---

Statement by Rschen7754[edit]

This is long overdue. --Rschen7754 08:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MastCell: I don't agree with that, having been a party to the road naming disputes long ago: it's the belief that "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm going to raise hell until I get my way" on the part of at least one side; it can be both sides, but it only takes one side to create an intractable dispute. --Rschen7754 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Resolute: Exactly. --Rschen7754 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NW: An old arbitration case that may be relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from The ed17[edit]

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

Comment from PumpkinSky[edit]

As this is Ched's first RFAR filing, I ask that arbcom allow him sufficient time to put the RFAR together.PumpkinSky talk 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am with Mastcell in that this and so many other wiki squabbles aren't about what they seem, they are about disliking others, power, and wikipolitics. I also agree with Bbb223--why on earth are the music projects special? Why are they unsuitable for music projects? What makes them so different? I also agree with Brian in the SP essay, infoboxes shouldn't be so long as to overtake the body of the article, but long enough to be useful. And where else do you see navboxes (not infoboxes) in the upper right? PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Wehwalt[edit]

This has gone on too long. I don't like the way you've dealt with content contributors, but this is causing the project to bleed. Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NYbrad: I think ArbCom could formulate rules of behavior, which if violated could bring sanctions. I would not support direct pro/con on infoboxes in the subject matter areas as beyond your remit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Orlady (noninvolved)[edit]

This is about the long-standing battles at WikiProject Classical music (also WikiProject Opera) on the topic of whether infoboxes should be permitted to be included in biographical articles about composers and musicians. This recent ANI discussion is indicative of the nature and magnitude of the dispute: [1]. I cannot elucidate the dispute because I have not followed the battles, but it appears that the parties are unable to resolve it on their own, and I am sure that the ongoing disruption discourages some other prospective contributors from working on classical music and opera articles. I can testify that I learned that it would be best to stay away from the whole topic back in 2007 (six years ago) when my innocent efforts to maintain the infobox in an article about a singer were reverted for violating the rules of the Opera project (never mind that the singer also worked in musical theatre and film). --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giano, @Views of Eric Corbett - I suggest that you supply diffs. It's hard to tell which comments you are referring to. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comment from Alanscottwalker[edit]

As I recall, the policy on infoboxes says its up to individual article consensus, and the policy on projects is that they can create and promote consensus on such individual article format matters. So, good luck, but it does not look like there is a sweet spot for you in current policy re this, so this case needs conduct diffs, and conduct policy breaches, and prior steps re conduct, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and it also needs parties involved in the above other things it needs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Lord Sjones23: In the discussion linked by EdChem below, you mention strategic mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, as playing a part in this? What is meant by that? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Laser brain[edit]

Like previous arbitration cases involving Manual of Style issues, this issue suffers from the wrong kind of attention from many editors. I've observed that infoboxes appear in and disappear from articles seemingly as a matter of personal preference and not as a matter of editorial judgement about the needs of our readers. The reason this is becoming an arbitration case is not because it's that difficult to determine whether an infobox would be beneficial to the reader on some given page. We don't need arbitration for that—it should be a matter of common sense and editorial judgement. We're here because some editors have behaved badly with regard to infoboxes. Those editors have expended energy on infoboxes because they feel passionate about them or have strong personal preferences about their presence or absence. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do on Wikipedia per se. However, the behavior of editors who fall into these categories should be examined:

• Editors who have broken the WP:BRD cycle with infoboxes on any article.
• Editors who have added or removed infoboxes against consensus.
• Editors with a history of skirmishing with other editors about infoboxes.
• Editors who have expressed non-editorial reasons for adding or removing infoboxes, especially when editors with opposing views are named.

Again, this is not an editorial or content problem, it is a problem with disruptive behavior. The AN/I thread Orlady linked is a fantastic primer. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent[edit]

(disclaimer: I haven't followed this in detail and have no intention of reading all the pages of past discussions)

The division into "pro and anti infobox" camps is a strawman argument. The dispute is between a very small clique of hardliners on one hand who believe that every article should have a visible infobox regardless of whether an appropriate box exists, and another very small clique who believe that infoboxes oversimplify information and thus should be omitted from certain complex topics. The waters are muddied by small number of very vocal "Wikipedia is a database!" boosters of machine-readable data, who insist infoboxes are necessary on every article for metadata purposes. (FWIW, I find this utterly spurious—the data would be just as machine-readable if it were invisible to readers.)

This is not a content dispute; it's a user conduct issue. I'm sure nobody who was on Arbcom at the time of the Great Endash War has any desire for a rerun, and normally something like this would never make it to Arbcom without an RFC. However, at least one of the key actors in this dispute has a long, long history of disregarding any discussion that doesn't give their position a 100% endorsement and of outright bullying of anyone making comments with which they disagree, while at least four others (from both sides of the dispute) have a record for "well, it's not technically forbidden" weaselling to excuse deliberately provocative adding/removing of boxes, of blatant edit-warring, and of foul-tempered flareups towards anyone who disagrees with them. Given how much bad feeling has been caused by this, it's better for Arbcom to lance the boil now, and not to be afraid to ban people who think they're indispensable if they're not willing to admit that other peoples' opinions might have validity. Let the parties make their cases, pick a policy (it doesn't really matter all that much what it is), and make it clear that anyone breaching it will face nasty blocks or bans. – iridescent 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Toccata quarta[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not-particularly-helpful observation by MastCell[edit]

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

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

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

Comment from Mark Arsten[edit]

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

Comments by Bbb23[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Giano[edit]

What is the purpose of this proposed case? What is the ideal end goal that Ched would like to see? By Ched, I mean Ched, not every passer-by and commentator here?  Giano  21:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply [2]. But I want to know what is your ideal solution; what do you want Abcom to do, say and decree. In my view the worst of the problems are caused by the arrogant intransigence of one single editor,Andy Mabbitt. Every time I have been involved in a heated infobox debate his inability to compromise has been the root cause. Myself and other editors have bent over backwards to compromise, but he won't move a millimeter. It's my opinion that there is a little point having a case while he is still editing, unless Arbcom rule that he can run the info-box show which would cause great loss of valuable editors. So be careful what you wish for.  Giano  13:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by (partly involved) Montanabw[edit]

I see the following issues here: 1) The question of if or when wikiproject consensus can override general guidelines or if general guidelines must always trump wikiproject consensus (particularly if general guidelines themselves are also in a state of flux) 2) When is "consensus" achieved, who achieves it and when it is "set" to not change versus when it can legitimately be changed. 3) An old and probably outdated "consensus" on a wikiproject that is being clung to by the oldtimers in defiance of all logic and reason. 4) Vicious personal attacks by the oldtimers on anyone challenging that "consensus" even when the challenge is made by a new person with no prior history in the project, who is acting in sincere good faith. (And, to be fair, some newer folks probably also not behaving ideally) 5) Some longstanding grudges and personality conflicts, which IMHO simply will be all-but-impossible to address. 6) What infoboxes are "for" anyway... which may also be a question beyond the scope of this particular RfC. To that end, I think the focus on #2 is where most of the heat is. Sending this back to the project will just generate another round of the same. This probably needs to go to the larger community and probably focus on whether this can be resolved by looking at items #1 and #2 to see if they can resolve the problem of #3. #4 is unsolvable here, though the individual parties may benefit from examination elsewhere. #5 also unsolvable here, though probably needs to be looked at elsewhere (I note it as a topic in the most recent Signpost, in fact). Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Giano, I am surprised to see Mabbitt singled out as virtually the "only" person who is a problem; it inevitably takes two sides to tango. The position of the classical music wikiproject "oldtimers" (for lack of a different word) to unite against infoboxes in all shapes and sizes is, in my view, the place where I see "arrogant intransigence". There are at least two currents here, 1) the view of some in the project that no infobox, ever should cross their scared threshold (which is, inherently, a pretty intransigent position) and then 2) the debate over what an infobox might contain, which is a different topic altogether and I don't think is really the core of this particular dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smerus, I am noticing what appears to be a complete inability on your part to see the incredible good faith attempts Gerda repeatedly is making here, I am troubled that you see malice in her every move. The nasty tone of your comments here and elsewhere really demonstrates part of the problem here as well. (Giano, per your comments about Mabbit, note Smerus. Tango definitely involved here!) When someone can't even make a suggestion ON THE TALK PAGE without being slammed with false accusations of evil motive, well, I find that rather scary. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quiddity, Resolute, and others who are mostly uninvolved, a lack of compromise - on ALL sides - is part of the problem here. I think blocks and bans are generally a poor solution; the solution needs to be something that transcends personalities. People are in the classical music projects mostly because they have expertise and experience with the content. People like Mabbit do the technical stuff because they have the expertise and understanding to make these things work. Experts in both things are needed; the project is weaker without them. But folks in and out of the project also need to stop the food fight, reversion wars and feeding frenzy that occurs whenever someone gently and with good faith proposes to move the technical specifications of the project into the modern world. There is a need to have a balance between overall guidelines on infoboxes across projects and respect for WikiProject ability to set a standard for use of things like technical language, relevance of included data (particularly when infoboxes are addded), consistent style, layout, and so on. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Resolute[edit]

