MrDannyDoodah is entitled to his opinion (for that is what it is) and whether I agree with it or not, I'll defend his ability to express that opinion. What a dull world you would have us live in where everybody's opinion had to be identical and differing views had to be repressed. If there's a problem with those you call "TFA authors" feeling obliged "to justify or defend their position", then a better solution would be to change the system where a small group of editors feel their own position is threatened whenever somebody suggests something different from the decisions they have made for the article. At some point that risks tipping over into ownership. Lasting solutions on Wikipedia work by involving more people, not less. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another member of ArbCom taking sides on content disputes. The decision on this case was made last September and that's over five months ago. I'm sure you'd like it all to go away for another six months, but ArbCom failed to address the issues last time and of course those issues still exist. I made it clear in the case that it was impossible for anyone to even raise the question of infoboxes on some articles without being patronised, insulted or both. Yet ArbCom did nothing about that. Since then we have had more of the same: completely uninvolved editors have asked a question in good faith and been dismissed or fed a load of cock-and-bull stories about the owners of a featured article having the only say on decisions like that. And now we have Bencherlite suggesting that we enshrine a principle of first and second class editors, by trying to remove the ability of other editors to raise issues at the very time that an article has its maximum exposure to those editors. It's disgraceful elitism and has no place on our encyclopedia. You "smile" on such proposals; I'd spit on them. It's about time Arbitrators worked out what the principles are that this project is based on - they start with "anyone can edit" and you need a bloody good reason to move away from that. Such good reasons don't include some editors being fed up with answering reasonable questions. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are saying that ArbCom is unable or unwilling to make clear what it intended by the phrase "through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" when that is the verbatim text of an ArbCom Finding of Fact, and are suggesting that I seek from the community clarification of an ArbCom finding. Well, it's an interesting precedent to set and I'm astonished that you're comfortable with that course. It does however cast some light on the pure folly of basing an ArbCom decision on a Finding of Fact that even ArbCom doesn't understand. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
Rexx has once again misinterpreted me and is looking for little more than support and to try to prove me wrong by bringing this here and wasting your time. I'm not mistaken in my interpretation, I believe the arbitrators have stated that consensus is to be reached by anybody interested in the article who may turn up at the talk page and want to discuss infoboxes, not just among those who've written the article. My message on the talk page about article writers deciding was how he mistook what I meant I think. Potentially several hundred people could comment on having an infobox issue to come to a true consensus, but my point in saying what I said was that in practice the decision to use an infobox really is typically and generally decided by discussion and consensus between a small group people who have written the article in question provided that nobody objects to it and I'm sure the arbitrators here would acknowledge this. However, should anybody turn up and make an issue of an infobox then I believe what was agreed here is that the editors who made the original agreement not to use an infobox must be open to new input and strive to gain a new consensus. It isn't practical to request dozens or even hundreds of editors to comment on one infobox in every article. The three of us as normal came to the decision not to use an infobox in Hattie Jacques, that was a consensus, just not wider consensus which seems is now needed. But this process every time one of our articles hits TFA has become disruptive and disrespectful to editors who bother to promote articles and have to deal with controversy over them. It's reached the point that we're being put off wanting to promote articles to FA and dreading the day a article hits the main page because it's inevitable that we'll again have to argue over them for hours. That's not right.

If anything I would ask the arb to look into a new clause which prevents editors discussing infobox issues while the article is on the main page and to encourage editors to try to come to a consensus afterwards if people are still concerned about the issue. I approached User talk:Floquenbeam to ask whether this was practical or not. Above all, arbitrators you decided that infoboxes are not compulsory, but in practice the way discussions end up, they end up eventually being forced and passed off as if they are indeed essential. I think this needs a revision and reassessment as, consensus or no consensus, they're treated as compulsory by editors who turn up on the talk pages in practice. The problem we're getting is that articles which wouldn't normally attract much attention over infoboxes are becoming war grounds for infobox disputes purely because editors have spotted them on the main page and this is immediately going to counteract any original consensus agreed on by the article writers which would have remained intact if the article wasn't featured and open to the scrutiny of thousands of people on the main page. Unless this case here can progress into something really constructive in terms of how to nip TFA infobox disputes in the bud then I'm afraid Rexx is wasting all of your time asking you to simply clarify as I know that generally you mean all editors have a right to discuss infoboxes, not just article writers, and he's simply misunderstood what I was getting at and has once again jumped the gun in running here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rexx. You keep running and whining to arb everytime anybody disagrees with you. That's troublesome. This is the second time you've done this with me and again you've misunderstood the situation and are wasting the arbitrators valuable time. If you're not willing to engage in active discussion with other editors, don't comment. You misquoted me here and mistook it as an argument for why an infobox shouldn't be included rather than a general statement which stated that infoboxes are not compulsory and that the arb have stated that it is up to the article writers to decide by consensus. What I meant by that as explained above is article writers and anybody else who shows an interest in infoboxes in articles. I have a point though that if most of these articles weren't TFAs, the attention they've likely to attract over infoboxes is likely to be low. So I'm arguing that articles without infoboxes are becoming breeding grounds for disputes when they're featured on the main page and this has to stop as it's a drain on the editors involved. You're unlikely to get a true consensus on the day of the FA and it comes across as forcing editors to add an infobox just to avoid disputes. The fact that you repeatedly come to arb to back you up I think is troublesome and causes unnecessary heartache and I dare say that eventually the arbitrators are going to get fed up with you and ban you from infobox discussions. I personally would accept a ban on myself from infobox disputes if you're also banned from them and running here during one, and that the arb pass something which will advise against infobox disputes during a TFA. Frankly I don't care that much about infoboxes, it just concerns me that we keep going through the same process every time one of our articles hits the main page and I hate to see our time being wasted which is why I comment.♦  Dr. Blofeld  11:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexx So if I screwed up, why is it you who is requesting arb to waste their time clarifying everything? You'd simply accept I was so obviously wrong (with what you thought I was trying to say) and move on wouldn't you? Your statement contradicts why you decided to come here. If it was I who screwed up why would you need to come here? You're the one I'm afraid who has taken what I said a little too literally and seriously. It isn't right to bring this here. I'm following the advice of Beeb and Vic on this and am walking away from this as I don't think it's worth my time. If anybody here would like me to respond to a question ping me and I'll respectfully respond, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanbw The thing is I haven't overreacted or responded madly arguing against "nefarious infobox pushers". I simply quietly said that the arb decided that infoboxes are not compulsory and are to be decided upon by the people who write the articles as they're writing it. Rexx misinterpreted what I said and thought it necessary to come running here which I see an unnecessary and troublesome. If he'd simply accepted my argument and quietly thought "you're wrong" instead of causing a big song and dance about asking me to correct myself and coming here things would still be amicable. Even if he has the best of intentions the frequent infobox discussion everytime an article hits TFA does become wearisome for the contributors, and its time something was resolved to stop it happening every week or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanbw You're right about that and it's what I've said above. In principle it is up to anybody to decide. But take your New Forest pony for instance. I'd imagine that it was your choice and anybody else who contributed to the article to use an infobox based on an understanding of what is typically used for such article and your preference to include one. The notion that the wider community are to decide the infobox issue on each and every article like this really isn't what happens in practice. If I, Schrod, Cass, Tim etc came along on the day of the TFA and started kicking up a fuss that the infobox looks ugly and arguing that it degrades the article as the article writer you'd surely stand your ground and object and argue that there was a consensus between you and whoever else wrote it to include one. You'd be miffed wouldn't you that editors who have absolutely nothing to do with the horses project snicking their nose in and trying to force a "new consensus" and try to prove that more people don't want the infobox than do. You'd surely be even more astounded if you found yourself swiftly in front of the arb over it wouldn't you? I personally have no problems with the infobox of course and don't think that, but I would never dream of coming along on your TFA and causing a fuss over it, even if I detested it. It is disrespectful to the editors who've bothered to write the article and their decision to use/not use an infobox. Obviously technically anybody can comment, but I do think people should be less forceful in their approach and at least be more accepting of what the people who've bothered to write the article and promote it to FA feel on the matter. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexx, you keep saying that I "shut down the debate" but I did no such thing. I have no authority to "close" a debate and it wasn't as if what I said came anywhere near resembling it. I simply quietly said that the arb made the decision that infoboxes are not compulsory above all. I didn't say "thou must not ever inquire about the adding of an infobox, never mention it again, this conversation is final" sort of thing did I? That's why I found your demands on my talk page so preposterous. Even if you disagree with what I said in the exact wording, simply ignore it and continue to argue your point. As for me not being an editor in good standing, I'm sure even the people who are on good terms with you are shaking their heads at that one too. You're digging a hole for yourself and I can see you continuing to worry about infoboxes in the future to the point you're going to end up being banned from discussing them. I'm very disappointed in your overreaction over this, you seemed a thoroughly decent and reasonable fella in emails a while back. You've got to take a look at how you yourself reacted. If you'd simply said on the talk page "the arb didn't mean just the article writers and you know that, we have a right to discuss them" I'd not have battered an eyelid and things would still be amicable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Victoriaearle
I think the committee should ignore this request, otherwise this situation will go on and on. RexxS comments frequently about infoboxes, as shown in the following very few and selective diffs, none of which come from articles RexxS has edited to my knowledge (I could be wrong!): March 2013, March 2013, May 2013, August 2013,  December 2013. Furthermore, in terms of not having to "put up with being called a "troublemaker"" - being called a liar wasn't much fun either,. In my view, everyone who posted to any of the case pages (myself included), should take a long step back and ignore infoboxes for at least six months. There are plenty of other things to do here. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from NE Ent
Obviously, there's no need for clarification as the committee already cited current policy Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and does not make policy, so any new policy for mainpage / FA infoboxes should come from the community -- as requested by the committee in their findings Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. NE Ent 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article. NE Ent 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
Another "clarification"? And on something that's not really an issue? This continuance of the infobox thing isn't helping anyone, and I can only support, cheer and echo Victoria's good advice above. I'm now so sick and tired of the infobox nonsense that, with apologies to, I'm not going to put any further articles up for TFA, as they end up being involved in the same old endlessly dreary arguments about the damned boxes: mostly about the general concept of boxes (the one-size-fits-all mantra), rather than whether a specific individual article needs a box. Sadly people seem to be unwilling to make the distinction between the general and the specific, and between the policy-led approach against the "I like them, so we need one" approach. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thankfully the site-wide consensus, as expressed by the MoS, differs from your personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw, There was no "snark" intended, and I'm sorry if you read it as such. I will correct a few errors you may seem to be labouring under, but firstly, could you please drop the overly-emotive language and try and assume at least some good faith? Calling editors whose opinion you disagree with is unlikely to help matters, and neither is describing someone's actions as, so perhaps we could deal with the issues, rather than drop into name calling? As to the substance of your comments. — SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  As my point related to the MoS, I'm not sure why you think the MoS is not a reflection of the site-wide consensus of all editors? (rather than just "bullies")
 * 2) I suggest you try reversing it too, just to see the opposing point of view. I've seen an editor accused of vandalism for the good faith removal of an IB that was inserted against a long-standing consensus: the conniption fits are happily shared around all-comers here.
 * 3) Why? The MoS is inherently flexible on the point of use ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and reflects the fact that one-size-does-not-fit-all. Like the majority of people who are flexible in relation to IBs, I that sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be essential. And sometimes they are an abomination. Our policy has flexibility in the approach, which is where the problems can arise—and it's not just about the design and content.

Statement by Montanabw
OK, after noting for the record that I have had positive interactions with both RexxS and Blofeld, you are both good editors, and I really wish the two of you would just sit down, have a beer, and bury this hatchet, my thoughts: We're here again because are still anti-AGF behavior going on. If people would just live and let live, the guideline that the people who actually care about INDIVIDUAL articles (or, for that matter, individual SUBJECTS, such as opera or even TFAs) could decide by consensus would work. But, "teh dreaded infoboxen" issue is turning into a damn witchhunt. One person in good faith adds an infobox, another person throws a conniption fit about it and begins to accuse the pro-infoboxer of all sorts of nefarious motives. I have long held the view that any article that is part of a project that has gone to the trouble of creating an infobox really should consider using them as a default for consistency within the subject and the conveyance of needed data available at a glance; back in the Stone Age, my old set of World Book Encyclopedias had a standardized summary format box (predecessor to "teh infoboxen") in most of the major biographies or geography or science articles, and wiki is, at root, an encyclopedia. This issue is (in my view) mostly a graphic design element (though I get the metadata argument and think metadata is useful, though I know squat about programming it to happen), just like the wikipedia logo that's on every page on wiki. Not everyone is going to like every element, but the debate SHOULD be about design and content, not whether infoboxes exist. That train left a long time ago -- well over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes, an overwhelming majority in the sciences, and especially FA and GA-class articles. These dramas SHOULD be about what goes into an infobox, how the layout looks, etc., not whether they are included. Let's just ratchet down this Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet behavior. Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Schrocat, your snark above is precisely the problem. The consensus is hardly "site-wide," it is merely the people who showed up, mostly the bullies. Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Schrocat, the truth is the truth, I am not "overly-emotive," I am merely descriptive of what is already there, including some of your own comments. It may be difficult to see your own actions mirrored back at you, but that is precisely what I think needs to be ratcheted down.   Montanabw (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Blofeld, I suspect "people who write the articles as they're writing it" is the rub, I believe that the actual arbcom decision was something more like "editors" - not specified as to whether these are just the lead editors or also the wikignomes and wikifairies. Hence why we are here  Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, I like your proposal a). I think that the three day rule is probably something everyone could live with. I strongly dislike your c) as this would be a temptation for someone to nom a FA for TFA just to shut down such discussions. That said, raising an infobox discussion should be a talk page issue and not a TFA issue, so if it's raised at a TFA proposal, it should just be summarily dispatched back to the article and not be an issue for TFA in either direction. I am leaning against your b), for the same reasons as c); no harm in having a discussion about the issue, but it isn't relevant to TFA or not TFA. Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, not sure you read my above clearly; I can see your argument for a 3-day moratorium on massive changes (though not discussion), it's the rest I have issues with. Montanabw (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, you make a point about articles WITH infoboxes, but I think RexxS is correct that never in the history of WP TFA has someone come in and demanded an infobox in a "stable" (horse pun intended) article be removed. Again, infoboxes are the future, and those opposing them are drawing a Maginot Line that, like all anachronisms, will not be easily defended down the road... Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto
How sad that we find ourselves here. I was a co-author for Hattie Jacques and I felt compelled to write here, although I have been very brief in the discussions on the talk page. TFA is a very bitter sweet experience for me owing to the same old infobox arguments which occur during, and in the days after TFA. Now, I like RexxS; I find him to be a very knowledgable and approachable fellow and he has helped me out on many, many occasions with my many technical issues. However, I am dismayed with his his attempts to force the infobox issue onto yet another article that chooses not to have one and then run off to the arbitrators when things don't go his way. This behaviour seems indicative of someone who is trying to force infoboxes onto an article that choose not to have one.

The infobox debate is as old as the hills and to have it discussed everytime an infoboxless article appears on TFA is a pain in the backside. I am not completely opposed to them; they can be helpful on political, geographical, sporting and film articles, but I find them utterly useless on Classical music and theatrical biographies as well as art and architecture pages. I am sick to the back teeth of the same old arguments after TFA. I really can't be bothered to spend my many months writing FAs, frequently at my own expense, only to have people who haven't had any prior interest in the article to come along and force an infobox on them after TFA.  Cassianto Talk   11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bencherlite
As TFA coordinator, I get very worried whenever I see writers of FAs say that they do not want their articles to appear on the main page for whatever reason. Some dislike dealing with the vandalism. Some dislike dealing with the low-quality edits (inaccurate content, bad grammar, poor style, unreferenced nonsense and trivia) that goes with the territory of being "Today's featured flypaper article". And now we see users, new and not so new, think that TFA day is a great time to mention adding an infobox to an article. While there is no rule that prevents this from happening, it is hardly tactful timing and it appears to be adding a new worry for some editors. Perhaps to avoid this, I should refuse to schedule any FA that does not have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about adding one) as well as any FA that does have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about removing it). Only half-joking on this point... Now, helping bring an article to featured status does not absolve you from having to discuss infoboxes if someone raises the issue (and, frankly, for all that some arbs might wish that particular editors dropped the subject for six months, even if that wish came true the problem still won't go away). But I do think that issues such as infobox discussions should not be allowed to impair the TFA experience. Infoboxes can of course be discussed before, during and after the whole FA nomination process, but a time-out zone for TFA would help remove one area of particular tension. Someone can probably find links or diffs to prove me right or wrong, but I have a recollection that someone was previously topic-banned from adding infoboxes / raising infobox issues on articles that were, or were about to be, at TFA. What I would like to suggest is this: This idea would not make everyone happy but it may be an interim solution of sorts. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither in the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox camp, although I am probably not alone in belonging to the are-these-boxes-really-worth-so-much-time-one-way-or-the-other camp. BencherliteTalk 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a moratorium on all discussions about adding or removing infoboxes on any article that is (a) Today's Featured Artice (including the three days immediately following when it is still linked from the main page); (b) scheduled to be Today's Featured Article; or (c) under discussion at WP:Today's featured article/requests.
 * 2) Any uninvolved editor may summarily close any discussion started in breach of this.
 * 3) Enforcement in whatever the usual way is for such things.

@Montanabw: I've found the link I was thinking of although it was a community decision not an Arbcom one, and was for all edits to TFAs not just infoboxes. NB the decision was to ban the individual from all articles nominated or scheduled as TFA, not just the TFA - if FA writers are inhibited from having their articles at TFA because of boredom with repeated infobox discussions precipitated solely by the article appearing at TFA, the moratorium has to cover the run-up to TFA day, not just TFA day. Anyway, if Arbcom says that this proposal is not within their remit, it can be discussed elsewhere later. BencherliteTalk 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexxs: "It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something." Yes, it tells me that when certain writers of FAs feel that they cannot put up with the additional discussion of infoboxes on top of all the other crap that having an article at TFA brings, they're probably justified in feeling that way since even you say that these discussions are "commonplace". I'm not asking for all FAs to be immune from infobox-related discussions for all time - just that in the period running up to TFA day editors should be spared the hassle of having to defend the decision not to have an infobox. said in the topic ban discussion I mentioned "The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. ... And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them." Similarly said "I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it." Those commments were made in 2012, and here we are in 2014 with TFA authors still feeling demoralized because other editors use TFA day to raise an issue that is obviously not going to result in the principal authors saying "Of course! Why didn't we think of it earlier? Let's add one straightaway!" BencherliteTalk 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my attitude - I am trying to look after TFA authors during the TFA experience, not say that their views are unchallengeable for all time. And I'm not saying that editors raising the question should be sanctioned simply for raising a question when (hypothetically for these purposes) there is consensus not to allow such questions to be raised during TFA, merely that such discussions should be stopped until the article is off the main page. This latest issue arose because some TFA authors had to respond to comments such as "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there, giving people the initial impression that the whole article may not be that complete" (Talk:Hattie Jacques). That is not an appropriate way to discuss the issue, particularly not when having an article at TFA brings enough stresses anyway. That is "hassle" - or perhaps you think it's an appropriate comment? That is an approach of some (not all) on the pro-infobox side that requires TFA authors to justify or defend their position. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could show me the last time that an infobox discussion at a TFA led to the uncontroversial addition of an infobox. This whole infobox issue is poisoning some FA authors' attitudes to TFA, and that's why I made my suggestion, because TFA is my area of especial concern – otherwise I would simply have stayed away from the whole bloody issue. I do not want to have any more unwilling participants at TFA – I have enough of those already... ;-) BencherliteTalk 11:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Passing comment by Wnt
Note: I have no idea what the present dispute is

It amazes me how different policy becomes whenever it's inside a little black border. WP:LINKSPAM is so out of control that people routinely delete lists of unused references from the See Also sections of half-written articles, yet we have infoboxes like Template:The Beatles that spam 200 links to each of 200 articles, so people on Google can't look up what two songs have in common without getting 200 spam hits from Wikipedia that link both articles. Or for BLP -- if I wrote in the lede section of Stop Islamization of America that those people had something to do with the Srebrenica massacre purely on account of their condemnation of Islam, I'd be lucky not to get blocked. But put it over in the black box under an icon (the only illustration in that article) that has no particular relevance to their group, and you're golden. ArbCom and other admins should look for ways to have a more consistent policy, inside and outside the box. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I have just read this request, and I have to wonder whether I've read the same page as the arbitrators who have commented on it? RexxS asked the committee for a very simple clarification of one of its decisions about which there has been a disagreement. If the committee is not prepared to clarify the meaning of its decisions it should close this page and personally deal with the fallout from its ambiguous wording.

Personally I think giving clarification when asked for in good faith is a core part of being arbitrator in the exactly same way, and for exactly the same reasons, that giving clarification and explanation of your actions when requested in good faith is a core requirement of being an administrator.

So, to cut to the chase, which of the following statements is the intended meaning of the word "editors" in the sentence: "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."

The editor or editors who started the article</li> <li> The editor or editors who have put the most work into the article</li> <li> All editors who have made significant contributions to the article</li> <li> All editors who have made significant contributions to this or other similar articles</li> <li> All editors who have contributed to the article</li> <li> All interested editors</li> </ol>

Each of A-F is a reasonable interpretation of a statement made by one or more people who have commented here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you by Gerda
Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for your beautiful, and thank you, arbitrators, for clarification of the questions just above, as soon as possible. I still hope that in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, all interested editors may speak up at all times, but if that needs to be restricted, please precisely so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @LFaraone: I didn't bring the case up at the election, I asked only one specific question about one diff, to see for whom I could vote. The majority of the candidates who dared to look (including you) looked at it my way. The two editors who helped each other in that uncontroversial Planyavsky case, Andy and I, were restricted, the discussions go on. I fail to see how the difference between can cause so much heated emotion, - I came to the topic late and regard myself as cool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

More praise to Dr. Blofeld for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Clapping also for Brianboulton (for an identibox in a TFA) and Voceditenore (for an infobox in an opera), da capo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think NE Ent hit the nail on the head with his statement. What I am seeing here is that this is a disagreement about the meaning of something Blofeld said, not about what the committee said. That being the case I see no need to clarify the committee's previous stated position. I also strongly agree with the portion of Victoria's statement pertaining to walking away. I wasn't involved in the original case but this petty bickering reflects poorly on everyone involved and the project would be better served if they personally avoided both discussions of infoboxes and one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wnt, you may have a point about the policies involved, but arbcom does not make and cannot make or alter content policies. Only the community may do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing for us to do here, because we may not make policy. However, I'd like to invite all editors involved to voluntarily step away from the topic of infoboxes, regardless of their opinion on the matter, for six months. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Briefly commenting here to point out that whether or not Wnt's comments are valid they are nothing to do with this case and the dispute in question. This case and this dispute was/is about infoboxes (there is a help page, a MoS page, and WikiProject page, but bizarrely no WP namespace page on infoboxes). These are different from the boxes Wnt is referring to, which are navboxes, which can be footers or sidebars. They perform completely different functions and shouldn't be confused. Will try and return to the substance of this request in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer Thryduulf and User:RexxS, you should be asking those questions of the community of editors that cares enough about infoboxes to determine community policy on them. That discussion should not take place at the Manual of Style talk page (infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue - though maybe it is deep down an aesthetic style issue of how to present the information and whether to present it in this style or not). It should also not take place at the Help talk page, as help pages are meant to help with technical matters of how to do something, not whether to do something. It should also not take place at the WikiProject talk page, as WikiProjects are just meant to co-ordinate, not to set policy. I have no idea why Infobox redirects to the WikiProject page. The rather bizarre conclusion (was this discrepancy not noted in the arbitration case?) is that there is no current policy or standalone guideline page on infoboxes (existing examples are Article titles and Categorization, which are a policy and guideline separate from the related style guidelines). The suggested community discussions should be aimed at looking at existing practices and best practices (probably already documented on the three existing pages: help, WikiProject and MoS) and coming up with a policy or standalone guideline on infoboxes that has widespread consensus (hint: not just the views of those active in the case). If you need ArbCom to pass another motion to tell you that (again), you are missing the point. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd smile upon such a proposal such as the one put forth by Bencherlite, but I'm not sure that falls under the direct remit of the committee and it's not something I'd be willing to propose. I wish people would just step back from the issue, for six months at minimum. NativeForeigner Talk 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My core argument is will those both for and against infoboxes please take a step back, cool off, and approach this all in a civil manner rather than attempting to bring up the issue as much as possible in every available venue. To be honest, I don't give a damm if an article has an infobox or not, and in my naivety thought perhaps Bencherlite's proposal would help to disengage the area, but judging by your response I find it unlikely. In any case, there is little more to be said regarding this request for clarification that would be productive. NativeForeigner Talk 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Further community discussion along some of the lines opened above would be welcome, but no action is needed on the clarification request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The finding of fact is a reflection of community policy, not an establishment of new policy. The continuance of requests here in this matter is discouraging; I concur with on all points. I admit to having not reviewed the case before Gerda brought it up during WP:ACE2013, however since then it has become my go-to case for when I'm explaining what ArbCom handles to a non-Wikipedian. L Faraone  00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that what's needed here is a clarification of the policy itself, not the finding of fact. I'd encourage the community to discuss this further, but the issue does not fall within the Committee's remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Clarification (July 2014)
Initiated by   Sandstein   at 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)
 * Administrators commenting at WP:AE (informed)

Statement by Sandstein
Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

At WP:AE (permalink), administrators, including myself, disagree about whether this recent edit by Pigsonthewing violates this restriction. Pigsonthewing argues that they did not violate the restriction because they edited, rather than added, an infobox. I am not persuaded by this because the edit added an Infobox template that wasn't there before.

I ask the Committee to clarify whether or not that edit violated the previously mentioned sanction.  Sandstein  13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators, thanks for the clarifications. This settles the matter for me. I've communicated to Newyorkbrad that I think that the tone of his reply is not in keeping with his usual reputation for professionalism.  Sandstein   09:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw
This is really hair-splitting. Andy's first edit was here. No infobox. The article in question had a manually-created "infobox" made out of an image template that in terms of syntax, was this. Andy then took ONLY the existing parameters plus one very logical addition -and put them into a template here. In essence, he took an improperly formatted infobox and made it into a proper one. I really find it absurd that the someone wants to take this to a drama board. Criminy. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Boing!
Sandstein seems to be on his own on this one with his over-literal definition of what an infobox is - there's a clear consensus that Andy was simply fixing an existing badly-formed one. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll only add one comment in response to Neotarf's comment below, and that is that "Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes"" grossly misrepresents the various reasons expressed for supporting a ban. There were many people there, and to dismiss everyone's opinions like that is at best disrespectful — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis
Always remember:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Kurtis (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf (uninvolved)
Not so fast.

While ArbCom has fiddled with its Latin, ANI has burned, and Wikipedia has lost yet another admin, based on the comments of arbitrators that have been made here so far.

In view of the above development, if you can wait 12 hours or so, I will attempt a Cliff's Notes version. In the meantime I would have to say, much as it pains me to do so, that Sandstein is right, and that Andy did violate the letter of his ban, if not the spirit. If you want to see the difference between an image box and an info box, see the Merkel images at "Infoboxes: After the war" and the difference in treatment between the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to focus on what it is that bothers me so much about this.

Nikkimaria, who has just now resigned as an admin, has been around the infobox subject for a long time. When other users decided it was pointless to stick around and try to edit classical music/opera/composers articles because of the Infobox Wars, Nikkimaria stuck it out, and tried to resolve the issues that had driven the other editors away. My impression is that Nikkimaria has acted a bit like Fram did in the Richard Farmbrough case.

One of the recommendations that came out of the ArbCom case was that a community discussion be held. This has not been done.

Instead, it seems like the individuals who styled themselves as "pro-infobox" have decided to go after individuals they view as having opposed them in the ArbCom case. If you look at the diffs that were presented in the ANI proposal to topic-ban Nikkimaria, some of the diffs were more than a year old, predating even the ArbCom Infoboxes case. Others had nothing whatsoever to do with infoboxes, but involved some dispute about edit summaries. This whole Nikkimaria topic-ban proposal is starting to look like "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!"

But there really is no "pro-infobox" faction. Nobody is against infoboxes. Some have said that many current boxes are not fit for purpose because of poor design. Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes". This conflict is starting to damage the Wikipedia again. It is time to move to the more formal community discussion recommended in the case decision, but I have no idea how to jump-start it. A lot of ideas are at the "Infoboxes: After the war". There are more rationales and background at the talk page for the case decision, if anyone cares to wade through that morass.

This particular request may be finished, but the Committee may wish to consider whether they have some further role with the Infobox topic itself.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I started researching Infoboxes: After the war, I initially reached out to a lot of people, and knowing nothing about infoboxes, asked for suggestions about who else I could contact for more information. The so-called "anti-infobox" people were initially wary, and wanted to know if I could be neutral.  So I went back in my edit history and found that I had both added and removed infoboxes from articles. At that point, many were willing to communicate with me, some on the record and some only for background.  I found out that some of them had actually added hundreds of infoboxes to articles.  And while I find both Andy and Gerda seem to be very nice people, some of these contacts also told me they were quite freaked out by Andy and Gerda's editing styles, but were afraid to say so.


 * From the so called "pro-infobox" people I got nothing. No one would agree to talk to me.  One did send me an email that basically said, "hell no", but otherwise, it was crickets. The so-called "anti" people have written all kinds of essays reflecting on the infobox usage and which kind is best for which article.  But I have yet to see anything from the "pro" people.  I had hoped that perhaps Boing had a good rapport with this group, or that someone else would take a cue, and that some kind of communication could start going forward, but after today, that looks unlikely. The person with the most to gain from some kind of dialogue at this point is Andy, but he is not a neutral enough figure to initiate anything himself, unless behind the scenes.


 * Thank you to the committee for your indulgence in keeping this open a while longer--it was worth a shot. I won't be following this page any longer. You can lead a horse to water, but sometimes it dies anyway. I'll leave it to someone else to see if that works out in Latin. —Neotarf (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Neotarf by Gerda
@Neotarf: I ignore your first comment. The second: what could I answer to questions about "after the war"? I was not part of a war. People who question my editing style please speak to me, not you. I haven't provided evidence against other users in the case, and I will not. That was my answer to your question, if I remember.

See also WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (written mostly in June 2013 and part of the case) and Chopin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Recuse given I was involved in the AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * "The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth." This is not worth discussing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roma locuta, causa soluta. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Clerks: please archive. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction. Still, I do see why that could at least be in question, so I don't find the request for clarification unreasonable in itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit was not in violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't see this as actionable as the parties now seem to agree. This can be archived now, I think,  Roger Davies  talk 09:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is settled, clerks: please archive. AGK  [•] 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Holding to consider further developments.  AGK  [•] 12:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes
Initiated by Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (Andy Mabbett; initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * n/a


 * Information about amendment request

I request a relaxation of the above restriction, so that I can include an infobox in each of a limited, specific, set of new articles, as described below.

Statement by Andy Mabbett
My GLAM collaboration work with the BBC is well-known and has resulted in much positive publicity for Wikipedia, and the creation and donation of valuable content, including the first-ever broadcast material released by the BBC under open licence (281 files uploaded, so far, of a planned 1,000). As part of this project, I plan, over the next few weeks, to create articles for many of the 160 (approx) red links for notable people in the sub pages of List of Desert Island Discs episodes (a BBC show). I wish to include an infobox in each of these.

Should anyone remove one of the infoboxes, I will neither restore nor discuss it (unless asked a question directly).

