Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD update

Giving a heads-up that at this point it's unlikely the PD will be posted tomorrow today. We'll keep you appraised of any other delays. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for that. We hope to have it ready soon. Worm^TT(talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both for keeping us updated - I appreciate that. — Ched :  ?  16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Same here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you, this is exactly the sort of communication that takes almost no effort but goes a long way towards maintaining good relations :) Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you, that gave us time to ponder another of Andy's good ideas (and to experience more reverts), awaiting The Judgment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a form of update, we've punted a working draft of the PD over to the committee as a whole. Giving ample time to wordsmith and fine-tune things, and in the spirit of under-promising I hope to have the full PD posted by early Saturday UTC if not sooner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Take all the time you need - better to make the right decision than to rush, after all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Recent evidence --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further recent evidence: Peter Warlock and Talk:Peter Warlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit harsh to label the IP an "edit warrior" for one reversion when Pigsonthewing has ignored WP:BRD and reverted against the status quo twice... - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• see also, stay calm and factual, - forgive me for seeing a team at work, I must be biased, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am calm and factual, and yes, you are biased, as am I, but throwing around accusations of edit warring against people cranks up the tension in a debate, not defuses it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Guys and gals? Evidence page is closed, workshop is closed, and the PD page is not the place to rehash it. Leave it be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tell that to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). Bold Revert Discuss, not Bold Revert Re-revert. Template:Infobox cricketer etc. Business as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ched comment 1

• First: I will be having some strongly worded comments on this PD in the near future.
• Second: per "As Gerda has herself noted, she's been adding far more infoboxes as of late than Pigs; it hasn't been very constructive, especially when adding ones unilaterally is clearly going to create a kerfluffle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)" ... I would kindly request that David refrain to referring to the editor as "Pigs". I would suspect that Andy, or PotW would be acceptable, and I am familiar with the moniker that Andy has chosen; still, I think it is quite unbecoming to shorten the user name in the fashion that you have. Please make appropriate adjustments. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from removing | or |" ... I'm pretty sure Gerda will agree to refraining from removing infoboxes. typo? — Ched :  ?  02:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the catch. I malformed the very end of the PD in my initial copy and paste. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PSky comment on the most one-sided decision ever

Hmm, let's see, you smack Andy and Gerda, the pro-box side, and leave the anti-box side, Klein and Smerus, totally alone? Do you guys realize it takes two sides to have a dispute, edit war, etc, and that Klein and Smerus deserve smacking far more than Gerda? This is the most one-sided decision ever. I'd ask if this PD was a joke, but nothing AC does anymore surprises me. I didn't think my opinion of AC could get lower but it just did. An editor with one-month wiki experience could have written a better decision. As far as I'm concerned, AC should be abolished; and in case you missed it, I've said that before onwiki. PumpkinSky talk 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposal to sanction Gerda is ill-founded, even though I disagree with every infobox she's added at classical music-related bios. If she had been edit warring over infoboxes, yes, or if she'd repeatedly proposed infoboxes at the same article ad WP:IDHT, yes, but I've seen no evidence of such behaviour. Adding infoboxes to articles where it's likely to be controversial strikes me as bad practice, but I know of no policy it breaches. Sanctioning people for bad practice is not the way to go. Having said that, we do only have one arb currently supporting this sanction, and NYB seems to be questioning the FoF supporting the sanction, so this doesn't seem like a done deal. I hope the other arbs will read this and consider when voting. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

May I add here that I never added an infobox where I expected it to be controversial. I stand corrected in several cases, mostly operas where I still believe an infobox on the given works would be superior to a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox, illustrated in The Ban on Love. I don't recall adding any infobox to a classical music bio unless I wrote the article myself. I would not call "reignite" to point out that factually looking at The Rite of Spring might be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the AC proposal. It's the relentlessness which Gerda has shown in starting multiple infobox debates which is the problem. She's even tried to reignite some of the most contentious disputes (e.g. Rite of Spring, Georg Solti) while this Arb Case was open. --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to understand what you mean by reigniting. I used The Ban on Love as an example how consensus could be achieved (or - so far - not). Only after The Rite of Spring was mentioned in the discussion did I also show that one. As for Solti, I have no idea what you mean. I approached an author of a TFA with the proposal of an infobox, he wanted me to insert it and I asked him to do it himself as I could be banned for disrupting the TFA. Is that what you summarize as "reignite"? For the whole case, I hoped for more looking at the actual evidence, rather than going by such summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Georg Solti dispute had lain dormant since December 2012. You attempted to re-ignite the dispute on 2 August. You solicited an unsuspecting fellow editor to re-open the debate on the Georg Solti infobox: [1]. You must have known how inflammatory this was as this was one of the two pages which earned Pigsonthewing his topic ban on TFAs. Your comment even demonstrates you were aware of this. The other user went ahead, re-activating a debate which had been dormant for eight months: [2]. You then thanked him and tried to get him to do the same for Carmen [3]. --Folantin (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We use the very same diff, only you see it differently. I explained that I could not do add the box because of a danger that I illustrated, - the danger is what I was aware of. What he did was a complete surprise to me, unsolicited. I did not comment on Georg Solti, not then, not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you said "the editor who disrupted Georg Solti 25 July 2012 (mind the year!) is threatened to be banned." That's clearly Pigsonthewing, not you. --Folantin (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said, meaning that I - if I disrupted the TFA of that day, Duino Elegies - might be treated the same way. Do I have a language problem? - How is that "reigniting" and "inflammatory"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. It's clear from those comments you were pleased the Georg Solti debate had re-started and wanted the same to happen with Carmen. --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I invite everybody to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I too invite neutral observers to look. --Folantin (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to agree with PSky on this. There is no sanction for those on the anti side, despite the principles explicitly rejecting tactics used by that side far more often than the pro side. The evidence shows that there is no way of telling in most cases what will be controversial until one of the anti people show up to a debate, making some proposed remedies unworkable in practice. Finally it sets up the classical music and opera projects as a walled garden where the normal rules of Wikipedia discussions about content do not apply, and you're banning Andy and Gerda to enforce it! This really is the most inappropriately one-sided outcome I've ever seen from ArbCom and I've been observing it for years. Please go back and try again. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Folantin, Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case so where's the difference? There is none. This is the worst AC group ever and I no longer recognize their legitimacy. @Thryduult, precisely, the only-pro-side sanctions violate the very walled garden principle they've posted because it sets up the anti-side as a walled garden just as you've said. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case". No they haven't. Kleinzach has barely edited Wikipedia during this case as you well know. --Folantin (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes they have. Even if not, they most certainly did during the events leading to this, so again where's the difference? PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can back your accusations, you should stop repeating them. This case began on 17 July. Where have they been "starting multiple infobox debates" during that time? Kleinzach has made precisely five edits to Wikipedia during this period, two of them to your user talk page. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll say whatever I want. And how convenient of you to ignore my last question. PumpkinSky talk 11:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of concern for factual accuracy is duly noted as is the fact you appear to be the founder of WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh? And your clear bias and lack of concern for factual accuracy is also duly note; you did clearly ignore my question about their behavior leading to this case. We clearly won't agree so let's just move on. But also note the other two commenting here seem to agree with me. PumpkinSky talk 12:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have no evidence for your claims. I'm going to supply some regarding Gerda Arendt during this case. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop? If you want to discuss about something not related to the case, like you've been doing in your latest four posts, there are more suitable places than the Proposed decision talk page. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant to what David Fuchs says on the Proposed Decision here[4]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PunkinSky's surprise (while not agreeing with all points.) The AC felt the need to include the Levels of consensus principle. Did the committee miss that the very reason this needs to be asserted is the wholesale violation of the principle by many editors who invoked local consensus to remove infoboxes? Those removals, without citation of an actual policy, led to much frustration by Andy. While he did not handle it well, is it really the case that the committee finds nothing to say to any of the editors practicing it? Not a ban, not an admonition, not even a reminder?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as Andy may have been frustrated by the non-policy removal of infoboxes that he added, so those on the other side were frustrated by the initial non-policy addition of the infoboxes. A wikiproject does not own an article, but likewise a group promoting infoboxes does not own the top-right corner of the page. Rather than relying on attrition, the proper procedure for anyone wanting to spread infoboxes would be to establish a policy that an infobox cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus

PumpkinSky has suggested that the committee is wrong not to bring findings and remedies against Kleinzach and Smerus. However, little or no evidence has been submitted against these editors. Therefore, if anybody knows of any such evidence, I would request that they (pithily) submit it below. Unless it is entirely unavoidable, a simple list of diffs followed by your signature will be sufficient. Thank you, AGK [•] 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".) I have supplied ample evidence for (!) an editor, Andy, and would like that to be considered. The shortest way is my list of "systematic" reverts/changes of infoboxes, most of them in 2013. I trusted that the arbs are able to read a version history such as Sparrow Mass. The latest revert was yesterday, BWV 71: an infobox that I added and Nikkimaria edited was reverted by Eusebius, see talk and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have VERY limited time today, and limited internet access on weekends, but I will begin to go back through things. These two are subtle in their slaps, but the use of the old "with all due respect" phrasing should not keep folks from seeing the snide snaps and snarks going on here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Kleinzach: [5] Kleinzach engages in condescending snark at Gerda: "...Engaging in this kind of work would be a great learning experience, and help to re-integrate you with the community following your unfortunate experiences with infoboxes."
• Smerus [6] Smerus responding to notification of an ANI involving this issue. [7] is his identical response to Andy lower down the page)
• Smerus [8] In saying "Gerda 'doesn't think it's a problem' and I congratulate her on her eternal Fotherington-Thomas grade optimism..." Smerus basically, via his wikilink, describes Gerda as "an effete and loathed sissy"
• Smerus: [9]: (to Gerda) "Now that you are able to grasp that people may think differently from you,..."
• Kleinzach: just being mean
• Smerus: calling an infobox "ugly and futile' (and do read full discussion, it's short)
• Smerus to Gerda exchanges: dripping with sarcasm, (accusation of "shouting" where Gerda capitalized one word), tendentious IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument seeking "evidence" that has been provided, responding in part to Gerda's plea, " .. I feel like I am pleading with you as Abraham with God."
• My favorite: Kleinzach tells Gerda to propose infoboxes on talk at one article, yet Smerus [10], and Kleinzach [11] scream bloody murder when she did so at Wagner. full discussion ON that one, do note that Nikki appears to defend Gerda.
• Please also note other editors making use of local consensus - some are looking at the "policy" at wikiproject composers: [12]

More to come as I have time. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• To note that I plan on offering alternatives and/or new remedies and FoF this weekend. If you have any final comments I would make them soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are pandering Satan here by suggesting the things plainly seen are not even viewable unless restated here with a diff. It is much better to pardon the server load than to provide additional web hosting; for the sake of redundancy. This; compounded with intentions of an unwanted hammering sanction; in clear contrast of the community's desire, and indeed, her needs! We ask for guidance on protocols of civil discussion; expecting usable precedent to enhance our ability to move beyond impasse, with propriety to Wikipedia's institutional aims. We can agree to disagree (called no consensus), and close a discussion by default, to some neutral parameter; like the preference established by the earliest contributor, quite often the article's creator. This works for everything from the serial comma, to measuring time itself. Let me attempt to convey this in succinct candor; We don't really need sanctions here, we need authoritative guidance. If a sanction must levy; employ the "swift kick sanction"—that's the one where after self administering a swift kick in the ass, we see the light and get it right. :) John Cline (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support that view. I said so already in the workshop phase. Repeating in optimism some don't understand: We need to find a better way to discuss, and sometimes accept "no consensus", - not exclude excellent contributors with valid arguments from the discussion. I supply two diffs, both by uninvolved editors of this case, as food for thought:

• Infoboxes are useful tools that should be encouraged in classical music articles. They sum up the main points of an article, allowing for readers of these articles (such as myself) access to some of the most commonly sought-after material. That they be in standard place in most articles would allow readers an easy go-to place for birth/death dates, places of occupation, and a general synoposis of the individual. I feel some in the classical music wikiproject get offended thinking that infoboxes encourage readers to skip over some admittedly great articles. But those who come here just to see a basic sketch of an individual aren't going to read the article from top to bottom. Those who do that will continue to do so whether or not there is an infobox present. Infoboxes, written correctly (omitting information that cannot be summarized, such as which "period" Beethoven belongs to), offer no drawbacks to an article and quite a few benefits. 10 August 2012
• Consensus does not mean that stupidity and ignorance be given equal weight to common sense and knowledge. 22 August 2013