Pretty much what Laser Brain said. The root of this issue is not whether or not infoboxes should be universal or whether certain classes of articles can do without them. This issue is about the behaviour of editors during such discussions. To that end, per the ANI thread linked somewhere above, Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), Gerda Arendt and Nikkimaria should probably be parties to this case at the very least. Probably more, but I have not followed the composer infobox dispute closely. In terms of looking at behaviour of these parties specifically, I will not say much at this point due to personal bias. I have a very high level of respect for Nikkimaria, no interaction with Gerda and I have never had a good experience with Andy. I will state, however, that my disputes with Andy have always revolved around infoboxes, and invariably centred around his attempts to force his personal viewpoints into practise, regardless of whether he has consensus support. Resolute 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda - I am happy you have worked well with both of the others. I do wish to clarify that I did not suggest adding you as a party because I am convinced that you have done anything untoward, but merely because the ANI revolved around the interactions of the three of you. It seemed a good place to start to help Ched and the arbs lend focus to this potential case. Resolute 23:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Johnuniq's suggestion: Ordering a six month moratorium on the "infobox wars" seems like little more than sweeping the problem under the carpet. In the case of Andy Mabbett, he was already banned for a year in 2007 for his problems in this area, and here we are six years later with no change in behaviour. Another six months won't encourage him to walk away, and unless all involved editors move on, I don't expect any will. Resolute 21:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by bemused EdChem[edit]

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

Comment by Quiddity[edit]

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

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

I urge Arbcom to take the case, and to consider as possible remedies/suggestions:

• Recommend some specific changes to the documentation of infobox templates and wikiproject guidelines/styleguides/recommended-practices (Eg. reinforce that not all empty fields need to be added, and not all existing fields need to be filled in if there are disputes.)
• A formal request for acknowledgement from certain editors that some of the subjective and objective views of their opponents are valid (I'll elaborate in Evidence)
• A motion that certain arguments related to removing infoboxes are not valid (Eg. That infoboxes are redundant. Because clearly they are, and are intended to be so.)
• Editing-restrictions for certain editors and topic areas (Eg. Pigsonthewing is currently banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day (Afaik. This might have changed since then.))

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

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

Comment by Moxy[edit]

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

Comment from Johnuniq[edit]

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

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

There are plenty of links on aggregation pages like User:Kleinzach/Debates or on article talk pages like this, but apart from brief flare ups, there are no smoking-gun links to show that any particular editor should be blocked or banned. This case needs arbitration to find a way to allow both sides to continue developing the encyclopedia, and short of Arbcom mandating the presence or absence of infoboxes, the only effective solution would be a motion to impose a truce. Of course that is not a permanent solution, but sometimes perfection is not achievable, and no RfC can lead to a satisfactory outcome after all the bitterness in this debate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In view of the below comment from User:Smerus, I should explain that by "The editors involved are expert at being civil" I mean that the editors are expert at following the rules written at WP:CIVIL. I fully agree that one of the named participants in particular has a style which is worse than uncivil, and I wrote "I saw more than a disagreement—it was a knock-down fuck-you argument, all to enforce a non-existent policy that each article must have an infobox" in the exchange at my talk. Here is a diff showing when I added that statement with summary "my strongest statement ever at Wikipedia". Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Resolute: Removing Andy Mabbett from Wikipedia would greatly improve collaboration in the community, and I would welcome that outcome. However, I suspect that previous bans have taught the editor how to operate under the radar. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Mathsci[edit]

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

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

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

A suggestion by Eusebeus to Arbcom[edit]

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

Tangential opinion by uninvolved Modernist[edit]

It makes sense that productive and prolific editors in particular projects be able to interpret guidelines and determine what works or what does not work in regards to articles, infoboxes and other related matters within the purvey of that project. As best as I can figure - this longtime dispute should be dealt with...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Infoboxes in general - I enjoy having a choice as to whether or not to include them - and sometimes I do include them; I do not enjoy having an infobox imposed on any and all articles; dumbing down content; interfering with primary editors work...Modernist (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

I do not see any single diff in the opening statement by Ched that clearly and unequivocally demonstrates problematic behavior by others. The actual problem is prolonged bickering and inability of sides to resolve content disputes. Actually, this is a perfect example how intractable and damaging content disputes can be, even in the most innocent subject areas that do not involve any politics, ethnic conflicts or COI. Yes, some people do not like each other, but this is only because they can not resolve their disputes. There are no efficient dispute resolution procedures in the project. This is the reason. The only really efficient method of dispute resolution is editorial boards. Unless we create editorial boards, such problems can not be resolved. I do not think opening an arbitration case would be very helpful, although one can always ban one or two people for WP:TE/WP:DE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, looking at discussion of infobox for Sebastian_Bach, I am not sure how this can be resolved by Arbcom, given the large number of people voting "pro" and "contra". Of course looking from my perspective of a scientific writer, the arguments against infobox are ridiculous. Key point here: the majority of readers will not read the article, but only look at Figures, infobox and maybe Summary. This applies to any typical scientific publication: main idea of an article must be clear after quickly looking through the Summary, Figures and Tables (the "extended Summary" provided by many scientific journals), and the infobox is a key element of this in Wikipedia setting, even as a crude simplification (the Summary is also a simplification). My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Views of Eric Corbett[edit]

The views of Eric Corbett are being expressed here [3]. They are relevant and pertinent.  Giano  18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by barely-involved Brambleclawx[edit]

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

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

Comment by Chris Cunningham (thumperward)[edit]

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

Comment by probably peripherally involved John Carter[edit]

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

Comment by Heim[edit]

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

Marginal comment by Robert McClenon[edit]

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

The filing party, Ched, hasn't requested a specific remedy from the ArbCom. One possibility would be to place infobox controversies in general under WP:Discretionary sanctions, at least as an intermediate-term measure, pending any policy clarification via a centralized RFC on infoboxes in general. Another remedy might be to state that, although in general Wikipedia projects have no binding status as policies or guidelines, Wikipedia project guidelines on infoboxes should not be ignored without consensus on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposal has been made that some of the most aggressive infobox-pushers should be banned. I disagree with site-banning any infobox-pusher unless he or she is essentially a single-purpose account for infobox-pushing. Topic-banning infobox-pushers from proposing infoboxes, adding infoboxes to articles, and developing infobox templates would be a less extreme measure. Also, infobox controversies are the sort of general (area rather than subject) recurrent controversy for which WP:Discretionary sanctions would be in order. That would give uninvolved administrators the authority to block disruptive infobox-pushers or infobox-fighters without banning them, and, if necessary, to provide that new (not yet identified) infobox-pushers or infobox-fighters can be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a recent infobox controversy at The Rite of Spring. It had been a Featured Article without an infobox. Then User:Pigsonthewing showed up and said that the article needed an infobox. There was argument over which infobox (music or ballet) was in order. There was an 8-2 consensus that the article, which had been agreed without an infobox to be one of our best articles, still did not need an infobox. I mention this controversy in partial defense of an editor who is often said to be the worst infobox-pusher. He did abide by consensus. (The controversy at Soviet Union was worse, and Andy was not involved in it. To be sure, one of the editors in that controversy was a sock-puppet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Folantin[edit]

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

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

What ArbCom can solve, as other editors on this page have suggested, is the problem of Andy Mabbett. I can't think of a single infobox discussion that wouldn't have benefitted from his absence. This is not simply about classical music, it concerns a wide variety of subject matter. Nothing has changed since the Pigsonthewing2 ArbCom. Last August, Andy Mabbett had an ANI community sanction imposed on him, banning him from Featured Article of the Day discussions [4], but even that limited prohibition has failed to have much effect. ArbCom needs to provide a remedy that has teeth. Stop Mabbett turning up to every infobox discussion with his can of gasoline and his box of matches and you'll massively reduce the heat these controversies cause. --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Ewulp[edit]

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

Comment by SPhilbrick[edit]

As Coucelles notes, this is a "kitchen sink" dispute. While nominally about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, it touches on many issues, which I will (irony noted) summarize. I'm troubled by the observation that many of these are outside the direct remit of ArbCom, but my hope is that the extremely caustic behavior issues will prompt ArbCom to insist on some community review of non-behavior issues, with some interim behavior restrictions
Content

• Should the default assumption be that an infobox is included or excluded?
• How long should an info box be?
• Should info boxes include subjective fields (e.g "influenced and influences")
• Should collapsible elements be included in an info box?
• Can meta-data be delivered without an infobox?

Philosophical

• To what extent are differences of opinion honestly different readings of inconsistent or unclear policies which could be remedied by clarification of guidelines?
• Is an imperfect field in an infobox a net improvement or net detriment to the project (deliberately using "project" not "article") (The obvious answer being "it depends" but the discussion might be illuminating)
• Are there identifiable classes of subjects for which infoboxes are inherently a bad idea?
• Does an info box serve the same purpose as the lead paragraph (cf.Wikipedia:Infobox "summary of the key facts", WP:LEAD "summary of its most important aspects")?
• How do we define "key", i.e. what is the process for determining the set of items belonging in an info box?
• Does our audience expect infoboxes, and if so, is this an argument for inclusion in an otherwise close call?
• Does an infobox "dumb down" an article? Is this bad?
• To what extent is our mission to serve our readers versus re-users?
• To what extent does an "original author" deserve a privileged position regarding content decisions?

