Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Evidence will close on the 10th of February. Courcelles 04:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

PotW is unaware how and why his TfD approach w.r.t. infoboxes annoys other editors competent in their respective fields

[1] – I see not a single grain of realization that a less confrontational approach is possible and would yield better results for the encyclopedia.

In sum PotW is clueless w.r.t. the change of direction ArbCom intended with their ruling in the infoboxes case (there's no secret, PotW is open about that), so it would be thoroughly unwise to mitigate that ruling for this editor. I mean, when an editor is blocked, he isn't unblocked prematurely unless the editor realizes what they did wrong. In this case it shouldn't be different: PotW is clear he doesn't know what hit him in the ArbCom infoboxes case, the reaction shouldn't be: oh, then, let's make it a bit easier for you... no need for you to understand what was meant by "...indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" nor what was meant by "... maintain decorum ... when engaged in discussions about infoboxes ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently a violation

Fact-finding point 1.1 in the original case makes it clear, even for those who don't remember the original case, that the case arose from disputes over whether articles should have infoboxes: the conflicts were between people adding infoboxes to articles that lacked them (going from 0 infoboxes to 1) and removing them (from 1 infobox to 0). Therefore, the current restriction shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that Andy's prohibited from attempting to change infoboxes (going from 1 infobox to 1). It's thus been interpreted in the past: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153#Pigsonthewing arose when someone attempted to wikilawyer a sanction after Andy replaced a poorly coded infobox with a good one, and the request was closed as "no action taken, no violation". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Pigsonthewing, some months earlier, happened because someone saw his TFDs of infoboxes (trying to consolidate them, again trying to go from 1 infobox to 1 in certain articles) as a violation, but it was closed as "No enforcement action taken". The original intent is clear and has been upheld; why would we seek to invent a new meaning? Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new sanctions

I suppose you could say "the original case doesn't address TFD, but we ought to add that as a restriction". Legitimate request, but I don't think it's warranted; while I think he's gone too far in merger requests such as infobox U.S. county (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31), these are ordinary requests that arise from different perspectives on how detailed an infobox ought to be. Andy's not done anything disruptive in these TFD nominations. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to clerks

Not sure how this whole thing's supposed to work. Do I have to have two sections? Can I have more? A clerk needs to help me if I need to fix some sort of mistake. At any rate, I've said all I want to; it's not as if I'm holding back on something for fear of having done it wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nyttend:: As one of the drafting arbs, use as much space and headers as reasonably necessary, the outer limits are somewhere around 1,000 words/100 diffs, but I'm not inclined to handle that strictly. Courcelles 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove restrictions and close

• I favor lifting all infobox restrictions on Andy. It is clear that the current restrictions have simply given rise to hounding and baiting whenever his name appears. The original ArbCom decision was flawed when the previous group chose to restrict only editors on one side of the issue, in spite of some rather egregious behavior by editors on the other side, who all got off with wrist slaps. It creates an atmosphere that encourages scapegoating and dogpiling of individual editors, while the people engaging in the negative behavior feel they have carte blanche. It is time to lift restrictions and allow Andy to do the actual work he does best.

Helpful activities

• Andy's participation at TfD has been to recommend many useless or low-transclusion templates for merge or deletion. This has drawn the ire of a few people with ownership concerns about the uniqueness of their template (the one for only the Manchester public transit system struck me as particularly absurd). There are so many TfDs at this point that it's rather useless to list them all here, but what is striking is that there are now one or two (possibly more) editors who can be counted upon to appear at every TfD posted by Andy with virtually identical oppose votes for each one, combined with personal attacks and harsh language.

• I have supported and opposed various TfDs by Andy and have found his responses reasonable and appropriate in tone. I opposed him on U.S. County, and he merely stated his case and arguments in a rational fashion. I felt we simply agreed to disagree on that one. On the other hand, I have supported many of his efforts, see below. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy helps clean up redundant or useless templates

I asked Andy specifically to help me axe the useless ((Wrtimedevent)), for which I am grateful. It had two transclusions and was redundant to Infobox sport. He has also found things like a template for the subway stations in a single city, which is an absurd thing for a separate infobox. The "owners" of the template didn't agree, but it is clear that the fewer infobox templates we have to deal with, at least on certain topics, the better. But, everyone seems to think their particular snowflake article group is unique, but when this makes for dozens of templates with fewer than 10 transclusions or something, Andy is doing us all a favor by nominating them for merge or deletion. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardus, there seems no way to notify involved users at TfD, CfD or certain other areas where watchlisted articles aren't pinged. How can Andy - or anyone - know who to "ask" about these issues? It can't be done! I saw a notification appear on a template one time, but I have no idea how that was inserted and why it is not used more often. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy has had appropriate behavior

• At the very least, clarify the restriction and confine it to article space only. Andy is entitled to have an opinion and has been pretty calm in the face of a lot of baiting and trolling behavior on the part of other users. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is subject to hounding

• The main reason we are here is due to a number of editors, many of whom have posted here, who appear to stalk Andy's TfD's and oppose everything he does, often with near-identical reasoning on each one. The latest accusation is that Andy doesn't notify everyone under the sun (though the template gets tagged in article space, so those who care can easily weigh in) Yet, these same people are themselves not usually members of any particular wikiproject, they just stalk TfD. I urge Arbcom to remember the Pot/Kettle adage in assessing various accusations against Andy and apply the Clean hands doctrine to these folks as well. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Seems there have been requests for me to provide evidence, so here's a small sampler, annotated, of the lack of clean hands by some of the editors here who are calling for Andy's head

• DePiep and AussieLegend have a pattern of consistent opposition, tag-teaming, baiting and insulting Andy at a large number of the TfAs Andy files - usually with some variation on the theme that the recipient template isn't already perfectly set up, then tendentiously debating until there is a "no consensus" decision. Examples: *December 27: Infobox PAhistoric, we have DePiep raising a "parameters missing" argument.
• From December 30, I saw two discussions: this one has AussieLegend and DePiep tag-teaming with the idea that a merge source has to already be in place and DePiep repeatedly blasting Andy with uncivil insults such as "Incompetence" (said by DePiep twice). The in the very next TfA that day, DePiep uses Aussie Legends argument from the previous debate, again raising the same complaint that the recipient source for a merge or deletion isn't completely perfect already.
• On Dec 29th, a day where Andy made a number of TfDs, many of which were concurred in, and where (full disclosure), I weighted in on some TfAs, there is a clear harassment pattern here of DePiep and Aussie Legend tag-teaming Andy with many personal attacks:
  • At Infobox Rome episode Aussie Legend goes on a personal attack of Andy to the point that I warned AL about personalizing the discussion.
  • At Infobox Tractor (which still is open) AL and DP tag-team Andy and accuse him of "incompetence" (Again, twice in one discussion -- DePiep says that a lot)
  • At Infobox Manchester metrolink station and German railway vehicle DePiep again makes the "problem parameters" argument and calls Andy incompetent in both discussions.
  • At Infobox Ireland station, Aussie Legend basically fails AGF and accuses Andy of anti-Irish sentiment
• DePiep has filed Nov 20 and Jan 26 harassing ANI reports on Andy, resulting in snow closures and cautions to DePiep.

• For what it's worth, I have opposed some of Andy's TfDs, notably Template:Infobox U.S. county, and found Andy to be perfectly able to disagree and debate in a respectful manner.