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not only for this case, but the future, I started a list of frequently raised concerns against infoboxes and what I would answer. It seems not well known that Kleinzach, mentioned above, said "I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions," and initiated infobox orchestra. It is a myth that Classical music is against infoboxes, a myth that seems to be widely believed for no good reason. - I don't mind an occasional bollocks or bullshit, having a history of linking to one of these in some other editor's comment myself. - If I may have a final word here (while I will keep adding to the list): I looked at the discussion Talk:Sparrow Mass again and found no lack of dignity in Andy's contributions to it. Let's not continue The Ban on Love. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Section break 1

• May I respectfully point out that the evidence for this arb case closed about two weeks ago? Arbs may wish to consider the consistent attempts of Montanabw, Rexss, PumpkinSky and Pigsonthewing to turn this investigation into their behaviour into an attack against others. I don't have time or inclination to respond to Montana's latest effusions, save to point out that virtually all the links she points out relating to me are repsonses to unprovoked, hostile and agressive comments from the four above mentioned editors. Gerda's optimism , which is what I clearly referred to, has been to me exactly as irritating as F-T's, although I am glad to say we are now cooperating with each other as per normal; I believe that Gerda and I understand very well each other's virtues and limitations and we don't need outsiders to kibitz on our Wikirelationship (Ahh.....). I am not at all ashamed of referring to the futile attempt of Pigsonthewing and Rexss to get an ANI judgement against me as 'bollocks' - which is exactly what it turned out to be. Unlike them, I am not a Wikilawyer, do not seek to build the encyclopaedia by vengeful attacks on fellow editors, and have not sought to escalate their war to these upper regions. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This case is not an investigation of my behaviour. You need to take responsibility for your systematic reversions of the addition of inboxes inside your walled garden - without any justification beyond 'nobody asked your permission first'. Then you need to consider the effects of stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments. You count opinions on talk pages and call that a 'consensus'. At no point anywhere in this sorry business have you made any attempt whatsoever to look for consensus. You should be ashamed of the way in which you insulted and belittled one respected female editor and accused another one of libel. That's so far beyond the pale that any conclusion to this case that fails to acknowledge your central role in causing the problems will have simply given you a licence to continue bullying female editors and stifling any attempts at consensus. That has to stop if we are ever to move forward. Your lie above is plain: from the start, you have singled out Andy and Gerda as scapegoats, while I and others have deliberately refrained from mentioning your name in our evidence, as I would have preferred to have dealt with your behaviour as a general issue, not a personal one. It seems the Arbs would prefer to have it spelled out in detail and that's what those diffs above show. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have to intercede here as a longstanding member of the WP:CM wikiproject. The description above by User:RexxS is simply histrionic. 1) We have discussed the use of infoboxes for classical music topics at WP:CM for a very long time now and have raised a number of arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane. That other users who do not edit classical music articles do not find them compelling may be true, but it is ridiculous to suggest that referencing and soliciting the opinion of interested editors through the relevant wikiproject is "stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments." This seems arrogant. (2) You describe an engagement between two editors which is mere fiction given how the two editors concerned on this very page have undertaken to describe their dynamic. You may see it as insulting and bullying, but you are not the editor being addressed. Who are you to take umbrage on someone else's behalf? This seems remarkably arrogant. (3) Andy has been singled out because Andy is problematic. This may offend your sense of justice because you happen to agree with him, but I don't see Smerus, Kleinzach or anyone else wading over to other wikiproject article series willy nilly to bray schoolmarmishly about how we are guilty of owning all these articles (that we create, edit and maintain) because we refuse to concede the value of his point of view. To suggest that our interest in maintaining the quality of articles under the project's umbrella is somehow "stifling attempt at consensus" is ridiculous and seems quite unbelievably arrogant. (4) We have engaged, repeatedly and extensively and in good faith the question of infoboxes for classical topics. We will do so again. There is no policy mandating infoboxes. Absent such a policy it is reasonable that the editors who have common interest in these articles, demonstrated by the fact that they have edited and maintained them, should offer their opinion and be solicited to do so. That you contribute to such debates is salutary. That you then insult the integrity, motivations and sincerity of those of us who labour hard over our wikiproject articles is, however, not. It seems, dare I say, exceptionally arrogant. Personally, I see nothing in the evidence that has been presented "against" Kleinzach or Smerus that in any way whatsoever compares to the longstanding, repeated disruptive history of User:PigsontheWing. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Eusebeus, please differentiate. Project Classical music has reservation concerning infoboxes for biographies, and I am willing to accept that. However, the project developed infoboxes for orchestras, Bach compositions and musical compositions, project opera developed an infobox for opera, all ready to be used. The fact that many of them were reverted and questioned brought us here. I don't want to point out evidence against any esteemed editor. Today I read again several interesting discussions, notably The Rite of Spring, Sparrow Mass and Don Carlos. I found no disruption by Andy in those discussions, instead an admirable hope for improving content: "One always hopes that fellow editors will raise issues with articles in order to improve them, rather than to try to score points in a different argument; perhaps disappointment should be expected. Nonetheless, if there is an error in the article, overlooked by those who have spent so many hours working on it and those who have subsequently reviewed it, it should be fixed sooner, rather than later. That said, if a term has been "employed by significant scholars in the field", then that, not your personal preference, has precedence. regarding your final question, you might like to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY." One always hopes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to inform you that the option of infobox opera, installed by Voceditenore in the project's Manual of Style, was just changed, in Voceditenore's absence and without a discussion. (It makes me think if "Infoboxes" is the right name for this case. It seems to grow more and more to a matter of ownership and protection of the status quo, here: the traditional side nabox. You can speak up at the project talk or at the example The Ban on Love.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

[ec] You refer to "arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane". What about the project members who do not; and who like infoboxes? Does Gerda not count? Have the rest, like User:GFHandel and User:Melodia, et al, been driven off by the intransigence of the remaining project members? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence

Like Gerda and RexxS, I was reluctant to pile on diffs of editor behaviour in my evidence, feeling that it would just fan the flames, rather than enable proper arbitration and the attainment of an an amicable resolution. But since you request them, I'll post some now. Noting your request for brevity (while giving necessary context, especially for long edits), and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' request for haste, this is still just a sample:

• 10 March 2008 Kleinzach adds the words "non-classical" to the scope of {{Infobox musical artist}}, which includes an explicit classical_ensemble configuration and code.
  • 31 August 2009 I removed that caveat
  • 21 October 2009 Kleinzach comments on this, in a conversation in which I was not yet involved, detailing my blocklog and Arb history, in a clear ad hominem response.
  • In the poll which followed, Kleinzach accuses others (in edit sumamry) of a transparent attempt at splitting the consensus against using the box for 'classical' musicians.
• 31 July 2011 In response to my making a suggestion to improve the accessibility of navboxes (since adopted for all navboxes on Wikipedia), Kleinzach's reply is Is this to do with microformats? There is at least four years of back history to this issue as searching the archives of WP:Composers will show [13]. The suggestion was nothing to do with microformats.
• 16 April 2012 Kleinzach says I was dismayed to see Andy Mabbett's involvement; also false allegation of breaking an undertaking (which I never made).
  • 16 April Kleinzach declares AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst
  • 16 April 2012 Kleinzach partisan canvassing
• 19 March 2013 Smerus refers to the insane proposals to weld all the world's knowledge into a virtual nugget amd attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere
• 22 March 2013 Smerus opposes (on an article talk page) an infobox, citing WP:COMPOSERS policy and continues It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite to engage discussion at the project page. Remember that the composer's project's RfC concluded that consensus should be formed on article talk pages.
  • 23 March Kleinzach Closing an ongoing discussion, with a particularly biased summary, despite being an involved party. He was immediately reverted by User:GFHandel. Kleinzach then complained that his summary had been deleted in the reversion, rather than refactoring it as a general comment (i.e. removing phrases rendered nonsensical by the revert, like "I am now archiving this") and reposting it. Immediately after this, GFHandel, a long-standing editor in classical music realm (whose user name belies his interest); and a supporter of the use of infoboxes in such articles, retired from and ceased editing Wikipedia.
• March 2013: Infobox orchestra is created, in draft. I add some fields to it, and
  • Despite the fact that the template is a draft, not used in any articles, Kleinzach objects that I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here. ("here" link updated to archive; diffs from that are in my earlier evidence. That whole discussion, and the template talk page, are worth reading for examples of Kleinzach objecting to (and often reverting) every change I made (most have been kept), and reporting every edit I make to the classical music project to canvass support).
  • During construction of the template, I made the observation: This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). At that time the CBSO article looked like this
  • Nonetheless Kleinzach proceeded to replace (seemingly) every instance of {{Infobox musical artist}} on an article about an orchestra - edits well into three figures, ignoring objections. In most cases, cited and otherwise undisputed information was lost from the infobox, as can be seen from the current state of the CBSO article. That's a Fait accompli, apparently.
• 19 May Smerus places a Do not feed the trolls graphic on the Richard Wagner talk page, during discussion of a proposed infobox.
  • 22 May Smerus made a bogus attempt to claim that I was not allowed to edit the talk page of a TFA (Richard Wagner; the discussion has been listed in others' evidence). He pushed this repeatedly in later edits. In This he refers claims I am Wikipedia 'reductionists' lke Mr. Mabbett, who see WP as means of crystallising the world's information to an essential nucleus from which all can be extrapolated (rather like, as I have mentioned elsewhere in a debate on Mr. Mabbett's obsessions, the desire of Mr. Casaubon in 'Middlemarch' to construct a key to all mythologies),and 'expansionists' like myself who like to create and expand articles, thereby both misrepresenting my work on metadata and dismissing the considerable number of articles I have created and/ or expanded. (Both ANI and then AN later rebuffed the attempt.)
• 8 July Kleinzach falsely asserts that an infobox must summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole, attempting to correct Gerda, who rightly points out that they are supposed to summarise key facts. (MOS:INFOBOX: 'to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears)
• 8 July Kleinzach describes the addition of an infobox as "pretty close to vandalism"
• 8 July Smerus describes infoboxes as the "end of civilization" and comaplins about Gerda doing so "without consulting on the relevant talk pages" while asking "whether it's "OK to revert these with a request for discussion on each talk page".
• 8 July Kleinzach described the addition of an infobox as a WP:POINT attack
• 9 July Kleinzach falsely accuses Gerda of going through my edits reverting them one after another
• 11 July Kleinzach deletes an infobox which was part of Gerda's comment, from an article talk page.
• 12 July Kleinzach attempts to pressure Gerda into falsely confirming that he did not delete part of her comment.
• 11 July Kleinzach falsely claims As everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits He means me (see my earlier evidence for other examples from the period when he insisted on not using my name or user name). The diffs he gives are all pages I'd previously edited and are on my watchlist. He also accuses me of "hacking" (repeated in edit summary)
• 12 July (and others) Kleinzach logging my edits

More may follow; or on request.

I repeat my comments in evidence and workshop that the "involved" projects include other editors, not yet named here (and some who have posted evidence or comments). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts

As I went active on this case rather late (after the workshop closed), I'm leaving some comments here. I've read through the evidence and workshop pages (and talk pages), and there are some interesting discussions and suggestions there. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that it is not possible (or desirable) for ArbCom to rule on the wider aspects of the matter, such as what infoboxes are for, and how they should be used and the various points related to metadata. Those sort of issues need well-ordered and widespread discussion by the editing community, while at the same time recognising existing practices and any inconsistencies in current editing practices.

Looking at the bigger picture here: many elements can be incorporated on the same Wikipedia article page (article text, lead section, tables, references, categories, navboxes, infoboxes, succession boxes, images and other media). Some of those elements are optional, others are found in all articles. How these sometimes disparate elements mesh together is part of the process of building and writing an article. Sometimes that requires discussion. If editors disagree over how an article should be written, and which of these elements should be used or how they should be used, then they need to discuss that. When editors fail to discuss (or edit war), or discussions fail, that is the point at which either wider input from the editorial community is needed, or formal dispute resolution.

When you have meta-philosophical disputes like this that have lasted years, one approach is to identify the productive community discussions that have taken place over the years and to identify the discussions that got widespread input from a large number of editors. And if those discussions haven't taken place, to try and encourage such discussions (after suitable planning and preparation).