Process

• Can local consensus override project-wide consensus?
• Does the answer to the question above change if the project-wide consensus doesn't give clear direction?
• Does inclusion of an infobox inhibit women editors and thus conflict with Wikimedia goals?
• How to determine consensus if the discussion on the talk page is non-existent or extremely limited

Behavior

• Highly respected, prolific editors have abandoned the project over this battle. How do we stop the behavior leading to the exodus?
• How do we draw the line between dissent and disruption?
• Would 1RR (applied to individuals or classes of articles) be sufficient to reduce the EW to an acceptable level?
• Would interaction bans be helpful?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Anthonyhcole[edit]

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

Comment by Sjones23[edit]

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

Comment by Hchc2009[edit]

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

Marginal comment by MistyMorn[edit]

I have found myself getting caught up in these disputes in the past, perhaps especially in the Solti incident when an infobox was imposed on the very day the article appeared on the front page (in the absence of the contributor mainly responsible for taking the page to FA). FWIW, I find myself agreeing with Iridescent above when he points out that "the data would be just as machine-readable if it were invisible to readers." The longstanding conflict between metadata interests and readers' interests (viz. genuinely encyclopedic presentation of content) now seems to be coming to a head and needs to be resolved in the interests of everyone. Although the community hasn't been successful in solving the conundrum, I am not convinced that a disciplinary process here is the right approach to finding a solution. Certainly I could wish that individuals on certain projects were more friendly and considerate, but that is scarcely the key underlying issue here IMO. Metadata considerations are clearly of considerable relevance to Wikipedia as a whole and I suspect a technical solution for search-engine learning is needed that is separate from infoboxes. I think it's worth bearing in mind that relevant infobox concerns are not confined [5] to WP:CLASSICAL/WP:COMPOSERS. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

Case or decision affected

Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted

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

• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by Anthonyhcole[edit]

In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox.[6] Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda.[7] Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Jclemens below, I see that in Wikipedia:Banning policy, the section Edits by and on behalf of banned editors expressly allows others to edit on behalf of banned users. On the policy talk page I proposed changing from the present wording,

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

to

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) without first establishing consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI that doing so would be productive.

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

Statement by Neutralhomer[edit]

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

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

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per User:Mark Arsten's question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I support Drmies "redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs" ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ps: "see also", written to Smerus 22 August 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Folantin[edit]

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

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update (FWIW) It's very easy to find out which articles you have created. You just go to your "Contributions" page, look at the bottom, click "Articles created" and you will get a list. Those are the pages encompassed under the heading "[they may ]include infoboxes in new articles which they create."

Here is a list of articles created by Gerda Arendt [8]. --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

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

Question from Smeat75[edit]

Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page [9] "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from Ruhrfisch[edit]

The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then Roger Davies added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they [sic] create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." diff. I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from Mark Arsten[edit]

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

Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent[edit]

I have made you a template:

Unclean! Unclean! Unclean! User:Gerda Arendt has touched this page. Any editor adding a -- gasp -- infobox will be subject to wiki-torture and sanctions by The Committee

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

Statement by randomly involved Drmies[edit]

Of course turning a redirect into an article should count as creation--even if there was content which was turned into a redirect and subsequently turned into a real article: substance matters, and I draw that substantive from below. AGK: "In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect". I couldn't agree more. Note that I carefully left off the second part of their sentence, since in my opinion this "substantive" article work ("'creation'"--note the quotes within quotes) applies to DYK as well, an area where Gerda is one of our most prolific editors. In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I will add that I don't think that Homer or anyone else should in any way do this for her, or on her behalf. That's editing by proxy. The restrictions are there, for better or for worse; clarifying and/or amending them is one thing, but this would be quite another. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Smeat75: "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation"--I don't agree with that statement, since it implies a kind of policy or guideline. I agree with the spirit of the thought, as I said above, but not with the "is considered" part. (I say this is a kind of DYK junkie myself, and with due deference to Montanabw.) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Jclemens[edit]

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

Statement by Collect[edit]

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

The concept that "if an editor makes an edit even where not in any way solicited by a banned editor but the banned editor might approve of the edit, that such an edit is improper" is quite sufficiently absurd. Where an editor has substantially altered an article from a prior state into an encyclopedic state, that qualifies, IMHO, as being as much an act of creation as the fact that a composer may take a traditional melody and create a piece of music, or that an editor may take a bare mention of a topic and create an actual article on it. [10] was the "article at issue" before the added material. It consisted of six lines total. 87 words in toto. It now has three dozen sentences, and over 1100 words. To treat this as other than substantially a creation of an article makes a mockery of the English language, and those who try parsing exact "letter of the law" are not doing Wikipedia any favour in either the short run nor the long run. Make it a strongly worded sanction -- and say "the editor must have increased the article content by at least a factor of ten" and this would still not be a violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by only-slightly-involved SarekOfVulcan[edit]

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

Clerk notes[edit]

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

• Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice some concerns regarding acting on behalf of a restricted user. If an unrestricted editor independently decides that an article is better off with an infobox, even if that article were created by a restricted user, I can't see anyone sanctioning them. However, if that editor is observed to have added infoboxes to a series of articles by a restricted user, then it would be appropriate to discuss the matter with that editor and advise them that their editing pattern could be read as proxying. The aim of sanction enforcement is to prevent disruption, not to prevent normal editing. Someone setting out to deliberately proxy edit for a restricted user is likely to create disruption. I can't see a reason for concern over normal editing procedures. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If the argument is going to be made (as it has been above) that those mostly responsible for the content of an article also take the decisions about infoboxes, then that works both ways. If a stub has an infobox and is expanded by someone else, then arguably that person who is responsible for most of the content can take a decision to remove the infobox. And those who have never edited an article shouldn't turn up and add an infobox without discussion first. But that is not how things work around here. The way things really work is that in the first instance, anyone can add or remove infoboxes, but if an infobox is disputed, then (as in all content disputes) it needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. The restrictions on adding or removing infoboxes are not because the articles should or shouldn't have infoboxes, but because the editors given those restrictions have demonstrated poor judgement over the amount of discussion needed (both too little and too much) and how to carry out those discussions.

  As for redirects, it depends on the editing history. If it was created as a redirect and was never an article, then turning it into an article would be creating an article. If it was an an article at some point before it was redirected, then you may need to consider things some more. This is why the 'articles created' link isn't always accurate. If someone turns a redirect you created into an article, you are credited as the creator when you are not. An example of this sort of thing from my own editing history is Lady Franklin Bay Expedition. See also Category:Redirects with possibilities. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To clarify, by adding the infobox to the article in question, Gerda did, IMO, breach her sanction. I wouldn't be adverse to at some future point relaxing the restriction to allow Gerda to add infoboxes to articles she has expanded for DYK, but the comment about adding infoboxes to 'celebrate Verdi's birthday' doesn't convince me that this point has been reached yet. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Having thought about this, and after some discussion among arbitrators, I am coming to the conclusion that this sanction is unworkable. It may be best to modify it to a straight out ban on this editor adding infoboxes to any articles (regardless of whether they created the article or not), coupled with a reminder that this whole matter is not about any single editor. It should be about encouraging thoughtful discussion of infoboxes and what their role is and how editors should discuss them where their use is disputed. I am sure Gerda would be quite willing to not add infoboxes to any articles for the next six months if that meant that people's attention would be diverted from her editing and towards discussion of the larger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fully agreed with SilkTork. I would deny this request to proxy for Gerda. AGK [•] 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mark, it's actually a good question. In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect. For example, if Gerda wrote a few paragraphs, and used them to create an article (simultaneously overriding an existing redirect to a larger article), Gerda would for our purposes have 'created' the article even if the page already existed as a redirect. AGK [•] 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---

Initiated by RexxS (talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded

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

• RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• notification

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded

• 5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

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

Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following > discussion on the talk page, I restored an infobox to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit:

• infobox provides quick overview of key facts in a predictable position, microformats and structured data - see talk

With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary:

• bullshit Undid revision 588111954 by RexxS (talk))

And followed that up with utterly inapropriate comments at the talk page.:

• "Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else"

Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.

I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Salvio Giuliano: What exactly was hypothetical about the violation of the remedy? If these sort of remedies have no function, then I must ask what is the point of having them?