I could go on and on here, but this gives those who are interested the gist of what I have observed. And it's midnight Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing's presence at TFD has been inflammatory

• Pigsonthewing nominated ((Infobox Australian road)) for merging on 30 December 2014: [2]
• Pigsonthewing nominated the template back in 2011: [3] and the discussion was controversial, to say the least.
• I believe that it was a poor choice to nominate the template, considering how it went the last time (he had to have known that it would be controversial again), and considering that there has been past drama in regards to him and templates. (To be fair, it would be a poor choice for me to nominate that template either, which is why I have not done so.)
• At the present discussion, he was insulting: [4] Rschen7754 02:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• He has also been insulting on other recent occasions at TFD: [5] (at a nomination almost universally opposed) [6][7][8][9][10]
• And that's from about 5 minutes of doing Ctrl+F on WP:TFD, looking for "Pigsonthewing". --Rschen7754 02:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable request at WP:DRV

In the face of a fairly well-attended tfd (closed version) where opinion was unanimously against his proposal and that had been open just short of two months (29 November 2014 to 23 January 2015), Pigsonthewing opened a deletion review (diff; current iteration) claiming the close was "poor" and "should perhaps have been re-listed" for even longer. —Cryptic 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness on TfD

Andy has listed very many templates for discussion, and by far most of the time the discussions close in line with his recommendation in the nomination. In 2014, Andy made 492 nominations on templates for discussion. Of those, I've selected a random sample of 20 nominations for analyses.

• 65% of the cases the outcome of the discussion was exactly in line with the nomination
• 5% of the cases the outcome was directly contrary to the nomination
• 30% of the cases, the outcome was neither directly in line with Andys recommendation, nor fully opposed to it.

For the last group, initiating a discussion, and coming to an actionable outcome could, and should in my opinion, be seen as a positive result to the encyclopedia, but for the benefit of bright lines I have listed them in a separate group, together with no consensus closes.

As fully diffing this up would inevitably send me over the diff limit, I will provide statistical analysis in lieu of diffs at a later time. I invite ArbCom to review the method used, and/or just trust me I haven't misinterpreted anything. If I can offer this evidence any other way compliant with evidence guidelines, I'm open to suggestions.

Communication style

Andy often communicates in terse messages, containing very little explaining of reasoning. Discussions that ensue often have the appearance of a game of 20 questions.

Sometimes the discussion ends with mutual understanding Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_29#Template:Infobox_Taiwan_station

Sometimes the discussion ends in misunderstanding Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_21#Template:Infobox astro object the discussion that follows at the initial response of Thor Docweiler.

Sometimes these messages are interpreted as hostility (for example, the first !vote on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_23#Template:Infobox_Olympic_games)

Sometimes these messages are interpreted as incompetence (many of the discussions on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29)

Edit warring

Andy sometimes resorts to edit warring in lieu of discussion. [11] [12]

Recommendations

I've made some recomendations. It could be seen as my own workshop. Hookers and blackjack are not currently included there and are strictly optional.

Rschen7754 about the australian road template, re-nominating something for which there was no consensus three years ago is in my opinion perfectly reasonable, and no sign of disruptive behavior. Suspecting that something will be controversial is not a reason not to start discussion about it.
The tit-for-tat about the issue of calling each other incompetent on the U.S. County TfD (links 8 through 13) are in my opinion mild, and have to be seen in the context of an editor who called Andy incompetent numerous times. This doesn't excuse the (mild) unconstructive back and forth in those edits, but they are hardly evidence of structural disruptive behavior.

RexxS let's not put anything in anyone's mouth about what is 'the sole reason for this review'. Reading the motions that started off this review don't support your claims. At this point I'm inclined to say 'diffs or it didn't happen'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: - What is the time frame we're working with here?

• @Ched: Tentatively, evidence is going to close on the 6th. We'll see if that needs to be extended Courcelles 06:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: -- in my capacity as provider of bureaucratic info: Evidence now closing on the 10th. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pigsonthewing is a highly valued member of the community

• Andy has been and continues to be a Wikipedian in residence to multiple historical and educational institutions. Museums Association - New Art Gallery, ORCID.
• Andy has secured grants of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of journal access for Wikipedians: [13]
• Andy was awarded a "UK Wikimedian of the Year" citation awarded by Jimbo Wales himself. [14]
• At a time when editor retention is fundamental, Andy has recruited, trained, and encouraged editors to join our project. [15], [16], [17]
• These editor are creating and editing articles: Bleach activator, User:Jmidje/sandbox, User:Nicholsonk1/sandbox, User:Fiendishether/sandbox. See also: [18]
• I can dig up plenty more of these types of things. (there's some sort of "voice" thing he created as well [19])

User:Pigsonthewing has not violated any sanctions.

• per: The Arbcom states:

1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. (passed 7 to 3) - nothing more, nothing less. Andy has not violated this, and I can't provide diffs for something that doesn't exist.

User:Pigsonthewing has been dealing with a lot of hostility

Andy finds many unused or unneeded templates, nominates them for deletion, and there is no fuss.

• [20], [21], [22]

Andy does not get upset, harass, or even debate others if consensus is against him.

• [23], [24]

If Andy is in error (even with extenuating circumstances), he admits it, withdraws, and moves on without disruption

• [25]

Some editors treat Andy without respect, and in an insulting manner.

• No need to spend smart thinking by good editors on an temporal template., the nom is lacking competence. and The immature thing is that the nom should have made an initial effort... in this thread
• Andy, that's very shoddy work. [26]
• Since editor Mardus brings up the 6 December page, let's have a look - shall we.
• I only had to scroll down to the second thread [27] to find this:

1. PotW noms a template for deletion, and editor Frietjes says "not entirely redundant."
2. Andy asks for clarification: "How so"?
3. Editor DePiep interjects him/herself into the discussion with "That was for you to research before nominating."
4. Editor DePiep goes on with his oppose with this: "Nom even admits that they don't have a clue what "redundant" means. Immature, and given the status of the nom bad faith proposal comes to mind"

• What a wonderfull way to further Wikipedia:Collaborations eh? </sarcasm>

The previous sanction has been used as a weapon

• Nyttend evidence - addresses this.
• [28] Jan 2015, someone editing Andy's comments. closed no action.
• [29] (again: closed - no action taken)

Note: If the Arbs would like more diffs to support any individual point, please feel free to ask.

Closing

Look - even some of the Arbs have clearly posted a "let's ban Andy" contrib. - and it's on record. (and I do have to give credit to DGG for recusing). I'm asking that THIS Arbcom to look at the situation with fresh eyes. It's been mentioned that Andy is hard to understand - I will concede that. Andy is economical with words, but when you ask him to explain any thought, any action - he does. The "add/remove" infobox wars have long since passed. What we have here is an effort to use a 2013 Arbcom case to harass, hound, and chase Andy from a project that he so obviously loves. In the past year Andy was subjected to a terrible block where he was accused of vandalism. How very wrong. How very insulting. The admin should hang his head in shame, and yet I can't even find an apology.

The 2013 infobox case was a horrendous case, and I have no one to blame but myself for that. There was no effort to find fault with those who opposed infoboxes, but rather an effort to explain the "why" said infobox was a good thing. Andy can not present any evidence here simply because it's impossible to provide a diff for something that doesn't exist.

If Arbcom truly wants to remove the drama from their doorstep, they will acknowledge a tainted and skewed resolution from 2013. If Arbcom is honest, it will see that the drama does not come from any violations regarding Andy, but rather from those who bait and hound him.

While truth can often be difficult to see, it is undeniable. The restrictions of 2013 have been adhered to, and it is time to see the big picture. Look into the mirror, actually read the diffs. See what is obvious here. The problems come not from any editor violating a restriction, but rather from those who wish to use a "finding" in order to subjugate an editor into submission. The rational people have been finding agreement, those with grudges continue to seek retribution. It is time for Arbcom to do what is right. Restrictions were adhered to, the time has passed. Vacate the restrictions, and you return things to a level field. Show us what you are. — Ched :  ?  04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I don't think I've posted in WP:Arbitration before. Let me know if I should do things differently.