One thing I have noticed recently is the large number of discussions taking place at WP:TFD, with infoboxes being discussed there. As far as I can tell, those discussions appear to be mostly aimed at merging infoboxes, but it is interesting to see the wide range of opinions expressed in those discussions. Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here, it is obvious that the wider issues still need fuller discussion. This is the sort of case where I'm tempted to say that those who disagree (as shown on the workshop page) should be instructed to write essays explaining their positions, and that a widely-advertised request for comment would then help form community-wide consensus on the best way to move forward. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One-sided rulings in such cases never calm things down, they exacerbate the issue. You should know that by now. Not to mention making AC look ever worse. PumpkinSky talk 11:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is a response to my saying "Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here"? Fair enough, but that wasn't really the point of what I said and you are only responding to a very small part of what I said. Your comment seems to relate more to the section you started above (which I may comment on later). I'd be interested in constructive comments on the other things I said in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki has become completely dysfunctional as it is a reflection of the real world, which is also totally dysfunctional. These things can't be fixed. For example, you can't stop people from socking--the sock policy is joke as it's a total waste of time, AC is pointless anymore because their rulings are wildly inconsistent and contradictory--towit putting up a principle against walled gardens here and yet setting one up for the anti-box crowd by ignoring their actions, AC and other wiki DR efforts are pointless because you can't change people's nature, those in power in wiki and RL protect their own and crap all over other people. So, I think we should do away with AC and DR and just work on content. Nothing has changed in the almost 8 years I've been on wiki. It just gets worse every year. AC and DR is all pointless and taking sides in a case makes it even worse. PumpkinSky talk 11:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki has become completely dysfunctional - admins have been far, far too lenient with disruptive editors such as Pigsonthewing who have turned massive areas of the project into battlegrounds and driven away productive editors and this has been going on for years. Many people who could make valuable contributions do not want to spend their spare time volunteering to take part in an activity that involves constant arguing and participation in bitter feuds. I am an active blogger on opera, I have taught history of classical music professionally, I made a conscious decision several years ago not to edit in the area on WP for the very reason that I could see I would get involved in this long-running controversy on infoboxes and it would be an unproductive waste of time. I never commented on the issue until it came to arbcom. It looks like a good decision is shaping up here, the essential thing is that Pigsonthewing is permanently removed from any involvement in anything to do with infoboxes.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

2) About myself

You know Findings Gerda Arendt: Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles systematically and without prior discussion. The first link goes to works by Kafka, the day before he was TFA, - I am proud of it. The second link shows me adding one infobox to one opera which was a FA, right after the option of {{infobox opera}} became available, which I understood as an invitation to use it, whereas others regarded it as the end of civilisation. I was told that it was not wise to do so and have only suggested (not added) to Carmen. - I believe that adding infoboxes to operas, literature, compositions etc. don't require previous discussion. I would go further and say that no edit requires to first ask permission, - and who's permission?

For quite a while already, I am on a voluntary 1RR rule: if an added infobox is questioned I go to the talk page. I offered to find out how consensus can be achieved in two cases, The Ban on Love and The Rite of Spring, in an attempt to get from "I don't like it"-arguments to factual one. I invite everyone, arbitrators and watchers, to enter those discussions, to find a way how conflicts can be resolved in the future, rather than looking at errors of the past. There are some 50 other cases to look at. Note: not one of them is a composer where I added an infobox. For the infamous case Richard Wagner: I didn't even suggest to add an infobox to the article, only to show it on the talk, according to the advice from an arbitrator. Why the reaction was as if I had committed a sacrilege is beyond my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1) About Andy

I still haven't seen any evidence of Andy editing disruptively in 2013. I found him always helpful, creative, open for suggestions and considerate of an editor's personal situation. Restrict such editors? What do you want to accomplish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1.1) As said above, there are countless topics where infoboxes are quite normal. Why restrict Andy - of all people - from adding infoboxes there? (Same question for me, of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1.2) As said above, where is the evidence for recent disruption? I see no reason to ban for something that was regarded disruptive in the past, if it is not repeated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm sorry to 'butt in' and contradict your defense of Andy. But only in the last day or so, not having had any previous dealings with Andy until I encountered him on the Peter Warlock article, I have personally found him aggressive, confrontational and quite oblivious to appeals to actually discuss an issue and collaborate. This can be seen here where, even as you and I are having a civil discussion about infoboxes, he butts in and tries (not for the first time, as you can see further up the talk page) to goad me into 'reporting' him after I'd called him out for breaching BRD - I can't help feeling as if to say "so you say - what are you going to do about it?". In short, he was behaving like a bully who's been caught out and has no intention of making amends but would rather turn this into an intractable confrontation, presumably in the hope that his 'opponent' will 'lose his cool'. Alfietucker (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

3) About "remedies"

The term "not very constructive" has been used, - forgive me for finding all so-called remedies not very constructive. Nikkimaria and I not to add, revert, discuss infoboxes at all? Please see that only in a a very small field infoboxes are contentious, and these are not contentious because of Nikkimaria and me. I should not be permitted to add an infobox to a Bach cantata I write? ... to a church I find without one? Come on. - It's easy to ban an editor whose arguments you don't like. I don't see yet one factual (!) argument why "The Rite of Spring" should not have an infobox, - please join the discussion and give me one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your last comment is a very interesting point that should be clarified. If you create an article, you might be allowed to add an infobox, I think. However, there proposed remedies have yet to pass (or not). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming it complies with Wikipedia's content policies, then yes. The reverse should also apply: if you create an article (or provide the bulk of its content) then you shouldn't have to have an infobox imposed on it. For instance, on The Rite of Spring, the biggest contributor by far is Brian Boulton [14] and he's opposed to an infobox there. --Folantin (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you mention that here where we talk about me adding infoboxes? I didn't add one to "The Rite of Spring", nor did Andy, no infobox was "imposed" on it. Andy asked (!) why it doesn't have one, and that was the most "disruptive" edit I saw him making in 2013, - needless to say that I don't find it disruptive at all. - I am in friendly discussion with Brian on the infobox of another article, see Talk:Peter Warlock (again not added by Andy or me). One question is if an infobox is supposed to contain "the key facts" of an article or "key facts". Brian, who wrote an excellent Signpost article, is more open than you assume, and discussion, not banning and restricting, is the way forward that I hope for. - The agreement between Nikkimaria and me is that she doesn't revert infoboxes in "my" articles, I leave "hers" without one, - it's not a great agreement (a reader may wonder why some Bach cantatas have an infobox and other's don't, Nikkimaria's and Mathsci's), but is better than none. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I respect your content work and your Precious awards to build community here, and I think that you should be able to add infoboxes to articles you start. However, you seem at least a bit tone deaf when it comes to infoboxes. For example, when the discussion at Talk:The Rite of Spring had clearly reached consensus against adding an infobox to the article [15], you went ahead and added The Rite of Spring as an example in the Infobox musical composition documentation (diff). When there is a clear consensus against using an infobox, using it as an documentation example makes no sense, and invites well-meaning editors who are ignorant of the article's history to add it to the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the sequence: It was not my choice of an example, I chose The Ban on Love above it. The Rite was mentioned there, I thought we better illustrate it for those who don't know. I still believe that we should not "vote" on infoboxes but find other ways of discussion, - I keep dreaming and searching, please help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Gerda, but I have no idea what you mean with your comments directly above this. I tried to "follow the sequence" by looking at your edit history. On June 1, 2013 at 19:10 you made your first edit in nearly six hours (to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to the thread ‎"Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox" with the edit summary That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled (diff)). Your next edit was at 19:21 to Talk:The Rite of Spring to the thread "‎‎Closing discussion?" with the edit summary some things can't be decided by voting (diff). Your next edit was at 19:36 to Template:Infobox musical composition/doc with the edit summary ‎‎Examples: add one where you added The Rite of Spring infobox as an example (diff). I looked at several of your other edits before and after these, but none of them mention the Ban on Love.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with proposing and showing examples of infoboxes on the talk page for the article where the box would be included.

However, I think that it makes absolutely no sense to show a specific article's infobox as an example in that box's documentation when the talk page for that article twice showed clear consensus against including any infobox. That is like using Mitt Romney or John Kerry as an example of a US President in {{Infobox officeholder}} (since there was pretty clear consensus against either of them actually becoming President).

I also think it makes absolutely no sense to show an unused infobox as an example anywhere outside the article's talk page (or a personal sandbox). The problem is that an uninvolved editor who sees the example box and finds it is not used in the article may well not read the article talk page. They may well think that the box should be included in the article, and add it despite consensus not to do so. It is a little like a leaving a loaded gun lying around unattended - it may lead to unexpected noise and injury.

I hope this explains my concern at your "tone deafness" when it comes to infoboxes more clearly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I try to follow but think that we speak of different things- which doesn't make understanding easier. After the workshop closed, I installed The Ban on Love on its talk, side navbox vs. infobox, to "practise" with an example how consensus might be achieved, on 8 August. In the discussion The Rite was mentioned, therefore I added it 9 August. - I am a bit surprised to see an infobox compared to a gun ;) - If someone sees it and adds it, simply revert. - Decision by voting: I believe that to look at flaws and merits of a proposal is better than counting people who come with arguments such "Oppose any infobox" (yours), "An infobox is not needed" (well, of course not, it is never "needed"), "redundant to a properly-written first paragraph" (well, it has to be redundant by definition), and better than all these " infoboxes are contentious". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ruhrfisch: we spoke of different things, now I know. I was absorbed in the case, you spoke about the example in the infobox template. You were quite clear, I didn't get it, sorry. I replaced the example now by a Bruckner Symphony, which has an infobox since 2007. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the "Google should not be allowed to easily benefit from our work" argument that was sported at Jimbo's Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? — Ched :  ?  04:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The above summary is mistaken. The discussion was here and concerned an essay expressing extreme frustration with the infobox wars, and particularly for one justification to include infoboxes, namely "Watson, SIRI, and Google all use the infobox data." The author objects to having their opinion that some infoboxes are not helpful subjugated by an imperative that data must be provided for Google (and inserting metadata into the article is not sufficient because editors won't keep hidden data updated, therefore an infobox must be present and visible). Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Watson" quote (though factually correct; and acceptable, as WTT points out elsewhere)) is a paraphrase of part of a much longer comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) in a November 2012 discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover/Archive 1. For the record, I posted only three short comments there, and one of those was to point out that the page had been refactored, changing the meaning of my other two comments. There is no "imperative", and noting is being done "for Google". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We start today

I keep dreaming of a new discussion style in the future, instead of looking back at who made what mistake in the past. My suggestions for arbitration:

1. I restrict myself: I don't revert the revert of an infobox. (I started doing so a while ago.)
2. Andy restricts himself: he doesn't make more than one comment per day in any given infobox discussion.
3. Nikkimaria keeps doing what she does, follow our edits, and Wikipedia will be clean.
4. Kleinzach restricts himself: he doesn't say again "The talk page is not the place for an info box".
5. Smerus restricts himself: he doesn't mention "(mental) health" again in an infobox discussion.

We all don't start new discussions, but try to solve the open ones. I suggest Siegfried first, if you don't like The Ban on Love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please cite exactly where I have made any mention of health, mental or otherwise, in any infobox discussion? I do not recall any such occasion. I ask so that I can make apologies if appropriate if I have in any way transgressed the bounds of courtesy.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Siegfried, link above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that I wrote there ' I join the plea for dignity and (mental) health'. This is not an imputation against anybody, it is a simple plea for sanity. This is the secondtime in a few days that you have made unwarranted imputations against against me, once by suggesting that I set up a tag-tema, and now by apparently implying that I made comments about the mental health of other editors. I suggest that the principle new start that can be made here is by editors refraining from making allegations against others and/or telling other editors what words they should or should not use in their general commemts, as long as those words are not insulting or vicious. I dream of such a day.--Smerus (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not. I have not made any imputation. I have not said that you set up a team-tag. I have not implied anything here, I have only asked you to not use the phrase in the future. Let's keep it simple, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite every arb (and everybody else interested) to visit one open discussion, perhaps even take part in it. You know where to find the choices on top of Verdi, Siegfried, The Ban on Love (mentioned in the case or above): here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I invite everyone to stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month because no benefit would arise from adding further fuel at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea - I will stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month (as of now ;-) ). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I thoroughly approve of this proposed moratorium. --Folantin (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from the reader?