To the general point, I am not seeking to see Dr. Blofeld sanctioned; I don't believe that sanctioning adults who are long-term editors produces much more than resentment. What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought. ArbCom spent a lot of time on this case and I spent a lot of time explaining this very problem six months ago. The least I should be able to expect is that all that effort was not for naught, but I can't say I'm exactly encouraged by Dr. Blofeld's response. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth: At 19:14 UTC when you made your comment, the talk page looked like > this. Anyone can read that and see how far off the mark you are. Once sensible discussion had begun, it focussed on the reasons why that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Subsequently, a broader discussion with several other contributors has continued in a positive atmosphere. Because I complain about egregiously poor behaviour, you think that I need to be sanctioned as well? The problem here is solely that Blofeld attempted to derail discussion from the start. I find it very disturbing that you mischaracterise my good-faith contributions so badly and once again are falling back on stifling contributions as your sole means of resolving problems. You can do better. Do you want to reconsider your view? --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm sorry, I appreciate the work you've done, but it's not "your FA" and you're not even in the top 5 contributors. Who are these "us editors agreeing on no infobox"? and where was the agreement made? what happened to consensus? Who are these "people like Rexx"? I'm an editor in good standing who has written featured content, as well as contributed to many technical aspects of editing. Does that somehow disqualify me from editing articles that you own? If you don't understand that you can't have a veto over all the content, then you need to learn why we have WP:OWN as a policy. My edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article and the summary was accurate (quoted above). Your mischaracterisation of it as false is beneath contempt. The infobox contains much that isn't in the lead and you might learn what if you deigned to engage in discussion instead of painfully inaccurate hyperbole: "This cult to force an infobox on every article" indeed! Check my contributions: the number of infoboxes I've added can be counted on the fingers of one hand. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: You're wrong again. I really wish that I didn't have to keep correcting the spin you put on my actions, but I came to the article from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2014, read the talk page, saw two other editors asking about the missing infobox and checked the archive. I found no discussion on the talk page about removing the infobox, but eventually I found the FAC where one reviewer was in favour of the infobox and one was against. You have imposed your preference on the article without seeking consensus. Not only that but you fobbed off one editor on the talk page by claiming that the infobox contained nothing that was not in the lead, which we know is not true. I commented on the talk page that you were wrong and then added the infobox to demonstrate what an infobox could bring to the article. My edit summary on the article refers to my previous post at the talk page, and you can see from the diff values (588111923 and 588111954) that my talk page contribution preceded the addition of the infobox. Is that clear now? Strike your mistake and we can move on - there's no need to apologise. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth: I'm sorry but you have formed far too simplistic a view of "metadata". There are many different forms of metadata, but our infoboxes also provide microformats for some (but not all) fields. Different infoboxes provide different microformats and even the same infobox may have different fields and hence different microformats on different articles. You simply cannot consider the value of an infobox to a given article with a generic argument, for example I wouldn't say that an infobox improved an article if it only emitted the name of the subject. Nevertheless, it is often the case that I have to explain the general principle before I can explain the specifics, because there is so much misinformation and lack of understanding out there. Without wishing to be rude, you demonstrate exactly the problem I may face when trying to help other editors evaluate the pros and cons of an infobox on a given article. In extremis, it is possible that I may have to actually create an infobox to demonstrate the value, as I did on Deepika Padukone. It is a pity that it was reverted in a knee-jerk reaction only an hour later before being of any use in the discussion. There is, and was, no consensus on that article to remove the infobox, and good-faith editors with some knowledge of the issues need to be free to edit without being subjected to unacceptable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

As for specifics:

• The Talk:Deepika Padukone page now has several other editors contributing and the discussion is progressing peacefully;
• Dr. Blofeld has kindly struck the remark I most objected to;
• Blofeld and I are productively discussing our differences by email.

Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt[edit]

New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: I think the question is, whether the remedy cited by Rexss can be used to justify an AE sanction, and that I think ArbCom needs to clarify. That seems to be important here as glancing at Dr Blofeld's block log, I see he's yet to serve out a block. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. You have a point, as little is served by blocking long term contributors, certainly not ones as active as you. I don't know what's to be done, but you can't spout off that way. Also, I don't have any rules on infoboxes, and have stubbornly resisted efforts by all and sundry to draw me into the fray. I'm fine with infoboxes, but they aren't appropriate for all articles. Perhaps you could strike the offensive language?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given Dr. Blofeld's statement, I am inclined to consider this a regrettable one-off incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr: that's fine. I don't care to get in to the rights and wrongs of infoboxes and the proper etiquette, my concern is big-picture, that this has caused huge problems in the FA area over the past two years. ArbCom's attempt at settling the matter did not, very clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. One more question. He added an infobox and did not discuss it to your satisfaction, I get that. But why did you assume that he was an "infobox enforcing regular", I don't quite understand that?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. That's fine, if you've worked it out, I can ask no more.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I haven't followed the original case or the ongoing discussions (if any) about this topic, but those who have may want to submit evidence about whether this is an isolated case, or whether incidents of this sort are a recurring occurrence among multiple editors. If the latter is the case, then the Committee may want to consider authorizing discretionary sanctions for this topic, as they already have for pages relating to the manual of style and the article titles policy (in WP:ARBATC).

As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification.  Sandstein  23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

---

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

Case affected : Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Andy

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Andy notified

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Gerda Arendt[edit]

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

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

((Infobox Bach composition/sandbox
| title = ((lang|de|Ich muss weg))
| bwv = 999
| type = [[List of Bach cantatas|Secular cantata]]
| image = 
| image_size = 160px
))

Did you know that I enjoyed amicable discussion and collaboration on an infobox template, ((infobox Bach composition)), resulting in a good compromise (pictured), shown on more than 100 classical music articles (example), by Nikkimaria, Andy, RexxS and myself?

Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Andy Mabbett[edit]

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

Comment by Penwhale[edit]

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

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

As your starter for 10, how about:

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

Hopefully something like that should be acceptable to all parties and leave no significant grey areas. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I plucked the time period out the air, but it seems a recent definition of "recent" to me for this context. I intend that the time period is a rolling one of three months from $current_day not three months from the date an ammendment is past.

@Folantin: if you want to accuse Andy of sockpuppetry you should make a formal presentation of the evidence at WP:SPI. If you don't, you should withdrawn the insinuations you've made here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An SPI case was submitted. It was closed without action by clerk Reaper Eternal who was "not convinced" by the behavioural evidence presented and concluded "There's no real evidence to support sock puppetry" The case has now been archived to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comment by Nikkimaria[edit]

• 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed, including the one with which Gerda opened this request, have infoboxes—most added by either editors who supported Andy during the case or a Birmingham public library IP, and then developed by Andy. Indeed, this pattern holds true also for a number of articles not created by Andy.
• In an earlier clarification request, the committee concluded that "acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction...is not permitted". In the discussions that resulted in this remedy, a number of arbs stated that Andy "does need to take time away from infoboxes". Neither seems to have been heeded.

Under such conditions, and given that the subject has consistently regarded "authorial choice" in excluding a box from an article one creates as "ownership"....why is this request here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WTT: I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see Andy support that statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Folantin[edit]

Since late September 2013 (i.e. just after the ArbCom sanctions passed), a Birmingham IP 80.249.48.109 (talk · contribs) has taken a sudden interest in infoboxes. Funnily enough, this has tended to occur around the same time Andy Mabbett has contributed to many of the same articles.--Folantin (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know whether this is socking, meat puppetry or something else, but there are more than enough WP:DUCK grounds for suspicion here. According to Nikkimaria,several of these IPs have been behaving in the same way [11][12][13]. All Birmingham educational addresses. According to his own Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett lives in Birmingham and works in education.

Examples: The only users to edit the Birmingham Union workhouse article are Pigsonthewing and an anonymous infobox-adding IP: [14]. Almost exactly the same thing happens with Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet [15]: the only edit the IP makes is to add an infobox, while all other edits to the article (barring a minor fix) are by Andy Mabbett. On Denville Hall, the only edit [16] an anonymous IP makes to the page is to add an infobox right among a bunch of edits by Pigsonthewing [17]. An IP manages to produce a fully formatted infobox in its sixth ever edit to Wikipedia [18], again right in the middle of a bunch of Andy Mabbett's contributions to the same article.

This is well beyond coincidence. --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Update I've now gone ahead and asked for an SPI per Arbitrator Beeblebrox's request. The evidence is here [20]. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

It is exactly this sort of adversity by innuendo that make editors like Folantin so poisonous to the collaborative environment we should be striving to create on Wikipedia. There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. Why not accuse me of being the IPs? A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses. Here's the homepage for Birmingham Grid for Learning: http://www.bgfl.org/ - see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools, http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. Is Folantin now claiming that Andy is getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages? I'm afraid that it's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may add infoboxes, considering the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have one (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). I suppose the next step will be Folantin blaming Andy for all of those as well? --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: It's far more likely that I'd boldly add an infobox to the article using the ((Infobox controversy)) template, only to be reverted with the edit summary "rv,fmt". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NE Ent: The proposals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision #Ownership and stewardship merely show the lack of understanding by the Arbs of WP:STEWARDSHIP - that there are responsibilities associated with that concept. Although the Arbs seem capable of recognising when "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership ..." they are completely blind to the qualification "...and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." The ArbCom has given carte blanche to owners of articles to blindly revert good-faith edits, without even a pretence of explanation beyond "we say so". Until that behaviour is recognised and tackled, conflict will ensue and we'll lose good contributors until we're only left with the article owners. Yes, you can reduce "disruption" by banning one entire side of a content dispute, but taking sides in that manner will not be ultimately conducive to the development of a multimedia, online encyclopedia that anyone is supposed to be able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth, GorillaWarfare, and LFaraone: If your concern is with "preparing the ground for future discussions", then you ought to think through the consequences of your actions. You have created a situation where anybody opposed to infoboxes can remove an infobox without discussion and insult anyone who objects with impunity. Why would the infobox opposers want to change that situation? "Future discussions" will just weaken their grip on the articles they own. On the other hand, you have removed one - and are in the process of removing another - of the most prominent proponents of infoboxes from the issue. You've even threatened to remove me from discussions on infoboxes unless I stop complaining when I'm treated like a POS by the anti-infobox crowd. So who's left to "prepare the ground"? Are you going to do it? --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LFaraone: It's disappointing that you only take that from my comment. You're going to find that ArbCom has collective cabinet responsibility for its decisions once they are made. The opportunity is there for you to persuade your colleagues of the folly of removing one entire side of a content dispute, but simply echoing Carcharoth's misguided, albeit good-faith, preoccupation with forcing unwilling/unable participants to solve a problem that half of them don't want to be solved won't do anything to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth: You make the clear distinction between type (i) "specific" contributions and type (ii) "general" contributions. I already agreed with your categorisation - as you may remember from when I explained to you that discussion of metadata was often article-specific type (i), not always general type (ii), as you had assumed. To the point: are you telling me that you are opposing Motion 1 - which only modifies Andy's ability to make "specific" contributions - because it doesn't advance "general" contributions? I hope you'll forgive me for characterising that as cock-eyed logic. If you want to give Andy the ability to contribute to "general" discussions, then propose an amendment to the first part of that motion that excludes him from "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." - which of course includes "general" discussions on the issue.