We need clear bounds

Editors mention this editing restriction every month, now, it seems. The guy's last block/unblock was partly due to this. It would be good to clarify this, to avoid the distracting confusion. (I'm hoping that's the goal, here.) (I also support Martijn Hoekstra's recommendation.)

@Mardus, many editors use TfD instead of template talk pages, to reach more eyes while avoiding split discussions. The tag takes care of notification. It is also good to notify WikiProjects, especially if they have banners on the talk page, but it is not required, and Twinkle doesn't do that or even tag infoboxes or sidebars appropriately. (PotW relies on Twinkle for nominations.) Also, the D stands for Discussion, rather than deletion, because there are more outcomes than in other venues. (in Mabbett's words) Some nominations are actually more about improvements, though deletion is always one of the options.

Andy seems to be a blame magnet

Several times, I've seen PotW take nearly all of the blame for things when he was only one of those involved, even only reluctantly involved. Case in point, as someone involved, myself: November 1, TfD talk page: Andy posed a question of how to tag templates to avoid annoying people, but received no answer. He started nominating nearly redundant templates for deletion, such as Infobox criminal organization, which I opposed, thinking merge proposals would be more appropriate. He thought that a bad idea, but finding there were too many who opposed on similar procedural grounds, he did as I requested for the criminal infobox and others. The complaints flooded in, making their way to the TfD talk page. I answered that the tags were an annoying part of appropriate procedure we were trying to uphold. I linked to where he had asked the question without answer or where I had opposed, asking for the merge tags. He stated it wasn't me who required this process, but some people continued to blame the nominator. I think he knew, going in, that it would be this way, but he didn't ask someone else to make the controversial nominations. He just did what needed to be done. There are better examples with which I am less familiar.

I find Mr. Mabbit hard to understand at times

I frequent TfD, and often find myself !voting on PotW's nominations, support or opposition. Sometimes he gives a terse reply to my !vote or comment which I may find confusing. It can take several levels of AGF, which can easily fall apart. At first, I was afraid he would badger me, because I had heard of his reputation, but he has only attempted to understand my reasoning, and add information I may be missing. (I expect he finds some of my terse posts hard to understand, as well.) Nobody is perfect, but PotW is a valuable part of TfD, and a better editor than I am, (which is intimidating, in itself.) I expect others have similar experiences, which may contribute to the problem.

Others have already given evidence that TfD discussions were allowed in the past, and that PotW is a valuable part of the community. I may possibly add a bit more evidence to this section before the close. Thank you. —PC-XT+ 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6.

Context wrt specific templates

• Often, a template is created and used for years. The fact that it has not been deleted yet, means that it serves its purpose well and should not be easily deleted.
• Editors who assume good faith do not even consider proposing to lock a long-standing template in order to avoid nominations for deletion that may appear arbitrary or poorly substantiated.
• More specific templates are created, because a general template is insufficient, may be locked, and might often lack topical context that a specific template can serve better.

Pigsonthewing nominates useful templates for deletion

(For easier review, I used Ctrl+F to find discussions with his user name.)

• Pigsonthewing nominates far too many useful templates (info/navboxes) for deletion, even if a useful template is not referred to by very many (hundreds of) Wikipedia pages. These nominations are disruptive in and of themselves.
• Pigsonthewing often cites redundancy for templates that cover more specific topics than the general template he prefers, or that a specific template is superfluous or a fork. One such example is a proposal to delete a specific ((Infobox SBTVD standard)) in preference of a general ((Infobox technology standard)).

This is not a good thing, as templates covering more specific topics were created exactly because the general template was found to be insufficient. General templates are often locked and thus cannot be easily customised.

• The templates cover similar topics, such as song contests, but are unrelated, because they cover different events that each have different rules. With other templates, such as computing standards, the template topic is similar, but the context of content therein is entirely different.

No prior discussion

• There is no prior discussion by Pigsonthewing in templates' talk pages about proposing major changes to the templates; See:

Template talk:Infobox ABU country, Template talk:Infobox SBTVD standard, Template talk:Infobox W3C standard, Template talk:Infobox perpetual motion machine, Template talk:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year, Template talk:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival, Template talk:Infobox Sherlock Holmes short story, Template talk:Infobox Satellite awards, Template talk:Infobox Indian awards, Template talk:Infobox Mosconi Cup.

• With 'discussion', I mean substantive discussion of template by several users, including creators and long-term editors of the template, and not just one user's proposals for a template in the template's talk page. Discussions of major changes should contain efforts to seek consensus among prior editors of the template and seasoned editors.
• This indicates failure to communicate proposals and lack of good faith on the part of the person who nominates useful templates for deletion.

Lack of good faith?

To better explain lack of good faith by the nominator:

Normally, major changes to a useful template should at first be discussed with affected editors on the template talk page (this requires raising of awareness through appropriate notification). Because a person who wishes a useful template deleted, anticipates substantial opposition to this, he avoids discussing this or any changes to templates on templates' talk pages and goes instead directly to TfD.

Frequent and meritless accusations of canvassing

search for canvass at evidence page

• Because many editors who would support keeping a particular template, might not pay attention to template deletions (templates for discussion), User Pigsonthewing stands a good chance to have a template deleted or merged without most editors noticing.
• Any appropriate action to raise awareness of this by other users apparently poses a danger to Pigsonthewing's wish to delete templates without much discussion.

• Then, to avoid deletion of a useful template, the few editors who have paid attention and legitimately engage in appropriate notification (to notify other editors who might be affected by template deletion), are often and ferociously accused by Pigsonthewing of canvassing: Specific long example discussion of such at particular TfD well below anchor.
• These few editors who do pay attention, might not be parties to the subject covered by the template, and who therefore do make appropriate notifications, are duly notifying people who are actually interested about what changes a template might really require.
• Accusations of canvassing, where appropriate notification is used, are without merit.

No actual evidence at this time, but lacking a workshop for this review I'd like to say that Martijn Hoekstra's recommendations would be the right way to clarify Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic's assertion is wrong and misleading

Cryptic wrote:

• In the face of a fairly well-attended tfd (closed version) ...

As anyone can see, four editors commented on Andy's proposal to merge together ((Infobox Cambridge college)) with ((Infobox Oxford college)). That is anything but well-attended.

• ... where opinion was unanimously against his proposal ...

In fact, as can bee seen from the permalink above:

1. Frietjes was opposed because he wanted them merged into ((infobox residential college)).
2. DePiep simply took the opportunity to make yet another attack on Andy's method of opening discussion on a merger, rather than addressing any substantial issues about whether a merger would be better.
3. Jm3106jr agreed to withdraw his objection if the merged template would differentiate between Cambridge and Oxford colleges.
4. Brigade Piron wanted to keep the status quo, but only offered "Unnecessary change" as a reason.

The TfD ended with a non-admin closure from an editor who has less than six months experience on Wikipedia and no track record of closing TfDs. The closure gave no reason for the result and seems to have favoured the position of only one (or perhaps two - as we can't tell what DePiep's position was) of the five people involved.

To characterise Andy as then making an "Unreasonable request at WP:DRV" under those circumstances is yet another example of slinging mud in the hope that some of it will stick. And here's a note of caution to ArbCom: if you don't read all of the diffs provided on the Evidence page, you'll end up once again believing blatant spin. We sanction editors who deliberately misinterpret sources, so why don't you at least caution editors who do the same thing with diffs - in the clear expectation that you won't read them? --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are an integral part of Wikipedia

During the original case (30 July 2013), evidence was presented that "only c.1.5 million infoboxes" were in use on the English Wikipedia. Since then, the number has risen to over 2.2 million. That's an increase of 700,000 or almost 50% in 18 months. In that same time period the number of articles has risen by no more than 10%. I added about 6 of those 700,000 infoboxes, while Andy added none. It's not the so-called "pro-infoboxers" who are adding infoboxes, it's ordinary editors and new editors, and they are being treated badly by the "anti-infoboxers" because ArbCom decided that it was better to take sides in a content dispute: the ordinary editors don't complain when their good-faith edits are reverted, so things look quiet. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors are bullied by those opposed to infoboxes

ArbCom's punitive actions against one side emboldened the anti-infobox editors. I'll present here just one recent example, but if you want more, I can dig them up. Ludwig van Beethoven: Revision history

• On 29 November 2014, Harsh4101991, an editor with just 338 edits since starting in 2011, added an infobox.
• On 30 November 2014, Michael Bednarek reverted with edit summary infobox – see talk page archives and inline comment, removing the infobox and restoring an html comment After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates.