We can not ask "the readers" how they feel about the unspeakable things - let's call them "summary" for the moment. We can not ask them especially when they got reverted. But we all are readers. Please let me know if my "summary" serves you, compared to no summary. From the more than 50 cases (linked above) I chose an opera (o), a composition (c) and a person (p). Easy poll: if "with summary" (or without) is the same for all three cases, simply sign, if not the same for all three take the two initials for which you react the same way and sign those. I would love something playful today.

1. opera: Fatinitza - with - without
2. composition: Sparrow Mass - with - without
3. person: Andreas Scholl - with - without

I prefer with summary

1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer without summary

Feel free to discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This Arbcom case concerns the long-term disruption caused by a clash between two sets of editors—it is not relevant whether infoboxes are good or bad. Let's suppose some new arguments were produced to conclusively show that infoboxes must (or must not) be included in every article—would that resolve the problem? The answer is no because after all the bitterness of the infobox wars, neither side is going to accept a new opinion. It really would be best to stop talking about infoboxes—wait a couple of months, then if wanted, start a community-wide discussion to get a general consensus so future discussions can rely on a policy, or at least a guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So you think, about what this case concerns. Please note that I never said "must" or "must not", and never will. I use an option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This case is called "infoboxes", yes, but as someone who has watched the dispute for a couple of years without getting involved in it until now, I agree with Johnnuiq that it is not actually about infoboxes but more about one editor's (Pigsonthewing) obsession with "metadata" and his pushing of it onto unwilling editors in a highly argumentative way that alienates others. There are many examples where he has put an infobox into an article, or attempted to, and the people who have built the article say" that does not add anything", to which the all-purpose reply is "Yes, it does, it emits metadata", just for instance in this discussion [16].I can say for myself that I made a deliberate decision not to edit in the area of classical music because I could see it would involve me in this bitter feud, and I have better ways to spend my spare time.Smeat75 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75 misquotes me. I was actually replying to Brianboulton, who said, addressing me, You obviously think that an infobox would enhance this article; let us have the arguments for this., and what I actually said was The benefits of an infobox in this article, as for the many thousands of other articles that include one, are that it summarises key information from elsewhere in the article, including material not suitable for the lede, for the convenience of readers wanting a quick overview, not least those accessing the collapsed view on mobile devices. It makes that information available as machine-readable metadata on the page; and for use in dbpedia. And it will, shortly, provide an interface with Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I provided a link to the whole discussion, anybody can follow it to see exactly what you say.I find you a very intimidating and bullying presence and made a conscious decision to avoid any articles that might bring me into dispute with you.Smeat75 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You have your view, I have mine (and this is my section of the discussion). I repeat from below: I find Andy not intimidating, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour (note: I did so already when I did not share his view). - I liked to enter his latest article to the DYK statistics. I like that he (of all participants in the Bach discussion) came to my talk when I mentioned that a friend died. - "Intimidating" is a difficult term, - would you have a link to something you would describe like that? - I am not intimidated, although I was warned. - "Obsession" is also a difficult term. I am for infoboxes without using the term metadata, and I don't feel that I am obsessed. - What this case should be about and is about are very different things. It should be about systematic reverts of infoboxes, latest example BWV 71, see discussion. - The way this case goes (so far) makes me think of a "deliberate decision" not to edit Wikipedia. I didn't want a case, but really hoped arbitration would look at recent evidence, not history, and reach for understanding. Recent evidence has it that Andy and I did the same things, so please treat us the same. I am not afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Montanabw

I see several problems with the proposed decision.

1. Klienzach and Smerus should be subject to - at a minimum - identical or parallel restrictions to those imposed on Nikki, Gerda and Andy. I will elaborate more on this below
2. Andy needs to be evaluated on 2013, not 2006 or whenever. To the extent he made mistakes, he did his time, he's paid his debt to wikipedia society, and that should be water under the bridge. Drop the stick, look only at the present.
3. Also, Andy clearly has an interest and passion for infoboxes and metadata, and that interest is not a bad thing; he provides a useful service to wikipedia and shouldn't have the thing he cares about most taken away. He has learned and grown from what has happened in the past, and I believe that the PD is basically giving him a life sentence for a misdemeanor. I think that if people are concerned, any proposed decision should be time-limited and narrowly targeted to specific, CURRENT concerns, perhaps only within the Classical Music project.
4. Any restriction on Gerda of any sort makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has never violated one single policy or guideline on wiki and where she has ruffled feathers. she has apologized. In addition, most infoboxes she initially added were to INDIVIDUAL articles (which the PD says is OK) that she herself either created or did a 5x expansion on (I don't have time to correlate her DYK record to infobox additions, but I think I'm correct on this). Basically, all she has done was annoy the Old Guard "we don't want any infoboxes anywhere never lalalalala" clique at WP Opera.
5. The proposed sanctions on Nikki seem about right, though perhaps definitely a time frame after which she can reapply for adminship (6 months, perhaps?) would be good so that we don't have a situation of the wiki life sentence that I have criticized above for Andy where a RfA would result in a chorus of "OMG! She was desysoped 10 years ago and how dare she return now? It's too soon!" and put her under a cloud forever.
6. I am concerned that Nikki is being subjected to sanctions when Smerus and Klienzach aren't even mentioned, even though their behavior and attitudes are a very large part of why we are here in the first place. I am wondering if this is an example of the systemic bias against women that is a problem in parts of wiki. Nikki did overstep, but she also should not be the only person on the anti-infobox side (particularly where she isn't 100% anti-infobox anyway); in some ways, she showed more willingness to collaborate and work with Gerda than did Smerus or Klienzach.
7. I think that if we are looking at levels of remedies, those imposed on Andy should parallel those on Nikki (save that he isn't an admin, but perhaps a discussion of appropriate but time-limited ( a month or so, maybe) editing restrictions would be in line.
8. I believe that there should be some action taken against Kleinzach and Smerus for their behavior as the "old guard" and how UNBELIEVABLY unkind and incivil they have been to Gerda who, in my view, has always been nothing but civil. In particular, Kleinzach seems to be skipping off scott free because he simply has not responded here. Although Folantin and I personally reached a truce as to each other, I will note that I continue to be troubled by his attitude and responses here, it's one thing to defend his friend Smerus, but his tone has been problematic.
9. Any restrictions on people adding or removing infoboxes should be confined mostly to the classical music topics, because this seems to be the only place where the existence of infoboxes themselves are the problem (most other disputes in other areas seem to be more over form than existence). To say that people cannot add ANY infobox anywhere is ludicrous; what if we have 10 new articles that need, say Infobox Mineral added - a wikiproject that strongly supports infoboxes in every article? Or if I ask Andy or Gerda to tune up or fix me up a fancy new infobox design for, say, the equine "biographies" where we have an infobox in all of them?

I am concerned that the proposed ArbCom decision unfairly targets a user, Andy/Pigsonthewing, as a scapegoat, and lets two playground bullies, Klienzach and Smerus, off scott-free to continue their bullying and domination of WikiProject Opera and WikiProject classical music unabated. This situation illustrates the worst weakness of "teh wiki" - it never forgets and it never forgives. Montanabw^(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Worm, others: I am quite concerned by the "disinclined to use infoboxes" tone of the comments below and the implication that, somehow, they are not a standard feature of wikipedia articles, or that the "pro-infobox" contingent is a minority. Infoboxes are pretty much standard operating procedure for many wikiprojects, and as far as I can tell most of the C-class and better biographies, most C-class and better animal articles, gem and mineral articles, health and disease articles, chemistry articles, movies, TV shows, popular music, and so on. I think in Andy's evidence he showed some links that at least HALF and maybe more of wikipedia's articles - and this counts stubs and everything - already have infoboxes. While there is plenty (I'd argue too much) "drahmahz" over the content and appearance of infoboxes, the rabid OMG NO! response to them is rather unique to the Classical music project. For that reason, I don't think it wise to view infoboxes as a "creation" issue nor am I confortable having their absence any kind of implied default position. Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NEW: For anyone not thinking there is evidence of the behavior of Smerus that I think needs sanctions, he just posted this on the 16th (been ut of twon, haven't been following the drama chapter and verse for a while...): User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Team. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone takes this latest provocation seriously, I suggest they read the entire thread concerned.--Smerus (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely. And I also strongly recommend reading Smerus' talk page as well. Don't start, my friend; WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I'm very disappointed that the PD has failed to find any viable way forward in resolving these issues. The idea that simply banning a few editors from the dispute will solve the problems is akin to the concept of cutting off an arm to cure left-handedness. You have the ability and the encouragement to look for better means, but have spurned the opportunity.

There is clearly a principle missing as Silk Tork has hinted - something along the lines of:

• Editors making bold, good-faith edits to articles or article talk pages that others consider contentious may be judged to be editing disruptively.

because without that, the FoF and remedy concerning Gerda are hung on a non-existent premise - one that I'm not at all sure has the consensus of the community. You won't put the above up for debate, of course, because you know it has no grounding in our current policies and guidelines.

You will know that I have collaborated with Andy on numerous technical issues over the last couple of years, not least the development of {{hlist}} and the improvements made to the accessibility of our articles, so you will expect me to be dismayed at the suggestion of banning Andy, thereby losing all of his hugely valuable contributions in so many areas - including classical music (how many of the regulars at WPCM can boast of having written a monthly column for a classical music magazine, as Andy can?). I accept that it would be better for Andy to step away from the conflicts over infoboxes, as they tend to bring out the worst in him, but why do you pick the bluntest of tools to do the job? "... indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes"? That implies a ban from any namespace, yet Andy is one of the small fraction of editors with the technical know-how to create and improve infoboxes, and you suggest removing him from that as well? Why? What does it accomplish besides damaging the encyclopedia? If you want to remove Andy from the conflict, then forbid him from adding or discussing infoboxes in mainspace; get him a mentor; look for some constructive, not destructive remedies.

I've known Nikki since she worked her socks off to save Geogre's Ormulum, and I've had both agreements and disagreements with her, but I've always found her willing to debate the issues and look for compromise - the last time she was blocked for edit-warring, I was able to successfully petition the blocking admin to unblock her as we had already made progress in resolving that particular issue. I know that she has regularly reached compromise with Gerda, and I'd point others to those interactions as one model of resolving differences. I do find her abbreviated edit summaries problematical, but I haven't seen any evidence of misuse of her admin tools. I therefore find the proposed desysop as unfounded, and I'd strongly suggest you look at ways of helping her contribute - why not 1RR and obligatory explanational edit summaries, as those are where the problems lie? The present drafting is reminiscent of curing headaches by decapitation.

Ok my rant is finished, and so am I. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Olive to the arbs

I have no experience with the info box debate. I am familiar with Gerda's work, although not with Pigsonthewing. I did attempt to talk to Nikki after watching what appeared to be on-going stalking. What struck me when reading this Arbitration case was that it seemed out of focus, blurred, and with no clarity. The remedies for the most part are those saved for the worst offenses and all of it was lopsided ignoring the work of multiple editors which should have been scrutinized.

I would like the arbs to consider a few general points:

There are two kinds of issues which seem to come to the arbs. Wikipedia is a designated collaborative community. Its legs are the family of editors the encyclopedia stands on. As in any family behaviours arise which make editing unpleasant. Still, those behaviours while unacceptable can be remedied usually, as in a family, with strategies that do not require that the family member be asked to leave and set up a tent down the street. Members of this community are valuable, take a long time to train and for the kind of issues that create unpleasantness but which do not undermine the very fabric of the community lesser remedies are always best.

The second kind of issue is that which eats away at the legs of the community, destroying, not making unpleasant, but destroying the fabric of Wikipedia. That kind of behaviour is directed directly at other editors, is thoughtful, premeditated and is meant to damage editors so they eventually will leave. I mean more specifically the creation of narratives that create a false sense of an editor, fatiguing them deliberately, harassment, retaliation, bullying, talk page lynchings, and the lack of basic values most of us agree allow communities to function optimally like honesty and integrity ... and the list goes on. I'd add that these tactics have been applied to both editors and arbs. wearying the arbs as well as the editor.