As for "those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues", I don't recognise to whom you are referring. Kleinzach? Smerus? Nikki? You gave them everything they wanted in the original decision - why would they need any further discussion? The only other two parties were Andy and Gerda, and you've banned then from the discussions. Nobody would find it surprising that no progress has been made on remedy 6 "Community discussion recommended". --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

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

((Infobox bradjoke
|name = Brad
|diff = [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=590705223&oldid=590704935]
|context= arbcom amendment request
|self-reference = yes
|type = irony, dramatic; wry; sardonic
|based in truth=yes
|funny = disputed
))

Please see also Finding on Ownership and stewardship. NE Ent 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

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

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

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

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

Statement by Chedzilla (aka User:Ched)[edit]

1. I'm all for loosening the restrictions to allow Andy to add boxes to articles he creates (and I would even support such to include articles he significantly expands - perhaps we can revisit this request in the near future if things go well).
2. Motion 2 .. HUH? WTF? During the case it was suggested that a wider discussion on this topic should be held - I started one, and was promptly told 'NOT NOW' (paraphrased). Has Gerda violated the "2 comment rule" (or any other rule) somewhere? Can someone link to it please?
   1. At the conclusion of a long case (which at times begged the question of how much the committee was actually listening and reading) Gerda was told: They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. She does so and you slap her with a more restrictive sanction? This makes absolutely NO sense to me. Simply amazing.

• Disclaimer: I have not been very active on wiki - and certainly not around any more of the dreaded "infobox" issues; so if I have missed a significant violation of rules, please feel free to link me to it and I will strike the parts of my statement which are shown to be in error.
• I'm almost getting the impression that the committee wants the community to talk this out, but they don't want those who are familiar with the topic to be involved if they are "pro" infobox, they don't want to be asked for any input, or know anything about any discussions. Is there some sort of plausible deniability clause in your job description? — ChedZILLA 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]

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

Statement by {other user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Before proceeding further, we should wait for a response from Andy (Pigsonthewing) as to whether he wants this amendment request to be made or not, and if he does, he should then make a statement and Gerda should step back and let matters proceed from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now that Andy has 'taken over' this request that was initially made by Gerda, my inclination would be to deny the amendment request. The reason is that both this proposed amendment, and the remedy that was passed for Gerda, are taking the wrong approach. Whether an article does or does not have an infobox should not depend on the initial author or creator. It is the article topic and content that should determine whether it has an infobox (well-thought out infoboxes are, by design, intended to be applied to an easily definable and finite series of articles - as opposed to an overly broad and open-ended category). If it is an article that fits within a defined series (e.g. planets, chemical elements, and so on), then there should be no problem. If it is a disputed area (e.g. people - not all articles on people are amenable to being presented in infobox form) then there should be a discussion. If there is any doubt, leave it off and/or raise the matter on the talk page for discussion.

    On a wider point, what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for a discussion to help address ways to include the data contained in infoboxes in ways that do not force articles to have infoboxes, and to address the wider question of why when 'boxes' in general were first created, infoboxes gravitated to the top right-hand corner, and other boxes (e.g. navboxes and succession boxes) gravitated to the bottom of articles (series boxes ended up in-between). If categories were displayed at the top of articles, they would get argued over a lot more. It is the location of infoboxes in 'prime territory' right up front that causes much of the dissension IMO. Find some way of resolving that tension and people might argue less over them. Also tackle the issue of 'narrow' vs 'broad' infoboxes. But all these issues can only be addressed if the wider community actually has those discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • RexxS, the distinction that should be drawn here is between: (i) edits, actions and discussions specific to an article or narrow class of articles, or a single infobox (call this 'specific' discussion - your earlier clarification request was a good example of that); and (ii) over-arching general discussion of the function of infoboxes and how to approach discussion of them and how to allow flexibility in their use and how to encourage best practice and manage disagreements (call this 'general' discussion - it would be limited to discussion and guideline pages set up for the purpose). The case specifically tried to make this distinction, but I don't think it sunk in. What I would propose is that no-one would be banned from type (ii) discussion (the general sort, trying to find an overall approach to infoboxes that works better than the current impasse), but the current topic bans would be converted to only apply to type (i) discussions. The current motions don't achieve this, which is why I am opposing them. My hope had been that those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues would by now have made some progress on a document (intended for community discussion) that lays out the relevant arguments and available options. The ideal outcome would be a document that provides guidance on how to discuss infoboxes and diplomatically handle the disagreements that sometimes arise. Has any progress been made on that? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with Carcharoth - this should be coming from Andy, not you Gerda. Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd certainly support Andy being allowed to add infoboxes to articles he has created, though as Beeblebrox suggests, if others remove it, he will be topic banned from the subsequent discussion.

  @Nikkimaria:, allowing Andy to add infoboxes to articles he creates and only those articles does give a clear sign that authorship has weight. I have seen no evidence that Andy is asking other users to put infoboxes on the articles he creates, nor that he has not heeded the topic ban in the short period since the case. Worm^TT(talk) 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Now that Andy has spoken up about this I think I would support allowing such an amendment, provided that it is made clear that this applies only to articles Andy has recently created. If others come along later and object to or remove said infobox, the TBAN would still apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Folantin: Thrydulff is quite right, either proffer your evidence at WP:SPI or do not make such accusations. "Put up or shut up" is pretty much standard procedure for accusations of socking, which can be extremely damaging to a user even if they have not actually done it. Please either show us the SPI case page with relevant evidence or strike your remarks. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be fairly easy to word an amendment so as to avoid the any wiki-lawyering about the definition of "recent". Something along the lines of "Pigsonthewing is permitted to add infoboxes to articles to which he is unambiguously the initial creator, provided that he does so with his first edit when initially creating the article, and at no time afterwards. If any other user should make any edit whatsoever related to that infobox the topic ban still applies. This exemption is valid only for articles created after this amendment has passed. If any user should appear to be using this exemption to harass Pigsonthewing by repeatedly removing infoboxes he has placed in articles, Pigsonthewing is instructed to email the arbitration committee rather than commenting on-wiki. If the matter appears to have merit it will be referred to Arbitration enforcement for review. If Pigsonthewing is found to have violated these conditions the exemption will be rescinded and the full topic ban considered still in force." That draws pretty clear lines around what the exemption is and what Andy's means of recourse is should someone decide to exploit it to harass. If he wants an infobox in an article he creates it has to be there from the get go. This can be done easily enough through drafting elsewhere and copying it when ready to go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Motion 1 (Andy Mabbett)[edit]

For there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

For reference, the relevant remedy relating to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 1.1 is modified with immediate effect to the following text:

• Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. He may include infoboxes in new articles which he creates.

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support

1. Proposed, copyedits welcome. Whether you want to look at this from a "he can't cause disruption whilst he's creating articles" perspective or from an authorship having "weight" point of view, Andy should be able include an infobox as part of the article creation. If another user removes the infobox, Andy would remain banned from re-adding it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. With a strong understanding that this privilege should be used conservatively and only when it will not cause contention or disruption, else it will be removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. With caveats per WTT and Seraphimeblade. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. I sincerely hope Andy, and his detractors, will take this as no more and no less than it is and that both the committee and the broader community will not need to deal with more infobox related drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm willing to AGF here, but I still have concerns about drama down the road. I agree with NYB it will likely not be problematic, and in that spirit I'll support it (with the thought that if it creates a drain on resources, we quickly rescind). NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. On second thoughts, I'm opposing. We spend too much time attempting to accommodate requests that will in all likelihood result in drains on community resources and the exhaustion of community patience.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. RD and Carcharoth articulate my thoughts here well. While I agree with NYB's thoughts that this motion would probably not result in disruption, past experience shows that these participants have generated a large drain on community resources in this matter. This limited modification does not appear to serve a clear project benefit, nor does the restriction seem to be an impediment in practice for the inclusion infoboxes as others have noted. LFaraone 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. While I still largely agree with the above, on further thought Carcharoth's arguments are very strong to me on the matter. Also Ohconfucius is apt when he points out how it could be disruptive. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Gerda Arendt)[edit]

For there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

For reference, the relevant remedy relating to Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 3.2 is vacated with immediate effect and replaced with the following remedy:

• Gerda Arendt is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of infoboxes, both at specific articles and in wider discussions. She may include infoboxes in new articles which she creates.