Since when can a Wikiproject "determine" what can and cannot be in an article? For any article, the relevant discussions should be in that article's talk-page archives per AbCom's decision "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. 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." Here's the search in the talk page archives - where's this discussion and consensus that decided that Beethoven should not have an infobox?

That is a disgraceful treatment of an editor who wanted to improve the article in good-faith. ArbCom has given a Wikiproject the idea that they can create policy for articles that they choose, and that ordinary editors may not edit boldly as is normal. ArbCom should be ashamed of what it's done by encouraging such ownership of articles.

• On 30 November 2014 I restored Harsh4101991's contribution and opened a discussion on the talkpage. Eventually the question whether or not the article should have an infobox was discussed at the talkpage during December 2014.
• On 26 December 2014, despite five editors expressing support (in addition to Harsh4101991 and me), with just three editors opposing, Johnbod unilaterally removed the infobox.

There the matter lies. I'm not prepared to re-revert because edit-warring (even with consensus on my side) isn't the way to solve these problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is not a review

The sole purpose of this so-called "review" is to further sanction Andy by throwing enough mud at him that some will stick. ArbCom didn't have the guts to tackle the ownership issues in 2013 and it hasn't got the guts now. When we actually get an Arbitration Committee that is prepared to take on the bullying from Wikiprojects and make it clear that treating good-faith editors like idiots isn't acceptable, then we'll start to see some resolution of the infobox problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

@Martijn Hoekstra: I'd love to think you're right and I'm wrong about the reason for this "review". And I agree that I should produce diffs when challenged, so here's the permalink to the AE discussion that actually spawned this review. I assert that the original filer has been a long-time opponent of infoboxes and that he requested Andy be sanctioned merely for suggesting the replacement of ((Geobox)) with ((Infobox settlement)). Although he concedes that this would be no more than a change from one "an infobox in all but name" to another, he still wants Andy to be banned from such discussions. That was never part of the restrictions Andy was under as evidenced by this clarification request, which emphatically established that it was never in the Arbs' minds to remove Andy from discussions where his acknowledged technical abilities were valuable to those debates. Nevertheless, because of the limited restrictions, he has "a target painted on his back" and his opponents have used every opportunity to leverage those restrictions to remove him from discussions where they find it uncomfortable to actually debate the issues. Read through the AE request that lead us here and then please tell me that you don't see the pitchforks and torches brigade creating new restrictions for Andy that weren't there previously. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend is presenting false evidence

AussieLegend asserts "Pigsonthewing has been successful at many TfDs but in depth analysis would be required to determine how many TfDs would not have been a win if not for the same editors who seem to follow him from TfD to TfD, supporting seemingly nearly every nomination."

It's easy to make sweeping claims unsupported by any links, and this is yet another clear example of "throw mud and see much sticks" that much of this case is littered with. So I decided to take a look at Andy's contributions from December 2014 (the latest month where we might expect TfDs to have all been closed).

What rapidly becomes clear is that there is no pattern of the same people supporting Andy's nominations as AussieLegend claims. There is, however, a clear pattern of opposition from a small group of editors who seem determined to attack Andy at every opportunity rather than discuss their opposition to the nominations:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31 #Template:Infobox U.S. county - DirtLawyer: "Another ill-conceived merge proposal"; "your snarkiness and sarcasm", "Andy, you do have a very selective memory";
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30 #Template:Infobox Australian road - DePiep: "utter nonsense. WP:INCOMPETENCE", "plain stupid", "keeps stubbornly (to say it nice) pushing a dead parrot", "This is incompetent", "pushing his uninformed unread stubborn idefixe";
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30 #Template:Infobox Paris street - DePiep: "bad sloppy param analysis";
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 #Template:Infobox tractor - DePiep: "you are playing a wordgame", "wordplay and evasion", "competence in this is your issue, snotty remarks are not good talkpage behaviour", "a deviative or snarky response";
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 #Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station - DePiep: "this is incompetent", "unknowing nomination", "the lack of competence in there is shocking";
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 #Template:Infobox German railway vehicle - DePiep: "the nom is lacking competence", "it is written by incompetence", "writing a proposal with this quality showing incompetence";

... and so on.

It seems that we're being denied the opportunity to analyse the evidence - even though I'd much prefer to debate the above in threaded discussion without arbitrary diff and word limits. Nevertheless, anyone who cares to pick a few TfD logs from the last few months can quickly see how the same group are found constantly in opposition to Andy - and not debating the merits of the proposed merges (as that's what they mostly are), but simply attacking Andy for making nominations. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read it for yourself in the logs. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment (since I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Pigsonthewing, which led to this review). I know the Evidence is due to close today and wanted to put a placeholder in for now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ban is open to interpretation and needs to be clarified

At the conclusion of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes in September 2013, Arbcom stated: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

My understanding was that this applies anywhere on Wikipedia (as there is no qualifying statement limiting the ban to articles or to article talk space). I also see discussion to replace or the act of replacing an infobox as a violation of the ban (since replacement involves removal of one infobox and addition of another). There have been four requests for enforcement based on similar interpretations (the last is the one I filed which led to this Review):

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Pigsonthewing March 2014

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153#Pigsonthewing July 2014

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159#Pigsonthewing December 2014

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Pigsonthewing January 2015

In these cases there are initially editors (including current and former Arbs) who agree that Pigsonthewing's edits violate at least the letter of the ban, then there are others who argue that the ban implies certain edits are allowed (replacing a malformed infobox with a different one, nominating infoboxes for deletion or merger at WP:TfD). Although Potw has not commented on any of these, a group of editors is quick to defend him. The first three requests were closed as no violation (though Potw was admonished in the third), but there are no links to these at the original Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes page, nor are there links to these requests on the active sanctions or Wikipedia:Editing restrictions pages (where the infobox ban is but one of Potw's three active editing restrictions).

The fourth request (mine) was closed because this review was opened, and no finding of fact was made. I filed the request because Potw proposed for 159 articles using the borough functionality of Geobox "... to replace their infoboxes with ((infobox settlement)), then remove the relevant coding from this template" - see Template_talk:Geobox#Boroughs. This did notgo through TfD, no attempt was made to notify the relevant WikiProject (all the boroughs are in the state of Pennsylvania) and Potw made no reply to my question asking how this was not a violation of his infobox ban.

I have better things to do than check Potw's edits, but I do have the Geobox pages on my watchlist, which is how I became mixed up in all this. I see Potw as an editor who has a hard time taking no for an answer (in addition to some of the behavior which makes interactions with him more difficult as pointed out in their evidence by Rschen7754, Cryptic, Martijn Hoekstra, PC-XT, Mardus, and AussieLegend). Many of the conflicts Potw has been involved in have resulted from not being able to accept that things do not always go the way he wants them to. Where ArbCom has set firm boundaries, Potw has typically followed them, so I think clarifying the ban should help.

Possible outcomes

Since there is no workshop phase, here are some suggested actions for ArbCom to consider.