I invite suggestions as to how to deal with the unlikely case of someone stalking my edits to remove the infoboxes en mass; or to pre-emptively mass-create the articles described. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean "last week's infobox upsets" in which I was found not only to have done nothing wrong, but to have been relentlessly stalked by another editor? This request - made over a year after the original case opened - has been in hand for a while before last week (as RexxS, with whom I discussed a draft will confirm), and is timed to coincide with a long-planned mass-creation of articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you yourself said "Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox." (you'll recall that the issue hinged on a false accusation that I had inserted an infobox where none had exited previously); and the request for enforcement was closed as "No action taken; no violation.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I'm a complete outsider to all of this, but the creation of these articles is a positive thing for the project. I think this request is a little premature - I would focus on making sure those articles are well written, broad in coverage and factually accurate above and beyond any forms of presentation. If you have already created a large (say, over 100) corpus of new articles, and you can't find anyone else who wants to put an infobox in, that would be the time to consider this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
No, just no. You've recently tested the margins regarding infoboxes and (rightly) got away with it. This is an attempt to extend those margins too far. You have a strong view regarding infoboxes that is not necessarily shared by others and allowing your proposal will almost inevitably result in another edit war spanning multiple articles even if you do not war yourself. You're are asking for permission to fire the first shot and, because you are seen as something of a standard-bearer for the pro-infobox faction, this request is likely to be the start of something nasty. If anyone else chooses to add infoboxes to your new articles and take the risk by association that goes with their action then more fool them, but there is no deadline and they are entitled to try.

PotW, like it or not, anything involving infoboxes and you is akin to a honeypot. I'd strongly advise that you do not even string the letters together for the foreseeable future, anywhere on-wiki. There is much other stuff that you can do and it seems that you are doing it. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
Did you know that the so-called infobox war was over in 2012? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you know ... that soprano Ada Cherry Kearton was married to wildlife photographer Cherry Kearton and recounted their travels in her autobiography On Safari?

This is on the Main Page right now, one of the articles from the list in question, the infobox added by Voceditenore.

The other articles will also get infoboxes because such articles normally have infoboxes in Wikipedia. If a restriction is in the way of improving the project, something seems wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit was described above and below as "testing" and "grey area", - it was not. "", thank you for seeing that clearly, Floquenbeam, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It's a "definitely not" from me. Aside from being almost banned over the infobox dispute, you were recently testing the borders of your restriction; so, as far as I'm concerned this request is much too soon. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Salvio. I was not on the committee during the original case, but I know it has been an incredible time sink and that there was good reason for the topic ban put in place. Also the request as framed seems to be putting the cart rather far in front of the horse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not for now from me too, for the reasons articulated above,  Roger Davies  talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it is a no from me too. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've already got more than enough trouble surrounding infoboxes. I can't support risking more at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given last week's infobox upsets, this is pretty dire timing Andy. I have to agree with my colleagues, that a relaxation should not be happening at this time. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, I wouldn't agree that you'd been found to have done "nothing wrong". The edit was in the grey area, otherwise there would not have been discussion of it. Yes, the committee agreed that you had not violated your restriction - but "nothing wrong" is a step beyond. I don't see that you needed to make this request now, before the dust settled, it was inherently poor timing. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes
Original Request

Initiated by  Francis Schonken (talk) at 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3.2 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Gerda Arendt (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted... They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." doesn't work very well. It leads to illogical split-offs, for the purpose of creation of infoboxes, with a lot of cleanup left to others. Let me take you step by step through an example:
 * BWV 243 and BWV 243a used to be on a single page named Magnificat (Bach)
 * (Gerda) preparing split (moving existing Magnificat article to BWV 243)
 * (Gerda) Starting BWV 243a article with infobox.
 * (Gerda) in BWV 243a article adding a lot of content with references to sources that only speak about BWV 243.
 * (Francis) cleaning up on BWV 243a and moving BWV 243 related content to BWV 243
 * (Gerda) speaking about "merg(ing) the (BWV 243 and BWV 243a) articles (back) to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third (i.e. splitting one more off)", suggesting she gets more recognition for her work that is now in the other article while not wanting to contribute to that article
 * (Francis) obliging and working out the "partial inclusion" solution with updates of the content appearing in the BWV 243 article while technically only editing the BWV 243a article.  - while this involved removing refs to sources not related to the BWV 243a article, putting up an original research template.
 * Despite promises by Gerda she has not found time to add references for the description in the BWV 243a article (which was well-referenced as long as it was in the BWV 243 article)

Statement by Francis Schonken
See step-by-step above: --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of unnecessary counterproductive work not tailored on the optimal path to improve the encyclopedia, but jumping through hoops (also by those not by far ever involved in the infobox case) in order to have an infobox without infringing the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case.
 * What I'd propose would more look like Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) or Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 on an article-by-article base, where once there is consensus on yes-or-no an infobox for the concerned article it doesn't matter who adds or removes it. Also, no longer a who created the article "owns" the infobox decision reasoning, which in the long run is only counterproductive.
 * So I'd move to replace the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case by "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes ; restoring an infobox that has been deleted ; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create ."
 * Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more even) quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the Missa (Bach) split-offs).
 * For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole, not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Replies by Francis
 * @: I'm largely indifferent on whether infoboxes are improvements to articles or not. But you did catch nicely what this is about:
 * current system is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia
 * requires a lot of work by others not in the least interested in infoboxes
 * the inherent ownership issues with the current situation are not tenable. There's no reproach to what happened in the infoboxes case: I think arbitrators did the best they could under the given circumstances. Just looking for a way to improve.
 * what I'm suggesting is neither a mitigation nor an expansion of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case, only adjusting it so that it is more workable for uninvolved parties, and Wikipedia's content benefits from the adjustment.
 * Re. Thryduulf's procedural suggestions on determining consensus in the article-by-article scenario: I'd keep it as low profile as possible, with a WP:CCC attitude. From the two examples I gave above the first was rather high-brow (see WP:ANRFC), the second (Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243) not. Both work for me. If someone wants to re-open the discussion, they should feel free (without lifting the "two edits per infobox discussion" of remedy 3.2).
 * @: as an initiator I ask an improvement of my situation. I ask an improvement for Wikipedia's overal quality situation. Whether Gerda likes it or not is not the main concern here. If the amendement would be implemented and after that Gerda would still not be interested in pulling two related articles (like BWV 243 and BWV 243a) to a comparable level of quality that's her loss, but at least some red tape for others who are interested in that would be lifted. See also my first reply to Thryduulf above.
 * @ — I'm not interested in what plays there: liking the role of a victim? Stockholm syndrome? Seeking an anchor for periodically "proving" that Wikipedia is a bad system? Really, I'm not interested. The situation for Wikipedia is not optimal, and whether you, personally, are interested in optimization of the situation for Wikipedia, or not, should not play a role in the deliberation I'm suggesting.
 * @, — see also  — I've quite had it with Gerda's antics, and that was even before she went WP:FORUMSHOP, see . Apparently AGK hadn't even read the section title. It's an amendment request, not a clarification request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Anyway, thanks for looking at this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "more diffs" suggestion by
 * Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)
 * Also, Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, most prominently halfway through that section starting from "Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a)..." to the end of that talk page section illustrates the "jumping through hoops" red tape, burdoning those not involved in the infoboxes debate.
 * This talk page section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGerda_Arendt&diff=629548317&oldid=629548022#Hint illustrates more of the unnecessary complications that can be linked to the same.

Not sure what Gerda tries to say... The over-all impression remains that she's not interested in seeing what benefits a streamlined "remedy 3.2" could bring her, the encyclopedia and myself. I'd rather like a situation where Gerda and I work together on BWV 243, than me doing a lot of unneccessary extra work, and then getting a compliment from Gerda for that at the end: I don't care very much for the compliment, but at least I seriously object to the unnecessary extra work: it is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia.
 * Regarding Gerda's second reply:

But as said, whether or not Gerda is only successful in looking at it from her own situation and/or from the situation of the encyclopedia as a whole, should be immaterial to the decision I'm petitioning here. So I'm really not sure what she's trying to prove.

Again I'm not interested in "why" Gerda apparently feels comfortable in a situation she describes as kafkaesque ("I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are" ). Neither the fact that she appears to feel comfortable in that situation, nor, even less, the "why" of that should have any influence on the outcome of this amendement proposal, imho. So I hope we can leave that part of the discussion behind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Gerda isn't topic-banned is she? Please see content of remedy 3.2. Gerda is not disallowed from the topic, not in mainspace, not in discussions, there's only a limited set of edits w.r.t. the topic she cannot do.
 * Re. "Surely, if there's a clear talk page consensus, someone else who's not topic-banned could go about making the actual edit?"

Its about creating the conditions that allow Gerda to edit in mainspace on the topic (in the current ruling: always on articles she created; never on other articles) that throw the complexities to deal with (also) on others. Apart from the splitting, merging, creating issues that others need to clean up,... (already discussed), and the initiatives on trying to find consensus on infoboxes I'm not interested in, which I undertook nonetheless as an extra task, there's still more work proposed... (and for something Gerda is very good in and I'm not). Then when I messed up on the infobox layout after Gerda has used up her two tokens to discuss it for that article a new unworkable situation is created...

My proposal is about creating more workable conditions for all, maintaining the partial topic ban idea of remedy 3.2, but with less difficult to manage side-effects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, not helping. People still enclosed in their own arguments at the time of the ArbCom case are not likely to see the wider benefit of the amendment I propose. I kindly ask ArbCom members to put such arguments aside and give no attention to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "Leave it alone or lift Gerda's sanctions altogether" line of arguments

Yes, that is a fact. Gerda does. Nikkimaria does (with the sole objective to avoid the infobox). There's no secret about that, both are clear on their motives in that respect. Others get caught in the fire. I'm thinking for instance about a nemcomer like Meneerke Bloem here, clueless about what is going on (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 52). All of this is very counterproductive, and makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for newcomers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "You think Gerda creates aticles ONLY to add an infobox?"
 * Oops, misjudged that one apparently, Gerda prefers the sanctimonious approach now. Gerda created BWV 243a (which is the history of BWV 243, there is no "difference in history"), and apart from adding the infobox:
 * Gerda added history to the BWV 243a article, which is the history of BWV 243 too;
 * Gerda added an elaborate description of the work to the BWV 243a article, which happened to be a description of BWV 243, not of BWV 243a (she didn't even have/use a source on 243a for writing that description: the minor differences in orchestration etc were overrun and the description was written as if BWV 243a was the same as BWV 243 in that respect)
 * Gerda did not collaborate on descriptions specific for BWV 243a, e.g. Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
 * The publication history section Gerda created for BWV 243a was incorrect for that article: it was the publication history of BWV 243. It incorrectly listed publications that were only applicable to BWV 243
 * Gerda suggested to merge the two articles back again after that, which is not what she says now.
 * Gerda refused to collaborate on the BWV 243 article after I had moved the BWV 243 description there from the BWV 243a article, reason for that refusal explicitly stated by Gerda: because BWV 243 had no infobox.
 * So really the creation of BWV 243a was only about the infobox, all the other content Gerda contributed on Bach's Magnificat could as well, or even better, have been placed in the BWV 243 (or the pre-split) article. And about an undercurrent of ownership which was somewhat cemented by the current wording of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not about "making errors". Everyone does. This is about an environment that creates less error-prone and "leave the cleanup to others" conditions. These others are volunteers too, and the cleanup they do is out of free will too. It is about creating conditions that reduce the surplus work for all involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You see, I got myself involved in this very time-consuming amendment request, still I believe that when it passes the amount of time gained later in avoiding unneccessary cleanup situations will be more than a marginal net benefit, and not only for myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Although, theoretically, "consensus" is impossible (as RexxS argues), the article-by-article treatment (without prior rights for the creator of the article), as proposed by the amendment, shows little practical problems to reach an agreement for the articles where this approach has been tested: No turmoil or drama, just editors coming to an agreement on the best solution for the article in question. So yes, the proposed amendment would be effective in solving problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the effectiveness of the proposed amendment
 * Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)
 * Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243

Statement by Gerda
I think this is a waste of time. I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, I wrote He was despised, because Messiah (Handel), then up for FA, had no room for the music. I wrote four supporting articles, including Messiah Part II. They have infoboxes, the main article not. Mind the dates, Messiah was TFA on 23 March 2013. - In a similar way, I worked on other composition articles, compare Mass in B minor to Mass in B minor structure, most recently Bach's Magnificat, the only difference being that the article on the music was not called Magnificat structure. I am rather proud of BWV 243a already (going to be improved) and happy that BWV 243 was improved as well (mostly by you, Francis, the way to include the details in both articles is admirable, and I didn't know it), - this was the starting point. - I am on vacation. Don't expect anything from me until November. I feel that I have to improve the Bach cantatas for Reformation date in my limited time. One has an infobox (BWV 48), two not (BWV 5, BWV 56), because although I wrote most of their content but didn't start them. I don't know what our readers think. - Victim? The victim of the infoboxes case was Andy, not me, but yes, you typically find me defending the victim (17 June 2013). If you all can improve the situation without me, that would be wonderful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't create articles to have an infobox, I create articles to inform readers. Normally, I do that in place, look at Locus iste (compare the start and today). For the Bach Magnificat, the two versions have different history, key, scoring and recordings, therefore (!) I started a different one, and still believe that two separate articles are better than one, but if others disagree, they could be merged to one Magnificat (Bach). All this is content, nothing for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 243a is a work in progress, and I make errors, sorry. The Christmas elements are planned for Christmas, the sourcing of the structure for next week, unless someone steps in to add sooner. This is a project based on voluntary effort, right? - To see the term "comfortable" applied to a kakfaesque situation is quite amusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I have marked "love" above with a sarcasm icon? - Last, a bit of article history. I came across Bach's Magnificat when I wrote about Rutter's, wanted to compare to Bach's treatment, and found there was nothing to compare, and some of the little bit about Bach's Meisterwerk was wrong. I fixed what was wrong and started the new one, planned to be TFA on 2 July 1717. I am going to sing Rutter's today. Magnificat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Singing was great. A bit more of history: BWV 120 was created in 2010 to, also BWV 120a and BWV 120b which were redirects then. Nikkimaria split them to individual articles, which I think was a good idea! (There are several more of the kind.) Francis made individuals articles BWV 233 to BWV 236 back to redirects today which I think is not a good idea. Every BWV number deserves its own article even if that is a stub first, and BWV 233. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having to add Missa, BWV 232a, which is certainly no stub, but was also redirected. I reverted that one, will leave the others for, I have better things to do on a Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Peaceful talk resumed on (now) Missa in B minor (Bach).

Locus iste --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
It was prophesied that the way the Committee handled the infoboxes case would just lead to it coming back here in some other form sooner or later. I've lost count of how many times now it has done, and each time the Committee has refused to do the necessary nettle-grasping to sort out the mess they've left the topic in, particularly regarding the endorsed (and arguably required) WP:OWNERSHIP and the battleground it produces.

On this occasion has missed the point of the request. This is not about lifting Gerda's restrictions for her sake, it is about amending Gerda's restrictions to avoid disrupting the encyclopaedia. I have not looked at the evidence presented, but if the allegations are correct then Gerda has found a way to remain within her restrictions while adding infoboxes to existing articles (which is a long-term benefit to the encyclopaedia) she did not create (which is against he restrictions). The method she has allegedly employed to do this disrupts Wikipedia in the short term (excessive necessary splitting/forking/duplication of content) and creates work for others to fix.

It is a perverse situation whereby someone must disrupt the project in order to improve it, but it is one entirely of Arbcom's own making. The suggested amendments to the restrictions would go part way to removing this disruption, but without also removing the ownership advantages of the anti-infobox users and making and enforcing a requirement that all such talk page discussions be: then there will just be more removals of infoboxes to the detriment of the encyclopaedia.
 * Publicly and neutrally advertised (I forget which article now, but I did see an article where an infobox had been removed based on a discussion that was not-unlikely canvassed and closed after ~3 days by its initiator);
 * Be confined to discussing the specific infobox for the specific article; and
 * Closed by an uninvolved user

ArbCom made this mess and now it needs to clean it up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because this is not about Gerda. As explained =by myself, the initiator, RexxS and others, this is about the restrictions placed on Gerda harming Wikipedia. Please actually read all the statements, not just Gerda's. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You've seriously requested this to be archived? Seriously? I'm not sure I've seen such a blatant abdication of responsibility from arbcom before. There is no way on earth this ammendment request has run its course - basically everybody except Gerda is saying the arbcom needs to take action - so please take some action. Arbcom is supposed to be about resolving disputes that are getting the way of the encyclopaedia rather than facilitating them and then burrying its head in the sand about the consequences. I object in the strongest possible terms to this being archived without action. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question by Resolute
I have no knowledge of this topic area, but BWV 243 and BWV 243a look like near copies of each other. It forces me to ask why these were split in the first place. On the surface, I can see no reason to do this other than to force an infobox into the new fork. Unless there is a good reason for this that I am not seeing, I am inclined to support Francis' position that a change to the restriction is needed, though I'm not sure the one he proposes would be of benefit. Resolute 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
The articles themselves are created to allow expansion on a topic where the main topic cannot encompass all that detail. Clearly if they re short or have some repetitive material WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. Otherwise, if there is an issue with them being a POV fork, then a merge recommendation, or in an extreme case AfD, is the solution, not a run to this dramaboard crying that Gerda created an article. Really? You think Gerda creates aticles ONLY to add an infobox? Oh PUH-LEESE. Get a grip! Truly, ArbCom has far greater things to worry about than this. This whole thing is crap. Frankly, my opinion is that Gerda's restrictions on adding infoboxes should be lifted altogether, and the restrictions on edit-warring to add or remove should be made to apply to everyone. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Surely it's obvious that the very problems ArbCom failed to solve last year will inevitably return, because their solution to the disruption caused by edit-warring over infoboxes was to ban one side of the argument - and nothing else. It's all very well writing platitudes about "clear consensus on the talk page", but frankly that's nonsense. There can be no consensus about the existence of an infobox in an article, because it's a binary decision: there's either a box or there isn't. That leaves no room for a compromise solution that everybody can live with - the very definition of consensus on Wikipedia. The current ArbCom sanctions are what is causing the forks of articles because we have on the one hand creating stubby forks to ensure that they don't have infoboxes; and Gerda on the other hand doing the same to ensure that they do have infoboxes. I hope somebody on ArbCom can now understand that giving the decision to the creator of the article is a stupid idea that generates this sort of race to see who can think of the most forks.

Having said that, it's also clear that the forks are seeing development and allowing greater detailed exploration of the parent articles. This is a good thing, but we're arriving at it from quite the wrong direction. Isn't it simply crazy that a contributor of Gerda's quality feels that the restrictions have helped her create more content? How much more content could she now make if she wasn't in a race to become the creator of an article before someone else does? That sort of situation is anathema to the collaborative process on which we so strongly depend and it's your fault, ArbCom. warned you at the time that taking sides in a content dispute was likely to end badly, but you went ahead anyway. Your problem, you sort it. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
The arbitration decision on info boxes clearly delineated two groups and penalized one. I don't see how a fair consensus can be reached on any infobox discussion when there are clearly two sides and one of those sides has more implied power than the other. I felt strongly the arbs made mistakes on the infobox arbitration and seeing Gerda an incredibly productive and mild mannered editor dragged here and there by those with out sanctions, however well meaning, often in efforts to curtail her further  only increases my unease with that decision. As said above, this is not a level playing field  so why would we expect fair play. If we want fair play and the productive editing and discussion that brings lift the sanctions on Gerda and let her edit freely. If she doesn't want the sanctions lifted or has, and to her great credit, learned to operate productively with in them then let's leave her alone to do the job she's here for. This is again, time wasted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC))

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It seems clear that the proliferation of rules and special cases is a bad idea, leading to confusion and sup-optimal results. Moreover this case is long in the past. While it can be fun on one level to "work within Kafkaesque rule sets" it is also frustrating and leads to the few editors that are prepared to do it, rather than simply leave, experiencing more stress and being less effective.

For this reason it is perhaps wise to consider whether the sanctions in place (some of which seem to be supported by uncritical acceptance of other protaganists' claims) should be at least suspended, partially or fully. Gerda and Andy can of course, if they wish, continue to abide by the sanctions to the letter.

I would see this approach as very useful when applied to some of our ancient cases. Is it really necessary to keep all these areas under discretionary sanctions, for instance?

Statement by Dreadstar
So, Gerda's restriction stays because she likes it. Bravo ArbCom, bravo. What was the other reason? And, Beeblebrox, do you understand the concept of Kafkaesque, and how it applies to Gerda's 'love' of her restriction? Somehow I think not. And this entire ArbCom request is because Gerda undid a redirect, so now it's about infoboxes? Please. I think RexxS states the underlying problem very well, interesting to see an ArbCom restriction used by others in such a manner as RexxS describes, "Oooo, I'll create lots of stubs and redirects so Gerda can't add an infobox." Clever. Dreadstar ☥   20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is a perfect example of why we generally have very little interest in appeals by third parties. Gerda isn't interested in having the restrictions lifted, so I see no reason to discuss the matter at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll need to review more than the provided diffs to get a view of this. If this is the case as framed, it could be problematic. However, I'm not immediately seeing it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just going through contribs, I want to get a more complete story than 'just diffs'. But thank you, nonetheless. NativeForeigner Talk 06:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This does seem needless complexity, but I'm not sure about the proposed change. Surely, if there's a clear talk page consensus, someone else who's not topic-banned could go about making the actual edit? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After serving on this Committee since 2008, I have two months and four days left as an arbitrator. I do not plan to spend even five minutes of one of those days thinking about infoboxes. Abstain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Statement by Gerda: I think this is a waste of time" – speedily decline, and I must question why a clarification request of this nature was raised without the subject's consent. AGK  [•] 23:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This request has now certainly ran its course. I've asked the clerks to archive. AGK  [•] 12:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Remedy six initiative
See WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox for an initiative regarding this recommended remedy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * warned me that I may have broken some links from the ArbCom case while userfying content that didn't belong in Wikipedia namespace: — should I do anything here? For me the content previously on WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox was blocking remedy six of this case, while a monologue, not the start of dialogue or anything inviting to wider involvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC


 * Why are you moving this content onto another user's page? Do you have her permission to do so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC))


 * Francis, leave well enough alone here. You are randomly scattering incomprehensible edits over a bunch of pages; this one is a closed case.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes Jan 2015
Initiated by  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Pigsonthewing


 * Information about amendment request


 * Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes
 * Add "for articles" to the end of the remedy.

Statement by Callanecc
I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial.

There was an AE request filed which requested enforcement against Pigsonthewing requesting and discussing deletion of infoboxes at WP:TfD. The consensus among admins was there was an implication that the restriction applies to articles only however as this is not clear in the provision there would continue to be misunderstanding and possibly further AE requests closed without action being possible. So this request (as an uninvolved admin carrying out the close of the request) is for a motion with the following wording:

Remedy 1.1 of the Infoboxes arbitration case is amended to read:


 * The original remedy has been interpreted as discussing the removal of an infobox template, as they are used in articles the interpretation as far as enforcement goes was the remedy applied to articles. If that is incorrect then enforcing admins have interpreted it outside it's intention so it needs to be clarified. Something like adding "in all namespaces, including {all discussions/requests for deletion} at WP:Templates for discussion and similar discussions at other venues" to the end of the remedy.


 * I'd suggest dropping "to improve their functionality" as leaving it would require admins to decide whether an edit improved it or not (unless that was the attention). Other than that it sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Disagree with Callanecc's proposal. Here we see Pigsonthewing going in denial about an unresolved issue regarding infoboxes, removing the link to where the discussion of that issue was taking place: unnecessary & unhelpful – if it is qualified as "unhelpful" to try resolve an actual infoboxes issue the resulting impression remains that many months after the conclusion of the Infoboxes case at least some infoboxes proponents prefer to go largely in denial about the issues at hand.

If anything, an amendment to the Infoboxes case should imho further restrict PotW's actions regarding infoboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces" is the one I like best. Failing a compromise on that, I suppose "...discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace..."  would do best. Courcelles' rewrite attempts appear to be going nowhere: they add complexity, and thus confusion, so, no more than fertilizer to future distraction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On a related note, this edit by PotW seems to attract controversy – indeed it would have been better to talk to involved parties first, before cluttering many main namespace pages with a rather technical in-crowd notice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt
@Francis: "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." - We are not discussing here your bold change to a project page of a project of which you are not even a member, claiming that it is a "disadvantage" of infoboxes that a certain program extracting a PDF fails to render the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, who said that "Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging". This is true, and this is good for the project. Look for example at infobox hymn (specialised, old-fashioned, with camel-case parameter names and no room for an image), nominated to be merged to the more general flexible infobox musical composition. It seems desirable to have only few, well maintained infobox templates, - I use infobox person for all people. Thank you, Andy, for the unrewarded cleanup work in the field. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@CT Cooper: You say: "What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things." I say: It is not, the dispute is if the restriction is worded precisely enough and nothing else. (Not if it's a good restriction, and not in which way Andy goes about things). In the example above, he didn't talk first to users - and how would you find out which editors use infobox hymn? Seems kind of not practical, on top of being unrelated to the question here. I was pleased about his initiative to merge, - I would have been to lazy to try it myself.

See also "honourable mention", and enjoy a happy and peaceful 2015! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: the phrase "testing his boundaries" was used related to an edit which was brought to arbitration enforcement: formatting a malformed infobox. Instead of a simple "thank you" for helping a new user who wanted an infobox but didn't know how to code it, the edit received attention on three noticeboards. I asked the candidates for arbitration about it, they said "no foul, play on". I add "playful" to my wishes for 2015 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ched's question: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: You made the effort of adding a statement, generally addressing experts "who are not willing to follow community norms". Please name one specific incidence as an example of what you mean. I rather see certain projects not willing to follow community norms, at least back then in 2013. However, the ice seems to be breaking. Compare the discussions in the archive of Rigoletto talk and what you see today. I joined project opera again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You demand evidence of disruption now? No evidence of disruption was provided in the arb case, to my knowledge. I like the phrase "the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started" by Seraphimblade, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Review means looking back. Can we please look forward instead?

@Doncram: thank you for demonstrating what editors who want to simplify templates have to face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Floq: perhaps we agree more than you think ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Bach's cantata for today translates to "My God, how long, ah, how long?" - his titles are so useful, this one could refer to the length of some contribution as to the waiting for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
If that was, or reasonably seems to be, the intention of the original wording, then the amendment should be made without cavil. And I would say that it clearly is the substantive intention. Any desire to extend the sanction should be the subject of a different process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Thryduulf
Note I'm commenting here as an involved editor, not as an incoming arbitrator

I fully support this, as this matches how the restriction has been interpreted on multiple occasions at AE. Indeed, I would go further and explicitly add a second sentence "Pigsonthewing may nominate and discuss infobox templates at Templates for discussion." to fully avoid any ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you give some evidence of Andy testing the boundaries? There have been several cases where people have tried to get Andy in trouble, but on every occasion the community as agreed that Andy has done nothing wrong and has not breached the restriction, which does not prohibit him discussing the changing of infoboxes that are on articles by consensus of other people. Gordian knot solutions are only suitable as a last resort when nothing else can work, but in this case there is a very simple amendment that can be made to achieve the same ends with no disruption going forward. It is completely inappropriate to penalise an editor when they are following the restrictions because other people are confused by it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The interpreation that this applies only to article space has been the one made by the community every time it has been asked, and has been upheld every time its been before the committee. Doing nothing now only guarantees more disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good start, but I'd word it as:
 * "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox. He is explicitly allowed to:
 * Edit infobox templates
 * Change the type of infobox used on an article
 * Add, remove or change the information displayed in an infobox
 * Nominate and discuss specific infobox templates at templates for discussion or other appropriate venue (including template talk and wikiproject talk pages)."

This incorporates your response to Rich Farmbrough and Callanecc's proposed change. It also explicitly permits nominating infobox templates at TfD for any reason (to avoid any wikilawyering about whether nominating something for e.g. deletion is nominating it for "discussion"), participating in discussions other than at TfD (e.g. he can discus a template on it's talk page and partipate in a WikiProject's discussion of an infobox relevant to their project. I've included the word "specific" to make it clear this isn't permission to discuss the merits or otherwise of infoboxes as a concept) changing the type of infobox (per previous clarification requests, and which not all participants in this discussion are apparently aware of) and changing the information in an infobox that already exists (I'm not aware this has been controversial yet, but given the nature of this topic it's better to be explicit and prevent that). The bullets are just my preference for long lists of simple items over short lists of more complex ones. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel I should make it explicit that the topic ban remains unchanged in this proposal, the bullets are simply clarifications to the scope (which have been proven required) not exceptions to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please can you provide some evidence of disruption at TfD actually caused by Andy rather than other people disrupting TfD's Andy has opened? If a discussion is closed as "no, because X needs to be done first" it is not disruptive to nominate the same template again when X has been done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That motion is very good, although it leaves things ambiguous about whether he may participate in other discussions about infoboxes at TfD, and whether he may discuss templates at venues other than TfD (e.g. template talk pages). Sadly the history this dispute has shown that people will use these ambiguities to wikilawyer and harass Andy. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This motion does not change the scope of the restriction at all, it simply clarifies that it applies to article space only. The second part exists only to prevent the disruption caused by other editors using ambiguities to harass Andy, and there is plenty of evidence presented that this is necessary. As HJ Mitchell notes, evidence has been presented of other people using Andy's discussions to cause disruption but none presented that actually shows Andy being disruptive at TfD or elsewhere. Perhaps this could be clarified by changing the start of the second sentence to "For the avoidance of doubt, this restriction does not apply to any editing outside the article or article talk namespace and explicitly does not prohibit:..." Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the merits or otherwise of those deletions, they are entirely irrelevant to Andy's restrictions regarding infoboxes. There has never been any restriction on his nomination articles for deletion, for any reason, nor does it bear any relation to the rest of this discussion (which is about nominating infobox templates at TfD). That you even bring it up here is evidence of how much the current wording is not fit for purpose Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy is allowed to convert one type of infobox to another, and to edit infoboxes on articles by, in the first case, explicit decision of last year's arbcom, and in the second case by AE admins repeatedly declining to sanction him for this. He is not allowed to discuss whether an article should or should not have an infobox, and he may not change the status of an article from one to the other. Whether he is allowed to discuss the content of an infobox is not something that I can recall having been clarified (the usual recommendation in such cases is that if you are not sure if an edit breaches a topic ban do not make it), which is another example of this remedy causing as many problems as it solves. No restrictions at all were placed on Andy's activities at AfD and so he may nominate any article for deletion he wishes just like any other unrestricted editor on the project, whether he can discuss it if he has been accused of what you are accusing him of is again undefined as far as I am aware. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
although personally I agree with you -- as discussed on the linked AE thread -- this is clarification and amendment. Given the requesters have a good faith question about the scope of the sanction, a comment indicating your interpretation would be helpful. NE Ent 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
(Note: Andy is a personal friend of mine IRL so, although I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, I don't claim to be 'uninvolved'.)

This is silly. The locus of the dispute was around the addition of infoboxes to articles. The dispute was between Andy et al and members of the classical music project over whether or not articles in that project's scope should have infoboxes, and all other infobox-related disruption that led to the original arbitration case was spillover from the resulting interpersonal disputes. Essentially the project members adamantly refused to entertain the idea of infoboxes on their articles, Andy attempted to force the issue (resulting in edit wars and other disruption), the project members were very rude to Andy, Andy was equally charming in return and the whole thing deteriorated to a point where nothing could be achieved. The ban on adding/discussing infoboxes on articles was a proportionate (if grossly one-sided) remedy. Andy's participation at TfD was never part of the original dispute and his contributions regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes was never problematic. Indeed, the only disruption related to his participation at TfD has been the repeated misinterpretation (or indeed malinterpretation) of the remedy and its use as a stick to beat Andy for otherwise unproblematic edits.

The consensus at AE has at least twice been that Andy's participation at TfD is not within the scope of the remedy, so making this amendment would merely codify what is already practice and prevent further misguided enforcement requests—given the precedent, it is vanishingly unlikely that another AE thread would conclude that Andy's participation at TfD was a violation of the remedy, especially as that participation is not disruptive in and of itself. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With Callan's caveat (removing "to improve their functionality", because it's better for all concerned not to leave things open to interpretation), I wholeheartedly endorse your proposed wording. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you honestly trying to tell us that re-opening a discussion that reaches no consensus three years later (almost to the day!) is disruptive editing? Or is it just disruptive if the nominator is called Andy Mabbett? Or if the template is one that you're interested in? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on...? I see no evidence presented that Andy's TfD nominations are disruptive, and only a small amount of evidence of other people causing disruption on Andy's nominations. It is disingenuous to suggest that TfD nominations are covered by the remedy as written, as Andy's participation at TfD was never the locus of the original case; indeed it was never even discussed in the case. You are making sweeping assertions without citing any evidence; editors who do that at AE or in arbitration cases get sanctioned. Are you of the opinion that arbitrators should be held to a different standard? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by CT Cooper
I have been a part-observer/part-participant in the recent infobox controversies involving Eurovision related articles, an area in which I am active.