I do not see that a general over arching distinction has been made that separates problematic behaviour from behaviours that are meant to deliberately harm other editors, undermining Wikipedia in the long run, in part because the behaviours which truly undermine are hard to see, the cases, high profile, and all of it harder still to believe. And I do not think the arbs have made this distinction either. Maybe I'm wrong. Once behaviours have been placed in either the "bickering family" slot or the more serious "undermining the fabric of the collaborative community" slot, remedies are easier to apply.

In this arbitration what struck me was that the bickering family had been treated to remedies that belong to more serious transgressions like the eventual undermining of the community creating that immediate out of focus sense I had. I don't see in the list of concerns in the Pigsonthewing remedy that indicate he/she has deliberately causing the kind of damage that requires an indef ban, and Gerda seems to be relatively blameless so I have to ask, please reconsider the nature of the problems and into which of these two categories the editors named in this case belong. I know this is tough job, and I can't imagine what the arbs deal with so this is not an attack, just an attempt to analyze and define, should that make the arb job easier and the remedies more likely to be fair.(olive (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

Closing statement by Ched

• First: Being concise is not my strong suit.
• Second: I must take responsibility for my lack of direction in my original request (as pointed out by User:Giano), my lack of participation in the evidence stage, and perhaps most regrettably in my lack of participation in the workshop stage. For these failings I do apologize to both the committee and the community. (Worm That Turned and 2 other wikipedians are aware of the specifics as to the "why", but the reasons are not germane to wikipedia). I would also offer apologies to Gerda and Andy; as well as Nikkimaria and the other named parties of the composer group in requesting their attention to this case. Still, it was something I saw as a problem, and I thought could only be resolved by a full case.
• Third: Montanbw above summarizes my thoughts well in the sense that I fully agree with much of what PumpkinSky, Heimstern Läufer, Thryduulf, and others say in that this PD falls short of an optimal solution to the infobox debate. Still, perhaps it is best I speak my peace in my own words.

• To say that I am disappointed in this PD would be an understatement. I was hoping for a fair and equatable disposition to all sides. This is not it. It may well chill any discussions or inclusions of infoboxes in the near future; I would certainly hesitate to add an infobox to ANY musician, let alone "composer" after reading our ruling body's suggestions to a solution. In fact, I won't be the least bit surprised if infoboxes now begin to disappear from articles such as Paul McCartney, Tupac Shakur, Andy Williams, and others. Fortunately while our own article fails to offer certain amenities, Google does provide an "infobox" of sorts to things like Bach, in that quick date and place of birth, date and place of death, compositions, children, and spouses can be found without having to read an en.wp page.

I'm not attempting to commit wikicide by Arbcom, but I must say that frankly: After reading the original posting I must wonder if the Arbs even bothered to look at any links, comprehensively review any background, and actually follow through with clicking on "diffs" to determine a full picture of the forest. Often I see a "recidivism" statement, and I wonder if even the very basics were reviewed in this case. I do not dispute that this has been a "wp:battle" on wiki, but I remind all that it takes TWO sides to have a battle - one does not have battles on their own. Quite frankly this looks like a case of: "Hmmm .. there's 5 people in the composer project opposed to infoboxes (actually there are 25 regulars), and 2 people supporting infoboxes. Let's go with the bigger number, and hopefully that will translate to 'votes' in December". I apologize for the WP:ABF - and I'm not actually making that accusation, but the thought did cross my mind.

As far as specifics, the PD does mention in the FoF 2 blocks acquired by Nikkimaria for edit wars. Sorry .. but the actuall number is 3. Also, while "stalking" is a term that's fallen out of favor, here, still the harassment #hounding is not even addressed. (I also feel that addressing Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team could have benefited the project here) Added to that the lack of any inclusion or mention of Kleinzach and Smerus, who's postings have been every bit as inflamitory and confrontational as Andy's, from this PD is somewhat puzzling. Indeed I would say that the committee is well on its way to declaring a "WINNER" in this debate. And no I would not support a permenant removal of Nikkimaria's tools absent evidence of misuse of those tools; however, I would support a time limited removal to recover the understanding of what the non-superuser editors must labor under. I understand there are members of the committee who do not favor this as it can be viewed as punitive; however, having worked under those very circumstances, I can say that it can be enlightening.

After long consideration I can now say that I suppose I felt that some sort of 1RR restriction on composer and infobox items would have been my preferred way forward here. I would also mention that Dave and David may want to add a "recidivisim" clause to the PD as it is often done in other cases. I'll also say that while I don't fully understand the "wikidata, metadata, microdata, what.ever.data" .. I do wonder if it positions Wikipedia better in the future of search engines. I also appreciate the Levels of consensus principle, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to explain the three levels. 1. Community 2. Group/Project 3. Article I feel that there's enough ambiguity there to further muddy the waters, and feel that further clarification would be of benefit.

Now, having berated the committee - I must also mention a few things that I found to be positive. I very much appreciate that both Dave and David were responsive to concerns, and communicated well with us. I also commend the lack of "legalese" in the PD - much easier to understand that way. While I have and do find many faults with the committee as a whole, there is not a single member of the committee that I do not respect both as wikipedians and as people. My own view is that the committee has grown far to large (and by extension: diverse) to be efficient, consistent, and productive; but I do appreciate the effort that all of you put in here. I know it's a tough job with little reward beyond the title.

Question: I have two pages I'd like to either delete or move to a public area:

• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox - as this is a discussion with multiple people, it should likely be preserved - suggestions welcome.

• This page should definitely be preserved and there is absolutely no reason why the discussion there shouldn't be continued, though you will need a strong guiding hand to produce an end result. If you read my comments up above and elsewhere, and those of some of my fellow arbitrators, you will see that there is very definitely a recognition of a need for such discussions to take place, even after this case has ended. The true resolution to meta-philosophical disputes such as this arise from widespread and well-planned community discussions, not from arbitration cases. The community need to continue discussing things and moving forward on this and other issues. But the discussion needs to be better planned than what took place there, and more widely advertised. Have a look at the 2010 RfC on microformats that is mentioned on the PD page for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Ched/infoboxes - a page I was working on to organize evidence, unless prohibited I will do a "user requested deletion" upon case closure.

Finally, Thanks to all. Apologies to all. Hopefully if/when I feel the desire to return to editing I will never hear the word "infobox" again. I will also be avoiding any of the Admin. related drama boards if/when I return. (at least for the foreseeable future) Cheers. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

suggestions

• "5) Wikipedia's mission is to built an encyclopedia" ... should this not be "build"? Built is a past tense. — Ched :  ?  21:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• "2) There is no general rule on infoboxes, meaning there are regularly debates regarding the use of infoboxes on articles. The debates are overwhelmed by a number of editors, who have been listed as parties on this case.". Very much a nit-pick, but I personally would say " ... some of whom have been listed in this case." I say this because I don't believe, in fact I know that not everyone involved was listed as a party here. — Ched :  ?  22:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• "6) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[12] and without prior discussion.[13]" I think you are getting dangerously close to choosing one essay over the other, and I suspect a "remedy" outside some clear and documented "warnings" falls well outside Arbcom remit. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of User:Pigsonthewing's possible Conflict of Interest?

Pigsonthewing self-identifies as Andy Mabbett. On his User Page, Pigsonthewing links to his interests page: User:Pigsonthewing/interests. On that page he writes "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example and links to this page, where a short biography of Andy Mabbett includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." When I asked him if he had a WP:Conflict of Interest, Pigsonthewing twice referred me to this Interests page (diff), but would not say if he has a COI.

I raised this possible COI in my evidence, and it was mentioned by Smeat 75 in their evidence, and mentioned by Riggr Mortis. Despite the fact that Pigsonthewing and his defenders wrote at length in the Evidence and Workshop and associated talk pages, no one else mentioned this apparent COI. To me this at least meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion, and I assumed that ArbCom would address this issue in some way.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Note also that in Resolute's evidence, they stated " I think Ruhrfisch's questions about potential COI and his relationship with those organizations are valid, and should be answered". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Choess

As an uninvolved party who's watched this with some interest, I think the PD is generally shaping up along reasonable lines. A few thoughts:

1. If ArbCom is looking to restrict Andy in a closely tailored fashion to prevent disruption, I think the language of Remedy 1.1 is sufficient. Perhaps amending it to "adding infoboxes to articles or their talk pages or discussing the addition of infoboxes to articles or classes of articles" would make the scope clear. As I read it, this would not prevent him from developing new infobox templates or suggesting changes to existing ones, but their acceptance by the community would determine whether they were actually added to articles.
2. I'm not convinced Remedy 1.2 should be off the table. Looking back at ArbCom's dealings with Jack Merridew/Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit and Rich Farmbrough, in both cases, ArbCom attempted to impose carefully tailored restrictions on technically talented contributors who engaged in disruptive behavior, hoping to retain their contributions. The subsequent history of both editors suggests that this approach may not be entirely fruitful.
3. Contra Carcharoth, I think there's a very clear line between Andy's second RfArb and the current case. While the ad hominem conduct evident in the first RfArb and to some extent in the second has largely been replaced by parliamentary tactics, a quick perusal of the evidence in the second case will show the same essential problems (battleground behavior, inability to acknowledge adverse consensus), occurring in substantially the same topics (classical music, composers, opera) now before ArbCom.
4. I tend to agree that the conduct of other parties rises to the level of admonishment at worst, but Gerda's recent statement that "To ban Andy is no solution at all, because - as I pointed out in June already - you will still have to deal with me until you ban me also ;)" suggests that Remedy 3.1 may be warranted as a preventative measure. Hopefully Gerda will clarify her intentions and make this unnecessary. Choess (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I clarify that you can ban a person, but not an idea. I believe that for almost every article, an infobox is not damaging it, but is a service to readers. I respect an individual editor's wish to not have an infobox, ask Tim riley. I am looking at opera articles where an infobox was made available but is opposed by some editors who don't like any infobox, - one of them mentioned dung. I am waiting for some more factual pros for keeping the present side navbox, which duplicates facts from a footer navbox, instead of an infobox for the specific article, example The Ban on Love. I am waiting to see how consensus can be established in case of disagreement. I believe that arbitration should serve this purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw my name pop up on the new notification gizmo. I confirm that wherever Gerda and I have disagreed over info-boxes it has always been in the most colleaguely and reciprocal way. Gerda is one of my most cherished colleagues, and our disagreement over this one matter is a side issue as far as I am concerned. I abandoned editing WP for some months last year in the face of what seemed to me to be bullying over info-boxes, but Gerda was assuredly not the culprit. Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Duly stricken. I think you are the person most likely to be successful in promoting infoboxes in classical music and opera articles, because a) you know and write a great deal about these subjects and b) you're capable of backing down and working on other things when you find that other people don't agree with you. Good luck, and I hope we'll be reading your lovely articles about music for a while. Choess (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved party

I know that this decision has the potential to impact editors' lives and may even shape policy about Infobox but after reading this talk page I went to go look at the Proposed Decision page and was surprised to see that only 3 or 4 Arbiters have weighed in, they haven't agreed on or objected to every single proposal (many are skipped) and it is very possible that minds could be changed if someone comes in with a compelling argument. I take the delay in other Arbiters posting their views is because it isn't a simple case (or they could all be on vacation!).

This is all to say that none of the proposals that impact specific editors has a majority of votes and a lot can change (for or against) in the next 24-48 hours. I would hold off celebrating or despairing until all of the votes roll in. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Worm That Turned

I must apologise to everyone that I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to come up with a solution here. David and I were working together on a decision, then unfortunately real life stole me away from Wikipedia. I will be going on an indefinite wikibreak as soon as I've tied up a few loose ends.

So, here's a few thoughts, which might hopefully help the creation of a solution. Bear in mind that I came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars.

• Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing. They allow information to be offer key facts about an article to our readers and facilitate reuse of our content. They are customisable to allow editors to decide what to put in or leave out.
• Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted.
• The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. It should be added as part of content creation, and they should not be added systematically to articles.
• Edit warring over infoboxes should not happen. Ever.

If anyone can create a solution out of those thoughts, please do!

Now, to a few editors specifically.

@Pigsonthewing: I do see that you've managed to keep yourself from falling off the edge into an arbitration case for 5 years, since the end of your ban. However, you've carried on with many of the same behaviours, especially around infoboxes. I attempted to craft a solution whereby you could be removed from any discussion if you were dominating it, but it was pointed out that you are still on article probation and that clearly isn't working.

@Gerda Arendt: I have seen systematic additions from you, please do keep in mind that infoboxes are a content decision, not a maintenance decision.