1. At least link the four requests (see above) at the Infoboxes ban and at the active sanctions and editing restrictions pages
2. Modify the language to reflect the de facto poisitions that Potw may fix a badly malformed existing infobox in an article, and may nominate infoboxes at WP:Tfd.
3. If Potw asks to add infoboxes to articles he creates, allow him to do so (since the problem was always adding them to articles where consensus was against an infobox at all).. I would make this a case by case allowance, as Potw seems to like to find ways to nibble around the edges of the ban
4. If Potw wants to nominate an infobox (including Geobox) for deletion, then it has to be at WP:Tfd, and I would further add that he had to notify affected WikiProjects
5. If Potw wants to nominate a template for deletion or merger, he has to provide reasons other than it is only used in x articles (I would allow x = zero)
6. Given complaints that Potw reopens Tfds that do not go his way, Arbcom could put a wait limit (at least a year before reopening a Tfd?) or some version of 1RR for Tfds for Potw

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postscripts

PS Despite what Rexxs claims, Cryptic's characterization of the Tfd was correct - look at the other closed Tfds at the link provided where many of the Tfd's are closed with one editor's comment, so four editors is a "fairly well attended" Tfd, and all four !voted Oppose. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Potw himself headed a section of his evidence "'Venue for template discussions is WP:TfD'", while his "friend IRL" Harry Mitchell headed a section of his evidence "'TfD is the proper venue for discussing templates'". The incident that brought me to Arbitration Enforcement and lead to this review was Potw proposing replacing Geobox (which he calls an infobox) in 159 articles diff and then 249 townships articles diff, then removing the code from Geobox. Geobox is an attempt to have one infobox for a wide range of geography articles, so removing the functionality from Geobox is akin to deleting an infobox for that type of place. Despite Potw's own belief that the "Venue for template discussions is WP:TfD", he instead tried to remove more of Geobox through this low profile technique (and this is exactly the same thing I pointed out in the ArbCom Infoboxes case - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ruhrfisch). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at my evidence in the case. Nothing much changed:

Infoboxes are an accessibility tool

Andy did not breach his topic ban

Recent evidence vs. myth

Fighting prejudice

Wagner and no end

"Perfectly acceptable": infobox opera

What changed is that infoboxes for operas, acceptable already in 2013, are actually used now, - Carmen and Rigoletto, then subject of debates, have an infobox. Why are we here, again, still? - Let's write articles instead. On the Main page is a classical composition with an infobox ;) Listen to --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: links to ((infobox opera)) can be seen here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing is generally uncollaborative

Andy never discusses potential infobox deletions or merges with end users or maintainers prior to nominating at TfD. He also refuses to add |type=Infobox to nominations, blaming Twinkle,[30][31] This attitude results in confusion and frustration for readers & editors. At the recent failed TfM discussion for ((Infobox U.S. county)), this resulted in over 436,000 articles being emblazoned with the page-wide TfM banner because Andy wouldn't take the extra step and TfM participants expressed their anger and frustration.[32][33][34] Andy does not notify relevant projects, which are usually listed on the template's talk page, so others have to do it for him.[35] --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing fails to prepare adequately for deletions/nominations

• ((Infobox tractor)) - Previously nominated in July 2013. Caterpillar D9 was found to be problematic. Andy failed to check on this before renominating again in December 2014. He deliberately avoided presenting Caterpillar D9 as an example, instead presenting a much simpler conversion,[36] and although I asked for a demonstration of Caterpillar D9,[37] no example has been demonstrated.
• ((Infobox Rome episode)) - Second nomination on 29 December 2014. Andy was not aware that changes that he made to the template would likely result in two more templates being created in its place.[38][39][40]
• ((Infobox Australian road)) - Nominated on 30 December 2014 for merge with ((Infobox road)). Had Andy checked he would have discovered that Infobox road is being Luafied and a merge is undesirable at this time. Discussion was closed accordingly. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing selectively determines consensus

On more than one occassion Andy has made a false claim of "consensus", when none existed, so as to force his own edits into an infobox, or exclude content that he didn't like.

• ((Infobox television episode)) - In 2008, Andy suggested inclusion of a "coordinates" parameter to the template,[41] but there was no reply until February 2013. In March 2013 he revisited the issue,[42] again with no reply. In March 2014 he added the parameter, and another undiscussed parameter, anyway.[43] When I reverted the addition, he claimed "longstanding consensus".[44] A subsequent discussion showed no support for inclusion.
• ((Infobox Ireland station)) - TfM nomination recently closed as merge with ((Infobox station)). Andy has consistently claimed there was no consensus to include links present in Infobox Ireland station, even though he is the only person to ever mention them.[45][46][47][48][49] Ultimately the TfM closer clarified that there was no consensus not to include the links,[50] and Andy's refusal to accept the clear outcome of the TfM discussion resulted in a 10.5 day delay in implementing changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing acts unprofessionally when editing templates

As a very experienced editor with the templateeditor permission, Andy's actions in templates and articles are sometimes unprofessional and far less than should be expected.

• ((Infobox television episode)) - During the first nomination of Infobox Rome episode, I attempted to implement a merge by adding some general purpose parameters to ((Infobox television episode)). These were reverted by another editor, arguing that we needed to discuss parameters first.[51] Fair enough. Knowing this, Andy still implemented his undiscussed parameter and the indaquately discussed parameter he had enquired about 6 years previously.[52][53]
• ((Infobox Rome episode)) - During the recent nomination, instead of creating example in his userspace or Template:Infobox Rome episode/testcases, he chose to test edits in a live article,[54] and made a major mistake in doing so.[55] --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "win" at TfD is not necessarily a win for the project

Pigsonthewing has been successful at many TfDs but in depth analysis would be required to determine how many TfDs would not have been a win if not for the same editors who seem to follow him from TfD to TfD, supporting seemingly nearly every nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals

@Montanabw: - Do you have evidence of the "hounding" that you talk of? There is no doubt some (much) negative reaction to Andy's nominations, but that's because they generally come out of nowhere, often on templates that have been nominated previously and which survived. There's also the reaction caused by Andy's unwillingness to discuss before TfD, his stubborn refusal to add |type=infobox to nominations and ill-preparedness at TfD (inability to provide appropriate examples, lack of understanding about certain templates etc) and the "x is redundant to y" deletion nominations, which really means "x would be redundant to y if several new parameters were added to y". In short, this hounding is something that Andy could easily avoid but doesn't seem to want to. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: - I do hold Andy to higher standards. He is a highly experienced editor (144,000 edits) with over 11 years of experience so he knows what is expected of editors here, yet he continally fails to meet those expectations and I am only ever in conflict with him when that occurs which, with one exception (see this discussion), is at TfD. When I referred to Andy as being unprofessional I was actually paying him a compliment. I find many of his actions amateurish and unacceptable but Andy does have some talents. He's the sort of person we want writing code but he's a back room person - if we were in a retail store he'd be out the back, doing stock checks, filing etc. I wouldn't let him near the customers. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take great offence to Montanabw's allegations of tag-teaming, etc. For the record, prior to this edit at the ((Infobox tractor)) TfD, I don't think I was even aware of DePiep's existence and the diffs provided certainly don't provide any proof of tag-teaming and certainly not "tendentiously debating until there is a 'no consensus' decision". I don't intend dragging this discussion off course by posting questionable diffs of Montanabw, but I will point out the following:

((Infobox Rome episode)) - This is the TfD where Andy chose to make test edits in a live article rather than the testcases page, and made mistakes when he did so (diffs already provided)

((Infobox tractor)) - This is the TfD where Andy refused to provide an example conversion of the problematic Caterpillar D9, instead choosing a much easier conversion. At no time did I accuse Andy of "incompetence". What I said was is "You know that the D9 infobox was problematic at the last TfD, yet you chose to use a much easier article to use as an example. Quite simply, you haven't adequately prepared for this nomination."