I presently accept, as does who raised the issue with him, that the remedy concerned does not cover his participation in TfDs. However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not, as doing so often only causes further trouble. Recent events have only re-enforced this viewpoint in my eyes, as the behaviour of Andy at the TfDs and in related discussions was problematic and managed to cause a lot of completely avoidable infobox drama – one thing the remedy was supposed to put a stop to. I criticised him as an involved editor for some of his remarks (1, 2, 3), and he was admonished by an uninvolved administrator for a separate remark (4); an admonishment that Andy appears to have rejected (5). I'm not saying that all other editors in these discussions behaved perfectly, but this discussion is not about them.

As it stands, I will not support any amendment that endorses or otherwise encourages Andy to continue to edit in this area, but I will accept the proposed amendment as a simple clarification of the existing restrictions as they are currently interpreted. However, if the proposed amendment goes through and this behaviour from Andy continues, I believe it is only a matter of time before the Arbitration Committee will be asked to review this remedy again. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the remedy is not clear at all. A person could reasonably interpret "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" as covering TfDs as such discussion do often result in the addition or removal of infoboxes. Arbitrators seem to be giving us a variety of different answers here on what the restriction is intended to cover, which in my view is evidence in itself that the remedy doesn't work as currently worded. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the TfD nominations were justified; that is not in dispute as far as I'm concerned. What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things.

In the case of Eurovision template there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates, but they weren't gong anywhere fast, so the effect of Andy's actions was a lot of unnecessary drama and the templates being panic merged in a poor fashion, which later had to be fixed by outside parties. I cannot speak about the details of other cases, but it is not true that Andy is the only person on the project which merges templates. As for this remedy being unrelated, well it clearly isn't that unrelated – the remedy was about infoboxes; this discussion is about infoboxes. Claims that they are unrelated hinge entirely on the current interpretation of the remedy, which given arbitrators' comments so far, may still be up for debate after all. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the remedy is not clear that relates only to articles which is why this amendment has been proposed, and the merging/deletion of infoboxes inherently involves articles anyway. Actually, he has been admonished by an uninvolved admin at least once for incivility, which was name-calling, as was clearly indicated in my original statement. I took the courtesy of reading all prior statements before making my own, and I would appreciate it if other editors did the same. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. If I had my way, this particular case would have never ended-up in front of ArbCom. On the Eurovision templates, I did attempt to informally mediate the situation by pointing out errors in the actions of both sides and noting that there was actually agreement that some templates needed to be merged; it was tragically only drama over how it was done that was getting in the way. Unfortunately however, the issue spiralled out of control very quickly, and so here we are. If the proposed amendment goes through or no further action is taken by ArbCom, I would welcome an uninvolved administrator to come in and mediate should Andy choose to continue to be involved in Eurovision templates. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my statement I have clearly stated that I accept the motion as proposed; said motion is not "trying to remove just Andy from template discussions". Yes other editors have not behaved well at times, that is undeniable, but Andy is the one that got himself subject to ArbCom sanctions and so this discussion is about him and him alone – I know some people are unhappy about that, but that is the reality of the situation. Actions against other editors are for another venue such as WP:ANI.

I have already presented clear evidence (I am the only person here to have actually presented diffs), which clearly shows problematic behaviour from Andy. My area of contact with Andy is limited to Eurovision templates, and there maybe kernels of truth that Andy has been unjustly criticised elsewhere, which is why I have no quarrel with some statements supportive of Andy, even if they present things from a different perspective from my own. What I take exception to it people appearing to turn-up to engage in cheer-leading and to simplistically declare that anyone who dares have a grievance against Andy is somehow on an template ownership driven witch-hunt, without taking the time to review what the grievances against Andy actually are, let alone reviewing the full facts of the matter before commenting.

I could present more evidence or elaborate in much more detail on why Andy's behaviour was at times unacceptable, but my main motive here is not to get Andy "punished" or further restricted. What I'm interested in ensuring that the sanctions are properly defined and that Andy refrains from further problematic behaviour so this doesn't need to come in front of ArbCom again. On the latter, I view coming to ArbCom as an absolute last resort and I've stated clearly that I'm open to options which are far more favourable to Andy. TfD discussions inherently involve adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and the remedy covered discussions on such matters, so yes they are related, though whether they are covered by the sanction or not is a matter for ArbCom to decide. I hope they do so soon. In the meantime, I will present more evidence if and when ArbCom requests it; I don't answer to anyone else on that subject. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A think a complete re-wording is a good idea, and something along those lines is acceptable to me. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, there needs to be a change of behaviour from Andy for this to be a workable resolution. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I was clear that I'm happy to accept the current interpretation (in fact, I said so in the second sentence of my statement), with my support for the motion being motivated by a desire to help set the current interpretation in stone. Any comments from me which stated the interpretation was up for debate again were in a response to some arbitrators appearing to want to review this, though I will let them speak for themselves on that. It remains my view that people should respond to restrictions by finding completely new areas to edit, rather than editing around them, though I accept that nobody is obliged to follow this advice and I have not at any point actively pushed for the current interpretation of the remedy to be altered. If in the future I reach the conclusion that stronger sanctions are needed, I will ask for new sanctions at an appropriate venue, not for re-interpretations of existing ones.

The merging of templates sometimes does involve removing existing templates from articles – such as when merging multiple templates together into a new one, as was carried out with Eurovision templates recently, but I won't quibble over such technicalities and a completely revised wording should resolve this. I agree that merging little used templates is generally a good thing, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that such activities are in themselves a problem. What is the problem is the way Andy sometimes goes about doing this, as highlighted in my evidence. Does that justify new sanctions at this point? Probably not, but if the problematic behaviour continues, that situation might change. Certainly I think lifting all the sanctions is out of the question at this point, at least until Andy proves he is ready for it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as rightly or wrongly, it was ultimately Andy's behaviour that led to this coming back to ArbCom, starting with an enforcement request, which has now been followed by this request for clarification and amendment. Myself and other editors at WikiProject Eurovision didn't even know Andy was under an ArbCom restriction to start with, and it could have easily stayed that way. I'm afraid I'm not following the rest of your points, though I've been familiar with Andy's highly positive contributions in various areas for a good while, which if I'm honest, is one reason I was as actually quite shocked to find out that he did have such a long history with ArbCom. A happy New Year to you too! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

When quoting my comments, please give proper attribution and proper context. That is my view based on experience with similar situations to this one, but I have also made clear that I have given my support to clarifying the current sanctions, rather than to expanding them. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AussieLegend
There really does need to be greater clarification regarding this, since much of the problem involves Andy's participation at TfDs, especially when he nominates and then sometimes re-nominates the same templates without attempting to involve himself in discussion with end users or maintainers of the template. Quite often we see "Redundant to....." as the rationale, when in fact this is not the case. An example is Infobox Ireland station which, along with Infobox NI station, Andy nominated last year. The result of the discussion was that Infobox Ireland station was kept and Infobox NI station was merged into it. Not satisfied with the result, as has happened before, Andy has now re-nominated Infobox Ireland station today. Forcing the community to go through the same process over and over until he achieves the desired result can be seen to be disruptive, and this is what forces people to file AE Requests, especially since deletion of an infobox can be interpreted as removing it from an article, even if it is replaced by another. If the restriction placed on Andy is only applicable to articles, then this needs to be set in stone. If this isn't done, then more AE Requests are likely to be filed as Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

- Yes, reducing the number of templates can be beneficial but that's not always the case. For example, Andy has now nominated Infobox Rome episode for deletion (again). In the process, and regardless of the outcome of the TfD, he has removed code from the template that now opens the way for somebody to justifiably create two additional templates regardless of the TfD outcome. Andy has a narrow focus when it comes to templates and doesn't always look at the big picture. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

- The wording is an improvement, but I don't think it is enough. One of the things that I've been complaining about for some time is that Andy almost never (99.9% of the time) seems to engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging. The restriction would seem to encourage him not to engage in discussion which, to me at least, seems counterproductive. An example is the nomination for Infobox Australian road, which was specifically kept after extended discussion, including an RfC attended by members of the Highways and Australian Roads projects. If Andy had discussed this first, the TfD might not have happened. I feel Andy's restriction should require that he engage in discussion before nominating infoboxes. At the very least it should encourage such discussion but, as it stands, it encourages him to nominate and sort it out at TfD, which can be a combative venue, and Andy seems to be taking advantage of this based on his recent nominations. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Does replacing one infobox with another in an article qualify as "Andy testing the boundaries". There has been no consensus for this change. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Or this. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your accusations of mud-slinging. It's been said here that Andy's restriction extends only to article space and here we have two edits in article space where he has effectively added an infobox. The restriction does not make it clear that changing is not part of the restriction. The change he made doesn't make sense when all of the related articles use a different infobox and his change removed content from display. He made that change specifically as a test. He could have easily created the example in his user space or at Template:Infobox Rome episode/testcases where there is a side by side comparison.

You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? No, it's simply common courtesy to discuss use of a template with the end users first. Andy avoids that at all costs. He doesn't have to "search around for all the people", it's usually just a matter of going to the template's talk page to identify the end user project and opening a discussion on the project's talk page. Andy is so inconsiderate that he won't even leave a simple note, leaving others to do it for him. He refuses to even add infobox to TfD notices because the option is not available in Twinkle, which regularly upsets other users. Andy selectively forgets that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and it's that attitude that has resulted in an extremely long block log and sanctions. His negative interactions with so many editors necessitates making the wording of those sanctions very clear because not everyone can find the long discussions that lead to those sanctions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754's posts haven't really explained the extent of the issue with Infobox Australian road. The timeline of the discussions is as follows: Andy is well of the history of this infobox, and the differences of opinions, and still chose to take it to TfD instead of starting a discussion with the two projects, whose relationship has been more or less harmonious until now. His actions in this case are disruptive. Ironically, while Rschen7754 and I are on opposite sides regarding merging, we seem to agree regarding his attitude, which extends to other templates, as evidenced by the various discussions at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 and Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 22 August 2010 - start of a lengthy discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian road about converting Australian articles to use Infobox road
 * 13 September 2010 - TfD after the nominator failed to achieve his aims at Template talk:Infobox Australian road. TfD was withdrawn by nom after significant opposition and ongoing discussion on template's talk page. Nomination at this time was polarising given the ongoing discussion that was not complete.
 * 31 December 2011 - Nominated at TfD by Pigsonthewing. Lengthy discussion and significant opposition to the merge resulted in TfD being closed as "no consensus".
 * May 2013 - RfC proposal that Infobox Australian road be merged with Infobox road. At the beginning of the proposal there was some merit in the proposal but significant improvements to the infobox resulted in the RfC, which was attended by members of both the Highways and Australian roads projects (with a visit from Pigsonthewing), being abandoned quite amicably. Discussion on this even extended to IRC.
 * May 2013 - present - ongoing improvements to infobox

"he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise" - He's also damaged templates and his expertise has also caused detriment to the project. He tends to think from a coder's point of view, making arbitrary decisions about what templates should or should not contain, without considering the effect on end users who have to use the templates. As a recent example, he recently made a change to Infobox Rome episode, which he's nominated for merging, and that change opens the way for two more templates to be quite legitimately created, regardless of whether or not the template is merged. His nominations are not always consistent with best practice. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Andy is well-known for his technical abilities, especially related to templates such as infoboxes. It is therefore not unexpected that he should be regularly involved with clean-up of the vast proliferation of templates that perform near-identical functions. This request was sparked off by Andy asking that Infobox Ireland disused station (used 314 times) and Infobox Ireland station (used 187 times) be merged into Infobox station (used 16,002 times) as it is easier to maintain and use one template than three. In this case the generic template can specify the country and could have the date when the station stopped being used. It is perfectly reasonable to have these sort of debates and that is the purpose of TfD. Look at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 and see if you think asking for a debate is unreasonable.

What is unacceptable here is some editors' attempts to stifle debate by using an unrelated ArbCom decision to remove an "opponent" from nominating templates that they OWN. Andy does nominate a lot of templates for merge and deletion, but that's is not disruptive, per se - for heaven's sake there are thousands of templates that are only used in a handful of articles where a more generic and widely-used template is already available. Andy is one of the few people who is willing to spend time rationalising this sort of proliferation and - inconvenient as it may be to the OWNers - he performs a valuable job in this field. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You accept that other editors have caused problems yet you are trying to remove just Andy from template discussions. So what if "there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates"? you can't be the sole arbiter of who participates in those discussions and Andy is not only entitled to do so, but is a useful catalyst in moving forward such discussions. If templates were merged in a poor fashion, the answer is to FIXIT, not blame the person who pointed out the problem. As Humphrey Appleby would say 'to be bold' is one of those irregular verbs: "I edit boldly; you edit problematically; he/she edits disruptively". As for unrelated - yes TfD is utterly unrelated to adding or removing infoxes from articles. If you want to make a case for sanctions concerning TfD, then file a case; you'll need diffs, of course, not this sort of "guilt by mud-slinging" that some have been engaged in here.

@ArbCom: Here's yet another confirming instance that your faulty decision last year has done nothing but paint a target on some of the participants: you sanction someone for one thing and it's open season on them every time they get into a disagreement with other editors. Isn't it time you realised you screwed up by taking sides in a content dispute? or do you intend to repeat the same mistakes again and again? --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy's track record at TfD shows that he is concerned with merging little-used templates into more generic ones. In most cases this is a good thing. The effect of a successful merge is normally that one template becomes a redirect to the other. This clearly does not result in the removal or addition of a template to any article. It was never an issue at the Infobox RfArb case that there was a problem with Andy replacing one infobox with another - and we've even had this argument at Clarification and it was clearly agreed that this was not part of his restriction. So no, asking for a template to be merged into another really, really doesn't have any relationship to the sanctions imposed on Andy and I worry that you're asking for an already answered question to be re-litigated.

Yes, it would require a lot more wordsmithing because "prohibited from ... discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added [to] or removed from ... [a] group of articles" would include project pages (is that your intention?) as well as directly contradicting "allowed ... to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion. since the former is one of the things that people discuss at TfD. Even though Andy has never, to my knowledge, suggested at TfD that a template should be removed (he is always looking to merge them into more common ones), your wording would prevent him from taking part in debating one of his nominations as soon as someone suggested deleting the template. I seriously hope that wasn't your intention, either. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Replacing one infobox with another is definitely not part of Andy's restrictions and that question has already been asked and answered in the negative as part of a previous Clarification Request. We already know it's not testing any boundaries and your suggestion amounts to mud-slinging at Andy in the hope that some of it sticks. Do your homework before trying to extend sanctions by the back-door. Replacing Infobox Rome episode by Infobox television episode is an utterly sensible improvement to an article - do you advocate a template for each and every television series in existence? He doesn't need your permission before editing; and suggesting that editors have to seek consensus before making an uncontroversial edit is just the usual trick of OWNers who don't want outsiders messing with their precious articles. "Engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging" over my dead body: you just want to put obstacles in the way of any editor who dares to edit your articles. You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? ridiculous. You also need to understand what is meant by "Templates for Discussion": it's the place where templates are discussed. You want to have that discussion on the pages of a WikiProject, rather than on the pages where we are meant to discuss templates. TfD is the correct venue because it brings together members of Wikiprojects and other editors who may have a different view to have the discussion. That's healthy, and requiring a pre-discussion on the pages of what may be a moribund Wikiproject is not a sensible option. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
The arbcom decision was clear that it related to articles. Andy is doing helpful wikignoming with his TfDs and this is simply a witchhunt. His efforts are beneficial to the project as he largely is finding long-abandoned templates or those with few transclusions. He defends his actions and is remaining remarkably civil in his responses (which are at times a bit pointed, but he's yet to resort to name-calling; something that cannot be said about other editors who oppose him). There is an OWNership problem here and a serious lack of goodwill. This needs to be closed with a clarification that only articles are subject to this sanction, and frankly, given Andy's use to the project (I asked him to repair infobox horseracing personality not long ago), I think it is time his restrictions are lifted altogether. If the project wants to avoid drama, then avoid setting people up as scapegoats. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the people crying "off with his head" to be quite troubling. Per WP:BAIT, I think Andy has been remarkably civil.  And per WP:BOOMERANG, I strongly suggest that people in glass houses of ownership and rude, incivil behavior (Francis and DePiep, for example) should not be throwing stones!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

and others: I am very troubled that a legitimate content contributor with actual expertise in the area is being considered for a ban in that very area of expertise. This is a misguided attempt to boomerang on what the original filing party wanted to accomplish, which was to clarify the parameters of the restriction. I have found Andy very helpful and quite willing to be collaborative and cooperative in genuine attempts to improve content. Andy is an individual who has been given awards for his work by WMF by none other than Jimbo, Andy is an individual who is a wikipedian in residence in his home country, with a wealth of knowledge to contribute to the project. It just seems beyond the pale that a small herd of disgruntled individuals who want to preserve their WP:OWN little Balkanized domain are trying to run him off for things like suggesting at TfD that we don't really need separate infoboxes for each of the hundreds of mass transit systems throughout the world where one will do. In the face of people calling him incompetent, trolling his every TfD to !vote oppose with the same ill-will-biased personal attacks every time, I am really quite impressed that he has consistently replied with fair arguments, a modicum of basic civility, and just the slightest touch of snark. He hasn't even called anyone a "c--t". (Which recently has - appropriately - been deemed a forgivable misstep once the totality of the circumstances were considered) These bullies can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ::perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about.  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) As I've recused from the issue, I'm moving my comment.  DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
I have known Andy for a few years, and neatly cooperated on a couple of projects without making a big hooha; however I only know of this request due to preparing my own amendment for a different matter. CT Cooper above raises a reasonable point of distance, however if there is a problem with working collegiately then this does not need Arbcom's authority to resolve, the conventional civility and dispute resolution procedures are sufficient.

Speaking as an editor "haunted" and occasionally gibed by a past Arbcom case, I can well believe the views expressed here that the prior case involving Andy may be used inappropriately. This does not benefit the encyclopedia in the long run, and as Arbcom has often stated, normal collegiate resolution processes with any action within the capability of administrators should be preferred and exhausted before resorting to the supreme device of the Arbcom stick. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "everything related to infoboxes" would be unhelpful as Andy would have to worry that any edit to an article with an infobox could end up being a block discussion. I expect the committee is wise enough based on the history of past problem cases, to stick to well defined and constrained motions to avoid the unintended consequence of driving editors off Wikipedia altogether, with phrases such as "widely construed" being used literally as a form of Russell's paradox by overly keen wikilawyers. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
IMO the editors who were restricted well over a year ago here have more than followed their sanctions. Andy has avoided the article end of adding and removing infoboxes, and has still remained dedicated to improving the project through his technical skills. It appears to me that even though Arbcom (of that day) did not place the all so common "broadly construed" to its remedy, the bulk of disruption comes from those looking for a thread with which to create a noose. While the continual drag ya back to AE/ARCA is entertaining from a soap opera point of view, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is: Remove the restrictions, and you remove the drama mongers out looking for a lynching party. — Ched : ?  17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question. Many if not most arb cases contain a clause stating that after a certain amount of time (often 12 months/1 year) editors are able to appeal their restrictions.  I wasn't able to find that provision in the infobox case, can someone tell me why that is?  The facts are plain that it was those who favored the inclusion of an infobox who were sanctioned, those who opposed them were "reminded and/or admonished" - and that's fine, evidence/findings etc.  I get that.  I know that as a 3rd party that I can't request the lifting of restrictions - but I am wondering ... just how long does the committee intend to impose restrictions on those who favor having infoboxes in articles?  Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @DGG. With respect sir, I am somewhat confused.  Per your comment "What I personally would do is simple: I have definite opinions on the subject of infoboxes, that they are useless if not uniform, and I would have recused from the entire case." which you made here, I must ask if you are now un-recusing with regard to this topic? — Ched :  ?  14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
The arbitration refers to articles. If wording needs to be explicit for those confused by the arbitration wording that seems  fine. However, this should not be an opportunity nor is this the appropriate place to rewrite the arbitration and expand restrictions, and is it not a place to implement further  restrictions based on opinion as for example, here, "However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not." This was a simple request; perhaps it is best on multiple levels to keep it that way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

Statement by DGG
''I'm commenting as an editor, not an arb. I consider myself recused on this issue''
 * As a general statement, perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about. I'm therefore not sure that expertise with infoboxes is relevant to this request.
 * As a specific comment, I agree the wording could ideally be more precise, but I don't see how to do this without causing other ambiguities, so perhaps the existing general statement is best.    DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
This following this is why the motion is not a good idea. --Rschen7754 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, I do think the templates should be merged and would share Andy's opinion, but his renomination only served to further polarize the matter and upset people. He shouldn't have been the one to do it, just like I will never bring that template to TFD either, except because of the past drama regarding him and infoboxes, it's even worse. --Rschen7754 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
In statements above there is a call or two for other examples of Pigsonthewing's pushing the boundaries of sanctions. Here's one: Pigsonthewing pursuing an article deletion campaign during 2014 at least on articles using custom infoboxes (i.e. using generic infobox applied to a custom situation) or using lesser-used other infoboxes, working from a worklist of articles having such infoboxes. I don't know whether or not it amounts to Pigsonthewing's having directly violated the sanction terms, or not. But it was pushing the boundaries around templates and in my opinion it caused widespread damage in Wikipedia.

I noted during 2014 that Pigsonthewing pursued a campaign to delete numerous articles by AFDs, in which he nominated mostly older articles in various topic areas, but was obstinate in not explaining what was his motivation and what was the commonality, when asked directly by editors in good faith concerned about the damage being done. AFDs by their nature are negative experiences to the article developers. In my view this campaign was damaging to a swath of Wikipedia editors and to content development in seemingly random areas; one specific consequence was that an editor User:ScottHW developing content about community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, was treated badly and I believe was turned off from contributing. PigsontheWing would not explain the reasons why he nominated specific articles for deletion, would not respond to reasonable questions about whether he performed wp:BEFORE or not, and would not comment about what he was going to further nominate for AFD. He was (I recall, and can look for diffs) derisive about the view by me and others that he was working from a list of summer camps, for example. He would not explain his true motivation, and in this was withholding and difficult for other editors. This prevented me and others from developing an alternative campaign that would be less damaging to wikipedia fabric (like I have advocated and/or been involved in developing in other AFD areas). I also previously and at later times experienced Pigsonthewing as unnecessarily withholding and difficult, e.g. at a later time he complicated a situation by being unwilling to simply clarify to me that he was not an administrator). Within a set of AFDs about summer camps, anyhow, I specifically linked to the others, which were: What they had in common, which I was not aware of, besides their topics, was that they were developed in an era when editors used user-created custom infoboxes, and the articles still all had them, and they were all listed in PigsontheWing's worklist.
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Pathfinder (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Sitka Fine Arts Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Modin
 * Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Rockmont for Boys

Note of disclosure: PigsontheWing objected to my linking of the summer camp AFDs together in some of the AFDs, by calling my linking to be violation of wp:canvassing guideline (which it was not) and also by asserting that in my referring to the fact that one of the camps was NRHP-listed I had violated a restriction on my own editing (which it might have been, though I had not believed it to be when I mentioned it, and as a consequence I responded to his objection by deleting and/or striking comments that he objected to). This proceeded mostly at User talk:Doncram. Also I was not during any of this time aware of sanctions on PigsontheWing about userboxes or of any of the arbitration or past history. I had had some previous negative interaction with PigsontheWing about use of "start" templates in conjunction with an NRHP infobox, however. And I thought he was an administrator and hence generally deemed to be highly trusted by the community. My belief that he was an adminstrator was a factor in May 2014 in interaction that led to me opening an edit warring proceeding, whose result was that he and I were both blocked (some info at User talk:Doncram. In that incident it was an obstacle that he did not promptly disclose that he was not an administrator.  Another obstacle was that he made obfuscating assertions about the location of a discussion (some info at User talk:Doncram).  I am not sure but I believe that he and I have not much or at all interacted since then.  About my posting here, late in this proceeding:  I have watchlisted here and have occasionally noticed this proceeding going on, and just happened now to browse it further and then to see more connections.

Around then PigsontheWing prodded and succeeded in eliminating numerous older articles having custom infoboxes or lesser-used infoboxes. In cases when the original article creator was around and noticed and removed the prod, or when others removed the prod, AFDs were started.
 * Articles for deletion/South Asian Federation of Accountants, July 19 2014 AFDd by Pigsonthewing (one of those with terse nomination "No evidence of notability")
 * Articles for deletion/BETT, prodded by Pigsonthewing, prod removed by me, then AFDd by Pigsonthewing
 * Articles for deletion/Hill Farm Community Garden, had been prodded by PigsontheWing, AFD opened by another, PigsontheWing voted delete.
 * Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden, whose custom infobox was changed to park infobox in this first edit at the article by PigsontheWing, before Pigsonthewing prodded it and then opened AFD.
 * Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, a follow-on that did not itself involve an infobox, but which extended damage in my view (as it further over-ruled the local editor from developing content where they preferred)
 * A series of Isle of Man articles in November 2014, which I believe were on Pigsonthewing's worklist, but anyhow which I believe were targeted for using a little-used template, Infobox Isle of Man TT course: Crosby Cross-roads, Windy Corner, Glenlough and others.

The scope of Pigsonthewings 2014 infobox-related article deletion campaign includes most of the 48 articles that AFDSTATS shows Pigsonthewing himself nominated for deletion, from August 17, 2013 to December 2014. (Of 48, 21 of those were deleted; 21 were kept by Keep or by No consensus;  others were redirected)

But the scope further includes:
 * Numerous more prodded by Pigsonthewing and then deleted without AFD, in 2014 (I recall seeing a good number of these in Pigsonthewing's contributions, in progress. These could be found in Pigsonthewing's edit history and reviewed for whether infoboxes were involved by administrators, but not by me)
 * Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then AFDd by Pigsonthewing then deleted, in 2014, such as Articles for deletion/Mark Beech (politician), where also i cannot see the original article to determine if it had a custom or lesser-used infobox.
 * Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then deleted after an AFD opened by someone else, in 2014 (so not included in Pigsonthewing's AFD nomionations)
 * Whatever Pigsonthewing did in 2013 and before, including, e.g. about lesser-used Infobox University of Notre Dame residence hall, Pigsonthewing's May 3, 2013 Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

In the prods and AFD nominations of this campaign, editors might disagree about whether Pigsonthewing had adequate justification to seek deletion on stated grounds they were under-referenced, depending on their perspective about the importance of wp:BEFORE. Pigsonthewing's prod or AFD nominations were terse, often merely asserting "No evidence of notability". Among them were numerous articles, however, were in fact on quite notable topics, as documented in some of the AFDs, where notability could/should have been ascertained by performing wp:BEFORE. Within and around the AFDs, Pigsonthewing lashed out (as at me) and expressed himself strongly and that was damaging I believe.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealed his motivation and worklist throughout the article deletion campaign. I am not aware of Pigsonthewing ever disclosing his motivation or his working from a worklist of articles having custom or less-used infoboxes. He refused to answer questions getting at his list. I figured out later that he was working from a worklist on infoboxes, I think when I noticed in his contributions during fall 2014 that he edited at the worklist itself, which was in User or Wikipedia space. Later still, I looked for the list again, and was not able to find it. I presume that PigsontheWing eventually arranged for the worklist to be deleted. (Update: The worklist is/was User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox ) That was still before I was aware of Pigsonthewing having any template-related sanctions.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealment was damaging to Wikipedia in that it prevented reasonable questioning of his motivation in the prods and AFDs, which would have been legitimate to question in each one, and which could have led editors to explore article merits more and to change the outcome in at least some cases. Or to allow editors to consider clarification or review of Pigsonthewing's sanction. And it prevented the possibility of other editors reviewing his edits, or working collaboratively to contain the damage to editors and to content, e.g. by having an RFC about custom infoboxes, e.g. by collectively reviewing the worklist and seeking alternatives to deletion such as combining standalone articles into new list-articles, or, e.g. by simply by changing the custom or lesser-used infobox usage to a different Pigsonthewing-approved alternative infobox, where such was available, so that Pigsonthewing would no longer target them.

-- do ncr  am  20:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf: Not "irrelevant" at all. After being banned in late 2013 with "1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", Pigsonthewing engaged in a campaign to remove infoboxes he didn't like from mainspace by a selective campaign to remove entire articles.  And he concealed it and was disruptive and caused damage to editors (including me and the Nebraska editor who has not edited since.)  This does seem to me to be in violation of the intent of the ban, and it went under the radar, and it should not be condoned.  And in one edit i linked above, he arguably removed one type of infobox, and added a different type of infobox, which is arguably two violations of the ban.  In that case and others he also PRODed or opened AFDs or voted "Delete" and otherwise discussed the removal of infoboxes (his apparent real intent), though couching it as removing the entire articles.


 * To the arbitrators: I suggest the original ban should be modified to clearly ban this related behavior.  It would be reasonable to clarify/extend the ban, perhaps: "Also with respect to articles containing infoboxes, Pigsonthewing is banned from initiating PRODs, from initiating AFDs, and from discussing the removal of such articles."  From my review of Pigsonthewing's AFD nominations history, the majority of that is about articles having infoboxes he did not like.  Perhaps the clarification could be limited to articles having infoboxes of the type that Pigsonthewing seems to dislike, but not sure how that could be worded.  I don't think I or anyone is irreplaceable, and I am not aware why it would be especially important to preserve Pigsonthewing's voice in unrelated AFDs that could be a side impact. -- do  ncr  am  20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found Pigsonthewing's worklist of articles having custom infoboxes as of April 2, 2014, and Twinkle PROD log showing its use, often rapid-fire. Redlinks show effects on articles in scattered areas.  Of summer camp ones, I note this one for which Google news search quickly shows me the topic is Wikipedia-notable and it should not have been deleted.  One PRODed and AFD-targeted summer camp article eventually stricken from worklist after another editor applied infobox organization.  One struck from worklist after Pigsonthewing changed custom infobox to infobox park, which lost info, may not have been a good fit, but alternatives to deletion push existed.  Overall, the pursuit of article deletions with concealment of Pigsonthewing's motivation foisted distruption in scattered areas, removed valid content and/or turned off content editors, and prevented rational discussion.  While Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes highlighted effects of infobox campaigns upon great writers' content contributors to feature-worthy articles, this deletion campaign hit scattered others, with same theme of a technical focus by one editor foisted upon content-focused others.
 * How about narrower clarification that Pigsonthewing to be banned from deletion activity on articles having "direct calls" to infobox template? -- do ncr  am  16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In immediate response, Pigsonthewing just returned to the worklist ("Thanks for the reminder!"), also requests an update to the worklist from User:John of Reading. and proceeds. E.g. in several edits just termed "CE" makes substantial reduction of infobox while converting its type. And P's edit effectively removes an infobox from an article, by stripping it down to a ridiculous one-item box. wp:POINTY, and isn't this essentially a violation of the clear ban that Pigsonthewing should not remove infoboxes from articles? -- do ncr  am  18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to understand why Pigsonthewing uses opaque edit summaries of "CE" and why he won't respond to reasonable questions in AFDs and otherwise, about his actions and goals. Because while he is banned from discussing the removals or additions of infoboxes.  And he is banned from adding infoboxes, he apparently feels nonetheless he can remove infoboxes (was this intended?) and he perhaps he can "convert" one type of infobox to another type (was this intended?), even if doing so reduces information.  Seems to me that "converting", is effectively removing one kind of infobox and adding another infobox.  And he just cannot explain what he is doing?  So, for example when an editor inquires just now on his Talk page, is he technically in compliance by not answering, or by being cryptic, e.g.

removing the question with "you thought wrong", in answer to inquiry whether he "had been asked not to edit or add infoboxes"]. So he is allowed to edit with deliberately uninformative edit summaries like "CE", and he is required NOT to explain what he is doing, as he follows a worklist bringing him to encounter diverse editors on diverse topics???