@Kleinzach:@Smerus: I have been unimpressed by the attitude you have both taken reading around the discussions, though little evidence was provided regarding it. You have tarred discussions with the same brush, refused to assume good faith about the actions of editors. Suggestions that infoboxes cannot be put on the talk page for discussion because someone might copy it onto the main page is clearly stifling discussion. There have been more incidents and if I have more time, I'll be adding something regarding them.

@Nikkimaria: Again, I have been quite unimpressed by your actions, especially coming from an administrator. Reverting without discussion or explanation even in the edit summary is unacceptable. As is edit warring over these matters. I haven't looked far enough into the allegation of following edits to add that to the list, but overall it doesn't make for a good picture.

I believe that covers everything. I'll try to find some time to vote and possibly add some more bits over the next few days Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Reply from Gerda - to where I am addressed above)

I don't add where I think it's contentious (learning slowly...). I don't believe to add an infobox to a composition or story - my only cases of "systematic additions", like Schubert's masses, Kafka's short stories - are a content decision. - The newly developed infoboxes for opera should not be contentious, but I realize that they are and am more cautious. (Please see Siegfried: I only proposed on the talk.) - I am on 1RR, take any revert, there were many. I could have provided evidence against other editors but didn't want to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Worm, re Klein and Smerus...they should have been part of the original proposed remedies, but glad you seem the need. Real life is more important, but within the AC world, I'd submit it's better to delay a PD and case closing in order to get a sound and fair decision that to rush and leave a swiss cheese decision. The problem of long term issues is a tough one. The only real solution is to for the parties on all sides to realize the problem and change and within the wiki world that's very difficult to do. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the delay we had was that I was unable to keep working on the PD. As time went on, I became less available, not more. I'm not going to hold up the case for an indefinite period on the vague hope that I might suddenly get more time, especially given that it is unlikely to happen. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, some arb needs to pick this up because right now this is an atrocious PD. It's better to delay against than make a bad ruling. PumpkinSky talk 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The committee is tasked with making a decision which resolves the problem. I may see areas for improvement in the PD, but I'd hardly call it atrocious. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Worm: I reverted without edit summary on a single occasion, and had already long agreed not to do so again. And yet there is no mention in the PD of rollback being abused to revert me. The PD also characterizes my participation in discussions as "sniping", based on a talk page demonstrating neither incivility from me (though one comment was admittedly sarcastic) and worse behaviour from others not mentioned, and ignores multiple diffs of both incivility and gross personal attacks presented by a variety of people in Evidence. I admit that some of my actions with regards to these debates were suboptimal, and have endeavoured to improve my responses more recently and reach a compromise with those on the "other side". But if the PD as presented reflects the overall picture, it's missing a few pieces, and is unlikely to either solve the problem or encourage a more collaborative approach. There were a few good ideas on both "sides" in the workshop - isn't it possible to consider more of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise, I had not seen that you had agreed not to do so again and that does make the situation better. Could you provide diffs for rollback abuse? I appear to have missed that too. I'm afraid the reason that you've been singled out is that you are an administrator, you should be setting the example for the rest of the community. Effectively, you should know better. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(watching and involved) Nikkimaria and I arrived at an agreement of mutual respect, so much better than restrictions if you ask me. She has been singled out because she did most reverts of infoboxes (about 20). As you can see here, her edit summaries improved greatly from "cleanup" (#28 Sparrow Mass) to "rm: several errors or oversimplifications, net negative; also per previous agreement. feel free to discuss on talk" (#49 Cantata academica). Both discussions are open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This one was presented in Evidence, same paragraph as some CIV/NPA diffs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria, that has helped, sorry I missed it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Worm: See my comments in "my" section above. I am concerned about your comment "and they should not be added systematically to articles..." - MANY wikiprojects have a standard article design that DOES in fact ask - nicely and informally - that an infobox be part of the standard article layout (note WP Horse racing, for example, see, e.g. Paynter (horse)). While I suppose someone who is an anti-infobox fanatic may insist that they "own" an article in project and demand removal of an infobox there, I really do think that the projects can be allowed to recommend a starter template and a standard design, even if they can't "demand" it. Ditto things like chemistry (oxygen) or gems like the Yogo sapphire. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very sensible position, but should not the reverse also be true, that WikiProjects can recommend, if not demand, that an infobox be omitted from the "standard" article on the grounds that infoboxes usually do a poor job of representing that subject's articles? (cf. the recent removal of the "influences" parameter from Template:Infobox person: I'm sure there are a few cases where it could be used reasonably, but consensus seemed to be that it was more an attractive nuisance than a useful tool.) Choess (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have long supported the ability of projects, not set in stone, to either mandate and deprecate infoboxes for particular types of articles. But in the types of articles that are expected to add them, someone else will come along and do it. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sensible position": the name of my project is opera. The project made an {{infobox opera}} available in June, concise and in keeping with the recommendations in Brianboulton's Signpost essay. I tried it in operas. Some are accepted, others were (rather systematically) opposed and reverted by those who don't like infoboxes for composers. See for example Götterdämmerung and feel free to join the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I had an initial (not positive) reaction to Worm's ".. not be added systematically…' comment. However, after thinking about it, I believe Worm has a good point. Some of the concerns here are founded in a different interpretation of "systematic" than I came to have after reading carefully. We have many editors who perform valuable maintenance tasks. In many cases, those edits can be done "systematically" and without needing an expert's understanding of the subject matter of the article. I'll give an example. I recently created a task force on women's basketball. We do not yet have a template for the talk pages, but once one is created, I can imagine an editor finding an appropriate cat, and "systematically" adding the template to all articles in the cat. That can be done by an editor who knows little about the subject. In contrast, I think Worm is suggesting that such a "systematic" edit is not such a good idea with infoboxes. Even if some Wikiproject identifies the inclusion of an infobox as best practice, and an editor finds a cat whose every entry is within the project, it would not be wise to " systematically" add the infoboxes. Why? Because infoboxes take parameters. If an editor plunks a blank infobox into an article, it will make the article look unfinished until someone populates the fields. If the editor chooses to populate the fields, they might get some right, but might blunder on others. In many cases, it take an editor who is conversant with the subject matter to properly populate the infobox. An empty infobox is arguing worse than nothing at all , an improperly filled one is arguably worse than an empty one. If a maintenance editor wants to do something, perhaps they should add a note to a talk page informing editors that there is a suitable infobox, but leave the actual adding of the box to the editors who know how to populate it. Worm is suggesting that infobox addition be part of the content creation process, not part of a maintenance edit. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave does make an interesting point, but there is no policy or guideline that supports the notion that "systematic" addition or removal of infoboxes is frowned upon (other than a local RfC at one WikiProject) - indeed, such a recommendation would hinge upon each person's idea of "systematic". We need to discuss what is best to do whenever either a new infobox template is created to meet a particular demand (such as {{infobox opera}}), but also we need to consider how to make use of a database that has been created. What if I come into possession of a verified database of notable monuments in Bavaria as used in de:Liste der Baudenkmäler in Freising? May I use {{infobox monument}} to make use of that data where we have an article already, or would that be "systematic"? Could we systematically translate the articles from de-wp, adding infoboxes as we go along? Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments generates many such databases from many countries and there's a debate to be had about how we can best use such data, so I think that a ban on "systematic" additions would be premature, and certainly far too early to base a sanction upon. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree that no policy or guideline supports the notion. The very fact that infoboxes should be discussed at each individual article makes it a content creation decision. Assuming we can divide the types of edits people make into content creation and maintenance, then the addition of an infobox falls into the former, not the latter. For clarity, I would consider maintenance to be tasks such as categorisation, stub sorting, adding wikilinks, formatting and stylistic changes such as number and position of headers or placement of images, and simple copyediting such as grammar and spelling fixes. In general, these should not change the meaning of the article for the casual reader. Content creation on the other hand, would include addition and removal of text, images, tables, references and so on. The addition of an infobox should be considered part of the latter. The distinction is important as the former can be done by any editor on any article with minimal knowledge of the subject, whilst the latter should be done by an editor who has some knowledge of the subject, more than a cursory glance at the article.

As to your questions, RexxS, if you are creating the articles and have sufficient knowledge and understanding to write a stub based on the verified database, I see no reason why you should not be adding an infobox at the same time. That is part of content creation, and it is recognised that diligent mass content creation is acceptable. Similarly with translation, if you are diligently checking sources, you will have sufficient understanding to add the infobox. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet there still is no policy or guideline that recommends against systematic addition of content. For example, there are a lot of stubs about plants and Indonesian administrative regions (if I recall correctly) that were created from a database. There were complaints, of course, but the overall opinion was that once we get a basis for an article, then other editors will improve what is there. So it is with infoboxes; if one is added, then it is likely that its content can be refined by adding or removing parameters. I was actually posing the question about adding {{infobox monument}} to make use of a database where we have an article already - is the answer the same as if we were creating a stub? If so, then I have to take issue with your underlying assumption: that there is a binary division between an editor with "minimal knowledge" and an editor who has "some knowledge of the subject". There is a continuous spectrum of knowledge on any subject and it is a recipe for conflict to allow editing only from those who claim to know the most. By that logic, if Andy were an expert on classical music, you'd be perfectly happy with him adding infoboxes - and yet he wrote a monthly column for a classical music magazine, so he demonstrably has more than "minimal knowledge". In the first half of this year, he added about 60 infoboxes, and more than 50 of those were accepted without a problem. Nikkimaria reverted 6 and Andy walked away from each of them, as I had advised him to previously. I'm sorry but that is not a battlefield mentality. The problem I complain about is that additions of infoboxes - no matter by whom - in one small area are invariably met with a revert by the same handful of editors with the only reason being that it wasn't notified to WikiProject Composers first. If you don't tackle that ownership problem (tq|"Please clear this with WikiProject X first"}}, we'll just be back here in a month's time. --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue with a starter template, or a general explanation that infoboxes are recommended or not by any WikiProject. The ultimate decision though comes down to discussion at the article. Editors should not go through a group of articles, adding infoboxes to each systematically, or indeed removing them in the same manner. There's a difference between "recommending" and enforcing the recommendation. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "adding systematically". As it has been used in findings about me, I guess I better understand. When I add an infobox, I know how to fill the fields, be it an opera, a short story or a church. I typically don't have time to add infoboxes to articles other than my own, those related to them or otherwise of interest to me. Is that "systematic? Unwanted? Once the template for operas became available I tried to use it, because I am interested in operas and sincerely believe that opera articles are better with an infobox instead of a navbox that is uniform for all articles by the same composer. Look at GA (as of today) Fatinitza and compare to before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Giano

Ched is a friend of mine and one of Wikipedia's good people, so I sincerely hope he won't be offended by me saying that the bringing of this case was somewhat naive - especially, as the obvious conclusion has to be the exclusion of the main player and protagonist, Andy Mabbitt; something I wholeheartedly support and that I suspect Ched does not. However, Ched should not be too downhearted: some good can come of the case and it should be the unequivocal endorsement by the Arbcom of this finding [17], regarding the 'Use of infoboxes', because it gives those of us who feel downtrodden by the pro-infobox crowd something concrete to quote in all the many future debates/wars on this subject on pages from music and architecture to outer space. As a postscript, I would ask the Arbcom to go gently with Gerda; she's a good editor and she means no harm - she's a little hung-up with the use of infoboxes, but I think she amicably accepts that they are not everyone's choice. Anyhow, that's my view on what is probably an unsolvable problem.  Giano  20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Offended? Absolutely not Giano. In fact, I'm outright honored to be considered a friend - and I do very much appreciate you trying to guide me to take some sort of direction in the beginning. Naive? Yes, I do have to plead guilty to/of that. Sadder yet is the fact that I actually communicated with a former arb, and was told exactly what to expect. (quite accurately I might add) My request was born out of frustration at all so many discussions on the topic. I did learn a few things though. First: have a target in mind, be willing to point fingers, have the diffs, and be willing to go for the throat. Use the diffs in evidence - then give what you want in the workshop with the FoF, and ask for bans in the remedy. There should have been at least a dozen other parties to this case (on both sides) which I was reluctant to name. Not really my style, so I doubt I'll ever return here. Yes, you're right - I do NOT want to see Andy banned - I think he has far too much positive impact to offer the project, so I guess we'll just disagree on that part of it. Not that I'm a full-blown "add infoboxes to everything" person - in fact your examples of a historic building is a good example where I'd agree that it would be counterproductive to add one. Still, when it comes to people - I do favor them (generally).

