Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review

Etiquette and use
For a review like this, who is a party, and where should non-party comments go? Here? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Judging from this I'd say just Andy, but I have no idea about the other part of it. — Ched : ?  02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, can someone on Arbcom or clerks create the Workshop, etc?. I am OK creating a talk page but not OK creating the other functional pages in the review.
 * Assuming the standard sub-page formats are what you intended. If not, can someone please let us know what format you intend to use?
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The motion authorising this review explicitly said there would be no workshop phase. And, yes, Andy is the only named party to this Review, but there is little difference in Evidence submissions between parties and non-parties. Courcelles 04:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also
What George asks, and how long do these usually last? — Ched : ?  00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been asked and answered before in Case review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really able to glean any "due date" from that, other than it being a time-sink. I suppose we'll see as we go forward. — Ched :  ?  20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Going forward seems so much more productive than review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence is going to close on the 8th of February. A PD should be available within a week after that.  (The special casenav template for a review don't seem to include these dates.) Courcelles 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given Andy wasn't formally notified this was here until I just did it, I'm going to extend evidence until the 10th to give Andy the full ten days specified in the authorizing motion. Courcelles 04:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification
For good order, has PotW been notified of the start of the review procedure? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sort of — Ched :  ?  20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of any doubt (I think the clerk missed this step when creating the case pages): . Courcelles 04:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Very, very poor, but little else was expected
Eight minutes, and already the grief for the rest of us begins. It's a shame you don't have to deal with this shit when it happens, because a deeply divisive and disruptive editor is now free to take us back to the bad old days of a year or so ago, with the constant bollocks of idiotbox wars. Good work one and all – and hail to the coming dawn of more cases at ANI and elsewhere because of this singularly inflexible and mono-focussed editor. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would've expected nothing else from the people who operate here.  Cassianto Talk   23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this until now, but seriously, folks? William Burges had an infobox when it appeared on the main page as Today's Featured Article on 2 December 2013. The infobox was there until 28 February 2015 when it was removed without any prior discussion or seeking consensus for what would be known to be a controversial change. So why is Andy suddenly the villain of the piece when he comments on the talk page? I'm sick of this - I'll put the infobox back. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was removed because I was under the impression that the main contributors to the article including myself had formed a consensus for no infobox on it. I certainly didn't see anything controversial in it, and if I'd known the true feelings of some of the others on the matter I'd not have done so, so please have some respect here.♦  Dr. Blofeld  11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ShroCat, your post speaks volumes as to where the true disruptions come from. — Ched : ?  00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What and how is Andy "suddenly" the villain of the piece, RexxS? This arbcom request started only yesterday? -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Since the last IB case things have been relatively quiet on the IB front, with a few muted discussions ending vaguely amicably one way or t'other. And in less that half an evening I've seen the Burge discussion start going downhill, and Rexx go edit warring. And you are trying to point the finger at me? Perhaps if you were less concerned about petty little things like which "side" people were on, this wouldn't be such a divisive issue. Perhaps it may be that deeply entrenched views that are not open to the opinions of others may be a problem: did you thin about that?. Did you ever think that you may actually be part of the problem, rather than it being everyone else's fault? - SchroCat (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that talk page just shows that the review was the wrong format because it was only able to focus on the conduct of one editor, rather than whole context and the conduct of all the users involved. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the "discussion" speaks volumes. All participants are requested to stay factual and concentrate on the article in question. Look who did that. The article had an infobox from July 2013 to recently, and an attempt to change that (with edit summary "far better without it") was a bold edit. We have a procedure to deal with it. (Closing the gender gap: you might also look what the women say.) - Now you have to take me to arbitration enforcement because I made a third comment in the matter.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)