 * I don't get it. Could the arbitrators please clarify whether Pigsonthewing is allowed to edit and remove infoboxes in articles?  And is he allowed a loophole of being allowed to "convert" infoboxes, i.e. removing one infobox and adding another type of infobox?  Even if the replacement loses some information?  Or strips it so information in the new infobox is a fraction of the info in the original?  And further that he is prohibited from discussing these actions?  Or is he allowed to discuss "editing" but not address questions about adding or removing?  Even in an AFD where his motivation is apparently the removal of the infobox, from a worklist?  It seems to me like he should not be allowed to do what he cannot discuss.  He's not an administrator, but all experienced editors should be willing to explain their actions.  If they can't explain they should not be undertaking the actions. -- do  ncr  am  21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Floq
Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think.

So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE and WP:ACCAORWHATEVERTHESHORTCUTISFORTHISPAGE don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either. So the proposed motion seems like a pretty simple solution, and I'm surprised it is not passing. It is not granting him an "exception", it is "clarifying" the previous remedy.

It seems odd to consider expanding the remedy wider than it was before when there's no real evidence that Andy's participation at TFD has been a problem. However, if you want to get evidence about his TFD behavior first, I suppose I won't argue with that. But then I'd suggest narrowing the wording of the scope of the review (and the scope of evidence you want) more than it is now, to narrowly focus on TFD. And keep in mind that if no serious problems are found, you're not deciding whether to relax a remedy, you're deciding whether to tighten it.

p.s. I was pointed to this discussion by a participant in it, but it's not canvassing since she and I don't really agree on the infobox case as a whole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw

 * Support adding the word "articles": This should be simple, adding one word to eliminate the drama of people who disagree with Andy trying to play "gotcha" over his legitimate area of expertise.   The infobox case involved decisions involving articles, where the question of including or not including infoboxes is wholly different from the technical aspects of infobox templates. Basically, the IDONTLIKEIT crowd who resists Andy's good faith attempts to clean up the mess that the template areas is in needs to realize that Andy disagreeing with them is not a crime and this clarification would help immensely to ratchet down the mob drama that seems to follow Andy everywhere. I vehemently oppose any attempt to increase Andy's restrictions, he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from John Carter
Regarding the first proposal below, would it also include any articles specifically created by Andy with an infobox in it from the beginning? I don't know how often it might happen that Andy creates new articles, but it would seem to be covered by the proposed sanction, depending on how one defines "adding". John Carter (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse obviously. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The purpose of restrictions is to reduce disruption. It doesn't much matter whether the disruption is on articles or talk pages, or wherever. If his contributions in non-article space have not been disruptive, there may be benefit in formalising a narrower scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies  talk 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My recollection was that we crafted the remedy to stop the infobox wars. Those were mainly around adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and that's where Andy needed to be taken away from. I personally supported allowing him to stay in policy debates on the topic, though that didn't pass. I'd certanly support such a change. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As Roger says, arbcom restrictions are meant to stop drama, not breathe new life into it. Considering Andy's recent attempts at testing the boundaries of his restriction and the community's uncertainty as to where exactly these boundaries lie, I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The restriction is fine as written. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The restriction is not fine as written, as evidenced by the fact that it's the second time in less than two months that we have been requested to clarify its scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is evidence that people are struggling to grasp the restriction, not that it warrants amendment. It is unreasonable to agree that a sentence as simple as the one in question is ambiguous. My advice is to discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace; I don't see where this has come from or why it was arrived at. As I said, the restriction is fine as written. Any confusion about it is difficult to sympathise with in this case, given the remedy's clarity.  AGK  [•] 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case this is still active on 1 January, I'll note here for the record that I am recused as an arbitrator for this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about something like "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added or removed from either a specific article or group of articles. He is explicitly allowed to edit infobox templates to improve their functionality, and to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion."  Needs some wordsmithing, but I've never liked the wording of the initial restriction, and while I don't think Andy has gamed it, the wording has still led to drama.  Some more explicit language would be good, even though it leaves the line of what Andy may and may not do the same.  (I think enough time has passed to allow an exception for putting infoboxes in articles he has recently created himself, but that might be beyond the scope of this request.)   Courcelles 23:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox". The locus of dispute here was binary, whether an article should or should not have an infobox; not whether it should use "template:infobox foo" or "template:infobox bar".  Courcelles 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like Courcelles' suggestion, though I think Callanecc has a good point that "to improve their functionality" should be dropped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also recused from this request. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree with Salvio. I consider some of the renominations at TfD disruptive, and think that both nominating and discussing template related infoboxes there should be included in the ban.  I'd like to find some language permitting technical changes, but I can't see how to make it unambiguous.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I had earlier stated I would recuse from this case.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend more toward agreeing with Courcelles and WTT. I don't see how any of these nominations were deliberately disruptive (the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started), and the original restrictions clearly indicate a restriction on whether or not an article should have an infobox, not maintenance tasks on infoboxes. I would have to see more evidence of disruption on Andy's part in the areas of maintaining infoboxes before I would be willing to consider expanding the restriction, and I don't see justification for that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe scope of the restriction is the wrong wording...but regardless, if we pass the motion as is, no administrator at ANI is going to feel like they can restrict him in the areas we explicitly allow. As I stated, we can achieve the same by saying that it only applies to the article and talk spaces, without explicitly allowing. I'm also not fully on board that he's been completely cooperative in areas outside the ban, as some diffs here appear different. There is simply not enough information here to see whether explicitly allowing those is healthy for the community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Infoboxes)
There are 15 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 Abstaining; a majority is 7.


 * Support
 * 1) This seems to have totally stalled out, so proposed as a motion to stimulate new discussion.  The goal here is to neither widen or narrow the restrictions, but to reduce drama by clearing out some grey area, along lines of how the AE admins have been enforcing the existing remedy.  Copyedit as necessary. Courcelles 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've made some changes based on your feedback. (WHich I think I can do, seeing as how I'm the only vote at the moment.)  If any arbs prefer the older version, feel free to revert. Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)  Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) it works -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  01:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * No, Andy needs to be topic banned from everything related to infoboxes, not granted exceptions which make it easier for him to act disruptively all over again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Pigsonthewing is a valued contributor across many areas, but has what many see as an uncollaborative approach when dealing with infoboxes. Remedy 1.1 has been interpreted as applying only to the space in which the original dispute occurred (articles), but various editors above have suggested the same uncollaborative approach still exists at TfD's. The remedy is silent about where it applies: as it was based on user conduct, it should be applied where that conduct occurs. I note there is disagreement about whether Pigsonthewing is being uncollaborative at TfD, but the above evidence section shows the point is at least arguable. I don't therefore support a formal narrowing of the restriction via the second sentence of the above motion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I also can't work with the second half of this motion. We don't have enough evidence (or this might not even the proper venue) presented to determine whether Pigsonthewing is constructively editing or not to what we are explicitly allowing by the proposed motion. It then prevents people from taking it to ANI or other appropriate venues to get restrictions if they are needed. It just brings it right back to ARCA which is why were here in the first place. I could see a motion restricting it to the article and talk spaces without exceptions, as that doesn't change the scope of the restriction. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have two options. We can reword the topic ban in line with what evidence we have. It is obvious that the status quo is going to cause us future issues. The other option is to open a quick review of the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review where we get evidence for a week and then post a PD the next. This review would have to be very narrow in scope or it would get bogged down quickly. I would support opening a review if a group of arbs don't have enough evidence to work off of here. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guerillero. This has been sitting here for weeks with no prospect of proceeding on the current evidence. Rather than trying to interpret the previous decision, let's consider this extremely specific issue as a narrowly written case. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Per below. L Faraone  22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Motion (Infoboxes Review)
Enacted - S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 13 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 abstaining; a majority is 6.


 * Support
 * 1) First choice -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep, though the question is probably too open-ended,   Roger Davies  talk 06:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  Given my statement above, it's the only appropriate way to address the concerns I and Euryalus raised since I feel there was insufficient chance to post diffs on this topic above. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Euryalus (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) A focussed review would be worthwhile here. L Faraone  22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not a fan of this approach, but I don't think it's getting resolved any other way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Okay, in the absence of any other way to get momentum in moving this forward, fine. Courcelles 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to spend 4 more weeks on this; the evidence is already up there, the existing remedy is sloppy, and the manner in which the AE admins have decided to enforce it works. This proposal is a time-sink for all involved, whose end result will be either something at least somewhat similar to what I've already proposed, or a unnecessary dramatic tightening of the restrictions in place. The latter seems to be more the history of Reviews and cases opened under ArbCom initiative, I don't think anyone is voting FOR that, mind, but it seems to happen. So, oppose as a massive time-sink for this request that is already way too long in the tooth. Courcelles 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Infoboxes (May 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
 * 2) 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.(#6)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
 * To be worded.


 * 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.(#6)
 * Is a good idea but had no consequences.

Statement by Gerda Arendt
About two years after the infoboxes case I look back. Reminder: It was requested because - after infobox opera was introduced - too many infoboxes were reverted, for example Rigoletto. I counted 59 cases before and during the case. Most of them have an infobox now, including Götterdämmerung, The Rite of Spring and Handel. The project is at peace. Missa Dona nobis pacem.

I am quite happy with the restriction of two comments per discussion because it saves me time. However, I think that it should be more evenly observed by all participants in discussions, not only me.

I believe that the restriction of adding infoboxes to only "articles I create" supports the ownership of articles and should be dropped. I promise to not add an infobox where I believe it is not wanted, - actually that's what I always did.

I wish that the clause about "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" would be observed more. Look at current discussions such as Talk:Beethoven, subtract what contradicts this clause and see how little is left. (Did you know that even Beethoven had an infobox, until 26 December 2014?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven was closed in favour of an infobox. It pleases me how similar it looks to the one proposed in the workshop of the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

RIP Viva-Verdi. We got the sad news only yesterday. As far as I know he didn't engage in infobox disputes, but silently all of Verdi's operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: regarding "better ... than she previously did": would you please say more precisely where you think I did something wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a case, my first meeting with arbcom. I didn't even understand the terms, thinking "motion" meant setting something in motion. I promoted the new template, which is by now accepted. I said "A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I leave it to the arbitrators to see that your diffs don't show what you claim, and find the attribute "senseless" for debates surprising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The diff you present for a 'related "senseless debate"' shows a sensible debate. - I think to alleviate all "remedies" of the case (which wasn't looking at facts of 2013 and is outdated even more in 2015) would make a lot of sense, but I didn't dare to ask that much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Nielsen example shows that I am able to evaluate when not to mention the topic, even without a restriction. It also showed a learning process of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: The current restriction does not allow me to add an infobox to an article which I expanded significantly (for example Polish Requiem), only to those which I turned from red to blue (or made a redirect an article). It also doesn't allow me to add an infobox to an opera, while I could help to continue doing what Viva-Verdi did. All works by Verdi have an infobox, several by Wagner including Götterdämmerung (remember my question: "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" - still on the talk), Don Giovanni, Carmen, but there are hundreds more missing one. - I have added infoboxes to all "my" articles since the case (including three FAs), - none of them was reverted or questioned. - I believe that infoboxes are good for our readers, and that will not change. - I know by now to avoid certain biographies by certain authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tim: "Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors", please let me understand better by providing one example of me causing such alarm. (I will look up "depondency".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Please give me one example of what you mean by a general "forcing infoboxes into articles". - Admitted: I am proud to speak up for good-faith edits of new editors who have no idea that they enter a minefield. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I have no list of "infoboxes targeted", only a (incomplete) list of infoboxes that have been reverted. That list began as part of the evidence for the arb case, it had 59 entries then. As of today, 15 of those have no infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I know you as a man of compromise, remembering that you offered an "identibox" for and a version accepted by the Main editor. I think Carmen looks more attractive and more informative, and the discussion was sensible. Michael Tippett was nominated for TFA and appeared without ever mentioning the topic infobox. - Your reflections in the Signpost make sense to me. - Could you perhaps word rules or recommendations to be observed by all participants in infobox discussions? Such as only one revert, then discuss. I really enjoy "only two comments". (I asked others before, a former arbitrator, a lawyer and a participant in the case). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I removed myself from what you call the infobox-arena for one year. That year was over on 11 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: My behaviour was to insert infoboxes in opera articles too soon after they were made available by project opera, which led to reverts and sometimes longish discussions. What changed is that now the operatic infoboxes are mostly accepted by the project. - I have not inserted an infobox in a TFA, not even suggested one for a FA before being featured. I have not suggested one for articles of authors where I knew they don't want one. (I sometimes made mistakes in that respect, but am willing to learn.) I have collaborated in DYK with Nikkimaria and Smerus, the other parties in the case, with whom I shared one of the better debates about an opera infobox, literary, short and amusing. (I don't know if the arbitrators noticed that.) - I do question when editors new to the problem of infoboxes for classical composers and other biographies are reverted without explanation. I also was shocked in disbelief that editors improving an article to FA threw out an infobox that had served readers for eight years. I am sorry if by doing so I hurt people, - it was not intended.

I am on a voluntary 1RR and should know by now to avoid articles of Main editors who dislike infoboxes, therefore nobody needs to be afraid of me. Regarding infoboxes (and I mean just at-a-glance orientation about a subject's position in place and time), I have a simple belief: if they help a few people, why not? They help me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: You decline what? A rewording of the restriction to not reflect ownership? (That is all I asked to have amended.) Additional question: What behaviour precisely do you think I need to reform? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Back from a few days off, singing Salve Regina, I thank RexxS for wording better than I could the things I have not done. I have not ever added an infobox where I thought it was contentious, but sometimes made mistakes in that respect. I think I improved my evaluation.

@PumpkinSky: I am delighted to see your signature again! - You missed a lot in the two years you were absent. Nikkimaria who reverted the most in 2013, doesn't do that any more in 2015. She learned. The number of noticed conflicts is also declining (more than 60 in 2013, more than 30 in 2014, only 8 so far in 2015), another step in the right direction. Of the 8, only 6 are still reverted, by Jerome Kohl, Tim riley, SchroCat, Smerus, Sagaciousphil and Opus33, who all acted in good faith, I assume.

Look at Carl Nielsen to see an article with no infobox conflict and admirable collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion: a nice movement, I thank four people for supporting something amusing, "If after six months Gerda Arendt has not blocked under this motion", - I don't plan to block ;) - I don't feel I should change anything in the motion, would someone else do it, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Gerda is an incredibly prolific and expert editor who is not just liked but loved by many even those who at times disagree with her. She has deliberately used a restriction, that of making only two comments, to improve herself and her editing. This is ideal editor behaviour. Why not expand her abilities to edit. I don't see any reasons why she should not be given the chance to edit in a more expansive way; she's earned it, seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC))


 * AGK could you clarify? Why does Gerda's response merit a decline? She is asking for clarification. You declined in a very general way without specifying anything and with out any evidence that Gerda has not edited per her restrictions. I believe all editors want to trust the admins and arbitrators who control the sanctions. We can only do that if those in control very specifically outline the concerns, so we can see that there is good reason to limit another editor's editing, and that the restrictions aren't the result of grudges or anger or positions which indicate non-neutrality in dealing with other people. I am  not accusing anyone of this but with out clarification no one knows what the problem is or how to correct it. WP is  not punishment based; it should be an environment were editors help each other even arbs. As a community we have to trust you, but trust takes time, patience, and fair dealing with the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by OccultZone
Looking at her contributions, I would say that her editing scope is wide and her edits are very beneficial to en.wiki. and after so much experience that she earned, she would better know what to do with infoboxes than she previously did. Similar to Littleolive oil, I believe that she should be given chance to broaden her range.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt I was pointing to the case concerning infoboxes and that it lead to the imposition of restrictions on a number of editors. I just said that you must be knowing better about it, than you did previously.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and that's the plus point.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:50, 11 May (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
It is my profound opinion Gerda Arendt shouldn't be left near any infobox (discussion), ever.


 * The current unnecessary content forking (note: content forking, not POV forking) of BWV 243 and BWV 243a rooted in Gerda Arendt's prejudice regarding infoboxes: "243a ... 243 ... I "strike" by not adding to articles without infobox ;)" (diff 1)


 * "Farming" tensions regarding infoboxes (diff 2)


 * Beethoven infobox:
 * Treating infobox discussions as "votes" (diff 3)
 * Typical indirect statement of argument, a technique rarely beneficial for the quality of a debate: "... what would a reader say who never heard the name Beethoven before? Perhaps: ..." (diff 4) – a bit pretentious about "knowing" other people's preferences, instead of clarifying her own.

On the whole, whenever Gerda gets involved in an infobox debate this never has a soothing effect on tensions, drawing a consensus nearer, more often tensions are increased, by a deep rooted "I will not be convinced by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude.

I'm not really convinced by the quality of the content of infoboxes Gerda produces. I remember these often need adjustment (which often isn't conceded to unless after a lot of senseless debate and reverts, e.g. diff 5) It is my contention that Gerda would be involved a lot less in tensions regarding infoboxes when she would be able to produce higher quality infoboxes, which is however something difficult to prove by diffs.

Gerda didn't contribute to remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion..." I don't say she should have, but asking here to alleviate some of the remedies of that case, while not exploring the more positive ones is, in my eyes, sanctimonious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ad diff 5: illustration of related "senseless debate" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing "sensible" in starting a third talk page section about the infobox (diff 6), overriding active discussions (diff 6a, diff 6b) without actual content contribution to the issues being discussed. Illustrates "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that". Confirms imho that Gerda Arendt should not be left near any infobox (discussion) in the best interest of Wikipedia's content: Gerda Arendt's self-realization of how she behaves in that field is zero. The remedies of the infobox ArbCom case proved ineffective to ameliorate that, so the best solution, again IMHO, would be to take her out of that particular arena entirely, at least for a year or so, and re-evaluate after such period whether the state of affairs regarding infoboxes has improved or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? By now Gerda Arendt should know not to promulgate publicity like that, and not to post flawed summaries anywhere. As a token regarding nature of intentions please remove my name (and any link to my user/talk page) there without delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. I ping people whom I mention – tx, but better would have been not to mention me on that page at all, so I wouldn't have seen this nauseating interaction between the initiator and one of the active Arbs of this amendment request. After having been forced to see this... maybe consider recusing yourself from the current request, the mentioned interaction display is far from enlightening. I don't see the need to treat this public amendment request anywhere else but here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit accepted Gerda Arendt's self-aggrandizement at face value (as if I would have been less motivated by such concerns, so no that's not how she "... arrived in conflict with Francis Schonken ..."). The out-of-proces presentation of so-called additional evidence triggered no concern whatsoever... There was also no "previous" in this interaction as to be exempted by "Previous routine ... interactions are not usually grounds for recusal", so I don't think there's much to be found in using ARBPOL as an excuse here. I'd like to be able to take active arbitrators serious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * please stop creating diversions, this page is not the place to start deploying remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case, and even less under your conditions – I'm as much a man of compromise as the next guy, and my recommendations to you are clear: remove yourself from the infobox arena, completely, for at least a year. General recommendations regarding participants in infobox related issues can't even technically be treated here, per the initiator's selection of involved users. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "...over on 11 September 2014" ... make that 6 September 2014 - oh, wait, that's around the time when the next round of this time-sink began. Removing Gerda Arendt from the arena apparently works to make treatment of infobox issues go back to normal. Maybe make it somewhat more than a year, starting today. And no returning to that arena before the arrogant "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude has been given up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Short year indeed! – Please make it at least a real time year this time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. Carl Nielsen example: Talk:Carl Nielsen, Featured article candidates/Carl Nielsen/archive1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox etc show Gerda Arendt staying out of the infobox arena on that one. No big surprise: it works. I reiterate my proposal to expand that approach to all infobox-related involvement by Gerda Arendt for at least a year. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. – this might actually work and I see no problem living by it when it passes. III) might be a bit more explicit that inappropriate WP:CANVASSING outside the actual discussion might be experienced as disruptive to a discussion too, speaking from experience that Gerda Arendt has had difficulty grasping this concept, and might thus endanger her parole without realising. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tim riley
Gerda has most honourably drawn my attention to this page, knowing full well that devoted as I am to her in all other regards I strongly disapprove of her zealotry with regard to info-boxes, and that I will – as indeed I do – oppose any easing of the restraint on her in this respect. Even with the current restrictions Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors who hold equally conscientious views to the contrary.  Tim riley  talk    13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on Gerda! See SchroCat's comments below. It's no good doing passive-aggressive on us at this stage.  Tim riley  talk    16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
I oppose any relaxation of the restrictions, given the disruption this editor still causes with IBs. For example, after three comments on the thread in the Talk: Laurence Olivier page, and a warning on 16 March 2015 from to advise that the "two comment limit, in discussions about Infoboxes, is a bright-line rule", and that any further breaches would face sanction. It was something of a surprise to see a fourth comment on 26 March 2015 in the same thread. It seems that this part of the restriction hasn't been adhered to, and the pattern of behaviour has not changed as much as has been claimed. I'll also add that following postings on IB-related matters to my talk page and directly to me by email, I have also had to ask Gerda not to post to my talk page any more. – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ssilvers
I also oppose any relaxation of the restrictions for all the reasons mentioned by SchroCat. One can see from Gerda's statement above that she is actually proud of her role in forcing infoboxes into articles where (I would argue) they do not provide any value. I think Gerda is a nice person, but this infobox zealotry, as Tim riley calls it, is destructive to the project by sucking away the time of other editors that they would prefer to spend creating content and by increasing the stress level of every discussion on the subject without actually adding any useful analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
Francis Schonken gets it right (also agree with Tim Riley, Ssilvers and possibly for the first time ever, SchroCat). In fact, rather than relaxing any restriction, I for one would be a much happier editor if Gerda were restricted from using the thank button or the ping button or having anything to do with the ongoing "metadata" issues, so my watchlist could be uncluttered by her frequent and irritating "observations". Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really feel empathy here for, one of our finest writers ... it is time we recognized the damage to content creation caused by the metadata fan(atic)s, and the ongoing underlying conflict that has been furthered by ... and enabled ... and allowed to be furthered by ... such a small group of adherents. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
My initial outlook is similar to those above. Heck no. However, this is difficult because Gerda is otherwise a lovely person (at least in general on wikipedia) and it saddens me that an editor like Gerda should ever have to have sanctions imposed upon her though. My main concern isn't in general with her, she's not going about forcing infoboxes on every article and that's like that's all she does. It is actually a small percentage of what she does, even if enthusiastic. In fact in recent weeks I don't think I've seen her mention infoboxes. Even in the most difficult of situations, she's never aggressive, sarcastic, yes, but never aggressive. It's as Ssilvers says about the time wasting and stress that occurs from the discussions involving Gerda/Mabbett and Schro/Cass/Tim/myself etc when an article an infobox might be removed from an article during the FA promotion. I really think it needs to be avoided and a solution provided. I'm sure Mabbett thinks of me as an enemy now, but otherwise I've long supported the work he does on reducing the redundancy in infoboxes and simplification. I just simply disagree that an article must have an infobox for the sake of it and his approach to it. I'd support the removal of the restrictions if Gerda could agree to respect the decision of editors surrounding an infobox once a featured article is promoted, and to avoid adding infoboxes or being involved in disputes or stirring on related talk pages with any of the editors above. In general, she should be allowed to add infoboxes to her music articles or whatever she is doing, but should be advised to stay away from those time consuming long disputes. I'd support a trial run without restrictions if she can avoid being involved with infobox disputes with the group of editors I mentioned, and to delete that list she keeps of articles to be "targeted" with infoboxes as it's a potential area for conflict. If she can't agree to respect the decision of editors who put in the massive amount of work needed to promote articles then I oppose, but I'm always open to the possibility of somebody changing and always want to think the best about somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda, Yes I know the list was originally drawn up for the arb case, but you have been updating it. It does look to me like you're keeping tabs on what needs an infobox added, even if that's genuinely not the main purpose of the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Yes, that's the main reason I've been outspoken against infobox enforcement on here. I believe when promoting an article to FA that editors should decide on infobox or no infobox before being promoted and that view respected at a later date. If they put in that great effort needed to promote an article they should have the say on the infobox matter I believe. And it's not as if we oppose infoboxes everywhere, I encourage them in things like settlement articles, with a pin map, but in arts biographies I believe I share the same view with yourself and others that their use is very limited if not redundant. I believe arb should pass something banning the protest of them on TFA today and in general once an article is promoted, at least for a year of two anyway. When it's reached a point that several editors are put off actually contributing an FA or oppose even the showing of their great efforts on the main page on TFA day then it's clear that it's gone too far. With Gerda though, I don't see a general drive by her to frantically add infoboxes to every article under the sun, it tends to be music/arts featured articles, and those contributed by Tim, Brian, Cass, Schro and myself I see her speak out more on. I think that needs to be acknowledged here, and a solution to deal with that which is the heart of the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brianboulton
In 2011 Gerda was a co-nominator, with me and Tim riley, in the successful FAC nomination of Messiah. It was a great collaboration, based on mutual respect and with never a moment's controvery over infoboxes. Her disruptive obsession with these boxes developed later, and led to these restriction being put in place. She was at the time, I believe, treated more leniently than her co-offenders, because of the excellent work she had otherwise done for the encyclopaedia, and I thought this consideration might temper her future behaviour. Unfortunately I was wrong. I hate to say it, but she is the main reason why I  no longer write opera or music articles for Wikipedia, and why I oppose the appearance of my music FAC noms at TFA – I just can't deal with the likely hassle. Until she shows some practical recognition that her actions have hurt people, the restrictions should remain or be tightened. Relaxing them now would in my view be giving her licence to create more trouble. I am deeply sorry to have to write this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
It's time for the restrictions to go. Gerda has shown a clear ability to work within them and in fact has often commented that some of them she has found to be useful (1RR, for example). That said, it is still time to lift the restrictions. One reason is that editors under restrictions are often subject to a game of "gotcha" by other editors and thus these restrictions get to the point where they generate more heat than light. Another reason is that - to those who somehow worry about Gerda - it's clear that she's managed to work within them and has expressed willingness to avoid the circumstances that gave rise to the situation in the first place. Third, In the real world, people get off "probation" automatically within a set time, only on wiki is it an apparent life sentence unless one begs forgiveness. I think it's time to drop the stick, drop the restrictions and see how things go. Frankly, I think Gerda has gone above and beyond. So I support Gerda's request. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, what strikes me here is the incivility of Gerda's "opponents" in response to her sincere statements that she "gets it' about who and what to avoid. If there ever was a case for "you get your restrictions lifted when you understand the issue," this is it. Gerda gets it! Probation and parole is ended, Gerda has paid her debt to the wiki, now let it go.  God knows that  and some of the others here will be lying in wait to say "GOTCHA!" if she is not being honest.  The vitriol here needs to end and I do wonder if the members of arbcom are reading some of the baiting and bad faith commentary that's here.  AGF, for heaven's sake!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I find 's approach to this request problematic. No evidence has been brought forward illustrating any behaviour by Gerda since the infobox case closed on 11 September 2013 that a disinterested viewer would find fault with. There are no diffs of behaviour that would cause concern anywhere above. Unless of course you find Francis Shonken's desperate attempt to discredit her by pointing to her "support infobox" comment anything more than a smear. Just look at the comments preceding Gerda's there: "Support Infobox"; "Oppose infobox"; "Support Infobox" - why shouldn't Gerda express her opinion in that debate the same as anyone else? In fact there were another 12 editors who wrote "Support" or "Oppose" as they made their contributions to that debate. How can Schonken seriously criticise Gerda's comment there? Does he think the Arbs don't follow diffs, because anybody who does can see that Gerda has behaved perfectly reasonably on that page.

So with no evidence of problems, AGK decides to require Gerda to prove a negative by asking her to supply evidence that she has "reformed". Reformed from what? The only finding of fact in the case was So Anthony: You need to understand that restrictions designed to calm down a situation in 2013 are now well past their sell-by date. I'm not interested in your concept of "re-litigation"; I'm only interested in seeing restrictions that no longer serve any purpose lifted from an editor whose value to the encyclopedia is beyond doubt. I just hope the other arbitrators will actually read the prior case, look at the evidence presented and not be fooled by unsubstantiated attacks. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion, including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial." (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes)
 * Has Gerda added any more infoboxes sytematically? No.
 * Has she added them without prior discussion? No.
 * Has she added them to articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial? No
 * I'm pleased that you're looking for ways forward and I would encourage other Arbs to consider your suggestion. The finding of fact in the original decision was wholly concerned with Gerda adding infoboxes, perhaps too enthusiastically. If Gerda were on some form of parole (hardened criminal that she is!), I wonder if we could persuade an uninvolved administrator to act as a sounding-board for her: so that if she were to be in any doubt, she could ask them if they thought an addition might be considered controversial, or whether prior talk page discussion would be better - or even when not raising the issue at all would be the best option. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that you're looking for ways forward and I would encourage other Arbs to consider your suggestion. The finding of fact in the original decision was wholly concerned with Gerda adding infoboxes, perhaps too enthusiastically. If Gerda were on some form of parole (hardened criminal that she is!), I wonder if we could persuade an uninvolved administrator to act as a sounding-board for her: so that if she were to be in any doubt, she could ask them if they thought an addition might be considered controversial, or whether prior talk page discussion would be better - or even when not raising the issue at all would be the best option. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PumpkinSky
Really AGK? Are you serious? Per Rexx. Not only is Gerda one of the nicest most helpful editors ever, but you let the real problem child off in the original case--NikkiMaria. Get a dose of reality and lift these appalling sanctions. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
First I do have to acknowledge Thryduulf. True integrity can be hard to come by, and it should be revered.
 * OK - way back when I requested that Arbcom look at the iBox issues - what followed was, to say the least, laughable. Not only were ALL the sanctions handed out to only one side - but in Gerda's case ... without ANY prior notification.  Not only had she never been blocked - but she had never even been warned!!  I do understand that I/we did not provide "evidence" against the oh so holy "anti-box" group; but rather the "pro" group simply defended their actions.  Well - there's no use crying over spilled milk I suppose.  So here we are a couple years later.  Things seem to be working out on an article to article basis .. and Gerda asks for some common sense.  Low and behold - read the above from the "anti" group.  I read somewhere that someone actually  found fault because Gerda used the "Thank" function ... REALLY??? Just wow.  What a sad and pathetic life some people must lead.
 * Oh well - I figured since I was the one that brought the original case, I should make some sort of statement. You Arbs do whatever it is you do - I honestly don't give a fuck.  Pardon my french, but I can read above and below - and it's pretty easy to see where the good folks are .. and where the mean, nasty, vindictive, petty, self-righteous, arrogant, ... (ok, I'll stop) folks are.  Have fun - look in the mirror - whatever. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * addendum: It absolutely amazes me when the so called "upper echelon" of Wikipedia outright enable the cruel and suppressive behavior that we bear witness to above.  But hey, as Kermit the Frog would say: "That's none of my business"  — Ched :  ?  04:19, 23 May 2015 (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 case request or provide additional information.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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



Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * recuse. I am not neutral with regards the infoboxes topic and was heavily involved in this case before I was an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * apologies if I'm not reading this right, but the core request is to drop restrictions on you adding Infoboxes? Agree the current restriction encourages ownership by elevating article creators over other people. Noted that you agree not to add an Infobox where it is not wanted, presumably by a consensus of other editors in the relevant page. But not sure why you need the restriction lifted - if a consensus of other editors wants an infobox in an article, can't they simply add it themselves? Let me know if I've missed a key point, happy to consider further either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Support lifting the restriction on Infobox addition, on the basis outlined above - that Infoboxes will not be added to any article where a consensus of editors opposes that addition. I note in passing that consensus for or against Infoboxes might exist or be established for an individual article or a group of them, presumably via WikiProject discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ARBPOL appropriately provides for recusal under certain conditions, none of which apply in this instance. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm unsympathetic to the arguments that the restrictions are convoluted or unusual, and should therefore go. We generally don't allow re-litigation of the proposed decision. Consequently, the only argument I'd find compelling would be one demonstrating that the restrictions are no longer necessary to the smooth running of the project. I would therefore like to hear from Gerda as to how precisely their behaviour has reformed since the restrictions were imposed. AGK  [•] 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline based on the response submitted by Gerda. AGK  [•] 08:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am fairly neutral on this issue -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is time for these to go, perhaps under a parole system for a quarter. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I could support some sort of parole system, but wouldn't be fully comfortable lifting the restrictions without one. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Infoboxes)
Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed, given the idea of a parole period seems to have some support, and trying to incorporate what I think is the sense of Euryalus' comment. This has been sitting here too long.  Tinker as desired.  Courcelles (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A little more restrictive than I might have preferred, but I can get behind this as an interim measure to help Gerda back to regular editing. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Yunshui. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Doug Weller 11:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda has show positive change since the case, though I do think that this less restrictive parole is needed to ease them back into the editing area. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Amendment request: Infoboxes (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review


 * 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''


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review
 * Suspend all remedies concerning Andy (Pigsonthewing), original and after review, as no longer needed to prevent "disruption".