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support

Proposed, copyedits welcome. As much as I feel Gerda is one of the most positive personalities on the encyclopedia, infoboxes seem to be her blind spot. Having watched her behaviour with respect to infoboxes since the close of the case, I feel it has turned into rather a pre-occupation for her and I believe that restricting her from all discussions on infoboxes would be the best solution. Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose, detailed explanation there. Worm^TT(talk) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

1. Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. LFaraone 03:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. I've been reviewing but don't see sufficient cause for this at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Per Carcharoth. And also, I would urge Gerda to not become too embattled over the issue. She means well but this whole area is so tangled in drama further actions only tend to stoke the fire. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. I'm moving to oppose (effectively withdrawing this motion). There's a number of reasons for this, I've been mulling it over since this statement by Gerda[21] that 2014 was about new beginnings. It does imply that she is trying to move on. I would have switched then, but for the fact that she raised this very amendment request in 2014. Having read through some of her recent editting, I do agree that her actions in 2014 have been less focussed on the infobox case. On top of that, Floquenbeam's comments do ring true, this request is more "for her own good" than preventing active disruption. Worm^TT(talk) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

1. per below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

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

---

Initiated by RexxS (talk) at 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Use of infoboxes

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

• RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation of notification

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I am dismayed at finding myself asking once again for clarification of the decision made last September in the Infoboxes case. I am again confronted by Dr. Blofeld taking what I believe to be an utterly inappropriate interpretation of one of your decisions:

• In this comment, he states It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.

I believe this to be entirely inaccurate as I cannot see that the Arbitrators would advance a policy of restricting content decisions to just those editors who self-identify as "the article writers". For comparison, the text of the finding of fact is:

• The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

It is this finding of fact that I wish to see clarified, precisely to identify who were intended by the wording "the editors at each individual article".

Several editors had questioned on the Talk:Hattie Jacques page the absence of an infobox, and Dr. Blofeld is now using his interpretation of your decision to deny new editors any say in the decision concerning infoboxes. His comment was made immediately after that of MrDannyDoodah, who will now be left with the impression that his views cannot carry any weight on that talk page. I have asked Dr. Blofeld to reverse his opinion and make that clear, but he has declined to do so and insists that you would acknowledge his interpretation. Consequently I wish to settle this issue completely by an unambiguous statement from ArbCom on who may take part in a decision to add an infobox to an article. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blofeld: I do not see how the words "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide" are capable of any misinterpretation. The context is clear: your edit followed a few minutes after that of another editor who suggested that "... mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience." You were involved in a back-and-forth with that editor and attempted to shut down the discussion by telling him that "it's up to the article writers to decide". All your wriggling here bears no resemblance to what you wrote on that talk page. Anyone can read it and see for themselves that there's no hint of what you've written here. I have asked you to correct yourself and your response, once more, is to descend to invective. I should not have to put up with being called a "troublemaker" and accused of "crying to arb" when I've done no more than civilly raised an issue with you, and sought the clarification that we all should be entitled to.

As for the question of TFA, I've had an article that I took through FA on the main page and I sympathise with the stress of stewardship while it is there. But that is not sufficient to overturn the principle of encouraging readers to edit; and if numerous editors come to the talk page to ask about an infobox, then it ought to be a hint to you that there is some opinion in favour of an infobox and you need to recognise it and work with those editors to seek a broader consensus, rather than telling them that ArbCom has gifted the decision to your small group. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Is it your contention that only those who have edited an article should be allowed to comment on the talkpage? If not, what's your point? I do have some expertise in templates (my most recent diff) and I wrote a module to help import Wikidata into infoboxes. Should that be a disqualification from correcting misinformation on technical aspects? When you attempted to get another editor sanctioned by falsely claiming that they had caused another editor to stop editing, you should have expected to be called a liar. Tell me, just what have I done to deserve Blofeld calling me a "troublemaker"? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blofeld: That's your usual hyperbole. Unlike you, I am an editor in good standing with a clean block log. I have brought exactly two matters to ArbCom in my six years editing here. Both have centred on you because of your behaviour. Need I remind everyone that the previous concern occurred because you refused to engage in debate at the talk page and made this comment: Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else? You got away with that by blubbing to me that you didn't want to be blocked. I stepped back from that request as a gesture of goodwill to you and this is how you respond. On this occasion you have falsely stated that ArbCom has "decided it's up to the article writers to decide" on infoboxes. I challenged your assertion on your talk page but you chose to defend your indefensible statement. I have received further insults from you on that same page for taking the time to inform you that I was seeking clarification. You have had plenty of time to correct your blatant falsehood on Talk:Hattie Jacques, but have chosen not to. We are here for a second time because of your actions and solely because of them. You need to learn that when you screw up, you stop blaming everyone else and fix the problem you've caused yourself. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bencherlite: When was the last time that an editor uninvolved with the infobox debates turned up at a TFA and suggested that the infobox be removed? It never happens. It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something. Your proposal goes against the basic principles of wiki-editing which depends on discussion and consensus among as many contributors as possible. On the very day that an article gets its maximum exposure to other editors, you want to shut down discussion on the talk page? You'll have my opposition to that elitist idea for as long as I'm able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cassianto: I like you too, and I've been an admirer of your prolific content work ever since we bumped into one another. It saddens me that you think I've tried to force an infobox onto Hattie Jacques. I hope that if you re-read my contributions on the talk page, you'll see that my aim throughout has been to encourage debate of the issue, because other quite independent editors had raised it. Those editors deserve to have an equal opportunity to express their views; and they deserve to have a chance to understand the issues as they apply to that article. That's why it's so important that Blofeld is not allowed to shut down debate by falsely claiming that ArbCom has given a small group the sole right to decide whether there's an infobox or not - speaking as if he were one of the principal authors of the article (he's not). I'm sorry that you may find it tiresome to debate the issue of whether an infobox is appropriate or not for an article that you have substantially written, but that debate is healthy as it involves more people in the article. Isn't it better to give some respect to those who are interested enough to ask - whether they be experienced editors like Giant Snowman, or newcomers like Simonfreeman or MrDannyDoodah or even IPs? We build articles and our editing community by encouraging debate, not shutting it down. At the heart of it, that's what's at stake here, and ArbCom needs to defend that, not give silent approval to those who want to ring-fence articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blofeld: Of course you're shutting down discussion. It's plain for anyone to see who clicks on the revision of 21:26, 7 February 2014 that you had no interest in discussing the points that MrDannyDoodah raises - you had already mocked his "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete" with your "one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here"; and Danny's "it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to ... perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience" drew your response of "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide". Either you're being disingenuous or you really can't see how offensive it is to other good-faith editors to dismiss their views so thoughtlessly, particularly when you arrogantly claim the authority of ArbCom to tell others they don't get a say. And let's get this clear: are you "an editor in good standing with a clean block log"? Answer: No. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bencherlite: So you think the editors who take articles to FA are paramount in making any decisions for the article. When you use words like "hassle" and "defend", you're already in a battlefield mentality and completely ignoring the possibility that other editors' opinions are worth considering. You're really advocating that Giant Snowman, Simonfreeman and MrDannyDoodah would be liable for sanctions if they asked why the article didn't have an infobox near TFA day. Are you going to tell all of them that they can't raise the issues precisely because some principal authors are saying "we've decided not to have one"? Ok, you want a Wikipedia hierarchy where some of the editors who write the best content are top of the pile and those below who gnome or add references or sort the technical issues out are second-class contributors. At least you're honest about your position and the rest of us know where we stand. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bencherlite: As you ask, I don't think that's an inappropriate comment and I am dismayed that you do. MrDannyDoodah is entitled to his opinion (for that is what it is) and whether I agree with it or not, I'll defend his ability to express that opinion. What a dull world you would have us live in where everybody's opinion had to be identical and differing views had to be repressed. If there's a problem with those you call "TFA authors" feeling obliged "to justify or defend their position", then a better solution would be to change the system where a small group of editors feel their own position is threatened whenever somebody suggests something different from the decisions they have made for the article. At some point that risks tipping over into ownership. Lasting solutions on Wikipedia work by involving more people, not less. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NativeForeigner: Yet another member of ArbCom taking sides on content disputes. The decision on this case was made last September and that's over five months ago. I'm sure you'd like it all to go away for another six months, but ArbCom failed to address the issues last time and of course those issues still exist. I made it clear in the case that it was impossible for anyone to even raise the question of infoboxes on some articles without being patronised, insulted or both. Yet ArbCom did nothing about that. Since then we have had more of the same: completely uninvolved editors have asked a question in good faith and been dismissed or fed a load of cock-and-bull stories about the owners of a featured article having the only say on decisions like that. And now we have Bencherlite suggesting that we enshrine a principle of first and second class editors, by trying to remove the ability of other editors to raise issues at the very time that an article has its maximum exposure to those editors. It's disgraceful elitism and has no place on our encyclopedia. You "smile" on such proposals; I'd spit on them. It's about time Arbitrators worked out what the principles are that this project is based on - they start with "anyone can edit" and you need a bloody good reason to move away from that. Such good reasons don't include some editors being fed up with answering reasonable questions. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth: You are saying that ArbCom is unable or unwilling to make clear what it intended by the phrase "through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" when that is the verbatim text of an ArbCom Finding of Fact, and are suggesting that I seek from the community clarification of an ArbCom finding. Well, it's an interesting precedent to set and I'm astonished that you're comfortable with that course. It does however cast some light on the pure folly of basing an ArbCom decision on a Finding of Fact that even ArbCom doesn't understand. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Victoriaearle[edit]

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

Feedback from NE Ent[edit]

Obviously, there's no need for clarification as the committee already cited current policy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes and does not make policy, so any new policy for mainpage / FA infoboxes should come from the community -- as requested by the committee in their findings Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Community_discussion_recommended. NE Ent 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've posted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#infobox_suggestion. NE Ent 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SchroCat[edit]

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

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

@Montanabw, There was no "snark" intended, and I'm sorry if you read it as such. I will correct a few errors you may seem to be labouring under, but firstly, could you please drop the overly-emotive language and try and assume at least some good faith? Calling editors whose opinion you disagree with "bullies" is unlikely to help matters, and neither is describing someone's actions as "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet behaviour", so perhaps we could deal with the issues, rather than drop into name calling? As to the substance of your comments.