I do feel bad for the position that I put Dave/Worm and David in though. I dumped everything in Arbcom's lap, stepped back and let the chips fall where they may (partly out of necessity due to unforeseen things in real life) and hoped they would find or invent some sort of 1RR thing, and state that "Projects" can not "own" things, "canvass" and "tag-team" editors who are trying to improve articles. While being creative has happened in the past (Delta/Betacommand) - apparently that is not S.O.P. It seems that the Arbs must work with what is presented in the workshop, and without anyone building a case against the composer group ... there was only so much they could do. I am encouraged that Nikkimaria and Gerda are working together, and I even see signs of Nikki taking things on board - that I am very happy about. I'm also very encouraged by the fact that Dave/Worm and David stayed with us, were responsive and communicated and updated everyone thoroughout. Add to that the fact that Carcharoth put quite a bit of time into reviewing things, and offering suggestions to a way forward? Yes, as much as I see this particular committee as one of the most inept I've ever seen (the Malleus/George situation is a good example of that), the individuals are impressive to me.

I'll continue to login and check my talk page until this is closed. I'll continue to fix typo and syntax items where I can, even if I'm not logged in. I am tired though. Over the last year I have alienated people who were friends. I took sides against people who were friends because I thought it was right for the project. I was not "loyal". I did what I thought was right in my heart. I'm tired of admins. being "super-users". <aside> I know that a lot of kids will shortly be returning to school (which should alleviate some things). Still, I am tired of the bullshit. Years ago I was very proud of what I did here. The work I put into WP:RIP is something I will always be proud of. In the beginning I was even proud of being an admin. ... not so much anymore. I've met a lot of great people here, and I am happy about that. Still, I think when this case closes I will need a break. But I am rambling here .. so I'll close with "Best to all" Thank you for the kind words you've offered me Giano. I do consider it high praise indeed. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from John Cline

I had resolved to stay out of this discussion; to observe and learn if you will. All I managed to learn however was more about my own weaknesses. I find I am incapable of observing the mistreatment of an esteemed colleague without intervening aid. Also I find, if I reply to provocation, I am not proud of my prose; instead—ashamed!

Please understand that when not discombobulated, my stringent endeavor is to publish prose that I can be proud of; even succeeding at times. Yet the error is mine for having not further endured.

Help me to better endure by allowing that I edit under the enduring principles that founded this great site. Principles that do not embrace debase provocation; allowing one to withhold their own indignation in favor of observing the institutional retribution that is all but assured in policy.

It is well known that a plethora of policy insight is ignored, so the belligerent can edit this encyclopedia. Perhaps this is not an unsolvable problem after all? Instead, simply an example of one that can not resolve by ignoring all rules? :) John Cline (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Couple more thoughts

A couple more thoughts here to try and help clarify some things (see also the section above that I added earlier).

• Firstly, unlike Worm That Turned (who "came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars"), I and several other arbitrators have been very aware for years of the tensions surrounding infoboxes. But this doesn't mean that we are able to provide a panacea or that an arbitration case will provide a 'silver bullet' that will magically resolve these tensions.
• The only thing that will help improve matters in the long-term, and it is worth repeating this again and again until people actually get it, is to have productive 'big picture' discussions that help editors settle on best practice and sort through any differences and disagreements they may have, and then people can carry on with writing articles and curating article content. Some people are able to discuss things calmly and work through their differences, or explain clearly why they disagree. Some are not able to do this, and need the help of others (or to be kept away from such discussions).
• Infoboxes are templates designed to summarise key points, not just in a single article but across a range of articles. This is why there is a difference between systematically adding infoboxes at random (e.g. to a list of articles created by a single editor) and systematically adding infoboxes to articles in an area an editor (or group of editors) have some knowledge of and have considered carefully the best way to present the information in an article. This is why infoboxes tailored to specific subject areas can be helpful - it shows that a group of people have considered the various options and how best to present the information common to a range of articles within the same topic area. When you get broader infoboxes such as those for people in general (most of my experience with infoboxes has been on biographical articles), then it becomes more difficult to handle and a case-by-case approach is usually needed. Ditto for other topics.
• The key point is to also have discussions about groups of articles, not just individual articles. To form consensus at a group level as well (to avoid endless discussions on individual articles), but to still strike a balance that allows maximum flexibility and exceptions where needed (such as not using an infobox if that is desired). Sometimes the merging of infoboxes helps focus such discussions, sometimes excessive merging hinders such discussions. What you don't want to do is end up with the bureaucracy that is sometimes associated with the requested move process - that evolved to help people resolve differences over article titles, hopefully people can resolve their differences over infoboxes without needing anything like that.
• It may help to draw an analogy with discussions about whether to include an image in an article or not, or whether to include an article in a particular category, or how to write the lead section. Those discussions can get contentious, but the nature of infoboxes, placed at the top of an article and performing a similar but different function to the lead section, makes them particularly prone to causing certain types of arguments.

The whole argument about metadata and data in articles is something else again. That needs several rounds of proper community discussion. Anyway, most of the above isn't anything new, but the community absolutely needs to have proper, structured discussions, planned and properly publicised. A key part of the planning is sorting out where to publicise discussions, and having a representative selection of people working together to produce a summary and questions suitable for a community-wide request for comments (some of the workshop material is a good start). This can be a long and difficult process, but it would be better than endless low-level arguing. ArbCom can suggest that this should happen (I've suggested it to my colleagues), but we can't (and shouldn't) require that to happen - the real impetus needs to come from those willing to participate in such a process. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the PD, it seems like the decision will actually have little to do with Infoboxes and everything to do with conduct and a lack of collaboration (conduct, not content). It's about how differences are settled (or mishandled) and the fundamental content/policy issue could be almost anything - Infoboxes, COI, NPOV, anything that causes division among people (which is almost everything).

It reminds me of political scandals where the scandal isn't the news but the cover-up is. I'm not sure how much it would help but I think more should be written, policy-wise, on negotiating conflict when trying to come to a consensus. Mostly I see consensus arriving when one of the parties decides the fight isn't worth it, not because anyone has changed their mind about the issue of contention.

I think WP policies on consensus underestimate how difficult it is to arrive at, how conflict is to be expected and what should happen when differences appear to be irreconcilable. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think if people saw conflict as predictable and not exceptional, a lot fewer cases might arrive at the ARBCOM doorstep. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am rather new to the topic of infoboxes - as you all know from my evidence I was against them and converted, - very dangerous ;) - I believe we need a better way to discuss their flaws and merits. Sorry, I don't think that it happened (yet) in the often quoted Rite of Spring discussion which Andy started by only asking "Why ... no infobox?" (Now how disruptive is that?) - I started to discuss a very simple example, article type opera, template new and concise: The Ban on Love, - help there please, let's make it a model discussion! - I don't believe that we achieve progress by restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: yes, I hope that the model discussion could serve operas in general on a "group level".

@Liz: no, I did not foresee conflict on operas as predictable, - and still nobody could point out why a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox would be superior to an infobox on the specific article, - but I am open to learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the articles where infobox opera was installed was just promoted to GA: Fatinitza. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Victoriaearle/Truthkeeper88

Reading all these comments, and well-aware I'm not one of the people who can discuss calmly as per Carcharoth's statement above, it occurs to me that this case is about pure frustration and that's a tough one for the Committee to address.

Some background for Committee members unfamiliar, because a pattern exists and it's not only about classical music - that's simply the arena where it ended up. It began in early 2012 and is still ongoing, and honestly my own frustration has boiled over more than a few times during that period. Some examples for those of you unfamiliar with the tactics and the players: Ezra Pound in February 2012, Murasaki Shikibu February 2012, Ian Fleming July 2012, George Solti July 2012, Melville Island August 2012, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek September 2012, AN Br'er Rabbit community ban, October 2012, Andreas Sholl March 2013, Sparrow Mass March 2013, followed by many more in the classical music project, one of the more notable being The Rite of Spring, the day after TFA, May 2013 and now referred to as the "Ban on Love" on multiple pages. This then progressed to various music related articles which I didn't follow but was vaguely aware of.

The issue, however, in my view is not about infoboxes. The issues are deeper, more entrenched, causing enormous damage in terms of attrition of highly productive editors, and for at least a year and a half has needed attention.

In terms of how the arbiters are to handle this, I'd suggest to follow your inclinations, ignore pleas (including this), do the job you were elected to do (and like all the rest of us, it's frustrating to work for free), and decide how to eliminate the disruption.

In terms of individual editors, I'd suggest looking at their overall record. For example, Nikkimaria has a record of pitching in ceaselessly to keep copyvio from the mainpage, in checking sources at FAC (for a while she was the only person there doing that and as far as I know singlehandedly checked each nomination) and is an enormous asset to the project. Look at each editor's contributions, assets, and weigh it up. I think this is very tough and important case. If it needs to go back to the drawing board, do so. If you all know how to vote, do so and put us out of our misery. But realize that a lot of content producing editors who could be reviewing and writing are currently tied up here, or just plain frustrated and work has ceased. That is not good for the project.

Thanks. Victoria (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

May I factually clarify that you seem to confuse The Rite of Spring and "The Ban on Love". One is a ballet by Stravinsky, the other the translation of Das Liebesverbot, an opera by Wagner. Both articles are no biography. I tried to initiate a model for how reaching consensus might work in an infobox discussion, The Ban on Love. Please take a look. You may also want to look at a comparable work, where an infobox was accepted without disruption and frustration: Fatinitza, a GA nominee. For discussion as I like it see Peter Warlock. I agree that Infoboxes is not the topic of the case, - reasonable discussion about infoboxes should be. There is hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be hope, but I fear that it, and any remaining goodwill towards you and your mission, Gerda, is dwindling fast as a result of your relentless persistence. For example, I have engaged in a perfectly civilised debate with you concerning infoboxes on the Peter Warlock talkpage; I understand your position, and have made my views clear there. So why, the very next day, did you have to introduce the same issue into the peer review of my current music project, Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)? This fanning of the flames is a tiresome and unnecessary provocation. I do not wish to stifle debate, and I think it possible that a form of infobox might eventually be devised that is appropriate to the character of all Wikipedia articles. But this will require some wholesale rethinking on the concept itself, not just the adaptation of the existing model. My recent Dispatches article was a contribution to that discussion. However, very few positive steps will be taken in the atmosphere of antagonism and mutual annoyance that envelops this whole topic. And I entirely endorse Victoria's sentiment: we all have better and more productive things we should be doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you see a proposal as "relentless" that I thought was a reasonable solution to the problem to show at a glance that the Eighth Symphony by Jean Sibelius is a composition project, not a composition. I am fine with your decision to look for a different way to show that. I was fine with your decision not to change Warlock now. - Sorry, I didn't see a problem (fanning of flames, provocation, annoyance), but will avoid it now, with respect for your view. - What do you suggest we do until that future concept will be developed? And how do we develop it if not by thinking about the options we have now? How do we overcome an atmosphere of antagonism that I - late to the topic - obviously don't take into account enough, and certainly don't want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to let the issue rest for a while. It is sucking too much creative energy out of the process. As I have said, there are more issues related to infoboxes than that of the reluctance of music and opera editors to adopt them, and the matter will not go away (I intend to return to it in a future Dispatches article). But if anything positive is to be achieved, there needs to be a calmer atmosphere, so if I were you I would adopt an informal temporary vow of silence on this issue. You can continue of course to work on your ideas in your sandboxes, and can invite comments there, but you should steer clear of initiating any new discussions and should generally avoid article talkpages and reviews. That would do a lot to defuse the atmosphere of antagonism to which you refer. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, taken. I said before that I don't add any more Wagner opera infoboxes until Götterdämmerung is resolved etc. - Please forgive me Sibelius. I saw you hesitating for the composer, but thought a composition was not the same problem, mea culpa. The same way I expected operas to be less of a problem than composers, especially with an infobox developed by the project which - I think - fits the requirements for conciseness your article pointed out. But obviously I was wrong. Why - that may be part of your next article. In expectation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that Victoria has yet to address the demonstrably false statements made in her evidence, which she reinstated (after an earlier deletion), unaltered, after their falsehood was demonstrated. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It is currently impossible for Victoria to edit Wikipedia outside her talk page, since she has been blocked for three months (by me, at her request). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only did Victoria post a lengthy comment, above, yesterday, but she made 32 other edits in the last week. In none of these did she address the clear discrepancy between her false claims and the demonstrated facts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, let's look at your statement and then do some counting of edits.