Statement by Gerda Arendt
Today is Bach's birthday. Three years ago I suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, as some may still remember. I believe that the personal restrictions and remedies for Andy (Pigsonthewing) don't serve a purpose. He has not commented in any recent infobox discussion (and there have not been many). The suspension could happen immediately or on parole.

We remember with thanks Viva-Verdi, who added infoboxes to all operas by Giuseppe Verdi - one of the areas of conflict in the 2013 infoboxes case -, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion style: I met Andy in the discussion about Samuel Barber. I was on the other side back in 2012, but liked his style, with a grain of humour ("Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person..."). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When I voted, I chose candidates who I thought would make arbitration simpler. I thank the committee for not accepting any full case in 2016, but finding other solutions. It wasn't Andy who wants the sanctions lifted, - he may have forgotten about them. I think they serve no purpose, and will try to explain in a simple example. Andy created an article on a classical composer which is now a featured article. I conclude that there is no infobox conflict. If there is no conflict, we - the members of the community - don't need to keep one person restricted. Can we keep this simple, for a change? I like the approach of DGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to Francis: As not every arbitrator checks background and history of a discussion, a few diffs. When Pierre Boulez died, I added a short infobox holding what was so far hidden as Persondata but is deprecated, after the model of Beethoven where it . I call such a short thing because the term infobox is so hated, - Brianboulton called it  when he added one to a FA in 2013. It was expanded by Giantsnowman. It was reverted by Jerome Kohl. I went to the talk page, header: . - Back to our context: none of it is relevant to this clarification, because Andy appeared in none of these discussions, as I said in the opening. - Imagine for a moment that the little box had stayed in place, without any following discussion: too good to be true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 please present that reason: kindly give one example of an edit by Andy in an infobox discussion of the past three years that would have warranted "ban ... from further participation in that discussion". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yesterday was Busoni's 150th birthday. A discussion (partly marked ) relevant to our topic is here, related to the research section in the 1 April Signpost, "... how readers read articles", which I think should be recommended if not even required reading for all us editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Repeating: would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 kindly present one example from the last three years where they found Andy "disruptive" enough to justify a ban from a discussion? Hoping for input especially from Opabinia regalis, Callannecc, kelapstick, Courcelles, Drmies, Guerillero, Gamaliel. In my unlimited belief in good faith, I trust that we editors could tell Andy when we find him "disruptive" without admin help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reworded: would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 or can't decide kindly present one example from the last three years in an infobox-yes-or-no discussion (not "religion in infoboxes" which was not the scope of the case, nor other discussions) where they found Andy "disruptive" enough to justify a ban from a discussion? Hoping for input from Courcelles, Guerillero, Callannecc, Salvio guiliano and DeltaQuad. Perhaps start looking at Bach. (We lost GFHandel over that discussion, whose is sadly missed since 23 March 2013, for example :"Perhaps it's the enlightened part of the world in which I live, but I find (what amounts to) an argument that new editors (and especially women) are less likely to be able to scroll past a well-structured listing of infobox parameter=value pairs (all in clear English) to be, frankly demeaning.") - In my unlimited belief in good faith, I trust that we editors could tell Andy when we find him "disruptive" without admin help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After you looked at the 2013 Bach discussion (did you see battleground?), you can compare 2016 Peter Maxwell Davies, - you may have seen him pictured on the Main page. I see respectful discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Pigsonthewing

 * Since you ask: it would beggar belief for anyone to suggest I would want, or would ever have wanted, otherwise. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "the answer may be "I want them removed entirely"; my comment, above, applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Andy can be maddeningly persistent on the tiniest of things, but this restriction has outlived its usefulness. His work as Wikipedia-In-Residence makes tiptoeing round the infobox issue an obvious problem. I'd support replacement with some kind of restriction that allows him to add and edit infoboxes, but not to argue about them. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Collect's point I think addresses the core problem here, pace Rschen. Jbhunley also nails it. Andy has boundless energy, a remarkable commitment to the project, and exhibits good humour and good faith. He is, in short, a thoroughly decent bloke as well as being a prolific editor and ambassador for the project. However, he gets bees in his bonnet, as I think he would probably acknowledge. That's the source of all the problems. Most of what he does is uncontroversial and good, the problems occur only when something he sees as obvious - almost always in metadata curation, not content - is disputed or questioned by others. A restriction on argument will solve the problem, a restriction on any addition or discussion of infoboxen is more than is required given that in most cases proposals for or addition of infoboxes are simply not controversial. Most people actually don't care overmuch one way or the other. Obviously a targeted rampage of infobox additions would be a problem, but if Andy is editing an article - an eventuality that is always, IMO, a good thing for the project, given his attention to sources - I really don't see why adding an infobox would be an intolerable act. And if it's reverted then fine, he needs to walk away, and we can watch and help make sure he does that. Obviously if any of his long-term adversaries were to stalk him reverting additions then we'd pick that up as well. He has friends who will give him counsel, I really do think we should reduce the restrictions For Great Justice. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Sanctions should have an expiry date. I haven't seen anything that indicates Andy cannot operate without sanctions. Lifting the sanctions then, is a next logical step. As well, we cannot conflate an editing/discussion style with sanctionable behavior. One is a emotional response to something we don't like; while a sanction is specifically a perceived transgression of our policies and guidelines. They are very different and should be dealt with as such. If we started sanctioning editors because  we don't like their discussion style, we could become very short of editors in a hurry. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

With respect to the arbs who have a difficult job in these arbitrations. I think it is very clear what Andy will do in a hot topic area. We've had a year to see how he behaves, and once again there are no diffs or behaviours that indicate he will not behave in an appropriate way. I am a little disturbed by these statements, "The fact that some editors so vocally object to the idea of this basic step is a big red flag to me, and it makes me wonder why editors do not want him to do it" and "when someone won't speak on their own behalf, and all their friends are really really angry at you for wanting to speak to him about it, that is a clear indication that something may be wrong with the situation"

Andy spoke in his own way. He is an editor of few words. Most of all, arbs are meant to be neutral and should not be dividing the speakers here as friends or foe of anyone. This is an assumption and is divisive in an arbitration. Further, some editors may be angry, but again that is assumptive and further should have nothing to do with the outcomes here. It is wholly unfair to Andy to suggest that the actions of those commenting here points to something else beyond this arbitration, in reference to Andy's behaviour, as if there is some mysterious hidden agenda. Please keep this simple and look at either the behaviour or the diffs of behaviour. If there are no transgressions how in the world can sanctions not be lifted. WP is not punitive. Arbs are mediators and should be, in my mind, looking for ways to maintain productivity in WP's editors, and thank heaven, this is not AN and should not resemble AN in any way. Please keep this simple and so fair. Again, with all respect, but felt I should speak to these issues.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Montanabw
Time for these restrictions to go; they should expire, and the reality is that we have an editor who has extensive experience and knowledge being subjected to a set of rules suitable for 5 year olds. I favor the proposal. Montanabw (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
Given this discussion on Wikidata, where Pigsonthewing had his property creation rights revoked a few days ago, I do not see a good reason why the sanctions should be lifted, specifically the one about disrupting discussions. --Rschen7754 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
If I had to pick a specific problem with Andy Mabbett, it would be that he doesn't do a great job of explaining himself, particularly when he thinks he's right. But that's hardly crime of the century, is it? Drop his restriction back to parole, infoboxes are not the product of Satan's rear end and do serve a legitimate purpose in the right context. Then again, I find WikiData as exciting as watching grass grow, so don't take my view as gospel or anything. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley
Based on their need to respond to nearly every comment which is counter to their view in this VPP discussion about the   infobox parameter I can see how they could rapidly become disruptive in an infobox discussion. Because of that remedy 4.3.2 should stay in place. Remedy 4.3.1, the wholesale inability to add infoboxes, should be relaxed or removed but 4.3.2 is needed to rapidly curtail disruption which may occur as a result. J bh Talk  14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The terse statement from Andy seems more than sufficient to accept that he would like restrictions in this area lifted. I have no idea what could be more "substantive" than his clear statement, alas. I suggest he is cognizant of the desirability of avoiding confrontations regarding actual existence of infoboxen (Wagnerian declension of the word), but all ArbCom needs do is by motion state "the restrictions are lifted, but all involved shall be cognizant and edit regarding infoboxes in accord with such cognizance." Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re infoboxes)
The arbitration committee's handling of the infoboxes saga has to date been a case study in how not to resolve a dispute. The problem is not and has never been infoboxes themselves, it has been the behaviour of those with a grudge against them and the behaviour of a few supporters in reaction to that. The way forward at this point is to remove all restrictions on Andy's creating and editing infoboxes - they have long passed any usefulness they ever had. If you feel the need for a staged withdrawal of restrictions, then a 0 or 1 revert limit for infoboxes would be fine by me.

Others have mentioned his more general behaviour here and on Wikidata (note: I am a participant in the ongoing dispute there). I would suggest that the best way forward with this would be to craft a parole-type restriction that applies only to Andy's contribution to discussions and apply that across the project, replacing all the other existing restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the point of a statement is so that the person concerned can indicate that they do want the clarification or amendment proposed, and give any further information or points of view they feel relevant. Andy has made it perfectly clear that he does want the clarification and that he doesn't feel the need to say more than others have already said. I know how much arbitrators have to read, and you should be encouraging such brevity!
 * Most importantly though, you should not be basing support or opposition on the basis of something that is factually incorrect - it just brings arbcom into disrepute and casts doubt on whether you have actually read the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * please could your opposition - I see nothing in the evidence that indicates why the restrictions are still necessary, but without knowing what you are seeing it is impossible for Andy or anyone else to know what behaviour is required to have the restrictions removed at some future time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Please bear with me on a few points: Despite the commendable optimism by others in this section, I'd still rather try to find ways the OP would be less enabled to discuss infobox matters ad infinitum. Andy's discussion style is clear from their comments above: Andy doesn't discuss, they just posit "The Truth". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers (8 February 2016 – 13 March 2016, thus far):
 * I found this discussion quite disheartening, at least exhausting, especially near the end. A problem seems to be that for some editors it appears difficult to accept or understand that if particular single-editor-oriented remedies of the infoboxes ArbCom case are lifted that the general ones, like "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" remain in effect, whatever side you're on. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that respect is particularly persistent, so I'm a bit concerned the ArbCom may give a wrong signal here. The OP's formulation here: "Suspend all remedies concerning Andy..." (emphasis added) kind of confirms that fear... Literally, what the OP is asking is that Andy would be the only Wikipedia editor not subject to the general remedies of the infobox ArbCom case, unless the OP is already implying that those general remedies are not applicable to Andy. Clearly the OP thinks that if there are particular single-editor-oriented remedies in an ArbCom case, that the editors thus named need not concern themselves with the general remedies, applicable to all editors. That's what the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers discussion was about for a large part.
 * One contributor to the discussion implied infoboxes are "being voted down" more often lately (diff 1). I wouldn't know, I don't follow these issues that close. Seems like this amendment request might serve in getting more weight in discussions on individual infoboxes. I don't want to say that is a good thing or a bad thing: maybe some balance needs to be restored. The point is: we'll have plenty more editor time going to discussions about infoboxes, instead of using that time to write an encyclopedia.
 * Frivolously bringing up infoboxes in other discussions:
 * Diff 2, getting a clear reply infoboxes are unrelated to the issue being discussed: diff 3
 * Still not letting infoboxes go in another discussion on the same aspect of the same article.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (infoboxes)

 * 1) There is probably little value in perpetuating these remedies.
 * 2) Lifting them, or some of them, without any input from the sanctioned party is a Good Thing.  If they are no longer needed (or indeed were never needed) they should go.  The sanctioned party can rarely change anyone's mind over this (Mandy Rice Davies applies), if third parties present a compelling case that should be sufficient.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Statement by SMcCandlish
I argue aplenty with Andy (not always :-) yet entirely support the dropping of this sanction. It's purely punitive at this point. I agree with the above assessments by others that previous ArbComs approached the entire infoboxes situation wrongheadedly. This is an opportunity to undo some of the resulting mess. I also agree that unusual bans of this sort should have reasonable time limits by default.

Statement by Mrjulesd
Well I have to agree with numerous statements of support, these restrictions appear to no longer serve any useful purpose. A year is far long enough a time for hot heads to cool and for personal reflection. These infobox wars are unfortunate, but when it comes down to it they are merely content disputes, and less deserving of ArbCom's attention. And there has never been anything other than good faith assumed with Pigsonthewing's actions in these matters. Also Pigsonthewing's considerable contributions to the project should also be considered. Although I have not partaken in these, I really feel that trouts for misguided editors who unilaterally remove long standing infoboxes, in the face of disagreement, is more appropriate than long standing restrictions. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
I really wish arbs would engage in facts. Support or oppose, to say "Due to the absence of a statement." is utter nonsense. It is obvious that Andy made a statement. It is also obvious (to anyone competent in the English language) that he does not want these restrictions. Say "he hasn't bowed down enough and shown proper contrition to 'teh authoratah', say nothing at all, hell - say "I just don't like the guy"; but engaging in outright lies sheds poor light on the entire group. Perhaps WP:CIR isn't a requirement for Arbcom, but it should be. — Ched :  ?  22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * noting for the record: this was the actual state of the page when I made my comments above. As some items have been removed/rewritten without notice of the rewrite, I thought that rather than the standard "strike-through", I prefer to add a note.  I won't bother debating the merits of the word "substantial".  As to the integrity and ethics on display, that is for others to determine. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for that. At this point I would say that if you have a concern about something you feel has not been clarified, perhaps asking straightforward questions might help in finding the answers you seek.  Provide a link (or links) to something you feel that illustrates a shortcoming that Andy has displayed which the restriction curtails.  Then ask Andy directly if he maintains that his actions are justified and if he intends to continue said behavior.  My understanding is that we're all adults here; so I see no need for an "educational" finger wagging and fishing for "what. did. you. do.?" style of discussion. Especially if you feel that the original case was proper in its results. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
"Due to the absence of a statement." - there is not just one statement by Andy, but two. The meaning is crystal-clear, so what more do you want? Requiring some sort of ritual abasement is beneath the dignity of the ArbCom (or so I thought). Andy has not breached the sanctions since their implementation; they served no good purpose then and still don't. I've advised him multiple times privately to step away from disputes – and to his credit he has always done so. I'll advise him publicly now not to respond further to this sort of baiting. --RexxS (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . No, you're quite wrong. As someone who's spent a lifetime in education, I can assure you that the major indicators of future behaviour are past and current behaviour. Andy is a trusted advocate for Wikipedia and its sister projects. He is currently Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID and at TED, and an editor with over 160,000 contributions over 12 years, not some drive-by vandal. His contribution history for the last couple of years is easy to find for anybody who wants to see how he's been behaving - and the answer is overwhelmingly and uncontroversially creating content, not wasting time at these drama boards. Frankly, if you think extracting meaningless promises from people is preferable to examining someone's actual behaviour, you need to get out of the dispute resolution business.
 * You think Andy should: (1) Admit he knows what they did was wrong and why; and (2) pledge not to do it again in future. So you tell us all just what Andy did wrong and show us some diffs of that. Write down just what he should be saying, and prove that you have understood what the infobox case was about if you're going to have the nerve to pontificate. For ArbCom to take sides in a content dispute was a travesty of fairness and digging in their heels now, when they could simply let it go without loss of face, isn't going to rectify that. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Andy's record on Wikipedia is no guarantee of "what will happen in a hot button topic area when those specific restrictions are lifted". But unfortunately, a statement, no matter how "substantial" it may be, is even less of an indication. At least an examination of Andy's record gives you some idea. I assure you that I'm fully aware of his intentions: to do his best to improve this encyclopedia that we're all so dedicated to. The truth is, of course, that Andy has an infuriating habit of replying almost cryptically at times, and that leads to extended debates whenever he comes up against another editor who feels they really, really have to take him to task over it. I could give you a list of those editors if you wanted. Just take a look at the debate Courcelles refers to for a classic case. The thing is that we ought not to sanction editors just because they annoy us. It's abusive, and admins - let alone ArbCom - need to understand when a sanction is being applied punitively. The purpose of the original sanctions was, allegedly, to cut the Gordian knot of disputes between two camps by removing one camp from the arena, and I could live with that. If it's now being touted as a mechanism to prevent some vague threat of general disruption in future, then I think I'm entitled to ask when that change was made, and who agreed to it. I also would observe that attempting to treat adults as if they were children by demanding contrition or guarantees of future conduct has a very poor track record on Wikipedia. It's time to drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
RexxS (and others), when a sanction is lifted (rather than expired) it almost always requires a statement consisting of 1. Admission the subject knows what they did was wrong and why, 2. A pledge not to do it again in future. This isnt some arcane/obscure arbcom requirement, this is basic standard practice at AN for community-imposed sanctions as well. So far Andy's 'statement' above consists of 'I would like the restrictions lifted'. Well quite. I am pretty sure he would. Which wouldnt be sufficient *anywhere* to get a sanction for behaviour lifted. So Gamaliel's objection is quite reasonable. People have had restriction appeals denied at AN for not agreeing with the orginal sanction, even if they agreed not to do the same actions again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this I expect it is because they dont think the restrictions were warranted in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Izkala
I see that two arbitrators have so far not given us a reason for opposing. Do these two arbitrators need to have the concept of accountability explained to them? Please let me know; I'll be happy to oblige. Izkala (talk) 13:02, 17 April 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.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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


 * Clerk note: The clerks have been instructed not to enact motion 1 until motion 2 is either passing or failing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would generally encourage these kinds of requests be filed by the person affected by the remedy, but in lieu of that, I'll at least wait to opine until Pigsonthewing leaves a statement here indicating he would actually like these remedies lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in cases like this it's appropriate to ensure that the person affected by the remedy actually wants the sanctions to be lifted. Now that we've done so, I think that's sufficient—there are no minimum length requirements for statements, and I personally find an editor's recent behavior to be a better predictor of their future behavior than whether or not they include enough platitudes in an ARCA request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline absent a substantive statement from the editor in question. Personally, I won't take any step involving the bizarrely apoplectic infobox wars without being extremely thorough.  While I am impressed by the statements of support by numerous other editors, I think a statement from the editor himself is required before we can consider any modification, however minor or appropriate it may or may not be.  Strike my vote if a statement is posted.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled that in only a few hours I've already received two objections to the idea that someone seeking having their sanctions removed should make a substantive statement about why they should be lifted and what they would do following their removal. This is standard procedure.  Requests and appeals accompanied without such statements are routinely rejected by the community and the Committee.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire for anyone to engage in "ritual abasement". No apology is needed, no remorse need be shown. Just something that says "this is what I'm going to do." A statement can be made privately, and it should be part of our due diligence as it's a major way of gauging the future behavior of an editor. The fact that some editors so vocally object to the idea of this basic step is a big red flag to me, and it makes me wonder why editors do not want him to do it. Gamaliel ( talk ) 12:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect I'll be in the minority on this one, but I'd be willing to revise these. We do, however, need some further input from ; what would be useful is a clear statement of how, specifically, he would like to see the restrictions modified - the answer may be "I want them removed entirely", but let's try to find something that might actually get consensus in favor. From the comments above it sounds like we could consider modifying remedy 1.1 to allow adding an infobox but restrict reverting if it is removed, or to allow adding an infobox when it arises specifically in the course of WiR/outreach activities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I may have underestimated you guys ;) Isn't there something about forgiving past sins going on today? I agree with Kelapstick on 1 and 3; I think we should hear from Andy before deciding on 2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentatively support The simplest thing would just be a trial, making it clear that the sanction will be reimposed if problems resume. I would have been willing to consider this whether or not the individual sanctioned  had asked for it; there are     imaginable situations where a person might not want their sanctions changed or even brought up again for discussion, but the actual request here does not seem to fall in that category.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to consider revising the restriction (whether Opabinia's suggestion or suspending it for a while), however before doing that I'd like some further input from about what where he sees this going (removing it entirely doesn't look like it'll get consensus) and that he is cognisant of the past issues and how he intends to avoid them (which may be where a compromise restriction comes from). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd likely support something along the lines of removing review remedy 1.1 (plus 3 as it'll be moot) and keeping 2.1, but adding a restriction (possibly suspended) which prohibits Andy from re-adding an infobox to an article if one has been removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with removing 1.1 and 3. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 1.1 can go (which renders 3 meaningless, of course), but that remedy 2.1 should stay. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not formally voting on this, but it seems to me that 2.1 is just what any admin can do anyway.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For now, I'm with Courcelles--1.1 and 3 can go, 2.1 cannot, not yet. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , during the religion parameter discussion(s) there was plenty of heated stuff from many sides. But I don't think I have to cite a punishment handed out for violating 2.1 to prove it should remain; rather, that there have been no infractions serious enough to warrant a punishment may well be an indication that it works. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Andy has an admirable record on Wikipedia. So do many people who have come before the committee.  That admirable record does not necessarily indicate what will happen in a hot button topic area when those specific restrictions are lifted.  As someone who's spent (an admittedly shorter) lifetime in education, when someone won't speak on their own behalf, and all their friends are really really angry at you for wanting to speak to him about it, that is a clear indication that something may be wrong with the situation.  I'd like to hear from Andy.   If he doesn't want to comment here for whatever reason, I'd like to know why without the filters of other editors who may or may not be aware of Andy's motivations.  We can chat privately without a formal statement.   He can say "I think these restrictions are bollocks and so are you" and I won't hold that against him.   The idea that some sort of ritual is needed is, frankly, bollocks.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have replaced my original comment with a strikethough. I did not do so initially because I thought my clarification was uncontroversial and did not represent any change in position, as it was consistent with what I've been saying throughout this discussion. I added the strikethrough following your suggestion in the interests of complete transparency and to avoid any possibility of insinuation by those editors who do not want to assume good faith. I'm sure we both have similar sentiments about how important both values are to Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk ) 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Infoboxes 1


In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Me too. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) kelapstick(bainuu) 20:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) While I am hesitant to support this in the absence of a substantial statement and the precedent that creates, I'm going to support anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) By email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Due to the absence of a statement.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)  Later clarification of "substantial" added before the word "statement" to describe what has consistently been my position throughout this discussion: As I wrote elsewhere in March: "The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step."   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)  Stricken by email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Keilana (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Recused:
 * 1)  DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Infoboxes 2


With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. Including this as a separate motion at the request of other arbs. I was initially hesitant about this one, because (sorry Andy, but it's true) I had a discussion or two in mind where I found his contributions abrasive. But that's not really a fair judgment: no one at the time, including me, felt that actually using the provision of remedy 2 was necessary; it wasn't at the point where there was actual disruption. In fact, no one has felt so inspired for over a year, as evidenced by the empty enforcement log for the infoboxes review. I was able to find only one instance where it was used, documented here; in that case the admin who imposed the restriction quickly retracted it after consensus held that it was not an appropriate use. Although I've been around at TfD less lately, working as an admin there for quite a while last year gave me plenty of exposure to Andy's discussion style; "brusque" might be accurate, but disruptive to the point of requiring special enforcement provisions, not in my experience. If over a year without crossing the line defined by this remedy isn't good enough to get rid of it, he might well wonder what would be. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) While I maintain that an absence of sanctions is not at all evidence that they were not needed to begin with, I consider myself swayed by Opaginia regalis and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) While I do believe there is a degree of merit to retaining this, as DGG says above, this can by and large be done by any administrator anyway, without requiring a formal remedy. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) If the remedy isn't being used, then there's little value to keeping it in place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) By email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Marginally but essentially per Kelapstick Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Due to the absence of a statement.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)   Later clarification of "substantial" added before the word "statement" to describe what has consistently been my position throughout this discussion: As I wrote elsewhere in March: "The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step."   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)  Stricken by email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I've seen at least a couple times this should have been invoked (the recent discussion about removing the religion parameter from an infobox comes to mind), so I'm not only against removing this, but would encourage greater use of it. Courcelles (talk)
 * 2) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Courcelles here, I'm not convinced that removing this restriction is an entirely positive outcome especially given the absence of discretionary sanctions and a statement from Andy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the point that any admin can do it. I disagree to an extent, while they can say that there's no policy basis for the threat, there have been (negative) discussions about admins doing it in the past, it requires the admin who said it to act on it (no policy basis means others aren't likely to), and it doesn't have the protection of an AE block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) I can't find myself on either side of this one, i'm split down the middle. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * can see both sides. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keilana (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Recused:
 * 1) DGG DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes (August 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by John Cline at 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Editorial process
 * 2) Consensus
 * 3) Use of infoboxes


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Editorial process
 * Without modification, clause one currently reads:"Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ..." The wording wrongfully implies that discussion is a required component of consensus building. Policy does not support such a notion where, at Consensus, normal editing is said io be the "usual" manner of consensus building across Wikipedia. It also says: "when editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus [my emphasis]." I request the wording of this clause be changed, so as not to circumvent policy, but to compliment it instead. Perhaps, for example:"Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is usually done through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary ..."


 * Consensus
 * Without modification, clause two currently reads:"Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. ..."Implications are again that consensus can not be achieved except through discussion. Consider the following example, where consensus through editing is also shown:"Wikipedia works by building consensus through normal editing and, at times, through the additional use of polite discussion. ..."


 * Use of infoboxes
 * In as much as clause three reflects WP:INFOBOXUSE, and currently reads, without modification:"... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."It should instead say"... is determined by the consensus among editors at each individual article through normal editing and, when agreement is not reached by editing alone, through discussion on associated talk pages as well."

Statement by John Cline
I recently participated in an RFC that relates to this case. It held that consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself. Although consensus through editing was clearly in place, upheld by longstanding assent, those dependent on the premise cited the Arbcom rulings from this case as grounds to stand fast; and do continue.

Failing to mention consensus through editing, in the clauses I've shown, is an oversight of consequence! It has given some editors a false empowerment of misinformation, and undermined its own charge of resolving the infobox dispute by instead, strengthening disagreement within already fractured ranks.

The modifications requested here are easy to do and self evidently more policy compliant. I do not see where reason could lie for wanting to exclude mention of our foremost manner of consensus building and hope the requested measures to amend can be realized by minimally intrusive means. Therefore, I have not named anyone "party" as nothing about it involves user conduct. I will, however, notify each of the editors involved in the RFC I mentioned, in case they are interested enough to opine. My thanks to the Committee for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Addendum
 * To correct the inclusion of an unintentional synthesis, the modification requested for clause three has been changed from saying "on the article's talk page" to instead say, "on associated talk pages". With good reason, WP:CONACHIEVE is deliberate in its choice of words and this request endeavors to remain faithful with policy regarding suggested modifications.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Point of Order
 * Please be considerate of the process and apportion your voice in succinct terms that focus on this Arbcom request. Intentionally withhold inclusions of superfluous excess and extraneous clutter. Currently, the overwhelming majority of expended effort has been spent on the latter while the request itself has seen barely a mention. Please be proactive in reversing this trend and consider redacting any out of scope commentary your statements may contain. Above all else, do comment on the specific elements of this request which are starving for your regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rebuttals
 * - I am fairly certain that I have not misunderstood policy, or spoken of it beyond the context of its intent. I did not commingle policy on consensus with policy on dispute resolution; just because discussion overlaps the two. The links I've provided are policy links on consensus building measures; I'll display them in long form for you here.


 * 1) Can consensus exist through editing alone, without discussion? Consensus says it can; "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
 * 2) Is discussion, in the context of this proposal, a dispute resolution measure or a continuation of consensus building? Consensus says: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." Consensus says: "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
 * 3) Have I ever said, in this request, or anywhere else, that a reverse application of "consensus through editing" could achieve consensus for not doing a thing simply because it had not sooner been done? No I have not! I have said consensus can exist without discussion, never that consensus can exist without editing.--John Cline (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bravo Collect - your entire statement is a shining example of collegial discourse; perhaps the finest hour discussion has seen. Your assessment of this request was thoughtful and thorough; your conclusions: prudent, kind, and correct.


 * In considering your statement, I realized I had forgotten to perform some important "before measures". For example: I hadn't considered the scope of the problem perceived. If I had, I might not have filed this request.


 * Aesthetics aside, you have shown this: a remedy with nothing to gain. I acquiesce to the reason in all you have said, substance and sentiment alike. And, to the extent possible, set aside the assertions I formerly made; enjoining your call for an expeditious close of this request.--John Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * – I am 100% confident in your good faith, and offer this rebuttal for clarification only. In a request where I hold no hope of attaining consensus, I feel these clarifications are sufficiently important enough; so as to follow:


 * You concluded that this request appeared to be about whether hidden text can be used to advise editors about infobox use on an article when the matter has never been discussed for that specific article does not entirely reflect what I had hoped to convey when authoring it. In light of the innuendo thrown freely about, I do understand how you could see it this way.


 * I have held my contempt for those of bad faith (the greatest minority of all editors on Wikipedia) to honor the greatest majority of editors, by far; whom I adore (those of selfless good will) by keeping the counsel on this page's edit notice, where it says: "any effort you make to reduce tensions is appreciated." It was not the simplest of things I have ever done.


 * Let me now, however, categorically refute every semblance of bad faith levied against my person, or any extension thereof (as in motives and intent); as I lament how effective the tactic itself has proven to be.


 * The reason I worded this request as: "consensus can not exist for a matter unless there had been a discussion on the matter itself." was not to hide my intent, but because two distinctly separate matters had risen to both become mooted; because: 1. no discussion could be shown, and 2. Arbcom said discussion is " the path to consensus".


 * That rationale could derail any topic that might benefit by measuring consensus. A foremost example is the establishment of a status quo; assumed as an article's default condition in cases where a discussion results in "no consensus" to change it as such. Rather than a best result through best editing practice, a safer course of denying a status quo was twice chosen, and I expect its being chosen again, and again, as long as these clauses remain; giving such arguments license and voice in Arbcom's name.


 * Please revisit the RFC that prompted this request, and notice its time-stamp when published, and the rather simple question asked: "Should the hidden html comment, be removed from this article?" Take notice that ample editing guidance is reproduced to follow which clearly shows the hidden comment to be in rather full noncompliance; indisputably so, in my opinion.


 * I considered this comment's inappropriateness in concert with several editing guidelines I remember having read which pertain to similar forms of content, said to be, "in need of removal"; even copyvios. I recall there always being a caveat with a similar message, in effect, saying: if the offending content can be removed by correcting the infractions opposed to full and judicious removal, that option should a least be considered.


 * From this understanding, I made my first edit to the RFC; 44 minutes after it was published, completely of good faith, hoping to help, believing I possibly could, and determining it worth a try. That edit read: "I think a third option, rewording the comment, should be available." In my opinion, as it was written, the RFC was heavenly weighted in favor of the OP's desirous outcome by allowing only one method for allowing said removal.


 * Ironically, it brought the discussion (which these clauses wrongly say must happen first) properly, by having first levied its disagreement; of which discussion, of course, should follow. This keeps the BRD cycle intact instead of following some kind of DBR cycle the clauses I'd hoped to amend endeavor to recommend (in rather strong fashion, I note) The RFC did not, however, allow for keeping the hidden comment, if, in fact, the correct preference was for keeping the hidden comment and removing the wrongful message by fixing it instead.


 * Talk about "engineering a situation". The very common practice of "removal by fixing" simply was not an option this RFC was willing to allow, its omission was not a simple oversight; but posturing instead, deliberate and of questionable faith; able to acomplish one thing alone, a dismantling of the status quo.