1. "The consensus is hardly "site-wide" As my point related to the MoS, I'm not sure why you think the MoS is not a reflection of the site-wide consensus of all editors? (rather than just "bullies")
2. "person in good faith adds an infobox, another person throws a conniption fit" I suggest you try reversing it too, just to see the opposing point of view. I've seen an editor accused of vandalism for the good faith removal of an IB that was inserted against a long-standing consensus: the conniption fits are happily shared around all-comers here.
3. "the debate SHOULD be about design and content, not whether infoboxes exist" Why? The MoS is inherently flexible on the point of use ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and reflects the fact that one-size-does-not-fit-all. Like the majority of people who are flexible in relation to IBs, I that sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be essential. And sometimes they are an abomination. Our policy has flexibility in the approach, which is where the problems can arise—and it's not just about the design and content.

— SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

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

@Schrocat, your snark above is precisely the problem. The consensus is hardly "site-wide," it is merely the people who showed up, mostly the bullies. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schrocat, the truth is the truth, I am not "overly-emotive," I am merely descriptive of what is already there, including some of your own comments. It may be difficult to see your own actions mirrored back at you, but that is precisely what I think needs to be ratcheted down. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cassianto[edit]

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

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

Statement by Bencherlite[edit]

As TFA coordinator, I get very worried whenever I see writers of FAs say that they do not want their articles to appear on the main page for whatever reason. Some dislike dealing with the vandalism. Some dislike dealing with the low-quality edits (inaccurate content, bad grammar, poor style, unreferenced nonsense and trivia) that goes with the territory of being "Today's featured flypaper article". And now we see users, new and not so new, think that TFA day is a great time to mention adding an infobox to an article. While there is no rule that prevents this from happening, it is hardly tactful timing and it appears to be adding a new worry for some editors. Perhaps to avoid this, I should refuse to schedule any FA that does not have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about adding one) as well as any FA that does have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about removing it). Only half-joking on this point...

Now, helping bring an article to featured status does not absolve you from having to discuss infoboxes if someone raises the issue (and, frankly, for all that some arbs might wish that particular editors dropped the subject for six months, even if that wish came true the problem still won't go away). But I do think that issues such as infobox discussions should not be allowed to impair the TFA experience. Infoboxes can of course be discussed before, during and after the whole FA nomination process, but a time-out zone for TFA would help remove one area of particular tension.

Someone can probably find links or diffs to prove me right or wrong, but I have a recollection that someone was previously topic-banned from adding infoboxes / raising infobox issues on articles that were, or were about to be, at TFA. What I would like to suggest is this:

1. There is a moratorium on all discussions about adding or removing infoboxes on any article that is (a) Today's Featured Artice (including the three days immediately following when it is still linked from the main page); (b) scheduled to be Today's Featured Article; or (c) under discussion at WP:Today's featured article/requests.
2. Any uninvolved editor may summarily close any discussion started in breach of this.
3. Enforcement in whatever the usual way is for such things.

This idea would not make everyone happy but it may be an interim solution of sorts. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither in the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox camp, although I am probably not alone in belonging to the are-these-boxes-really-worth-so-much-time-one-way-or-the-other camp. Bencherlite^Talk 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Montanabw: I've found the link I was thinking of [23] although it was a community decision not an Arbcom one, and was for all edits to TFAs not just infoboxes. NB the decision was to ban the individual from all articles nominated or scheduled as TFA, not just the TFA - if FA writers are inhibited from having their articles at TFA because of boredom with repeated infobox discussions precipitated solely by the article appearing at TFA, the moratorium has to cover the run-up to TFA day, not just TFA day. Anyway, if Arbcom says that this proposal is not within their remit, it can be discussed elsewhere later. Bencherlite^Talk 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Passing comment by Wnt[edit]

Note: I have no idea what the present dispute is

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

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

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

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

So, to cut to the chase, which of the following statements is the intended meaning of the word "editors" in the sentence: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

1. The editor or editors who started the article
2. The editor or editors who have put the most work into the article
3. All editors who have made significant contributions to the article
4. All editors who have made significant contributions to this or other similar articles
5. All editors who have contributed to the article
6. All interested editors

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

Thank you by Gerda[edit]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for your beautiful addition to my latest infobox, and thank you, arbitrators, for clarification of the questions just above, as soon as possible. I still hope that in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, all interested editors may speak up at all times, but if that needs to be restricted, please precisely so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LFaraone: I didn't bring the case up at the election, I asked only one specific question about one diff, to see for whom I could vote. The majority of the candidates who dared to look (including you) looked at it my way. The two editors who helped each other in that uncontroversial Planyavsky case, Andy and I, were restricted, the discussions go on. I fail to see how the difference between two version of an Indian actress can cause so much heated emotion, - I came to the topic late and regard myself as cool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More praise to Dr. Blofeld for this preserving edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Statement by {other user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• I think NE Ent hit the nail on the head with his statement. What I am seeing here is that this is a disagreement about the meaning of something Blofeld said, not about what the committee said. That being the case I see no need to clarify the committee's previous stated position. I also strongly agree with the portion of Victoria's statement pertaining to walking away. I wasn't involved in the original case but this petty bickering reflects poorly on everyone involved and the project would be better served if they personally avoided both discussions of infoboxes and one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wnt, you may have a point about the policies involved, but arbcom does not make and cannot make or alter content policies. Only the community may do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

• @RexxS: My core argument is will those both for and against infoboxes please take a step back, cool off, and approach this all in a civil manner rather than attempting to bring up the issue as much as possible in every available venue. To be honest, I don't give a damm if an article has an infobox or not, and in my naivety thought perhaps Bencherlite's proposal would help to disengage the area, but judging by your response I find it unlikely. In any case, there is little more to be said regarding this request for clarification that would be productive. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---

---

Initiated by Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case affected

Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Andy Mabbett; initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• n/a

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Andy Mabbett[edit]

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

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

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

@Worm That Turned: You mean "last week's infobox upsets" in which I was found not only to have done nothing wrong, but to have been relentlessly stalked by another editor? This request - made over a year after the original case opened - has been in hand for a while before last week (as RexxS, with whom I discussed a draft will confirm), and is timed to coincide with a long-planned mass-creation of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Well, you yourself said "Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox." (you'll recall that the issue hinged on a false accusation that I had inserted an infobox where none had exited previously); and the request for enforcement was closed as "No action taken; no violation.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333[edit]

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

Statement by Sitush[edit]

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

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

Statement by Gerda[edit]

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

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

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

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

A recent edit was described above and below as "testing" and "grey area", - it was not. "no foul. play on.", thank you for seeing that clearly, Floquenbeam, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• It's a "definitely not" from me. Aside from being almost banned over the infobox dispute, you were recently testing the borders of your restriction; so, as far as I'm concerned this request is much too soon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I more or less agree with Salvio. I was not on the committee during the original case, but I know it has been an incredible time sink and that there was good reason for the topic ban put in place. Also the request as framed seems to be putting the cart rather far in front of the horse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Definitely not for now from me too, for the reasons articulated above,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I am afraid it is a no from me too. Decline. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• We've already got more than enough trouble surrounding infoboxes. I can't support risking more at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Given last week's infobox upsets, this is pretty dire timing Andy. I have to agree with my colleagues, that a relaxation should not be happening at this time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Andy, I wouldn't agree that you'd been found to have done "nothing wrong". The edit was in the grey area, otherwise there would not have been discussion of it. Yes, the committee agreed that you had not violated your restriction - but "nothing wrong" is a step beyond. I don't see that you needed to make this request now, before the dust settled, it was inherently poor timing. Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Francis Schonken (talk) at 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case affected

Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3.2 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Gerda Arendt (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted
  • "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted... They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." doesn't work very well. It leads to illogical split-offs, for the purpose of creation of infoboxes, with a lot of cleanup left to others. Let me take you step by step through an example:
    1. BWV 243 and BWV 243a used to be on a single page named Magnificat (Bach)
    2. (Gerda) preparing split [24] (moving existing Magnificat article to BWV 243)
    3. (Gerda) Starting BWV 243a article with infobox.
    4. (Gerda) in BWV 243a article adding a lot of content with references to sources that only speak about BWV 243.
    5. (Francis) cleaning up on BWV 243a [25] and moving BWV 243 related content to BWV 243 [26]
    6. (Gerda) speaking about "merg(ing) the (BWV 243 and BWV 243a) articles (back) to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third (i.e. splitting one more off)" [27], suggesting she gets more recognition for her work that is now in the other article [28] while not wanting to contribute to that article [29]
    7. (Francis) obliging and working out the "partial inclusion" solution with updates of the content appearing in the BWV 243 article while technically only editing the BWV 243a article. [30] [31] - while this involved removing refs to sources not related to the BWV 243a article, putting up an ((original research)) template.
    8. Despite promises by Gerda [32] she has not found time to add references for the description in the BWV 243a article (which was well-referenced as long as it was in the BWV 243 article)