((Infobox Ireland station)) - I proposed that merging with the very similar ((Infobox GB station)) (with a possible name change) was a better option but Andy strongly opposed because Ireland is not part of the UK. I replied "As I explained at the last TfD, Infobox Ireland station and Infobox GB station are very similar and could be merged into a new template called Infobox UK station without a great deal of difficulty and without losing anything, which won't happen if the template is merged into the generic Infobox station. They're very similar templates so this is no real issue. Or do you have something against the Irish?" Andy responded with more ranting about how Ireland is not part of the UK. I realise now that Andy's opposition is because he has an agenda. Merging Infobox Ireland station into Infobox station will allow him to nominate the pesky Infobox GB station again.[56] It's on Andy's list,[57] despite having been kept at TfD twice. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I have seen of Andy has been positive in terms of technical knowledge, talk page discussions, and in fact he is probably irreplaceable in terms of what he does for Wikipedia.

There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that the arbcom decision which limited his editing was one sided. I hope this committee will not ignore those many voices.

Wikipedia is not based on a punitive model. An editor who makes edits assuming he is not transgressing a sanction should not be sanctioned further especially when it appears he didn't transgress the sanction in the first place

I'd suggest that Aussie Legend is holding Andy to some set of standards Aussie Legend has established including unprofessional, prepare adequately. These are subjective judgements initiated by one editor who is in conflict with another. We don't get to decide who is unprofessional or who is not prepared. Each editor does the best they can. Sometimes we are better than at other times. For sure we don't suggest sanctions because we believe someone else is unprepared. People in glass houses.... and at different points in time that's all of us.

Once an editor has been sanctioned fairly or unfairly there are those who will target that editor either knowingly or unknowingly using trigger words that can be picked up/seen easily, later in just this kind of setting.We have a tendency to skim the evidence, if its long, or to not follow diffs... and diffs can be taken out of context. From following Andy's progress I have no sense that he is doing anything sanctionable. As always Arb members have to ask themselves if they are being manipulated. I'm not saying this is happening here but please consider.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

To Aussie Legend:You have a right to an opinion but I don't believe you have a right to assume your higher standards are also Andy's and Wikipedia's. Can you not see that you are establishing a standard which you then not only expect another editor to meet but are willing to see him sanctioned if he doesn't.which is what your cmt suggests. The is an arbitration review which suggests to me not a employer review but a scrutiny of behaviour per Wikipedia' standards. And for heaven's sake everyone of us here has better and worse days, has days when work is great and days when its not.The off days are not sanctionable. That said I'm not suggesting Andy has not done great work; I don't see poor work for him. At worst I see an editor who is hounded responding at times abruptly, not sanctionable. and whose manner in general is more business-like than long winded, also not sanctionable. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Perhaps some personal opinions are better left unwritten "He's the sort of person we want writing code but he's a back room person - if we were in a retail store he'd be out the back, doing stock checks, filing etc. I wouldn't let him near the customers." but perhaps clues the abs into what Andy deals with. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• What do I suggest: How long is a sanction meant to be in place? With no evidence that Andy has transgressed the restrictions of his sanction is it time to lift the original sanction?(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: I am willing to provide additional info or diffs if the arbs or clerks request them.

Current sanctions

The original findings in this case are widely seen in the community as one-sided and excessively restrictive.

At least in part (for example in preventing me from including an infobox in an article I create from scratch), they are punitive, not preventative.

They have not prevented arguments about the inclusion of infoboxes from continuing to occur. In these, the same people who were involved but not sanctioned in the original case continue to make fallacious claims about the supposed uselessness of infoboxes.

We still have a large number (~300, IIRC) of articles with the HTML comment "<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]]--> " Not only is this contrary to what that essay actually says, but it blatantly breaches the case's finding of fact that: "Whether to include an infobox... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.". Infoboxes are still removed, with edit summaries like "please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes".

Nonetheless, I have been scrupulous in abiding by these restrictions. There has not been once case proven of me failing to do so, and no administrative action has been taken as a result of them (see here).

My background

I am a widely respected Wikipedian in Residence, currently with three institutions. I am regularly invited to - and do - volunteer at national and international Wikipedia events (including a forthcoming speaking engagement at WikiArabia). I regularly accept invitations to collaborate in national and international/ multilingual Wikipedia projects, as content contributor and speaker (see my user page)

I am a prolific content contributor, here and on sister projects. I regularly collaborate with editors on non-English Wikipedias, on technical and content matters (examples: Egyptian, Catalan, Hindi).

I have trained over 75 new editors in the last two months alone (with more training sessions scheduled).

I am regularly asked for my assistance with infoboxes (here, here, here, here, here), and other technical matters (here, here, here, here, here, here), This includes being asked to review and nominate templates for merging (here, here). In some cases, the current restrictions prevent me from helping my fellow editors.

There are many editors who would attest to the help I have given them (examples here, here and a barnstar for making an infobox), or to mutual collaboration. However, they are unlikely to find this discussion, and I have not canvassed them.

Current sanctions facilitate hounding

The existing sanctions have been used, in an ad hominem fashion, to try to discredit me in unrelated discussions. On one occasion, an unfounded complaint led to a block, which was quickly overturned as wrongful, In this section, an unwarranted intervention by Doncram resulted in a another editor withdrawing a kind offer to assist me with a technical matter. He (Doncram) has also repeatedly opposed my reasonable PROD nominations, falsely asserting that it was my intention to delete an article solely to remove an infobox (here, here, here, here). He appears to have stalked my edits to do so. He repeated the false allegation ("the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like") in each of the subsequent AfDs (e.g. this et al). In two of the four cases, he accused me of wanting to delete the article solely to remove ((Infobox)), when the articles in question actually used ((Infobox book)).

This and similar cases (here; here; here - some, due to ambiguity in the sanction's wording, no doubt made in good faith) have a chilling effect that impedes the usual process of developing Wikipedia.

No breach of sanctions has occurred

As I noted above, and others have shown, I have been scrupulous in abiding by the current sanctions.

On 18 July 2014, I replaced one (broken) infobox with another, as I had done many times before. This led to an Arbcom clarification request by Sandstein in which Arbs made it clear that there had been no breach. Newyorkbrad commented that "This is not worth discussing" and Sandstein concluded "This settles the matter for me". No action was taken against me; nor has any such action been taken subsequently. Since the arbs agreed that all I did was change an infobox, not add one, and so the sanctions were not breached, it logically follows that subsequent cases, where I have changed from one infobox to another, or have proposed doing so in a TfD, are not breaches of the restrictions they imposed.

No evidence of malfeasance has been given

No evidence of malfeasance on my behalf has been offered.

A number of editors who have alleged malfeasance on my behalf in their comments here are merely seeking to prevent me from making template (or article) deletion nominations with which thy disagree; or responding to such nominations after consensus has gone against their wishes. Much of what is presented as supposed evidence of wrong-doing is simply evidence of a difference of opinion, about either process or desirable outcome, and is resolvable by community discussion in the usual manner.

Further, some seek to sanction me for breaching imagined "rules", that do not exist, and for which they offer no evidence of existence.

Those seeking to have me sanctioned further have either not brought, or have not been successful in binging, AN/ANI cases over these or any other matters; again, note the lack of evidence thereof.

Tone

It has been said that I am terse. While this is subjective, I do prefer brevity over verbosity. Nonetheless, I am happy to - and regularly do - answer questions made in good faith. My tone is not rude, abusive, foul-mouthed, ad hominem, nor insulting, but I am human, and do occasionally snap back when provoked. This has not risen to the level of admin sanctions needing to be imposed.

I collaborate to reduce the number of infobox templates

Since 2008 or earlier I have been involved in an initiative to reduce the number of our infoboxes to more sensible and manageable proportions. This has successfully reduced the bewildering confusion of choice for editors, and lowers the maintenance workload when updates (eg the global addition of |alt= parameters for images) are required.