 * Gage this fact by the escalating levels of visceral that came in response to my question. Notice the flood of filibustering fodder that fell, almost immediately, in place, along with its distracting effect; to obfuscate the systematic molestation of years of hard work and "consensus building through editing", that this article had clearly achieved. The article more deservedly should have been held up for emulation; though a modicum of respected would have gone far and endeared many.


 * I am finding it more and more difficult to see any good faith in this RFC's framing at all, especially after enduring statements of outright fabrication cast against me. And platitudes of feigned inquisitiveness by repeating the same question, over and again, page after page; irrespective of its having been answered as many times before.


 * You close your regards by saying: (I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support, even in something as minor as a hidden text comment.) In contrast, I like a bible passage that paraphrases like this: if you can't be faithful in matters small, you certainly will not be faithful in matters large; aside the fact that this is not at all, a small matter!


 * I sincerely thank you and anyone else who labored to read this tl:dr reply; I will, however, wager that I enjoyed writing it much less!


 * By the way, I truly believe, as I did say, Collect resolved all elements of this request 13 days ago. Anyone who missed reading his statement should read it as soon as they are able, in my opinion at least.

Given with my esteem.--John Cline (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sfarney

 * Consensus in legal and common speech includes implicit consent, whereby the lack of objection implies consent. The statement requiring discussion is incorrect and should be changed. <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles with a full quorum of monitors are presumed to have a chorus of implicit consent to changes. <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote: I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. Please clarify.  Are you saying that no kinds of consensus can be established by silence?  Or that some kinds of consensus cannot be established by silence?  If the latter, I agree.  If the former, permit me to gesture to the process on the majority of scientific and technical articles, monitored by perhaps scores of people who quickly scan daily changes and nod silently (or mentally) to each change, silently consenting. To require explicit consent would be burdensome and counterproductive.  If the tools do not currently provide, I suggest a simple tool would scan the Encyclopedia and provide a list of pages that are monitored by less than a quorum of editors -- maybe 5 or some magic number.  Operation Stepchild.

Statement by RexxS
It is acknowledged that in certain small walled-gardens in Wikipedia, infoboxes are contentious, even though they are accepted as an expected element in most areas. WP:ARBINFOBOX arose because of the intractable disputes that occurred in those areas. The current guidance at WP:INFOBOXUSE and the consequent ArbCom findings reflect that contention over infoboxes. While it is perfectly reasonable to see consensus established by normal editing in the absence of prior consensus, it is also reasonable to expect that discussion should take place in order to change any existing consensus that has been explicitly established. In other words, you need a fresh debate to overturn the outcome of a previous debate. This is the same sort of expectation as at the hatnote you see at MOS pages: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

Nevertheless, this request is not about the means of establishing consensus through editing; it is an attempt to justify a claim of consensus through not editing, and the addition of hidden comments to articles to enforce that fallacious consensus.

We can all see value in having a hidden comment that says something like "Before adding an infobox, please consider the discussions at [LINK TO PRIOR DEBATE]". It gives a new editor notice that an existing consensus is in place on the article and directs them to the issues already discussed. Such a notice also complies with the guidance at Help:Hidden text.

However, this request goes much further than that. It has been the practice by the infobox-haters to mark their articles with a hidden comment along the lines of "please do not add an infobox: see WikiProject Classical music", breaching Help:Hidden text and WP:CONLOCAL. John Cline wants to engineer a situation where an editor can use a hidden comment to forbid others from adding an infobox, despite there being no previous discusion whatsoever. The infobox-haters want the ability to revert any addition of an infobox without giving reason other than the spurious claim that because the article doesn't have an infobox, there must be an implicit consensus that it shouldn't have one. That would be as nonsensical as saying "The article doesn't have an image, or it doesn't have a navbox, therefore there is an existing consensus against including those elements."

ArbCom should be supporting the right of uninvolved editors to make edits that do not breach policy; they should condemn the practice of a small group of editors of forbidding others to make particular edits without any prior debate; and they should make it clear to that small group that a complete absence of debate really is a complete absence of consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is ownership, not stewardship. The difference is explained at Ownership of content : "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." When an editor ("per WP:HIDDEN"), he should not be  with a pointer to WP:HIDDEN: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" implying that adding an infobox is a common mistake. That is discourteous and a clear example of an ownership mentality if the editor in question actually believes that. The relevant section of WP:HIDDEN guides against "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit." There is no existing policy against adding an infobox to an article - most emphatically when there has been no prior debate about the issue, as in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is ownership, not stewardship. The difference is explained at Ownership of content : "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." When an editor ("per WP:HIDDEN"), he should not be  with a pointer to WP:HIDDEN: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" implying that adding an infobox is a common mistake. That is discourteous and a clear example of an ownership mentality if the editor in question actually believes that. The relevant section of WP:HIDDEN guides against "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit." There is no existing policy against adding an infobox to an article - most emphatically when there has been no prior debate about the issue, as in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban
Without focusing on infoboxes specifically, I don't like the assumption that any kind of consensus can be established by inaction and silence. There are two possibilities: either, yes, most people editing the article are in agreement that we shouldn't have an X, or, most people editing the article haven't really thought about it, and might be perfectly fine with having an X. We can't know without discussing. --GRuban (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid silence is just that, we can't assume everyone who has an article on their watchlist agrees with every edit. It's more than likely they just didn't look. That is all that is needed to make an edit, that no one objects, but it is not enough to assume that anyone actually noticed. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

 * It would doubtless be instructive for ArbCom members to read the RFC discussion that prompted this proposal before considering these technically accurate, but possibly loaded, proposals. This might unfortunately get interpreted as "This hidden HTML comment has been on the page for years, so there is currently consensus for it".
 * Back in the ArbCom case, I encouraged the then-members to explicitly and directly address the question of hidden HTML comments in articles that directed editors of an article to respect the preferences of a small group of editors. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to do so.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes)
I was not involved in this situation, indeed I was unaware of it until seeing this request to arbcom, but having reviewed the RfC I have to endorse what RexxS says. Some members of the classical music project believes that infoboxes are an incredibly Bad Thing and should be kept as far away from "their" articles as possible, and some will argue tooth and nail to keep "their" articles without them. This WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour was permitted in the first Infoboxes case, over the objections of everyone who could foresee the problems it would bring, and no committee since has had the courage to admit that it was the wrong decision. This affair regarding hidden comments is an attempt to expand the reach of the OWNERSHIP by saying "you must get the permission of the Classical Music project to add an infobox here.", regardless of the wishes of the editors at the article or of any other relevant Wikiprojects. I recall at least one article where the author supported the addition of an infobox by someone else, and had to persuade the Classical Music project editors that their project was not the primary one for this article before consensus was even considered relevant. Alas I'm unable to find the article in question at the moment, but will provide a link when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a page, special:unwatchedpages, that lists pages with no and very few people watching it, although only administrators can see this (for hopefully obvious security reasons). Also, there is a link on the history page for an article that lists the number of people watching that page. For example Gustav Holst appears on 134 watchlists and 30 of the people who have it on their watchlist visited recent edits. Certainly this first number is not reported precisely to non-adminstrators below a certain threshold (I forget what the value is), again as a defence against spamming and malicious editing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I endorse user:SMcCandlish's suggestion of discretionary sanctions for the topic of infoboxes, explicitly including discussions about them generally and discussions about their inclusion or otherwise on a specific article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I endorse user:SMcCandlish's suggestion of discretionary sanctions for the topic of infoboxes, explicitly including discussions about them generally and discussions about their inclusion or otherwise on a specific article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I strongly support something like this, but explicitly focused on visible content edits (i.e., hidden HTML comments do not count, but a long-standing presence of an infobox does, and so does long-standing removal of one that was there before, but simple absence of one is meaningless – Wikipedians add content and features, not studiously avoid adding anything that was not already present, or WP would have no content at all). I also further request that discretionary sanctions be enabled for infobox-related discussions (per normal Template:Ds/alert, etc., process). WP:ARBINFOBOX has been utterly ineffective at curtailing "infobox warrior" behavior, and the civility levels have again fallen through the floor. The very locus of the original case, the classical music wikiproject, remains the topical source of most ibox-related disputation, and it proceeds as if ARBINFOBOX never happened. I was about to lodge a pair of WP:AE enforcement requests (not regarding any parties to the original ARBINFOBOX case), diffing a consistent pattern of aspersion-casting, personal attacks, and tendentious battlegrounding in a tagteam manner, but find that I apparently cannot, because DS doesn't apply to ARBINFOBOX yet, so there is seemingly no action for AE to take or basis for any action. I'm not sure there's any recourse at all other than the usual WP:ANI drama, which rarely seems to result in action. (I'm skeptical that it would because the community itself is divided on infoboxes – though in about an 80:20 ratio in favor, at this point – so it's apt to devolve to one "party platform" against another instead of looking at user behavior). This really has to stop; it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior. Maybe they're ultimately right that WP should not have infoboxes, but the ends do not justify the means. (And there are opponents of infoboxes who do not exhibit these problems at all; it's an individual editor behavior issue, not a "wiki-political faction" matter.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to SchroCat: It may well be that proponents of infoboxes sometimes present fallacious arguments and engage in civility lapses; that doesn't give their opposition license to double-up on it to outdo them in a contest of who can the be most disruptive. I observe a large number of ibox-related discussions, and participate directly in quite a few of them.  Over the last year or so, I note only a single pair of editors, almost always appearing together to post back-to-back (see if you can guess whom I mean) who are consistently relying on a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus unfiltered, personalized hostility. They happen to be against infoboxes (at least in some topical areas; I don't monitor their edits in particular, across different topics), while in the original case it may have been the other way around.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and none of this would be happening (for very long) if DS had been authorized the first time around.  It's a consistent behavioral problem that will be addressed one way or another, and it doesn't matter what side of the great wrong/right they're on. But perhaps I'm blind, and SchroCat is right in suggesting that the pro-infobox crowd are equally uncivil; if so, that's double the reason to impose WP:AC/DS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thryduulf's DS scope suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur completely with RexxS's policy analysis of OWN, STEWARDSHIP, and HIDDEN, and would further cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:STONEWALL, WP:PROJPAGE, and WP:MERCILESS, as well as the aforementioned FAITACCOMPLI. No wikiproject or other gaggle of editors is ever in a position to assert or imply exclusive scope over an article or other content, and then try to stake claims that policy doesn't actually entitle them to, e.g. with "thou shalt not"-style HTML comments that attempt to limit others' editorial rights [entitlements, privileges, however you like to conceptualize what we do].  There's a huge difference between using an HTML comment to refer to policies or to previous consensus discussions, versus to issue commandments with no basis but the preference of some project or of one or a few editors who believe themselves "WP:VESTED" at a particular article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: Montanabw's comments: A strong admonishment to not engage in WP:JERK behavior (if I may summarize), and application of DS, are essentially the same thing, except that the latter can be enforced without coming back to ArbCom again. It should be handleable by admins without invoking further drama/process. Agree that an RfC should not be mandatory in every case; we do not need some special "legislation" here, and standard WP operating procedure is fine, though I don't object to Montanabw's RfC-specific wording suggestion.  Gist: RfCs are used when regular discussion fails to resolve a matter.  Also agree that the discussions all tend to be essentially the same, but that's par for the course on a lot of editing matters (see WP:RM, every single day for a dozen different sorts of examples of this phenomenon). When people get tired enough of it – when the community is willing to decide whether or not infoboxes should become a standard feature by default or usually be avoided – then there'll be a big site-wide Village Pump RfC on it, or consensus will just quietly shift, but we don't seem to be there yet.  When we are, I would expect some guidance to evolve similar to WP:NAVBOX, with criteria for when to include an i-box and when not, and what should [not] be in it, etc.  The Sinatra compromise could be part of such a model, used as an example. What's not acceptable is unilaterally nuking the long-standing Cary Grant infobox on the bogus excuse that was offered for doing so, then editwarring to retain the deletion after multiple editors have objected to the removal (still unresolved last I looked). This "my way or the highway" filibustering behavior needs to put to bed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * SchroCat's willful misinterpretation of Opabina regalis's statement as license to embark on an anti-infobox crusade, which appears to be actually imminent (see below) is strong evidence that AC/DS should be applied to infobox-related editing and discussion, or we'll just be right back at RFARB with "ARBINFOBOX2" in a week or so. The error is in failing to recognize that the long-standing presence of content that people have worked on is in fact strong evidence of consensus for its presence. Otherwise, every word in every article that was not put there by a laborious consensus discussion process would be subject to immediate, willy-nilly deletion, with the burden of proof entirely on the shoulders of content-adding editors. This flies directly in the face of WP:EDITING policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
- SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I speak as an editor who is not a member of the classical music project (or any project, given that);
 * There is way too much misleading hyperbole in many of the comments going on ("small walled-gardens"? "infobox-haters"? The obvious accusations of OWNERSHIP - all utter balls: try WP:STEWARDSHIP from those willing to update articles and who safeguard it from vandalism and sub-standard edits, unlike the passing ships of the IB warriors)
 * Much of the misleading hyperbole posted above, may or may not have a grain of true, but if it is, it can be equally applied to both 'sides'. (e.g. "it's been going on for years, and is marked by WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaigning by a handful of editors who hate infoboxes with a passion, but cannot actually defend their position logically or with policy, only ad hominem verbal abuse and WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior." Spin that round and you'd have exactly the same level of validity in the accusation.)
 * Whereas those who have a more open mind to the inclusion or exclusion of an IB tend not to spend their time sytematically removing IBs, the same cannot be said of those with a less flexible approach do go round adding them in great numbers. This is particularly true of the the hard line of tracking and targetting the articles where the use of the IB has been previously considered.
 * There are 5 million plus articles .en, most of which are in desparate need of work: I am not sure why the same group of people are frequently attending the same articles to force the issue of formatting on the top right-hand corner of articles.


 * I have no wish to discuss anything further here with the comments from non-Arbs, particularly given the snide and ill-judged comments of one or two, who bring the luggage of previous and unconnected disputes with them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

, I am glad you have said that. "I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support" can equally be applied to a redundant IB that has stood for some time. If there was no "actual discussion" to add a box that is unnecessary, that goes counter to many claims I have seen in many IB discussions and we can happily ignore claims to the contrary.

In terms of any hidden wording, this can simply be tweaked to say "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which is a true reflection of the situation, given what you say. – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"license to embark on an anti-infobox crusade, which appears to be actually imminent". Could you please keep to what is truthful? There isn't, and never has been, any movement to remove IBs in a systematic way. The converse is not true, however. This is the second time in a few hours you have made a statement about me that has not reflected reality. My GF is being stretched on this, so perhaps you could be a little more careful when making comments. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: One area where Arbcom could be of use here is in clarifying the status of what the Help pages are. A discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 53 on hidden messages has shown some confusion (from some well-versed and deeply knowledgeable editors) as to how Help:Hidden pages should be classed: guideline, essay, policy or other. If a decision is to be taken by Arbcom on the use of hidden text in articles, they need to first clarify how Help pages are to be classified and the weight they carry vis-a-vis guidelines, essays, policies and consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Addendum: A recent mini-kerfuffle on the Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery article saw the removal of hidden text to be replaced by by an edit notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery). This is a much worse situation, as it turns what is a polite request aimed at avoiding edit warring into something that appears much more official. This hard-wired notice is, I think, the worst of all worlds, and any decision reached by the Arbs should probably address this. – SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
This situation arises in the context of the law of unintended consequences. Here, the issue was removal of a hidden text comment that had reflected a prior position of a group within the Classical music wikiproject that ultimately resulted in WP:ARBINFOBOX. The comment should have been removed years ago when the decision was handed down, as, to oversimplify, the ArbCom decision clearly held that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the classical music projects was, essentially, irrelevant, and that every single article had to make an infobox decision on a case by case basis. So, as said, while a hidden comment that notes a prior consensus and links to the discussion may be well-advised so as to not waylay an innocent drive-by editor who makes an infobox addition (or removal), to have a general statement of a project "consensus" is clearly contrary to the ArbCom decision.

But, the larger issue is now, in every case where the infobox question is raised, we essentially are having the same argument, over and over again. Even though we are asked to discuss the merits for individual articles on individual merits, the bottom line is that the issues really are almost the same for every article within any given genre, and at the end of the day, it is the same core group of people (I am among that group) with the same basic ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments (each well-reasoned with links), and I haven't seen a new argument anywhere on either side in over two years. It is most unlikely that anyone is going to change their mind.

The problem is that both sides are getting fatigued, and as a result, some people have let their manners slip and are becoming uncivil and at times engaging in personal attacks. While I personally am of the opinion that the incivility problem lies more on one side than the other, I also think that finger-pointing isn't going to help matters here. I only raise it to avoid the false equivalency of the "you are all at fault so I'm just going to give everyone detention and not bother to sort things out" approach that usually settles nothing. Here, as at each article, we need to focus on the issue and not the personalities.

The vast majority of infobox disputes occur in the classical music articles, with a few at an occasional literary article or the occasional movie star biography (notably the Frank Sinatra and Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs). Most often, the dispute begins by someone who posts at talk that they want to add an infobox, or a drive-by editor simply is bold and adds one. Less often, the dispute arises over removal of an infobox, often one that has been there for many years (as in the two actor articles noted here).

Although suggests discretionary sanctions, I think this can be handled more gently:  Enforce existing policy, particularly WP:NPA. The decision can be amended to strongly admonish all users to avoid any personalized comments, to have no personal attacks, and notably to avoid casting aspersions on any other editor. Accusations of any sort of nefarious motives or actions are likewise not helpful; most of us simply have strongly and sincerely held positions on the issue.

The approach of using RfC to conduct these debates might be helpful to bring in non-involved parties, but it would be unwieldy to mandate it in all infobox disputes, as some are not very contentious. Perhaps the decision could be amended along these lines:

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if we can all just keep it professional, it would go a long way. Each side will win a few and lose a few; occasionally (as at Sinatra) a compromise will be achieved. Maybe someday we will figure out a solution that's a win-win for everyone. And if it works, we can all hire out to go negotiate peace in the Middle East. Montanabw (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
I'd suggest that Consensus as described by John Cline here is taken out of context and perhaps misunderstood. The context for "Consensus" is for, if and when normal editing fails, and is further followed by a description of dispute resolution. The reverse is not true, that is, normal editing is a consensus situation and I don't see anything in our policies and guidelines that suggests that it is. We cannot write policy here and I believe the changes suggested would allow editors to argue that any past edit has a consensus, certainly not true in any kind of editing situation.

Do we need some kind of community wide agreement on info boxes that will remedy the same old back and forth I have been watching and involved with in a peripheral way. Yes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Gerda
I said a lot in the RfC already and try to be brief and simple. I think to talk about hidden messages, and if something undiscussed can be a consensus, is curing symptoms. The basic disease is that - for reasons I didn't find in four years - the addition of an infobox is not regarded as the attempt to cater also to certain users (who are sometimes called idiots), but as an attack. (Look at the discussion just on the Holst page to learn more eloquent descriptions such as "the Info-box Panzers".) Many comments on the Holst talk and elsewhere read as if an infobox would take away from the article, while I think it just adds structured information, for those readers who may want it. Compare Drei Chöre, Op. 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @We hope: both you and SchroCat link piped to a list which I began during the infoboxes arbcase: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. It lists articles where infoboxes where reverted, because that is what the case was about (or rather: should have been about). Once started, I kept updating it when I noticed new cases. - A list of "infoboxes added" (but not article names, too many) is a bit higher on the same page: follow the link to an infobox template and click on "What links here", for example for opera. - You say that not every infobox is welcome, yes, sure, then it is amicably discussed and reverted, and I will try to avoid a repeat. It could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As Smerus said - and the above link said already: I am a member of QAI. I am also a member of projects Classical music and Opera, where we had a good conversation recently. Smerus will also be able to confirm that I didn't come up with infoboxes for his opera articles, - if I know the preferences of an author I respect them. - Smerus and I have been seen as antagonists in the Infoboxes case, - plain wrong. We share enthusiasm for classical music and collaborate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * back to the request: Voceditenore (who is on vacation this month, so can't speak herself)) said in the discussion on the talk of Opera: "... there is no need for anyone to ask permission to add infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Further down, some members of QAI were mentioned. One member created todays featured article which was then improved to FA status by SchroCat and Tim riley. Another member was named Wikipedian of the Year. Membership has nothing to do with this clarification request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As SchroCat wrote: the hidden massage could be changed to "There is no consensus to include an IB on this article..." which he called a true reflection of the situation". I agree, but then think we could just drop the message, and leave the process to normal editing, in good faith and without edit war. Adding an infobox to an article that had none is a bold edit, which can be accepted or reverted with the question to discuss. is just the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
A few notes:

First is that the Arbitration Committee specifically can neither make nor alter Wikipedia policies. To that end, the statements which appear to delimit WP:CONSENSUS made by the committee should not have been stated as they were, and, in fact,  do not make changes to WP:CONSENSUS.

Second is that "solutions in search of a problem" including all "Gordian Knot solutions" are intrinsically a bad idea, and the committee should avoid using them at all, and likely should abrogate all such prior decisions sua sponte.

Third is that once again the issue of whether precedent has any value for the Arbitration Committee is again raised. The committee ought well either adopt some sort of "stare decisis" system, or state that prior decisions have no effect on current decisions. The current "decision by Limbo" system fails.

I note also that, contrary to the "official rules", a great deal of the prior discussion here deals with making claims about motives and behaviour of individual editors, which, as far as I can tell, will help no discussions about "Infoboxen" at all. (vide asides about "infobox haters" etc.) In sad point of fact, no case has been presented here for re-opening the original decision as such.

To that end, the committee should simply state that the principles adopted in any case which refer to any policy do not replace any stated policy, and do not in any way amend any such policy. Collect (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by We hope
I think the issue needs to be reconsidered as the previous case really didn't provide any permanent solutions. The restrictions imposed previously are no longer in effect, but the problem continues. A discussion about an infobox for Gustav Holst spilled over to my talk page recently, where I stated my beliefs.

I don't see a group of editors going through Wikipedia removing infoboxes because they don't like them or starting discussions at talk pages of articles they don't normally edit for removal of the article infobox. However, I have seen people adding them without a thought for prior consensus, old discussions about it being revived and some editors of articles need to discuss the issue over and over again. I also don't see those who don't care for infoboxes keeping an organized list of articles where infoboxes have been added, but there is one for those which have been removed.

Everyone isn't pleased to see the infobox; the continuance of discussion on top of discussion at certain articles is disruptive because no one can do much that's productive; time is being taken up by the need to discuss the subject of whether article X should or should not have an infobox. As long as infoboxes are optional, those who elect not to include them in articles should not be repeatedly involved in defending their choice. We hope (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support statement & suggestion by User:Laser_brain. The running discussion about the late, lamented infobox at Josephine Butler is a good example of how protracted these discussions can be.  The first post in the "Infobox" section was 18 May when it was removed.  The last posts about it were yesterday, 9 August.  The article has been extensively improved and is now at Peer Review; it's likely to go to FAC thereafter.  If Josephine Butler becomes a FA, given the history of these discussions, it will not be the end of them. We hope (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And once more, the infobox issue has followed me to my talk page. We hope (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tim riley
The comment by We hope, above, seems to me very much to the point. The present brouhaha arises because a group of editors, mostly known for insisting on info-boxes in all articles, have descended en masse on featured (and other) articles in which few of them, if any, have shown any previous interest. They demand a box. Full stop. Those, like me, who think boxes are excellent for some articles but not all, cannot I believe be similarly charged with invading established articles to which we do not contribute, demanding the removal of i-bs. My view is that where there is a discernible status quo and general practice – for or against an i-b – it should not be overturned without consensus.  Tim riley  talk    16:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Smerus
This amendment request is headed 'infoboxes'. But the proposals of John Cline (save for the third) do not mention infoboxes. All three proposals simply seek to demote the priority of polite discussion in the editing process. I infer that John Cline feels that polite discussion is somehow out of place or of secondary importance when infoboxes are an issue. I cannot concur. Polite discussion should be at the heart of all editing issues where there is principled disagreement. --Smerus (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as regards transparency: I am a member of WP:Classical Music and WP:Opera. Messrs. Arendt, McCandlish and Montanabw are members of WP:QAI. I can't speak for other editors here.--Smerus (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
Every time someone decides to turn an article into a proxy battleground for the infobox war, the real losers are content contributors. The hapless editors of the page have their watchlist constantly lit up, and good editors have to stop building content to go argue about something. From my perspective, if Wikipedia loses out on any well-written content because of this dispute (and people on both sides produce excellent content), then we have an opportunity to do something to prevent disruption. The community has already proven unable to handle this situation, which is why infoboxes have been before ArbCom. I would encourage an amendment allowing discretionary sanctions for this conflict area. That way if someone behaves badly in this domain, other editors can file a report at AE and it can be dealt with. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed that ArbCom has decided to fiddle while this burns. There are currently three active AN/I threads regarding infoboxes and little battles blowing up all over article space. We need DS authorized in this area. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
We hope and Laser Brain have said exactly my stance on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Moxy

 * I dont see how anyone would think its a good idea to leave a hidden message on a page about a talk that never happen about the page in question. Discouraging editing is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. What I am seeing with a note of this nature is a fundamental misunderstanding of the editing process. We already have a problem of people avoiding interaction with certain projects and notes of this nature just exemplify the problem of ownership. We should not go out of our way to discourage the normal  editing process. As for the boxes.... I also think a one revert rule would be a good idea in principal ...but there will still be edit wars because the editors involved  will each take there turn reverting.  What is needed is an understanding of the types of readers we have and the different ways they can consume information.   -- Moxy (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

 * Aside from the more complex issues relating to infoboxes generally and the weight to be given to hidden text, there is a simple issue raised by the OP that ArbComm ought to resolve expeditiously: its boilerplate language concerning consensus is just plain wrong. More often than not, consensus is established by routine editing. We establish standard forms and practices by trial and error, and many, many matters are resolved without the need for formal discussion to establish consensus. Arbcomm's language does not recognize this, and enables obstructive users to deny the existence of well-established consensus. A long string of clear AFD outcomes turning on a particular point, for example, establishes consensus, but it's common for an irredentist editor to simply deny the existence of that consensus because there has been no central discussion and no incorporation into guideline language (usually because the level of detail is too fine). Consensus, like policy, is often established simply by what we do, and the ArbComm language cited by the OP denies that basic point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
I support the position of Laser Brain and others that we need discretionary sanctions to be authorized for infoboxes. Disputes are blowing up regularly and admins have few ways of dealing with them effectively. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I agree with Laser Brain and SlimVirgin that discretionary sanctions should be authorized for infoboxes. If nothing else, to allow new voices to be heard rather than the same things from both sides. Frankly, I'd like for BOTH sides to just drop the stick and move on - this is not worth the energy being expended on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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



Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am pretty behind on ARCA, but on looking this one over I noticed that the original request appears to be about whether hidden text can be used to advise editors about infobox use on an article when the matter has never been discussed for that specific article. A great deal of the text in the comments that follow is more about infobox use in general, which seems to be the actual (continued) area of dispute. I'm still thinking if there's anything useful we can do here, but on a first look, I'm not enthusiastic about the idea that the fact of a status quo can be explicitly cited as "consensus" without any actual discussion in support, even in something as minor as a hidden text comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a little disappointed, although not surprised, to see that a comment about hidden text immediately gets picked up as an argument in the broader infobox dispute when the first two sentences of my earlier comment explicitly highlight which of those two things we've been asked to comment on here. For the avoidance of doubt, I'd find a hidden text comment saying "there is consensus for this infobox, so don't remove it" just as off-putting as one that says "there is consensus against an infobox, so don't add one" if in fact there had been no discussion one way or the other. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I certainly didn't intend to imply that this request was in anything but good faith. But I think consensus among the arbs who have commented is pretty clear at this point. I agree with Guerillero below that if people are interested in discussing DS for infoboxes, that would be better suited to a new request - sorry for the BURO but this dispute is broad and long-standing enough that it's worth getting the process right, so we don't just end up causing a new argument about how arbcom screwed everything up again :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opabina regalis. At first glance this request seems like a fair question, but at second glance it is loaded--whether this is what John Cline intended or not (I have great trust in his good faith) is not relevant. If this refinement could lead to editors assuming a consensus based on a hidden comment whose origins may be murky, then we are doing ourselves a disfavor and, rather than suggesting discussion (in whatever shape or form), we could be allowing non-discussion to become a basis for consensus. I do not think that is a good idea. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What they said. Anyone can add hidden text. I'd want to see a discussion on the talk page backing that hidden text. Doug Weller  talk 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above, and am not inclined to adjust the wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I am not in favor of adjusting the wording at this time. As for DS, I would rather that be its own thread -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues, both that if hidden text is used there needs to be consensus for the inclusion of hidden text and what it says plus that I'd rather not adjust the wording at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with my colleagues to not modify this. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request (October 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Dane2007 at 06:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes


 * 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''


 * Cassianto
 * FourViolas
 * Laser brain
 * We hope
 * SchroCat
 * clpo13


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * I am requesting a modification to include a restriction on any bludgeoning type behavior on all types of Infobox discussions.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * General sanction for entire community on Infobox related RfC discussions with a limit of two posts including initial post. Any expansion beyond a minor expansion or clarification of an existing statement would be considered a second post.

Statement by Dane2007
There have been several AN/I requests regarding Infoboxes with limited administrator involvement due to unclear expectations of what is or is not enforceable. This is the most recent AN/I that was opened regarding the conduct of users participating in Infobox discussions/RfCs. This AN/I request was closed suggesting a filing to ArbCom requesting Discretionary Sanctions. This AN/I case was never officially closed but also included heated debate over Infoboxes which sparked a further AN/I discussion. The "infobox wars" as they have been referred to are causing discontent within the community and further restrictions are necessary to prevent these continued issues from repeating as they did in the example above. Involved users on all sides of the debate are guilty of the behaviors in which amendments are being requested. I am requesting that discretionary sanctions be authorized for Infoboxes.

An amendment and/or clarification would allow for enforcement and provide two paths for infobox related discussions:
 * Path 1: General discussion on talk page with no restrictions on post limits or replies. This would be discussions as they are typically carried out today.
 * Path 2: Move to RfC venue for outside eyes and community input. General sanction would apply and no more than two posts would be made.  This would allow community input on specific articles and prevent disruptive behavior from parties on both sides of the issue. (Replaced with request for Discretionary Sanctions)

It is my hope that with this amendment request we as a community can move towards a productive resolution on this issue. The parties listed above as involved have been part of one or more of the AN/I's above.