Statement by Francis Schonken[edit]

See step-by-step above:

• A lot of unnecessary counterproductive work not tailored on the optimal path to improve the encyclopedia, but jumping through hoops (also by those not by far ever involved in the infobox case) in order to have an infobox without infringing the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case.
• What I'd propose would more look like Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox or Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Infobox on an article-by-article base, where once there is consensus on yes-or-no an infobox for the concerned article it doesn't matter who adds or removes it. Also, no longer a who created the article "owns" the infobox decision reasoning, which in the long run is only counterproductive.
• So I'd move to replace the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case by "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes unless as a consequence of a clear talk page consensus; restoring an infobox that has been deleted unless as a consequence of a clear talk page consensus; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create."
• Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more even) quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the Missa (Bach) split-offs).
• For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole, not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies by Francis

• @Thryduulf: I'm largely indifferent on whether infoboxes are improvements to articles or not. But you did catch nicely what this is about:
  • current system is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia
  • requires a lot of work by others not in the least interested in infoboxes
  • the inherent ownership issues with the current situation are not tenable. There's no reproach to what happened in the infoboxes case: I think arbitrators did the best they could under the given circumstances. Just looking for a way to improve.
  • what I'm suggesting is neither a mitigation nor an expansion of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case, only adjusting it so that it is more workable for uninvolved parties, and Wikipedia's content benefits from the adjustment.
• Re. Thryduulf's procedural suggestions on determining consensus in the article-by-article scenario: I'd keep it as low profile as possible, with a WP:CCC attitude. From the two examples I gave above the first was rather high-brow (see WP:ANRFC#Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox), the second (Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Infobox) not. Both work for me. If someone wants to re-open the discussion, they should feel free (without lifting the "two edits per infobox discussion" of remedy 3.2).
• @Beeblebrox: as an initiator I ask an improvement of my situation. I ask an improvement for Wikipedia's overal quality situation. Whether Gerda likes it or not is not the main concern here. If the amendement would be implemented and after that Gerda would still not be interested in pulling two related articles (like BWV 243 and BWV 243a) to a comparable level of quality that's her loss, but at least some red tape for others who are interested in that would be lifted. See also my first reply to Thryduulf above.
• @Gerda Arendt — I'm not interested in what plays there: liking the role of a victim? Stockholm syndrome? Seeking an anchor for periodically "proving" that Wikipedia is a bad system? Really, I'm not interested. The situation for Wikipedia is not optimal, and whether you, personally, are interested in optimization of the situation for Wikipedia, or not, should not play a role in the deliberation I'm suggesting.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Thryduulf, AGK — see also [33] — I've quite had it with Gerda's antics, and that was even before she went WP:FORUMSHOP, see [34]. Apparently AGK hadn't even read the section title. It's an amendment request, not a clarification request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re. "more diffs" suggestion by NativeForeigner

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also, Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#WP:PRIMARY concerns, most prominently halfway through that section starting from "Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a)..." to the end of that talk page section illustrates the "jumping through hoops" red tape, burdoning those not involved in the infoboxes debate.
• This talk page section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGerda_Arendt&diff=629548317&oldid=629548022#Hint illustrates more of the unnecessary complications that can be linked to the same.

Anyway, thanks for looking at this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Gerda's second reply

[35]

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

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

Again I'm not interested in "why" Gerda apparently feels comfortable in a situation she describes as kafkaesque ("I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are" [36]). Neither the fact that she appears to feel comfortable in that situation, nor, even less, the "why" of that should have any influence on the outcome of this amendement proposal, imho. So I hope we can leave that part of the discussion behind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re. "Surely, if there's a clear talk page consensus, someone else who's not topic-banned could go about making the actual edit?"

Well, Gerda isn't topic-banned is she? Please see content of remedy 3.2. Gerda is not disallowed from the topic, not in mainspace, not in discussions, there's only a limited set of edits w.r.t. the topic she cannot do.

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

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

Re. "Leave it alone or lift Gerda's sanctions altogether" line of arguments

Really, not helping. People still enclosed in their own arguments at the time of the ArbCom case are not likely to see the wider benefit of the amendment I propose. I kindly ask ArbCom members to put such arguments aside and give no attention to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re. "You think Gerda creates aticles ONLY to add an infobox?"

Yes, that is a fact. Gerda does. Nikkimaria does (with the sole objective to avoid the infobox). There's no secret about that, both are clear on their motives in that respect. Others get caught in the fire. I'm thinking for instance about a nemcomer like Meneerke Bloem here, clueless about what is going on (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 52#Please arbitrate). All of this is very counterproductive, and makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for newcomers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, misjudged that one apparently, Gerda prefers the sanctimonious approach now. Gerda created BWV 243a (which is the history of BWV 243, there is no "difference in history"), and apart from adding the infobox:

• Gerda added history to the BWV 243a article, which is the history of BWV 243 too;
• Gerda added an elaborate description of the work to the BWV 243a article, which happened to be a description of BWV 243, not of BWV 243a (she didn't even have/use a source on 243a for writing that description: the minor differences in orchestration etc were overrun and the description was written as if BWV 243a was the same as BWV 243 in that respect)

Gerda did not collaborate on descriptions specific for BWV 243a, e.g. Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#The four Christmas hymns

The publication history section Gerda created for BWV 243a was incorrect for that article: it was the publication history of BWV 243. It incorrectly listed publications that were only applicable to BWV 243 [37]

Gerda suggested to merge the two articles back again after that, which is not what she says now.

Gerda refused to collaborate on the BWV 243 article after I had moved the BWV 243 description there from the BWV 243a article, reason for that refusal explicitly stated by Gerda: because BWV 243 had no infobox.

So really the creation of BWV 243a was only about the infobox, all the other content Gerda contributed on Bach's Magnificat could as well, or even better, have been placed in the BWV 243 (or the pre-split) article. And about an undercurrent of ownership which was somewhat cemented by the current wording of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about "making errors". Everyone does. This is about an environment that creates less error-prone and "leave the cleanup to others" conditions. These others are volunteers too, and the cleanup they do is out of free will too. It is about creating conditions that reduce the surplus work for all involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You see, I got myself involved in this very time-consuming amendment request, still I believe that when it passes the amount of time gained later in avoiding unneccessary cleanup situations will be more than a marginal net benefit, and not only for myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the effectiveness of the proposed amendment

Although, theoretically, "consensus" is impossible (as RexxS argues), the article-by-article treatment (without prior rights for the creator of the article), as proposed by the amendment, shows little practical problems to reach an agreement for the articles where this approach has been tested:

• Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox
• Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Infobox

No turmoil or drama, just editors coming to an agreement on the best solution for the article in question. So yes, the proposed amendment would be effective in solving problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Gerda[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Singing was great. A bit more of history: BWV 120 was created in 2010 to cover all articles with the general number, also BWV 120a and BWV 120b which were redirects then. Nikkimaria split them to individual articles, which I think was a good idea! (There are several more of the kind.) Francis made individuals articles BWV 233 to BWV 236 back to redirects today which I think is not a good idea. Every BWV number deserves its own article even if that is a stub first, and BWV 233 wasn't even a stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having to add Missa, BWV 232a, which is certainly no stub, but was also redirected. I reverted that one, will leave the others for, I have better things to do on a Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peaceful talk resumed on (now) Missa in B minor (Bach).

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

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

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

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

It is a perverse situation whereby someone must disrupt the project in order to improve it, but it is one entirely of Arbcom's own making. The suggested amendments to the restrictions would go part way to removing this disruption, but without also removing the ownership advantages of the anti-infobox users and making and enforcing a requirement that all such talk page discussions be:

• Publicly and neutrally advertised (I forget which article now, but I did see an article where an infobox had been removed based on a discussion that was not-unlikely canvassed and closed after ~3 days by its initiator);
• Be confined to discussing the specific infobox for the specific article; and
• Closed by an uninvolved user

then there will just be more removals of infoboxes to the detriment of the encyclopaedia.

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

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

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

Question by Resolute[edit]

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

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

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

Statement by RexxS[edit]

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

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

Statement by olive[edit]

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Dreadstar[edit]

So, Gerda's restriction stays because she likes it. Bravo ArbCom, bravo. What was the other reason? And, Beeblebrox, do you understand the concept of Kafkaesque, and how it applies to Gerda's 'love' of her restriction? Somehow I think not. And this entire ArbCom request is because Gerda undid a redirect, so now it's about infoboxes?[38] Please. I think RexxS states the underlying problem very well, interesting to see an ArbCom restriction used by others in such a manner as RexxS describes, "Oooo, I'll create lots of stubs and redirects so Gerda can't add an infobox." Clever. Dreadstar ☥ 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (other user)[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• This is a perfect example of why we generally have very little interest in appeals by third parties. Gerda isn't interested in having the restrictions lifted, so I see no reason to discuss the matter at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'll need to review more than the provided diffs to get a view of this. If this is the case as framed, it could be problematic. However, I'm not immediately seeing it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm just going through contribs, I want to get a more complete story than 'just diffs'. But thank you, nonetheless. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---