I have collaborated with other editors at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes to facilitate this. Many dozens of superfluous, redundant or unused infoboxes have been deleted or merged (examples: changes for people; Society and social science, Sceince and Nature, and many more improved, as a result of this, by me and other editors in collaboration. The vast majority of these cases have been unremarkable (baseball bio, Arena footballer, biathletes, Village in_Ukraine, Little House character), yet have made life much better for our readers and much easier for our editors and those who reuse our data (I wrote a FAQ to explain this).

This work is ongoing.

Martijn has kindly demonstrated that not only are the vast majority of the nominations I make uncontroversial, but that they usually close in accordance with my recommendations. Those that do not often still result in an alternative but still useful change to the status quo. Given the very high number of such nominations I make, it is easy for detractors to find a handful of examples where that is not the case. But for them to present them as typical, or as evidence of a trend, is highly misleading.

I collaborate to improve existing infoboxes

In April 2014, I requested another editor create a list of one-off infoboxes, with manually-entered labels, in my user space, and have, working collaboratively with others, reduced their number by almost a thousand (from 2398), by replacing them with subject-specific boxes (examples: [58], [59], [60]), often making other improvements at the same time. This improves their presentation and standardisation (thereby facilitating speedy comparison of two related subjects), often improves their accessibility, and causes them to emit useful metadata. It also makes life easier for subsequent editors looking to update the infobox content. These changes have caused no controversy whatsoever. While some cannot be replaced, more than a half of the work, which cannot be automated, remains to be done.

I also do a great deal of collaborative work to improve the coding, accessibility and presentation of existing infoboxes.

Venue for template discussions is WP:TfD

The correct venue to nominate templates for discussion or merger is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, as specified on that page and elsewhere. This has been the case since August 2004. There is no requirement for discussion prior to this, and often to do so would prejudice a debate, or be seen as canvassing one set of editors over another. Where a template is of interest two two or more projects, it provides a centralised, neutral forum. A template nomination is flagged on all the articles using the template, and to anyone with it on their watchlist. Oftentimes, interested projects also receive automatic notifications. Besides keep, delete or merge, TfD discussions often have other legitimate outcomes, such as decisions to rename, restyle or to add, remove, re-label or re-purpose parameters. Template nominated for discussion by other editors, without prior consultation as demanded above, has not resulted in the kind of criticisms levelled here at nominations by me. No evidence has been provided, that such prior consultation is required, expected or normal. We do not expect creators or projects to be consulted before articles are referred to AfD; and TfD is no different.

The canvassing I have highlighted is real

Wikipedia has - for good reason - a strongly-worded policy against canvassing deletion debates. It says "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." (emphasis mine)

I have made no false claims of canvassing. I have, though, pointed out breaches of this policy, either through partisan wording or selective choice of venues (or both); both of which are explicitly mentioned in the policy, as being inappropriate, in the "Message" and "Audience" columns of this table which is part of that page:

and in the text, which I quote:

• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions... Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.

Examples of canvassing I have reported:

• "past ill-considered merge proposals at TfD. I have posted a fairly lengthy oppose !vote and rationale for this proposed merge. In short, we do not need... what we need is..."
• "templates being nominated... with ridiculous reasons behind each of them"

It is important that editors who close TfD discussions are made aware of when non-neutral canvassing has occurred, in order that they may weigh its possible effects when coming to their decisions. Far from being "meritless", closing admins have found my reports of such canvassing to be well-founded, for example in this close.

(sorry this is a bit late, I've had to write a grant this week)

Adding and removing infoboxes from individual articles is not the same as altering templates

Self-evident. The conduct complained of in the last case principally revolved around the first point, rather than the second.

Andy's style of communication and method of operations regularly aggravates other people

See the evidence of others above.

Andy has valuable expertise in template setup

See his own evidence.

This is a classic vested contributor problem. Andy has certainly aggravated people by his work at TfD, for reasons similar to those that brought on the prior case, but it's not clear that his conduct has reached the point that it would be escalated to ArbCom. Moreover, I don't see the intent of the remedies in the last case being to cover TfD work, and I think the expertise he brings to the table with templates balances the difficulty of working with him in a way that wasn't the case when he was attempting to insert infoboxes into individual articles.

In general, I think the issues surrounding infobox mergers, deletions, etc. should be pursued through normal dispute resolution channels. Martijn Hoekstra's recommendations seem sensible and well-founded to me and a good way of resolving the ambiguity of the last case. Choess (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: Andy is friend IRL. I am not claiming to be an uninvolved admin, and have recused from acting as an admin in any situation regarding Andy. I have no strong feelings about infoboxes except that I don't think they do any harm.

The remedy as written is ambiguous

Contrary to what some arbs have stated, the remedy is poorly drafted. I never imagined for a minute that it would apply to participation at TfD; frankly, I consider it to be wikilawyering to the point of absurdity to reach a definition of "adding or removing infoboxes or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes" that includes nominating the templates themselves for deletion or merging, but some people disagree with my assessment in good faith. The various enforcement and clarification requests are evidence of that. We are here because of ArbCom's failure to provide greater clarity on request, not because of Andy's conduct.

Andy has abided by the remedy as written

Andy's good-faith interpretation of the remedy, and that of admins at AE ever time the issue has been raised there, is that it applies to discussions about whether there should be an infobox on an article or page, not whether an article should use ((infobox foo)) or ((infobox bar)), and not whether those two should be merged into ((infobox foobar)). To the best of my knowledge, Andy has stuck to that restriction and has not added or removed any infoboxes to or from articles, and has not participated in any discussion about whether or not an article should have an infobox.

Participation at TfD was never at issue in the original case

Searching the evidence returns three results for "TfD", none of which were about Andy's conduct there. "Templates for discussion" returns no results. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a sausage.

Andy can be belligerent

I think he recognises this. He needs to work on it. In particular, when other editors try to derail a thread or start an argument with ad hominems, Andy falls for it hook, line, and sinker. He can also be brusque in explaining himself, which can come across as combative or passive aggressive, but is rarely intended as such.

De-cluttering is a good thing

Reducing the number of infoboxes (for example) from thousands of specialist templates to a more manageable number benefits editors because it reduces maintenance overheads for template maintainers and reduces the bewildering array of templates for article-writers.

TfD is the proper venue for discussing templates

That's its name—templates for discussion. The template talk namespace is not generally well-trafficked, and it's likely that in many cases the only person with the template in their watchlist is the person who created it. TfD is a centralised venue where everyone interested in templates can find discussions about templates. If I was looking for a discussion about merging a template, that's where I'd look.

Controversial ≠ disruptive

Just because something is controversial does not mean it is disruptive. Even knowingly opening a discussion that is likely to be controversial is. Not. Disruptive. If it were, we'd never have RfCs. The whole point if discussion is to establish consensus.

Readers don't care

The reader doesn't give a monkey's about whether an article uses ((infobox foo)), ((infobox bar)), or ((infobox foobar)).

The original case has done nothing to resolve the infobox wars

They're still going on, except that one of the most vocal editors on one side has been removed. For an example that crossed my watchlist not so long ago, Cassianto (talk · contribs) made this edit in November last year to Sophie Dahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), removing the infoox with the edit summary No idiot box until consensus is built. The article had had an infobox in one form or another since March 2008.

It is simply inaccurate to state that Andy was the sole problem, or that removing Andy has resolved the dispute.

Andy's block log

Andy and Doncram were both blocked for 48 hours last May for edit-warring. They were both unblocked on appeal by another admin after two and a half hours. If we count that as being commuted to "time served" rather than being overturned on appeal, that's Andy's most recent block that wasn't overturned on appeal or reversed by the blocking admin. Prior to that, Andy's last bock that lasted more than a few hours before being reversed by the blocking admin was 27 September 2008. I don't think anybody, and certainly not Andy, disputes that Andy had some issues back then, but that block was six and a half years ago. That's a very long time on Wikipedia. Indeed, that was six months before I registered my account.