 * It's been a bit since I originally filed this request and there's been plenty of comments. I'd like to address some things that have been brought up in regards to this request.
 * The request was not intended to be aimed specifically at addressing but rather behavior by multiple editors.  I used the AN/I's as a mechanism of stating that Administrators seem to be unclear as to handle the behavior of requests with anything to do with Infoboxes, and as stated already, cited that the next step in handling this should be a request for amendment.  While I disagree with many of Cassiantos behavioral actions and decisions related to the Infobox discussions, he is a valuable editor and one that we should support and try to retain.
 * As a longtime editor here on and off, I chose to become particularly active and invested in the project this summer. As someone who edited on and off but not consistently and didn't necessarily know all of the ins and outs, the behavior demonstrated at me as an outside party for trying to reach a final resolution for a particular article like at Talk:Noël Coward was off putting and could potentially dissuade newer editors who could perceive the bludgeoning as an attack.  As  pointed out, the entire situation is still bizarre to me in the way that random infobox discussions are like setting gas on fire.
 * Discretionary Sanctions appear to be the best way to move forward so that problems can be addressed with AE when a pattern of problematic behavior continues. A clear authorization in this area will eliminate the inaction we are currently seeing when this issue boils over to AN/I.  As  pointed out, there are groups of editors who specifically appear on these discussions around infoboxes every time which demonstrates the problem is deep with in the community.
 * The notion that these specific discretionary sanctions would apply to 90% of the community is simply wrong: as stated by, it would really only impact discussions around infoboxes.
 * When this initial request was filed, I invited to notify more parties. My permission is not needed for that - it was simply a reminder since concerns were expressed that this ARCA was one sided which was not my intent.  My intent was to involve the most active users in the recent AN/I's.  I will restate for the record: I believe that both sides involved in the "Infobox wars" are at fault for the disruption to the community.
 * This issue should not be personalized in regards to who is leaving or remaining in the community. I think all editors, regardless of their feelings on this issue, are valued contributors and we should not allow our discussion or outcome to be affected by actions of departure.
 * While I respect all of the comments here against discretionary sanctions, I think we need to recognize that peaceful discussions wouldn't be impacted by those sanctions if developed correctly. The problem of the incivility and hot discussions, however, would be much easier to solve.  I would rather see a temporary topic ban or a solution other than blocking with blocking being a last resort for non-compliance.
 * A community wide RfC is needed to establish whether or not Infoboxes are a style or a content issue.
 * I have amended my requested action in this ARCA to be discretionary sanctions as this is a far better approach and thank for recognizing my good faith attempt at finding a solution.  I don't think the project will gain anything if we simply brush this problem aside again and take no action. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk  03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I urge you to re-evaluate your positions....I think it's important to remember that this isn't the first time that Infoboxes have been a problem and retirement does not prevent users from returning. While three of the parties in this case have declared retirement, one did a final revert after declaration and one has stated their retirement is because of inaction by ArbCom on this case.  Hearing the case and making further determinations would not harm the community, in fact, if any of the users decide to return, it'll be helpful to have the case already having been heard.  As I stated above, "This issue should not be personalized in regards to who is leaving or remaining in the community. I think all editors, regardless of their feelings on this issue, are valued contributors and we should not allow our discussion or outcome to be affected by actions of departure.", which is precisely what we are doing if we continue to ignore the problem and not take the case. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk  23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by FourViolas
I have no emotional investment in the "infobox wars", but I was recently so dismayed at the incivility of one user in an IB-related dispute that I filed one of my first AN/I reports. I thought it would be a clear-cut case, but many experienced editors commented that action against this user was inappropriate because I was overlooking a long history of bitterness on both sides. If the situation is so bad that an editor can admit to being disruptive (by being uncivil enough to discourage third parties from commenting; ) and escape sanction because this is apparently not out of the ordinary for this issue, ArbCom clearly needs to intervene.

chose two remedies which gained some support in the discussions, and I wouldn't oppose them; however, I think a simpler and more effective amendment would be simply to make Infoboxes#Decorum enforceable by discretionary sanctions. WP:Bludgeoning (an essay) is already forbidden under Infoboxes#Decorum (disruptive point-making, harassment, NPA), but is not being enforced; and AN/I participants have expressed concern that the two-post restriction could be gamed.

I'm sorry to hear you're considering leaving the project. The filer invited you to add parties if you feel other editors need to be involved. FourViolas (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
I appreciate the filer's attempt to address the ongoing infobox problems by filing an amendment request. However, the request is misguided and targets one of the symptoms (endless discussion) without addressing the problem. Limiting people to two comments might quiet the noise, but certainly doesn't solve the issue. The only responsible remedy is to authorize discretionary sanctions for the infobox domain. If someone is being disruptive, an AE request can be filed and it can be handled by uninvolved admins. We need an end to the never-ending disruptions on article Talk pages and AN/I, right now. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The MoS is under DS. So technically the entirety of article space is under DS if you want to look at it that way. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How did it come to this? We're not dealing with individual editors. We're dealing with groups who have entrenched and whose frustration (on both sides) has manifested in behavior problems and battleground mentality. Every time a thread appears on a noticeboard about infoboxes, everyone grabs their pitchforks and runs into battle, and nothing gets solved. ArbCom has already tried to deal with this and it's still going. So you're comfortable punting this back to the community? -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been well-documented in this request that most of us are asking for DS. Many of the commenting Arbs seem OK with setting aside what the filer is asking for, which is in good faith but misguided (see my initial comment here), and listening to the community instead of creating more bureaucracy by asking for yet another request be filed. You seem to be focusing on the detail of how many admins deal with a situation on AN/I versus AE, but that doesn't reflect the reality of what occurs in each venue. In any but the most open-and-shut cases at AN/I, mob mentality and groupthink rule and nothing gets resolved. There have been many threads opened and closed about behavior around infoboxes without satisfactory resolution. At AE, the discussion is focused and requires evidence. Normally several admins comment and come to a consensus about the correct action before something is closed. I think DS is a reasonable intermediate step before another full Arb case is needed. You asserted that DS are purely punitive, but don't forget their deterrent effect. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But there are groups, and pretending something doesn't exist doesn't help solve problems. I can write down a list of names who show up with eye-rolling predictability every time infoboxes are being discussed, and the fact that I can do that is at the heart of the problem. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by We hope
Like Gavin, I wasn't going to make a statement as I was close to being out the door when this was filed. Made one at requests which I think covers it all from my standpoint and felt no possible help in the matter would be forthcoming when this was tabled. It's almost impossible to concentrate on text content work when the noise from the infobox issues is at high pitch.

The discussions don't remain at the respective talk page or at Arbitration Requests, but follow you to your talk page; see the link above for 2 instances where it happened to me. The committee should also be aware of a page which is listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please view the page at the link as it is a previous version of the page, which has been considerably edited since being listed at MfD. The edit summary comment regarding the Coward article ""‎let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing" is no longer on the page. We hope (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the statement of User:Yngvadottir and wonder if the admonitions and bans / restrictions lifted in March 2015 should be re-examined. The stability of some FAs may be at stake since the present infobox issue has been "amusing" to one of the involved editors. We hope (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
I wasn't going to bother with a statement (particularly given the rather odd selection of 'cast list'—all from one 'side' of the debate, which speaks volumes about wishing to punish, rather than bringing the situation to a constructive close). But after what appears to be an organised push on a series of articles (both without IBs and on other matters) by a small number of tendentious tag-teamers highly active in the IB fields or as the self-appointed Guardians of the MoS, I have been winding down recently (just getting the inestimable Josephine Butler through FAC first, if anyone is interested in reading about a proper struggle) prior to leaving.

My decision to leave WP has been accelerated because an admin (a fucking admin, for crying out loud) questions my mental health because I am not in favour IBs; I know it's time to move on when such shoddy and despicable accusations are made by someone who is "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".

I'm out of here either when my role as an FLC delegate finishes in a couple of months, or when my two FLCs and one FAC have come to an end, and the final article on which I am working has gone through FAC. You all have fun without me when I'm gone, but while the tendentious MoS wall-of-text merchants continue to wear down opposition with their relentless grind, this and related matters where the MoS is out of step with good practice (like quote boxes – a future battleground for the MoS Warriors) small MoS-driven outbreaks of aggression and disruption will continue to act like a cancer in isolated pockets. Pip pip – Gavin (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas: I've already advised the filer to do it properly: if they want to leave it malformed and so obviously biased, there is less chance anything will happen. – Gavin (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13
Clearly, ArbCom needs to do something about infoboxes. The current situation is untenable and will only lead to more of these disputes. I agree with those who have suggested that discretionary sanctions should be authorized to enforce decorum and prevent bludgeoning of good faith participants in infobox discussions (whether to add or remove them). I don't know why the issue is so contentious, but it is, and ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Further: I don't know if anything can be done to prevent infobox disputes entirely (short of mandating/banning infoboxes or, preferably, going the CITEVAR/ENGVAR road), but we can at least make them less likely to drive people away from the project entirely. I can understand the frustration that long-time editors can feel when the issue keeps getting brought up time and again, but editors who may happen along an article without an infobox can't be expected to know the entire history of the infobox wars and shouldn't be bitten for trying to add one or asking why there isn't one, especially if there is no previous discussion about it on the talk page. The use of hidden text can help with that so long as such text points to a pre-existing consensus. clpo13(talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Support first proposed remedy (no WP:BLUDGEONing, a form of WP:DE), oppose the second (2-post rule). Stifling discussion generally is not the answer. The habit of certain editors of bludgeoning to death various infobox discussions can be dealt with at ANI. The discussions themselves often necessitate a fair amount of pro and con about what an infobox might bring to an article or how it might be superfluous, so "muzzle everyone" is not an appropriate direction to take. The first of two principal problems in these discussions is not the length of the thread, but the repetitive badgering behavior. Regardless, this aspect of the matter is not really an ArbCom issue.

Authorize discretionary sanctions. The second and more serious problem, as I pointed out at ARCA only about two weeks ago, is definitely an ArbCom issue, and it is the increasing and seemingly unstoppable artillery barrage of incivility in these discussions, which has nothing to do with post length or frequency. This smear-all-who-disagree-with-my-faction behavior is not being brought by any parties to the original WP:ARBINFOBOX. It's "Infobox Wars: The Next Generation". We don't need a new generation of disruption, and the only reason we have one is because WP:ARBINFIBOX is basically toothless without WP:AC/DS in play. DS is enabled for "style" issues generally (the WP:ARBATC case), but this dispute isn't a style one; it's a content arrangement and presentation dispute. The difference is distinguishable enough that AE will not act on such a dispute under ARBATC, but it's so nearly the same in motivation, tenor, and WP:LAMEness that ArbCom has good reason to apply the same remedy. As I noted at ARCA last time, if DS isn't going to be made available, then a WP:ARBINFOBOX2 is the only likely outcome (a case I've already prepared, other than there's about 5x more evidence than is actually permitted to be included, so I'd have to trim it [update: and two obvious parties have suddenly said they're leaving WP].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Updated:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Curiously, despite disagreeing with Thryduulf's skepticism of broad usefulness of i-boxes (I use mobile devices frequently as a reader rather than editor, and the i-boxes are very useful on them, if they are not full of trivia), I still agree with that editor said below. The dispute doesn't really seem to be a pro-infobox versus anti-infobox thing in most cases, but rather an "I can edit any article I want, dammit" versus "don't mess with my FA"/"don't challenge this wikiproject's scope authority" matter. It's not limited to infoboxes at all, but affects all sorts of things, including decorative quotation templates, "in popular culture" material, external links, citation formatting, etc. It's just mostly a civility nightmare when it comes to infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur with with Jytdog that SV's proposal to extend the Sortan remedy to include infoboxes would be ArbCom making policy; that decision is citing existing WP:fooVAR guidelines, not making up new ones. And CITEVAR should not be a model for anything, given how many lame disputes it causes rather than prevents. The problem with applying such an approach to i-boxes: all those fooVAR and barRET[AIN] guidelines are about changing from one style to another for no real reason; this is about adding or deleting material for real reasons, so the comparison is twice-faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

MoS could address infoboxes better: Many editors on all sides of this (there aren't just two) believe MoS should have a section on why/when to [not] include an infobox, and what to [not] put in it (since WP:INFOBOX seems to have no buy-in or effect). This would be challenging to develop, but it would surely be helpful, in the way that guidelines about navboxes have been. Technical solutions that could reduce certain clusters of dispute: A) hidden-text infoboxes, not too unlike the old PersonData, that emit the metadata without visually changing the article. B) Wide landscape images could be handled by a y that put the image above the infobox frame (or kept it in place, but expanded the frame only around the image – harder to code) and otherwise kept the i-box the same width. Just thinking along the lines of what MoS's lead says about writing around disputes to moot them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Opabinia regalis's suggestion to punt any action on this out of deference to the parties who say they're quitting over the matter sends the wrong message, but I'll take that up in detail in user talk. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I think the Committee has the following choices:
 * 1) Authorise discretionary sanctions for Infoboxes per the repeated requests, accepting that the original case and the review have failed to solve the problems.
 * 2) Accept another infoboxes case, accepting that both the original case and the review have failed to solve the problems.
 * 3) Watch the disruption to the project continue.
 * 4) Bury your heads in the sand and pretend there is no continuing disruption to the project.

The current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests should be added to your required reading lists before choosing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not yet seen an argument that convinces me that the vast majority of article types are suitable for an infobox, and can't think of an argument that would convince me otherwise. To me arguments about aesthetics are all about what the content of the infobox should be - what fields it should have, what (if any) image it should have and where images not suitable for the infobox but desirable to have in the article are located relative to it. The latter questions are ones that are only suitable for discussion on an article-by-article basis as they depend on the nature and dimensions of images, the length and organisation of the prose and what is notable about the individual subject (e.g. what is trivial information about one person is key to the notability of another - that Tony Blair plays the guitar is not really relevant to his infobox but it absolutely is for Eric Clapton). The issue comes from my approach of "let's discuss what the infobox on this article should contain and how it should be formatted" clashing with "I do not want to have an infobox on this (class/type of) article" - sometimes (but alas not always) the latter comes with reasoning that can be discussed. That reasoning usually boils down to either "an infobox that is poorly formatted/overly long/contains misleading or inaccurate information would degrade the quality of the prose therefore there should not be an infobox" (I agree with the first part of the argument but strongly disagree that the conclusion follows the premise) or "all the information is in the prose therefore there is no need for an infobox" (which misses that a Wikipedia article serves many different audiences seeking different things in different ways and omits completely the value of metadata). Sometimes unfortunately the arguments still just boil down to "I don't like infoboxes (on my article)".
 * In addition to RexxS' response to you, part of the problem is with differing approaches to Wikipedia - some people invest a lot of time and energy into getting a relatively few articles to GA and FA status and maintaining them at that level; other people invest equal time and energy into the project but distributed over getting and maintaining many more articles to a lower standard, sometimes by focussing on one or a few specific aspects. There is sometimes the feeling that the efforts of the latter group are less appreciated generally and/or by those of the first group and their views are not given equal weight when there is a divergence of opinion (whether this is true or not, it is the perception). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * in my experience, when there is agreement to have an infobox (either after discussion or because it's uncontroversial) and the subject is not opera or classical music, the discussion about what the infobox should include is almost never uncivil and almost always very productive even if there are significant disagreements (i.e. it's like the significant majority of other aspects of Wikipedia).If the subject is opera or classical music* then the likelihood of a civil, productive discussion drops very significantly. It is normally discussions of whether to have an infobox in the first place that are the really problematic ones, and in the opera and classical music fields* these discussions are even more likely to be contentious and poorly conducted than those elsewhere.
 * * in my experience these are the significantly most problematic areas, but my experience is not necessarily representative of the whole totality of the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * fixing ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If approved, DS would not apply to 90% of Wikipedia, it would (or at least should) apply only to:
 * the addition or removal of an infobox
 * making major changes to an infobox (presentation or content)
 * discussions about infoboxes.
 * Infoboxes do appear on a sizeable percentage of articles, but only in an extremely small proportion of cases are they at all controversial, so I really do not see this as a relevant issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If arbcom does nothing now then the only question is how soon before another request comes your way - doing nothing has not worked on every other occasion arbcom has tried it, why is this time any different? Cassianto is simply the most recent user to have lost their decorum - there is an entire history of that is not explicitly mentioned here because (a) editors are (rightly) required to be succinct, and (b) everybody assumes that arbitrators are either already familiar with the history of case requests and ARCA filings or capable of becoming so when it is obviously required. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm less certain now than I was above that discretionary sanctions will solve the problems, but nothing else that has been tried so far has done either. The benefits of AE over AN(I) are that it is a structured space where comments without evidence don't hold weight and being a prolific contributor is not regarded as an excuse for incivility, etc. Speaking personally at least, I do not want to "get rid of (editors like) Cassianto" - I want discussions about infoboxes to be civil, productive and based on reasoned arguments without encouraging or even rewarding ownership of articles. If the committee feels that discretionary sanctions will not achieve this then it needs to take some other action, and I'm not seeing anything other than "the community can handle it" - the evidence of years is that that no, the community cannot handle this. Simply saying "reform ANI", while certainly highly desirable, is not going to resolve this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The entire dispute is bizarre, since both sides in each successive fight are usually long-term Wikipedians with large numbers of edits making substantial improvements to articles - but I guess that applied all along to the infobox wars.

Circular argument, ownership and assumptions of bad faith are currently much in evidence, and it's pretty clear that some (most, by my quick overview, but that could be sampling error) of the repeat combatants have fixed positions and do not decide on an article-by-article basis.

I endorse the proposal to invoke discretionary sanctions, the two-post proposal is novel but I can think of a number of potential pitfalls and ways of gaming it, and doing nothing is not good for anyone other than whoever sells us disks for the servers. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I entirely endorse the request to add discretionary sanctions to this area. Blocks are a blunt tool unlikely to do anything but inflame the dispute. The more nuanced enforcement offered by discretionary sanctions might be able to cut back the nastiness and vitriol, and failing that can remove the worst actors from the topic. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
Please authorize discretionary sanctions. In the meantime, I wonder whether the MoS DS could be used (authorized in 2012 in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation), given that infoboxes are a style issue; see MOS:INFOBOX and this subsection for advice about including them. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To pick up on 's point and my earlier post on another page, it would help if (in addition to authorizing DS; those are needed more than anything) the ArbCom would simply add "and infoboxes" to the first sentence of Requests for arbitration/Sortan (2006):


 * "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."


 * That decision dealt very effectively with the edit warring over several style issues. The same approach is needed for infoboxes, and while it's clear that the Sortan decision can be applied, adding "and infoboxes" would make it explicit.


 * Having done that, the ArbCom could (as Jytdog suggests) ask the community to organize an RfC to determine whether the community does want to "mandate a specific style" when it comes to infoboxes. SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

, an INFOBOXVAR would have to say a good deal more than that; and I do agree that that should be developed by the community. Adding "and infoboxes" to that decision would simply make explicit what is already there, namely that infoboxes are a style issue covered by the MoS, and that the MoS regards them as optional. Note (bold added): "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) ...". The principle is that editors should not be edit-warring over optional styles.

But I wouldn't want to suggest anything that might complicate and delay the authorization of discretionary sanctions. SarahSV (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
I entirely agree with SlimVirgin above - this is a style matter and please do authorize DS. I do not think it is within Arbcom's scope to resolve the deeper question of project-wide guidance on infoboxes, as the 2013 Arbcom recognized in this remedy: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. I suggest that the remedy be re-iterated and amended to more tightly focus the discussion - namely, recommend that the community hold an RfC to determine whether infoboxes should be treated per article like CITEVAR or whether they should be treated as a "mandated" style element, project-wide, that cannot be idiosyncratically opposed on a per article basis. I lay this out in more detail here. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (amend... don't mean to be so draconian... Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC))
 * User:RexxS the importance of recognizing this as a style issue (especially in the eyes of the infobox opponents, who, as far as I can tell, see them as hideous), is to understand that the dispute is not amenable to reason; matters of style are not rational. Have people discuss it over a drink and you are more likely to get fistfights than reasoned discussion.   It is not a content thing - it is a matter of how content already in the article is presented, which is ...style. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with User:SlimVirgin's additional comment above, that it is within Arbcom's scope to apply the CITEVAR option to infoboxes. That moves into policy-making, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Ealdgyth I did not say that infoboxes should be mandated; do not attribute that position to me. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I disagree entirely with Jytdog and Sarah above. ArbCom has repeatedly taken the position that infoboxes are part of the content of an article, not a mere style decision, as I've explained in a post elsewhere. Infoboxes contain a structured collection of key facts relevant to an article, and "key facts" are indisputably content.

Having said that, I would like to see an end to the clashes between the two sides on the infobox wars. What I would like to know is how does anybody think that discretionary sanctions are going to work in this case? [ Clerk removed personal attack – Kevin (alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC). You'll just have to imagine a vivid description of the Wild-West antics of some admins resulting in us losing good editors ] Or are we going to see good content editors being topic banned from the topics they spend so much time stewarding? Without some direction as to the outcomes we want, it's equivalent to giving the prefects bigger straps to hit the juniors with.

What we need is behaviour modification. That takes two elements: the carrot and the stick; what Jerry in Zoo Story calls "the teaching emotion". The sanctions used so far ("stick only") have merely served to entrench the two camps. Not only that but we now have SMcCandlish's "The Next Generation" - a new swathe of editors taking up the pre-defined positions in the current round of disputes. The only way forward I can see is if we can build on whatever common ground we can, rather than dig it away to form the ranks of battle. That's when it starts to get personalised. If I could just get all the disputants together, face-to-face over a drink of their choice, we could go a very long way to taking the sting out of the incivility we currently see. But that's not going to happen - although the offer is always open - so are there any other possibilities?

I'd like to see each side be able to find some "carrot" in any proposed solution. How about we get rid of hidden comments forbidding infoboxes ("carrot" for the pro-boxers)? but in return, wherever there's an amicable discussion of whether or not to have an infobox, the decision becomes binding and unchallengeable for a period of six months, or a year, or whatever, ("carrot" for the anti-boxers)? If you don't build in something that rewards civil debate, I'm willing to bet that you'll make incivil debate the more likely outcome. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a lot more reasons than aesthetics for some of our very best editors to oppose an infobox in certain articles. One perennial problem is that fine editors like SchroCat and Cassianto, who do their best to steward articles that they have nurtured through the FA process, find that their decision not to include an infobox on a particular article is repeatedly challenged by other editors, fresh to the article, who don't share their reasons, or perhaps don't have insight into them. They find that wearing and I'm not surprised. I'd like to find some way of lessening that burden without throwing away the principle that "anybody can edit".
 * As for fisticuffs, my experience in meeting other Wikimedians (and I've met a lot of them) is this. Given the choice between: (1) letting me buy them a beer while listening to me apologise for losing my cool and being rude to them; and (2) starting a fistfight (given I'm 6 ft tall, 230 pounds, and grew up in a tough neighbourhood); everybody so far has picked (1). It must be the healing power of good beer. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're asking the question in exactly the wrong place. The only people (hopefully) who are watching this section are the ones who are invested in the infobox debate and are unlikely to change their minds for the following reasons. The decision on whether an infobox represents an improvement or not depends on a much larger range of factors than almost any other I'm aware of on the encyclopedia, 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; and many more. Each editor will give a different weight to each factor, so there is no argument that all of the regular participants have not seen and already weighed up as important or not.
 * The situation is made worse by an imbalance in the two camps: there are a couple of relatively small groups of editors who have spent much of their time on Wikipedia improving articles to FA standard. They share a common dislike of infoboxes in certain disciplines, notably theatrical biographies and classical music, principally (I believe) for aesthetic reasons. They tend not to be concerned with the technical aspects of infoboxes in providing metadata and re-use by third parties. That is a perfectly reasonable stance. There is another group of technically-minded editors who give less emphasis to aesthetics and much more to the technical advantages. That is also a tenable stance, but neither side is likely to convince the other to change their mind. The asymmetry occurs because the former group have invested a lot of time and effort in improving a particular article and try to act as stewards for those articles. The current round of disputes have flared up because uninvolved editors sometimes see an article, often an FA, that has no infobox and either add one or request one on the talk page. This causes a burden for the stewards of the article who feel they have to explain their nuanced decision not to have an infobox time-and-again. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to a failure in civility, and quite often draws in more editors from the two camps, not only arguing about the infobox decision, but also whether editors who have never edited the article before should be allowed to raise such a sensitive issue. Many of the latter camp will conclude that in those cases the stewardship has crossed the line into ownership. My own recent involvement has been in supporting an uninvolved editor who challenged the presence of hidden text which prohibited the addition of an infobox to several articles. That's the way in which this poisonous dispute is able to spread from the original locus. We're going to need some means of accommodating both camps, so that each feels they have something to gain, bearing in mind there's no compromise available in a binary decision like having an infobox or not having one. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Statement
I have not been really involved in all this (except on your talk page, interestingly enough), but I have not seen any current consensus on whether Infoboxes are style or substance or both (see also, WP:CONTENT), so that may be an open question. But can't you strongly encourage whomever to go to mediation to construct RfC's for the community to adopt, perhaps modest default rules guidelines or something like that? (You've done that before on contentious issues). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I take Rexx's statement as somewhat spot on, but I'm with Sarah and Laser Brain. I, however, disagree with the idea by Jytdog, that infoboxes should be mandated. I'm generally slightly pro-infobox - most articles I start have them - but there are a few articles I've worked on that they won't work on, in my opinion. (See Middle Ages, Jersey Act, Carucage, or Gregorian mission). Many above are correct that there is too much personalization... but I'm not sure an RfC is going to be any more productive. I don't think DS can hurt IF they are used for the personalizations and extreme-battleground behavior that exists. Certainly something has to give. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Christie
Opabinia Regalis is right to say that there is no consensus that infoboxes are a style issue, but I think this is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the different views, and I don't think those underlying views can be brought to a consensus. The two sides' preferred solutions flow from that point: if it's stylistic, it's up to the discretion of the first significant contributor; if it's content, no editor should be allowed to arbitrarily exclude it. If Arbcom can find a workable solution that bypasses settling that point, they're worth their pay, or would be, if they were paid.

Below are some requirements I feel any solution has to have. I posted a version of these at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests and have trimmed them a bit. I tried to make these neutral with the hope that at least both sides might agree on the requirements, if not the solution itself.
 * 1) Fairness.  It has to apply equally to the addition and removal of infoboxes.
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) Article quality.  Any solution 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.
 * 4) Participation.  It has to address the concern that "uninvolved" editors will show up to add their opinions to any discussion.  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.

Montanabw made some comments in response to these points at the WT:A/R thread that are worth reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Opabinia regalis: you asked what would make an editor change their mind about infoboxes on an article. I don't think there are any participants in this discussion who think every article should have an infobox, nor any who think no articles should have one. (For that reason I'd like to find better terms than "pro-infobox" and "anti-infobox".) Hence it's not about infoboxes per se, it's about the context. For myself, if I think the information is not misleading (usually by inaccurate summarization) and is important (date of birth is clearly important, for example) I'm OK with including one, though if those restrictions limit the box only to information easy visible in the first one or two sentences I would usually opt not to have one. Two examples, both of which I nominated at FAC: Offa of Mercia has an infobox which is clearly beneficial; Amazing Stories does not and should not.

With regard to a solution, I am certain that discretionary sanctions will not work, if by "work" we mean that editors on both sides will be more productive as a result. Until we get a ruling (via Arbcom or via a community RfC) that settles, not the behaviour issue, but the underlying question of what rules apply to discussions about whether to add or remove an infobox, this will not be resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I support the request to add discretionary sanctions to the infobox controversy. Whether or not infoboxes are a style issue or a content issue strikes me as unimportant and secondary to the need to stop the ongoing, persistent disruption which includes incivility. Any such effort will be successful only if enforcement is thoughtful, fair, restrained and even-handed. Sadly, otherwise highly productive editors who are both "pro" and "anti" infoboxes have been drawn into these protracted, repetitive, lengthy and disruptive disputes. Giving uninvolved administrators the power to topic ban editors who repeatedly persist in disruptive, uncivil behavior regarding infoboxes would be a useful tool, as I see it. To be clear, the topic ban I propose would apply only to infoboxes, not to the articles as a whole. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by LaughingVulcan
I have refrained from commenting so far, as I feel too close to some of the heat in one of the germinating articles - both giving and receiving. However, in going through the history of this I noted that there was a recommendation from Arbcom in the original case that there should be, "...a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." I managed to miss the infobox wars case during a long period of wikibreak/IP editing. Thank God. Was that discussion ever held to anyone's knowledge? I think I see and agree that it is not up to Arbcom to hold such discussion, but did any neutral party actually do that? And also I am not positive that any amount of discussion may bring peace in our time. Yet that too could be tried if it hasn't happened. If no, how could one go about starting that? Last, if discussions were held, what conclusions were reached and would some sort of banner link to them in any IB local article dispute help? None of this is meant to be a yes/no opinion on discretionary sanctions. Maybe any such community discussion should be preemptively placed on DS if held, though. <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan 14:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, point three I still consider myself an outsider, this have been my first experience on Infobox discussion. But a good survey of the readership, or an RfC or vote of the editorship (as in Infoboxes Remedy 4.3.7 or similar,) or an office action would be objectively empirical evidence for me. In the matter of Infoboxes, anecdotes or lone opinions generally won't change minds IMVHO, nor will article stewards' opinions if one differs with them. At least the ones I saw didn't persuade me to difference in the case at hand, even though many were well written and I reread the RfC and article this morning. Which leaves nose counting, no consensuses, and deferment to status quo ante. Speculation: Maybe if the RfCs were restructured to have "yes/no/comment" subsections collective opinions of either side might be more persuasive.

<span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan 01:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies While I’m convinced that my problems were with one editor and thus might agree that DS should thus not be authorized, I’m also extremely concerned at this point that some Arbs may feel like double jeopardy is now attached to his conduct outside this amendment request. (i.e. this Amendment closes with no action, bringing a request about an individual here named would now considered double jeopardy / hounding. ??? ) Or are you suggesting the scope of this amendment be narrowed down to that user's conduct? (And potentially those he's interacted with - quite frankly part of the reason I'm still involved with this and elsewhere trying to solve IB problems is because I'm well aware that I had my own faults with him in that thread and elsewhere... while believing that his problems and mine are of different orders of magnitude. And that he will not change, where I will.  I like bio IBs, but not this much.)  Sorry for changed sig... Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies (again) Thanks for the explanation. The way I’d see it, the project has not enforced decorum through normal means, multiple times, instead being told time and time again that it’s a matter of Infobox Controversy. 1 (never closed, archived when RfC started.) 2 3  4brought us here-now, I believe

Face it: If Arbcom can’t do anything further about this (either about specific editors or infoboxes, whichever is the cause or both,) no one else will, either.  About the individual(s) or the subject. Because y’all will hast then spoken in the negative, and in the future the Admins and users elsewhere will think or say, "Well, Arbcom didn't act on it then-there, so why should we?" And while it may earn me yet more trouble I really don’t want: At least the subject of the Noel RfC has apparently nobody left with anything to say ATM. Last word (so far) is interesting. It won’t be the end of the trouble with certain individuals, though. Bet you ten quatloos on it.
 * Finally, I’d disagree and dare to venture that most of us who never come before Arbcom love y’all: Because you’re all too often the last line of defense.  Help us, Arbi-Wan, you’re our only hope!ok not, but hope that one gets a laugh, at least...  Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero Is 90% of WP being put under DS with this? Potentially if 90% of articles have IBs or will have the proposed, though I'd bet over time you're closer to 99% then. But could the question here be to have DS for when there is discussion to include or delete an IB - that discussion is what is under DS? I think that comes to a lower number. Maybe. Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 12:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Smeat75
I just want to point out that, , and  have all retired or announced their intention to end their involvement with WP over this issue in the last few days. These are all highly excellent content creators, driven away from the project by incessant demands from editors otherwise uninvolved with the articles they have worked on to have infoboxes added to the articles. Very sad, a failure on a systemic level to help and value core content creators.Smeat75 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Opabinia regalis - I think RexxS above, in his reply to you, has done a very fair and balanced job of evaluating the current situation. Things have moved on a little from the time when there were two opposing "camps" of regular editors, one pro, one anti-info-boxes who would slug it out repeatedly. The present, very horrible, conflict is, as he says, centred on FA which come to the attention of the "community" which unfortunately often means editors who neither know nor care anything whatsoever about the subject of the article but just think every article should have an infobox, because that is the cool modern thing to do. The what I might call hard core old school pro-infobox regulars have become a little more willing to compromise and extend understanding to the editors who have taken "their" articles to FA and do not feel infoboxes on them are appropriate, but not the "wider community" summoned by RfC's and so forth, which has been instrumental in the four highly excellent editors I mention above announcing they are quitting WP. Tim Riley is the one whose work I am most familiar with, it is a terrible, terrible loss. This is one of the reasons why I am not interested in trying to take the articles I have created or expanded to "Good" or "Featured" status, then you will have "the community" insisting on infoboxes, I would rather try to please the real "outsiders" who are not WP editors, but readers/users who turn to this website, now (unfortunately, I often think) the most frequently used resource for information on the internet, for accurate, well-sourced, hopefully interesting information.
 * Opabinia regalis asks what would change my mind. I have included infoboxes on articles I have created about books and also about various saints, but in the area of classical music/opera that I work in a lot I feel that infoboxes are not suitable at all for many of the articles I work on and experience someone trying to add one as sabotage of what I have tried to accomplish. I would change my mind if I could see that there is a consensus, not of the wider "community", but of the other editors working in the area of classical music/opera, that infoboxes should be included in articles.Smeat75 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies says "If infoboxes are the problem, deal with infoboxes." Good idea. How?Smeat75 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
Arbcom should go ahead and authorize DS for this topic area, but it won't adress the root cause of the issue. I agree with User:Jytdog that infoboxes are a style issue and the community should author a policy to end this dispute once and for all. Sure, one side is going to be upset, but they'll just have to accept it and get over it. This drama mongering and incivility by some editors is simply ridiculous, and far past the point of enough. If DS is the only thing done, we'll end up with a large amount of editors who are eventually blocked, banned off, or simply quit on their own. There will always be a new editor who comes along wants to add or remove an infobox on an article due to the nature of Wikipedia, and without a style guide to look to the main article contributors feel like their article quality is reduced by such changes and react. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
Someone can correct me if I wrong, but following the discussion at it seems entirely a matter of preference whether or not to include or exclude an infobox. If this is the case then any consensus, regardless of quality argumentation, is based of either "I just like that" or "I just don't like that". In the short term Discretionary sanctions are a good idea. For the longer term though some other action needs to be taken. Again my understanding is the inclusion and exclusion of inboxes is a matter of preference, and if the inclusion or the exclusion of an infobox was less arbitrary it stands to reason that there would be less disruption. I assume that the creation of the appropriate policy or guideline is a matter for the community and not ARBCOM directly unless done as a matter of discretionary sanctions. That's a line I question if members of ARBCOM would be comfortable crossing though. Perhaps there i some means that ARBCOM could help in presenting this to the community? If my assumptions about the arbitrary nature of infoboxes is incorrect my apologies and thanks for your time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR D/S stand to stop the disruption but it avoids addressing the root cause of the disruption. The root cause does seem to be addressable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It can't be ARBCOM who answers the question but can it be ARBCOM that frames the question? Speaking solely of dealing with the infoboxes of course. What is the general problem that comes up that makes people get into a discussion about whether an article should have a infobox? What is the most cited logic for exclusion or for inclusion? Should this logic be standardized in some way?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
Everybody knows what my opinion is of this situation, and I'm not going to throw around accusations as we know who'll turn up asking for them to be struck down and censored. But I will say that there urgently needs to be a mechanism in place to stop arguments over infoboxes escalating into uncivil, time wasting discussions which last weeks. I'm with Laser brain and Mr. Ernie on this in particular, the blocking editors/topic bans will not address the root of the problem and only turn editors away, as there will always be more editors who will come along and try to add infoboxes and then people will be powerless to defend them.

What we badly need here is to recognize that a] Infoboxes are not compulsory. They are a stylistic preference which should not be enforced on others with a different view, and are at best a minor part of the wikipedia intrastructure at least in arts biographies where their actual informational value is generally less than it may be in articles on sportspeople, aircraft, skyscrapers etc b] Recognize that infobox enforcement is not a problem across the entire site, most articles go by without warring. Recognize that it is often the same names involved in the disputes and articles by the same authors often at the centre of disputes. It is Featured Article sin particular which are often at the centre of disputes, I think something needs to protect those articles in particular from warring after an article passes FA and there is a formal consensus on infobox or no infobox. c] Ultimately recognize that Featured and Good Article writers are extremely valuable to the project and that uncivil discussion over infoboxes increase the risk of people leaving. Acknowledge that FA/GA contributors spend dozens of hours improving articles which nobody else can be bothered to improve, so should have more leeway in stylistic preference as they do in making any other editorial decision to omit/include certian material, ref style and layout in writing the full article. This includes articles which may have previously had an infobox but were undeveloped and poorly written (as infobox protectionism is also a major part of disputes) I think it's those FAs and GAs which have had extreme hard work put into them and careful decision making which needs to be respected above all and people be assured that they can promote an article without later having to fight people from adding an infobox.


 * @, sorry I disagree that infobox discussion is ever likely to be civil. Your comment seems to demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of a situation which is virtually always contentious. Yes, it might be possible to discuss it civilly, but in practice that far from happens, and you need to recognize that. In fact it's been one of the most bitter areas of confrontation on the site in recent years.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @ In most cases adding an infobox isn't contentious, and people do it and don't have to start a discussion. But in my experience when an editor comes along and says "why doesn't this have an infobox?" on a featured or good article and then starts a new thread to add one it tends to become a long discussion, usually with personal attacks involved. I agree that it shouldn't get uncivil but I'm yet to see an infobox discussion which isn't heated in some way myself.♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

 * AE is not a solution. AE would be a punitive bandaid on the encyclopedia that is not punitive. AE is broken. One admin carries both the responsibility and pressure of deciding on a fair result, a situation that opens the door to both abuses of the system and undo pressure on one human being.  Like other forums on Wikipedia AE can result in multiple and long comments, nothing different than an Arb clarification except that decisions are reached by one person instead of many. How can AE result in a better outcome than here?
 * Info boxes are in my mind not strictly format issues. They are an alternative format for carrying content that can be read quickly. It can be frustrating to have created a long and well written article and to know a reader may choose to read only the most basic facts. However, very early and preliminary studies seem to indicate readers reading on a screen retain less information than if they experience the tactile, paper version of the information, remember less, and tend to scan (the left side of the screen) rather than read carefully. An info box then becomes a landing platform for the screen reader where he will see what he needs quickly per her tendency to scan and if the information is interesting enough may read the whole article. This has to be about the reader. We can't change how the screen is read, we can't change how human beings have come to read a screen, but we can be some of the first to understand and cater to the reader and perhaps lure them into reading more extensive knowledge.
 * We have to deal with this issue with a deeper understanding and willingness to adjust per what works for our readers; we have to be in the forefront of understanding how readers read online. That has to be the discussion, a discussion which includes multiple inputs and opinions and the forging of something groundbreaking. We have to think outside the box here, and stop being stuck on what was, and we need the experienced editors to do the thinking and the collaborating rather than leaving the encyclopedia. We're here because what was didn't work for everyone. We need a larger solution which may put a stop to this kind of protracted and in the end usually unproductive discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC))
 * On rereading some cmts: My cmts are not meant to address anyone in particular but are just opinions based on my own experience rather than replies to anyone.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Rschen7754
While I can see the rationale behind DS, I worry that the warning templates will be used as a weapon in areas that have used infoboxes for years with few issues. I also am concerned that we are moving closer to putting the whole site under DS. --Rschen7754 03:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Breaking a little convention of mine, I'd like to suggest that any DS imposed in this topic area be preferably enforced by ways that don't involve Special:Block as the very first tool of enforcement, e.g by reverting or revdeleting violating edits or by edit filters. My impression is that we are not dealing with problems caused by SPAs or disruption-only accounts but with issue perpetrated by editors with mostly good contributions to the project, and the blocking tool (both as a first sanction or as a response to a ban violation) is poorly designed for such issues - for example it cannot be applied on a per group-of-pages or namespace specific basis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
I agree with Opabinia regalis. I question Dr. Blofeld's "I disagree that infobox discussion is ever likely to be civil", - as much as I have enjoyed collaboration over many years. These discussions are no curse, they are as we make them. We could still start today:
 * to not think of people who don't agree with us as a group, giving them group names, but as human beings
 * to voice our opinion in small doses
 * to accept preferences
 * to not get more excited over infoboxes than other article features such as images and tables.

For a sample of pleasant conversations with a user who doesn't agree with me, see here.

For a recent example of a civil infobox discussion see here.

I have more than enough of the topic which I archived when the year began. If you see me on any article talk regarding the issue, remind me of this pledge. I invite you to my latest PR, part of Max Reger, my topic of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Opabinia regalis: what could change my mind? I prefer this, concise information about the pictured person at a glance, to the plain picture. My mind was changed in 2012 when I found that redundant. Such a thing has been called "sabotage of what I have tried to accomplish" on this very page, and many other niceties in the article talk.


 * @Laser brain: Would you please consider to stop using group names, and "pitch forks"? I gave some samples of peaceful infobox discussion, and could supply more. The "hot" discussions to which you seem to refer when you say "every time" are a minority. Why they get so much attention, I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: are there groups? Yes, I am a member of several projects that "like" infoboxes (Infobox, Opera, Quality Article Improvement, etc), these projects also have other members, - in that respect you have groups. Black and white is too simple. I have enjoyed the collaboration of people you might see "on the other side": Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley, among others. When I write an article such as Requiem with Tim, I don't even bring up the question of an infobox, for respect. In The Company of Heaven, a collaboration of Tim, Nikkimaria and myself, we settled for a miniature infobox. There are many good options besides sanctions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Yngvadottir: I agree with your voice for fighting "always" and "never". I disagree with your interpretation of the QAI list: While project members generally prefer articles with infoboxes we do not monitor a list "that keeps count of infobox additions and removals for the purpose of encouraging their addition as a general principle". The counting is (only) for three infoboxes created with the help of project members, and a list remembers articles where an infobox was reverted. The project knows nothing of infoboxes as a "general principle", but as a simple tool of accessibility. - Regarding GA and FA: it is not without irony that the article Noël Coward was TFA with an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Today, reading Victoria's comment, I added Ezra Pound to my watch list and read the "less pleasant" (why?) 2012 discussion with interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jcc
Any hope of civility without sanctions in the topic of infoboxes is simply wishful, naive thinking. One only needs to read Talk:Noel Coward to see the level of entrenchment between the two sides- and DS is needed, otherwise it will just be repeat of that every single time the topic is brought up. One editor has had 4 ANI threads by four different editors on ANI about their conduct in that thread, all of which have been closed, because what's really needed is DS. Sure, it won't solve the root cause, but it acts as an encouragement for editors to moderate their behaviour, and it'll help until we come up with a policy on infoboxes. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
I would strongly encourage the Committee to require the community to come to some MOS or the infobox equivalent of DATERET on how to determine when infoboxes should be include and how to appropriate breach the subject of how to seek a change (removal of a long-standing infobox, and/or addition of an infobox to an article that has lacked it). The one thing that I have found when reading through discussions on the infoboxes is very much an WP:OWNership aspect by those that have decided they didn't want an infobox on the articles they brought to GA/FA, and a view imcompatible with WP:CCC. The lack of a DATERET-type approach to avoid all these arguments on the process is what makes these discussions highly argumentive.

This should also be alongside a discussion to determine if it is possible from a technical standpoint to allow users to enable or disable infoboxes, as to help find a middle ground between the two stances on infoboxes. There is presently some discussion going on in WP:VPT towards this. --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * One comment on the SMC's comment in this diff: - all material in an infobox should be duplicating content already in the article. If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article, that's a problem. (Alternatively, the infobox should be seen as a way to sustinctly group useful data that are discussed in depth in an article, without having the reader have to read through and seek the data) This is why this should not be seen as a content issue but a style aspect, whether you provide that summary or not. --M ASEM  (t) 23:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @RexxS : This is probably why having ArbCom force the community to sit down to come to an understanding of what purpose infoboxes serve and when or when not to include them and how to address debates on that after the fact, needs to be done. If we have infoboxes that include pertinent information that is not required to be repeated in the prose, then they become somewhat mandated to be included, which I know is an objection by those wanting to avoid their use. Not including some of this information in prose also becomes an accessibility issue. But this page is not the place to hash out the problems, just that I think we need ArbCom to make use stop ignoring the elephant in the room and come to some consensus on these. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir
I strongly encourage the committee to reaffirm its ruling in the original infoboxes case that infoboxes are neither compulsory nor deprecated and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, and otherwise to refrain from ruling in the matter.

The MOS is commonly used as a bludgeon; some of the wisest rulings on Wikipedia have concerned allowing variant usage to stand in the interests of our mission: to be an encyclopa/edia that anyone can edit: WP:CITEVAR, WP:ENGVAR. On the other hand the ruling on capitalisation of species names lost us an entire cohort of expert editors in the field of ornithology, in the name of a specious consistency.

People will always disagree about the merits of infoboxes, depending on the areas in which they work (they make good sense for athletes, ships, species, and films; they are appallingly reductive for any person with a varied body of work and in many other areas), their visual image of an encyclopedia, the priority they assign to facilitating automated use of our content (to me a negative), their approach to accessibility, their empathy for those trying to load increasingly template-heavy Wikipedia pages, and other variables I probably haven't even thought of. (I was trying not to mention also that the presence of an infobox also entrains many other issues ArbCom has grappled with recently, such as how to and whether to list a person's religion and ethnicity. But damnit, I think it's relevant.) It's an intractable difference of opinion with valid general arguments on both sides that, for me, weigh heavier on one side or the other in specific articles; I applaud Arbcom's wisdom in having ruled out as invalid the argument that there must be an infobox in any specific case, or that there must never be an infobox.

But that has not been enforced. I recently participated in an MfD for a project page that keeps count of infobox additions and removals for the purpose of encouraging their addition as a general principle. Discussions on talk pages present ample examples of generalized pro-infobox argument. And any broad RfC would of necessity boil down to consideration of the generalization, not of specific cases. That's analogous to variation in citation formats. People will always have varying opinions, and making a general rule will just weaken the encyclopedia to no purpose by driving off editors.

In particular, just as the project page I referred to above is under a project named for quality improvement, a number of excellent content producers have focussed increasingly on the GA and FA processes in part because the review of such an article provides a certification that the article was good or excellent without an infobox (or with a collapsed one). That's a valid argument should a challenge arise on the issue, but a sad reason for people to withdraw from creating new articles or improving some of our bad stubs. The underlying reason is not an unwillingness to work collaboratively, it's that what ArbCom once recognized as an area in which editors may legitimately hold differing opinions has not been treated as such as per ArbCom's ruling. Reaffirm that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt
I would not take the case, or amend it, unless arbitrators truly feel they can solve the issue by doing so, not just because nothing so far has worked. So far I see no indication that they so feel. Nor do I see any proposal on this page that I would bet more than ten cents on. Accordingly, I would deny the request.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I am pretty late to this party (off wiki several days, then ill), but my take is that I don't think that DS will help much. The two-comment rule might work, at least if it is used to bring in new and additional voices instead of all the same people yelling at each other. I favor working on civility and sticking to the topic, not the personalities. I believe that the infobox dispute is, as one editor mentioned, more about emotions than anything else, and if we can firmly keep emotion out of the issue, the rest will eventually fall into place. There are useful compromises that would be reached (collapsed infoboxes being one that has been used, infoboxes that place the image as a free-floating and resizable element above the box is another concept with potential) and there certainly is room to improve upon the layout and content of some infoboxes (the classic case of bloat probably being the one at Serena Williams). But the real problem here is civility. DS is not going to help that, it will just get the most involved people sanctioned without reducing the heat. It is a bludgeon, not a carrot. An infobox-type mechanism for metadata is going to exist, and I do rather favor a "six month rule" or "one year rule" between discussion of an infobox on an article once a consensus has been reached.

Comment by Victoriaearle
I'd strongly urge the committee to impose discretionary sanctions for infobox discussions - discussions that tend to escalate and get out of hand very quickly. Let's use Ezra Pound as a case study (btw - I'm the person who made the editorial judgment not to include the infobox): here's a discussion in 2010; another much longer and less pleasant discussion in 2012; there's this 2016 very unpleasant comment, which also made its way to The Bad Site (and which I read when dealing with an 18mm kidney stone (so you all can collectively say ouch and wonder why the hell I even came back to this place)); and the current discussion that was started the same day I spoke up about infoboxes on my talk page after spending years keeping my mouth shut, hands off keyboard. Let's assume good faith and assume that's a coincidence, and analyze the discussion: in little over 24 hours about 8 editors made about 20 comments. Three of the editors have been involved in writing, reviewing and curating the page (which is a featured article). Godwin's law was invoked fairly early on, regulars were templated, the discussion spread to other pages. Last night I made this comment and the discussion ended (which suggests to me that if we simply use those little DS templates when people start mucking around with infoboxes that it will slow the discussions). I'm expecting to be accused of ownership, but the reality is this: every single time I pressed save for the 1700 plus edits I made I was fully aware I was giving away my work. What can't be taken away, what I do own, is the knowledge in my head about the topic on which I can base a strong non-infobox-rationale (NIBR). Whether or not to add an infobox is an editorial decision and the best way to discuss is for the person requesting an infobox to enter into a rational discussion with the person who made the editorial decision. One party might sway the other, or perhaps not. But goading, baiting, templating, the basic tenor of these discussions is not only unhelpful but corrosive to the project. I shall now go write an NIBR - thanks all. Victoria (tk) 14:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding: I've written a lengthy no infobox rationale (NIBR) and have spent half a day on this. To say I'm fed up would be an understatement. In my view the arbs need to do something to prevent the reversion of the addition of an infobox (complete with non-free image) turning into an RfC and a brawl. There was nothing wrong with the reversion. Victoria (tk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding more: apparently the Ezra Pound RfC was opened per an OTRS request. Does the committee know how common that is? It might be worth investigating. I'm thinking if it's common, it might not be the best way to start these discussing and perhaps the heat could be lowered a little if people at least know an RfC was initiated in response to an OTRS ticket. I confess to knowing next-to-nothing about OTRS, but it seems a little odd. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Striking my comments. In the end it's only a box with some data and it's not worth losing sleep over, nor is it worth having people (because editors are people) be upset and hurt. I'm happy to cede the field at this point. My largest objection has been the nature of the discussions, their speed, and things that have been said. But in the end, it's really all meaningless. Victoria (tk) 05:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ottr500

 * I would like some clarification on "General sanction for entire community on Infobox related RfC discussions with a limit of two posts including initial post.", and if I am correct how "the courts" will not be effectively making law. This leads to further concerns with the added "Any expansion beyond a minor expansion or clarification of an existing statement would be considered a second post.". I see there are problems, and solutions to correct many of these have been in place a long time, but admins failing to enforce attack, harassment, or civility policies, is what seems to me to be a major problem, because admins not wanting to get "bitten by the system". Our policies are written to generally be interpreted as loosely as possible, and concerning harassment, that inherently would had to have been preceded by an attack, the "rules" are so unclear that an editor would almost have to commit wiki-murder to be sanctioned. An attack of any kind is uncivil, so there are two reasons for sanctions, and a 2nd attack is harassment, so there would be three instances of a breach of policies and guidelines. If there is a second harassment we can throw in about 4 or five more breached policies and guidelines, so an admin would only have to determine the culprit, one or both editors (or more if warranted) successfully dealing with the issue. civility is one of our core "fundamental principles" yet it is skirted around, trampled on, and generally ignored by editors and admins alike, more especially when it leads to dispute resolutions. It really doesn't matter how good an editor is, or how much they contribute to Wikipedia, if they are uncivil, warn them, if they continue, they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but are more likely to just be a bully. If there is a lack of admins willing to enforce policies and guidelines some the ones considering this proposal should become Wikipedia champions and step up to the plate.


 * 1)- A "rule" of two comments only (if that is correct) is totally preposterous. This should be shelved as an attack on Wikipedia in general. "IF" there is a problem then work to correct that not saddle wikipedia, and admins, with future battles and sanctions against good faith editors that will be "caught up in the system". I ended up here because I ran across a featured article German battleship Bismarck that has such a very long junk (trivia) filled infobox that it blew my mind, and was looking to explore these boxes and policies and guidelines. I read pretty far into this before realizing I overlooked ("missed the point") the real purpose of discussing a two edit "rule", if this is correct.
 * 2)- Add to this the vague 2nd part about expansion, how this will remedy anything considering it will just hurt the discussion process, and only allow wikilawyers the ability to shorten future attacks just keeping them "a minor expansion" or "clarification of an existing statement". I can see "Alright just for clarification from the piece of crap editor such and such". Now we are within the proposed limits and yet still have an attack, or a second attack and harassment if an editor made a previous attack in first comments. This proposal is an upside down solution to what could be taken care of with existing policies and guidelines that protect attacking (incivility is an attack) editors from lack of enforcement. Now there is a suggestion to "sanction" editors trying to improve Wikipedia.
 * How in the world is this not "corporal punishment". "We are sorry but it has been determined that your second comment was not actually an expansion of the previous, nor did you wikilaywer "for clarification", so this is your third, go directly to jail.
 * "IF" there is a problem in an area because of attacks, harassment, or incivility from editors involving infoboxes, address that and not attempt a good faith wiki-execution of innocent editors or restrictions on trying to improve Wikipedia, that I can not imagine supporters of this can not see. This committee should not accept this request. Please look at the "Kindly read before editing this page. It states "Discussions at arbitration requests are typically heated", and this is a part of the Wikipedia process, so please don't consider a class warfare, address the real issues of policies and guideline violations that will improve Wikipedia and solve infobox issues as well. Remember, Admins are editor too. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 11:02, 1 October 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.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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



Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion
Second, the previous decision that the question is up for discussion at each individual page has not proven satisfactory, or we wouldn't be here; there's no point repeating it. Third, the contents of an infobox is a matter of content--i.e., what fields should be included, how much verification is needed, and so on. The presence of an infobox, is a question of style. Most question of style are satisfactorily handled by the general ...VAR rule of uniformity within an article, but not between articles; the question here is whether this style is so important a feature that uniformity is essential (as it is for some aspects of choice of title) Fourth, it amazes me that anyone would leave WP over this issue, when there's another choice, which is to ignore the matter entirely.  DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm inclined towards imposing DS on the area. I don't see a need for another case. I might be convinced otherwise but I really wouldn't look forward to it. Doug Weller  talk 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Might as well give DS a try. Nothing else has worked so far... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to authorizing discretionary sanctions here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. In the last infobox-related ARCA, I (and others, but I remember my own posts best! :) suggested that someone who wants DS for infoboxes should file a new ARCA request on that point. No one did. Now we have another request about something related, where several people who commented on the previous request stop by to again ask for DS. (OK, I'm not sure what if anything that says, but it somehow seems significant.) I disagree with some of the comments above that this is a "style issue" and can be subsumed into existing mechanisms for handling such things - a look at the thread on the requests page clearly establishes that there is no consensus about whether infoboxes are style or content or something in between. However, I'm concerned that traditional DS applied to the topic of "infoboxes" will end up picking off participants one by one and dragging out the drama. There are also large areas of the project where infoboxes are not controversial. I think we need to be careful of unintended consequences. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it's uncivil or a personal attack or whatever, I don't see the value in discussing individuals admins here, especially those not currently active at AE. Let's spend our time on more useful discussions.
 * The tone of discussions related to this subject has become excessively personalized. (There's my entry in the understatement of the year competition.) Relatedly, I think we all agree that nobody wants to see editors leaving the project over this, even in part, and I certainly hope those who are frustrated with this debate return after a break.
 * This is 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"? Positions on the subject have clearly become entrenched over years of arguing, but what seems to me to be lacking is empirical evidence. If we can at least talk about what kind of evidence people find convincing, maybe we can move forward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who answered my question above, and apologies that I haven't had time to read the answers yet - it's a long weekend :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think authorizing discretionary sanctions is an appropriate next step to trying to address this problem. I am not inclined to grant the two amendments requested by the filer. I'm not sure I'd ever support amending a case principle, simply because they're mainly there so that we can agree on background information. Changing it would not have any effect on current practice, since the principles do not authorize any remedies. The two-revert suggestion also seems misguided, as it's entirely possible to have a civil, productive conversation in this topic area while also making more than two posts. I feel like it would simply stymie productive discussion, and encourage repeated RfCs on very similar issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf perhaps said it better than me in his comment above. There are plenty of discussions involving infoboxes that are perfectly normal; usually on pages where it's already been decided that there should be an infobox. I am not saying that there is no issue involving infoboxes; I've was active on the Infobox case review in 2015 and have also weighed in on various ARCAs regarding the cases, so I'm fully aware that it is an intensely problematic area. I simply want to avoid imposing restrictions that are so broad that a few editors can't even discuss, say, whether a person's previous occupation is relevant to include in an infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am apprehensive about placing close to 90% of the 'pedia under DS -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the MOS itself is under DS but not pages that use the MOS. The issues never spilled over into individual articles in the same way that infoboxen have. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and we would be back here again in a month defining what "major changes" are. Anything narrow goes through the merry-go-round and everything broad places more things under DS that ever have before. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DS is punitive, by definition. I echo the sentiment of Rexx and Mike Christie (if not all parts of their statement), and some others, that what is urgently needed is a spirit of cooperation. And beer of course. What led to this? Comments by Cassianto which were deemed uncollegial (ahem) but were not handled/sanctioned at ANI? If we impose DS, don't we just shift that burden (of admonishing longterm content editors who sometimes lose their cool, maybe) to the few poor schmucks who patrol AE? The only "benefit" that can come out of it, and I'm putting that word in quotes since its beneficial nature will be a matter of contention, is not the block (Cassianto, for instance, has been blocked plenty) but a topic ban. Some will find that beneficial, others will not. The thing is (in my opinion) that if Cassianto (and I'm using him as an example because the filer did) somehow deserves a topic ban in this area for continued incivility, you don't need DS for all these articles to do it. Such a drastic measure directed at one editor really should be community imposed, not handed out by one of the aforementioned poor schmucks at AE. And if the community decides that such a measure is not appropriate, well, then the community has spoken--which is better, and will produce less bad blood, than one admin handing out a punishment whose consequences will be far-reaching. I don't think I'm sticking my head in the sand: I am also well aware of the enormous weight placed on infoboxes. But if editor x" is the problem, then deal with editor x. If infoboxes are the problem, deal with infoboxes. I do not believe that this is one of these cases where the problem of problematic editors in a problematic field ( In a nutshell: problematic because it is not a problem that can be solved with RS or NPOV. ) can be dealt with by imposing the kind of discipline that deals with neither an individual editor or the topic as a whole. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , that is not what I see in this case request, which seems to focus on a. the behavior of one contributor and b. the lack of action taken at ANI in regard to that behavior. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I dig where you're coming from but I'm not feeling you completely. Sure, succinct--that's cool, but this is so succinct that I see little more than "we need to find a way to get rid of people like Cassianto". The rest of what I see, besides the call for DS, is the usual elements of any infobox discussion. So I cannot, from this request, infer that we should write up a case to take up again. If y'all want a real case, if you want to renegotiate the old one, then ask for one. (After I retire to Nassau, of course.) But again, I do not see the purpose for DS--and DS is, as one other editor pointed out above, also abused as a tool to chill and intimidate. Again I ask why one would want one admin to impose sanctions (at AE) when a group of admins couldn't (at ANI). I get that ANI is dysfunctional, and maybe AN is better, but if it can't be done there, what would y'all want from that one poor admin at AE? And did you read my objections to this request? You seem to focus only on the "no" part... Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , sure, frequently there's more than one schmuck at AE, but not always, and I think this is one of those almost intractable cases where DS is just not a good idea, esp. not if we're doing that to make up for a failure at AN. The same admin(s) you want to enforce DS could be shopping around at AN, and they don't need more of a warrant to place a block there then they would at AE. DS, IMO, is much more suitable to topic areas like ARBPIA and BALKAN and whatnot, where you have old axes to grind but especially new and drive-by editors. The threatening language of DS is much more of a deterrent in such areas than it is in this, where the dispute is so old and the parties so entrenched. What kinds of solutions are sought? Blocks (and thus deterrents) for a. editors who breach decorum and b. editors who turn discussions into quagmires. (I don't think I saw much of a consensus on some kind of limit of postings.) Bring a case to AN--hey, editor X is calling us sons of bitches. If it's a real attack or whatever and admins won't block, then we have bigger problems that DS won't fix. This is just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , what I see is a case that started about one editor and calls for very broad measures. I don't know about double jeopardy; I do know that the ANI thread was closed without solution and that we shouldn't block someone now for something that happened weeks or months ago and found no consensus then. I continue to think that we do not need DS to enforce one little thing from an earlier case, decorum, a thing that should be enforceable throughout the project through the normal means. OK, let's say that editor X did that terrible thing and no one blocked them for it because ANI is a groupshithole or something like that. Should ArbCom get involved because 1500 admins and a couple thousand editors can't agree to do something about something basic? We are better off bringing better cases to AN and keeping the discussion in check--and we should let admins do that, and we should allow admins the leeway to keep those discussions in check. I have spoken about that frequently: admins should run AN. They have that leeway already; they should use it. Face it, no one likes ArbCom, no one wants ArbCom involved--if you find better ways to manage the problems you won't need us. At least not for this one. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , "how?", you said. Good question--but it can't be ArbCom that decides on the basic question, infobox yes or no. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't see the point of DS when it is unclear what the DS are supposed to be enforcing. Since a large number of admins and other WPedians disagree about the solution, it amounts to a more rigid application of each individuals variant pov on the matter in a chaotic and contradictory fashion.

Infoboxes: Motion to open a case


The Arbitration Committee has determined that the dispute, as it currently stands, would not be adequately solved through an amendment request to the previous case or review, nor by the imposition of discretionary sanctions. As such, an arbitration case (named Infoboxes 3) is accepted to examine the conduct of various editors involved in the infoboxes dispute.

Statements used on this page will form the preliminary statements for the case. The scope of the case will be to look at the actions of editors who are invested in the dispute with a view to determining those who can be disruptive. The Committee requests input from the community as to who should be parties to this case. Suggestions for parties should be made, with reasons and evidence, on this page. The Committee will consider these suggestions when determining the parties.


 * Support
 * Just noting that statements here will be considered preliminary statements when the case is opened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Although this would be better left to the community,  there have been previous arb com decisions that did overlap with MOS issues. Since the community has been manifestly unable to solve it and it's gotten to be a continuing source of disruption, I reluctantly conclude it falls to us.  DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 05:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I supported this when we were discussing it last week, and would have already voted in favor if I hadn't been so busy in real life all week. This ARCA was opened a month ago, we've tried and tried to develop a discretionary sanctions formulation that would accurately target the problem areas without all kinds of unintended consequences, and no viable solutions have appeared. Moreover, this just isn't a good format for structured presentations that differentiate evidence from opinions, speculation, complaints, and personal disputes. But things do seem to have settled down quite a bit in this area since the original filing. There have also been several recent retirements and it doesn't seem right to hold a case so soon afterwards. I think we should hold off for now but be prepared to accept a new case expeditiously if this resurfaces again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote for pretty much the same reason as OR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of what I am considering is that suggesting a case when some of the main involved editors aren't going to participate is pretty pointless as we won't get their comments. If and when they return to editing a case request can be filed and we'll look at then, likewise if there are continuing problems even though those editors aren't involved then a case request can be filed and we'll look at it. Until then a case likely won't solve the problem anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That formulation of a case sounds an awful lot like the DS we're not accepting here. Our last case amounted (pretty much) to us throwing our hands up in the air and I do not see how we have made progress since then. I think we would need a full case, but since (see Yngvadottir's first comment, above) we can't agree on whether infoboxes are content or not, because most likely they are both content and style, we can't really take such a case--unless we acknowledge beforehand that we will most likely end up throwing our hands up in the air. I also wish to echo DGG's comment: infoboxes aren't worth it. No, at some point you all (the community) need to decide on this. In the meantime, DS having been rejected I think, it is up to individual administrators to judge the behavior of individual editors and sanction them if necessary. Admins, step up to the plate. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of a case, but this is not the time for it. There is an extreme lack of community comment here, and without the community expressing will to take on a case, I have to oppose proceedings until such time. Honestly though, the next infoboxes mess should go to a case request, not ARCA. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. A case isn't appropriate - at the moment. If serious problems erupt again that can't be resolved by the community then a case request would be the way to go. Doug Weller  talk 07:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Recuse


 * Abstain

Affected party
I am another person whose FA and GA articles have been repeatedly attacked by the always-infoboxes crowd of editors who do this without previously having contributed anything of value to the articles. Would someone please invite me to the next discussion of any future amendment? It is terribly sad that excellent editors like User:Tim riley and User:Schrocat have retired from the project due to the actions of this group of editors.

My understanding is that this is not within the purview of arbcom, but how could one get the infobox guidelines clarified to say that editors who have not edited an article previously should not change the infobox status quo. In fact, I think there should be a general guideline, consistent with the spirit of WP:CITEVAR and WP:RETAIN and WP:BROKE, that if an article (at least one c-class or better) uses a particular optional style (e.g. serial comma or not, dashes, etc.), that people shouldn't just come along and arbitrarily change it without first establishing a consensus to do so on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)