What do I suggest?

I don't think big sticks are going to do any good here. No evidence has been presented that Andy has done anything that's more than mildly annoying; certainly nothing that is outright disruptive or which shows he has anything other than the project's best interests at heart.

Do what you were asked to. Clarify that the restriction applies to adding and removing infobox templates, not to the maintenance or discussion of the templates themselves. You could allow Andy to add an infobox when he writes an article (perhaps specifying that it must be done in the first edit to avoid another round of enforcement and clarification requests which); there's no scope for disruption there. You could remind Andy to conduct himself properly and work on his communication skills, especially when he's doing something potentially controversial, essentially per Martijn. There's not nearly enough evidence to suggest that Andy's participation at TfD with regard to infoboxes is inherently disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Doncram

Sorry for posting this after the deadline, but it seems unfair to leave such misleading statements unchallenged; they were posted 21 hours after the deadline, which strongly suggests that the intent was to prevent rebuttal.

• PRODding articles is not disruptive. It's a lightweight deletion process where the deletion is not likely to be contentious. Taking it to AfD after the PROD is contested is not disruptive—that's standard practice; I've done it many times. If you feel any article were deleted by PROD that shouldn't have been, make me a list and I'll restore them for you—PRODs can be contested even after deletion; it's designed as a soft deletion process. Whenever one compiles an automatically generated list of articles to review for something, the chances are they are going to run into a few articles of questionable merit.
• Asking the closer to be mindful that editors were asked to participate other than through the normal channels (for which "canvassing" is the common shorthand on Wikipedia) is not disruptive.
• Contacting an editor directly and asking them to reconsider their position is not disruptive. I've done that many times as well.
• Formatting indentation to match every other comment and to make a discussion more readable is not disruptive. In fact, quite the contrary: I gather making one comment with a new line in the middle and separate indentation causes screenreaders to mis-read the comment. It also looks at a glance to editors with vision like an unsinged comment followed by a signed response. It might be mildly annoying to the person whose formatting is being corrected, but it is actually beneficial.
• Doncram makes a bold statement in the header of Pigsonthewing is often deliberately rude, but then doesn't provide a single example of any rudeness. Don't take my word for it, read it and follow the links. There's a discussion about a quote template which Andy started in a perfectly polite manner (Doncram accuses him of misrepresenting an MfD result, but 30 seconds' reading would show that the meaning of the result was the cause of the dispute!). Not that this has anything to do with infoboxes, it's just mud-slinging. The other example is a discussion at AN3, and we can hardly expect editors to be unfailingly polite when they feel they've been wrongly reported for misconduct; Andy's tone was strident, but he nonetheless focused his arguments on the merits of the edits and of the report, rather than on Doncram personally. Not that that had anything to do with infoboxes, either: it was a dispute over merging an article about gardening to a broader article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at Statement by Doncram, in version of AE leading to this review, just before AE was archived, that POTW's pursuit of PRODs and AFDs on articles having templates that he did not like was hurtful to Wikipedia. Specifically his pursuit in May 2014, using a worklist, of articles using "direct calls to infobox", caused disruption in scattered areas and appears to have driven at least one editor from Wikipedia. Given my recent statement in the AE, he responded by renewing his campaign, which extends sometimes to closely related articles by the same authors (not all having offensive-to-him infoboxes). Then, and again now, when his PROD is disputed by me and then is automatically AFD'd by him, the ultimate result usually has been that articles are Kept not Deleted. But he did get numerous articles eliminated before I or others noticed and objected. And he forced others to spend time upon ill-prepared AFDs in which I and others note he did not perform wp:BEFORE (and he has not disagreed). I won't restate links and diffs provided in my AE statement, or update to further items. But I don't want to have to use my time to monitor his edits and counter his template-elimination-related quests.

It seems relevant to note:

Pigsonthewing charges canvassing incorrectly

• Example within Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22:
  • At 22:50, 28 January 2015‎ POTW charges canvassing. It is not canvassing, as reply by Dirtlawyer ably addresses (and subsequent comments by me and another editor agree it was not). It was two Talk page contacts by the editor to persons who had already voted, discussing post-TFD plans, not seeking or causing any change in the TFD. POTW never apologizes or withdraws his charge.
  • However, hypocritically, POTW later goes to a different user's talk page to request explicitly they come change their vote, in this diff at 20:49 on Jan 29 diff edit summary "c". At the TFD, a few minutes later, on Jan 29 at 20:52 POTW notes edit summary "-1", with a ping to that user and a request they "please confirm". POTW does NOT disclose having contacted the user at their Talk page. The user did respond by returning and changing their vote; the contact did affect the TFD.
• I noticed because POTW has also falsely charged me with canvassing, in previous interactions about articles having direct calls to infobox.
  • this Jan 29 charge within an AFD, repeated at 3 linked AFDs, which are all false...it is common and good to link between related AFDs, as I fully replied at my Talk. (He also quoted a good AE directive at me, about not being confrontative and not commenting on contributors, but omitted part of the quote directed at him, that "editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also.", and I addressed that in my reply also (that i was not, while he was, doing that). I resent the attempt to intimidate, compounding the false accusations of canvassing.
  • In this May 10 "warning" by a canvassing template, which he edits himself, because the template's language simply does not apply (because it was not canvassing - it involved no posting to user talk pages!). He goes on to make further false canvassing charge against me in the same discussion (which is archived at User talk:Doncram/Archive 24#NRHP & Recent canvassing).

Pigsonthewing on changing comments in TFD

• Within the same January 22 2015 TFD, POTW charges others with changing his comments edits, yet himself repeatedly edits and restores his edits to other(s)' comments, after others object. D edit, clear in 2 indented statements, at 00:15, 29 Jan, POTW editing that to make it one run-on statement, a third editor complaining about POTW's edit being " Andy editing and breaking other editors contributions" and again here, then me restoring the separation with edit summary about fixing indentation problems, then POTW again implementing the change of edit, with edit summary misleadingly describing it as restoring his own edit, supposedly edited by me. I left it at that point.
• I especially notice the bickering about editing comments in TFDs, because he has charged me with changing his comments, including in [this charge, with my reply, at my Talk page]

Pigsonthewing is often deliberately rude

• POTW made rude followup to previous brouhaha he caused on Signpost quote template in October-November 2014, by returning to twice redirect, without notice, the template, to a different one. It gets addressed at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote#Redirect, a Talk section that POTW did open, but argumentatively and obtusely miss-stating the MFD outcome. It is resolved by others implementing a "wrapper", instead of a mere redirect, which I guess is consistent with the MFD. But POTW succeeded in dis-respecting the Signpost editor(s) flagrantly and unnecessarily by his approach.
• In a previous interaction when I reported POTW for edit warring, he made dismissive personal attacks, within 3RRNB archive here. He never responded to my review/discussion for him, since archived. Basically the whole matter would not have come up if he would have responded previously to my questions at a Talk page. His not replying, his not explaining, is his chosen mode, contributing to disruption.
• POTW's initiating numerous AFDs with the same four-word nomination, using Twinkle, and then never following up or responding to others questions in the AFD, are fundamentally rude.
• In cases such as CANVASS accusations where POTW was objectively wrong, I never have seen him apologize to me or to others.

I have seen POTW make too-strong, dismissive charges in other discussions besides TFD, and in general being unable or unwilling to explain his strong views, and unable or unwilling to acknowledge or see any merit in others views. I don't usually follow TFD but believe others' assertions that POTW has disrupted other TFDs with similar shenanigans that deflect real discussion or undermine others' participation, in lieu of being constructive. --doncram 21:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]