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop#Evidence_by_Victoriaearle you wrote: Victoriaearle asserts that, following the Pilgrim at Tinker Creek discussion in September 2012, the "primary editor", User:Yllosubmarine, "became discouraged and left the project" and that we thus "lost a prolific female content editor". As can be seen by examining the edit logs, Yllosubmarine was editing as recently as two or three of weeks ago; as she continued to do throughout October and November 2012. The evidence appears to be blatant falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project", look at her contributions before and after her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: X!'s Edit counter for User:Yllosubmarine. By my count, in the 10 months before your exchange in Sept. 2012 (i.e. Nov. 2011 to Aug. 2012) Yllosubmarine made 914 edits or 91.4 edits per month. In the 10 months after (Oct. 2012 to Jul. 2013) she made 88 edits or 8.8 per month on average (a decrease of just over 90%). Please note that I do not count her 90 edits in Sept. 2012 (as that month was split in terms of before her encounter with you vs. after), nor do I count her 0 edits to date in Aug. 2013 (as the month is not complete). How is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?

Counting another way, Yllosubmarine was a major contributor to 14 FAs and 14 GAs. She started editing in Jan. 2006 and really started contributing around Jul. 2006, so to Sep. 2012 this averages out to roughly two FAs and two GAs where she was a major contributor per year. in the 11 months since her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, she has been a major contributor to zero FAs and zero GAs and a quick look at her contributions shows the vast majority are maintenance edits (things like reverting vandalism or minor copyedits). Yes, she technically did not leave, but I ask you again, how is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?

Pigsonthewing, I think you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that you choose to start your count in November 2011. In October 2011, Yllosubmarine made only 34 edits; in September 2011, just 27 (fewer than in October 2012); August, 31. In July, it was as low as 18; in June, only 20 (again, both fewer than in October 2012). Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh? But thank you for proving my point: Yllosubmarine did not "leave" " Wikipedia. Victoria's evidence is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of my statement that I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project" do you not understand? Yes, her output varies over time, but I chose two periods of equal length to compare. Do you maintain she is still a prolific content editor? (The "female" part is not in dispute - that is a joke on my part)? Can you not see that your fighting every jot and tittle to the bitter end is precisely why you have twice been banned for two years and are now in this mess? Give it a rest. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

PS For my own mental health, I am removing this page from my watchlist. I will be without internet over most of the weekend, but if my input is required, please let me know on my talk page and I will comment as soon as I am able. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to AGK

@AGK: Regarding [18]: despite the arbitrators' duty to examine evidence presented in a case, It sees that you may have missed this, in which I say:

Some editors have referred to my block log. Block logs are notoriously crude and errors in them are rarely corrected. In reverse order:

• 31 December 2012 - erroneous, for a supposed edit war, 27 hours after making my first and only edit to Hans-Joachim Hessler in five days. He [ Mark Arsten ] subsequently apologised to me off-wiki, confirming this via the summary of a null edit, in evidence.
• 22 March 2012 - Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me for supposed BLP concerns, undoing his contentious block with the summary "clear emerging consensus for topic ban". In fact ANI levied no sanctions for my editing, which was within policy.
• 25 January 2009 JzG blocked for 3RR, then undid this after just twelve minutes, admitting he had miscounted.

That means that the last valid block (again that's disputable, but I won't labour the point here) was five years ago. (21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

Further to the above, the "BLP concerns" were discussed here; and continued here. At the latter, Kim Dent-Brown makes clear of the former, in his opening comment (21:08, 3 April 2012; my emboldening):

There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here [link to that earlier discussion] but this was never agreed upon.

and the second discussion was closed (over a year ago) by CambridgeBayWeather (19:37, 7 April 2012) with the summary (again, my emboldening):

There appears to be no consensus here to do anything. I would suggest that everybody take a few days off from throwing things at each other, which is what this has degenerated into, and go make some useful edits.

There was no topic ban; and the block was clearly contested by other editors and admins. I therefore invite you to remove or strike your false statement and recast your vote accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your comments. I'll look at the links you have provided regarding your block log, and then reconsider my vote, okay? (You will have to forgive me for forgetting about the evidence submission you quote above; the evidence page is one of the longest we've had in a case for some time.) AGK [•] 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@AGK: I notice that you have just commented on your vote, and made a minor copy edit to it, but have - remarkably - let the false claim of a topic ban stand. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Is this not a topic ban? AGK [•] 09:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your vote says Blocked then topic banned for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your objection. I thought you were claiming that there was no 2012 topic ban. In order to resolve this thread, I've corrected my comment. AGK [•] 10:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Pigsonthewing

@Pigsonthewing: Regarding your statement above that "arbitrators" have a "duty to examine evidence presented in a case" and your often expressed concern that no one make false statements, would you please address my concerns about your possible conflicts of interest, especially with regard to WP:COI? If needed, I will gladly point you to the relevant evidence I gave or my query above, or to the requests by multiple other editors that this issue be addressed. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to your request more than once, with a link to my published declaration of interests in my userspace. However, since you either fail to understand that, or insist on attempting to smear me with innuendo, or both, I will explain: I have no conflict of interest regarding my infobox-, microformat-, or metadata-related editing. I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing. My potential conflicts of interested are all listed at that page. If you have evidence to the contrary, or in any way showing malfeasance on my part, you will no doubt now provide it; as you have provided none so far. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a more detailed answer than previously. I have no other evidence than your own words and links, but just to be clear (since, as you note, I "fail to understand" what is going on here), I want to ask another question. You write on your interests page: "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example" and then you link to this page, where your short biography includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." To me, this sounds very much like you are paid for your advice by these organizations. Since you are also a strong advocate of the commercial re-use of Wikipedia data and Wikipedia's use of microformats, how is this not "paid advocacy"? Please note that WP:COI says "paid advocacy is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question.". Yours in failed understanding, and thanks again in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

PS I originally used the British spelling of "organisations" and a [sic] above, as an attempt at humor. I did not think that it might be taken as unkind, and apologize (as that was not my intent). 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can read Andy's "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" and still maintain that you think he's been paid, based merely on a surmise you've made from reading his brief biography. I have some experience with dealing with CoI and as it happens I spoke to Andy today. During the conversation, I asked him "have you received any payment from any of those organisations you named as having sought your advice?" and his reply was "No". I checked we understood each other by naming 'Google', 'BBC', 'Facebook', etc. and he was equally clear that he had never received money from them, but he supplies his advice freely. He confirmed to me that his paid work has been in connection with helping museums and other GLAM institutions in making use of the Wikmedia projects as a Wikimedian-in-Residence. I'll tell you this in case you still can't understand it: you simply cannot generate a conflict of interest from that, because his paid work is not in conflict, but in alignment with our object of producing a free, neutral encyclopedia that is available for all - otherwise you are going to be accusing all of our Wikimedians-in-Residence (not to mention all of the WMF staff and contractors) of "paid advocacy". Now if you want him to confirm what he said to me today, please feel to ask him whether I have accurately summarised our conversation; but I am becoming increasingly worried by your obsession with this non-issue, as it is starting to look like a smear; repeat an untruth often enough and people start to believe it. You need to consider carefully before making any further unsupported accusations. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree - it is hard to imagine who would have any incentive to pay for infoboxes to be created on 19th-century composers etc! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Thank you RexxS. Just to be clear, "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" is not the same statement as "I have received no payment from any [of those] organisation[s]" (which is why I asked for further clarification, which you have now provided). Also to be clear, I never mentioned any of his Wikipedian-in-Residence work as a potential COI. If Andy (who is quite capable of writing lengthy responses and who did not respond to my Evidence post or previous post on this page) would have made such a categtorical denial on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I would not have repeatedly raised the issue. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod - I imagine a company might well pay for inclusion of metadata or insuring that all articles (regardless of topic) had infoboxes which their computers could read more easily. But RexxS has spoken and the issue is resolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that myself at all, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read Riggr Mortis' comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence (diff) or Riggr's essay at User:Riggr Mortis for more on Wikipedia as a database. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have. There's a huge difference between what people will use when it's available for free & what they will pay for. That's rather the point of open content. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to discuss conflict of interest with Pigsonthewong in relation to QRpedia, following the release of the WMUK Governance Review. I didn't find his answers very satisfying. The last people I would look to for statements on conflict of interest would be people who were trustees of the WMUK board which failed to deal with the rather clear-cut case involving Roger Bamkin which sparked the governance review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that pulling in that whole WMUK thing is WAY outside the scope of this particular case? Not that it doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it's a lot bigger can of worms than what has been presented here. — Ched :  ?  04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I do, but since former WMUK trustees RexxS and Johnbod showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing, I thought it would be a timely reminder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the rest of the case pages, you would see that "showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing" is a strange way of describing my comments in this case, even by your standards. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

My view on payment, which informs (though not decides) my perspective on COI matters, is that I am less concerned if an editor is an amateur or professional than if their editing is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, within policy, and is not disruptive. In my view, an editor, for example, who is repeatedly adding a template to articles against consensus, and is not being appropriately responsive to concerns on the article talkpages, is being disruptive regardless of if they are being paid. To me it doesn't matter if the writer is left or right handed - what matters is the quality and impact of their writing. I find slightly odious people inquiring into the personal life of others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Andy Mabbett

Adding infoboxes

There is a proposal to ban me "from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes". there is no justification for this; and no allegation, much less no evidence, that the addition of infoboxes, in general or by me in particular, is controversial or has caused disputes, outside of a very narrow set of pages owned by one project and related editors. There have been no ANI sanctions resulting from the additions listed below; an no blocks or warnings issued.

In the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously), I added approximately (I don't promise not have missed one, when reviewing my edits) 60 infoboxes. Note that this figure is only for additions to pre-existing articles. It does not include the probably greater number I included in new articles which I created; nor a couple of changes from one infobox to another.

With a few exceptions, which I shall discuss below, none were disputed or reverted; or where they were, unusually, reverted they were reinstated by other editors. They are still, at the time of writing, in the articles concerned.

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]

Of the infoboxes listed above, which are no longer in the articles concerned six of them (that's ten percent of all the infoboxes I added in half a year; four of them on one day) were removed by Nikkimaria during the stalking of my edits by her, about which I commented in my evidence:

• [76] - I walked away after her second revert
• [77] - edit summary "m, cleanup, tag"; I did not revert.
• [78] - edit summary "org"; I did not revert.
• [79] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
• [80] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
• [81] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.

(Those particular removals were not included in the evidence cited in the case, and presented at ANI, which was representative, not complete.)

Three further infobox additions were disputed:

• [82] - the infobox was hidden in a collapsed wrapper, with a set pixel width, contrary to the MoS, rendering it less accessible, and moved to the foot of the article. I later reverted that, but when it was collapsed again, I walked away.
• [83] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away.
• [84] - My only revert was to replace {{Infobox invisible}}, which was shortly after deleted as it was styled to display:none;; and I replaced it after deletion. Nikkimaria eventually hid the infobox at the bottom of the article, styling it bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;. This is contrary to the MoS and makes it inaccessible. I walked away.

So, where is the issue that the proposed ban on me adding infoboxes is intended to prevent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but a few days before you posted this you also added a box to Café de Paris (London). I'm not stalking, btw, I was looking at the article for something unconnected. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The oversight is yours. As I say above, this list covers "the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously)". But thank you for pointing out yet another of my many uncontroversial infobox additions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake (not an oversight, a mistake, but thank you for highlighting errors), although I would not call it uncontroversial: I am not sure the article is made any stronger by the box, but far be it from me to start removing them, especially while the case is rolling on. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The remedy is inadequate if it would not prevent the tendentious, argumentative and disruptive behaviour at, to pick one example, Little Moreton Hall and Talk:Little Moreton Hall that spilled over into Talk:Montacute House and (now archived at) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.102 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think Andy is mistaken about his edits in the first six months of the year. As the anon (above) mentions and I say in my evidence, Andy was certainly causing trouble in February 2013, and going out of his way to cause it too, which is why he showed up at Montacute House. Initially, I believed an infobox topic ban might be enough to curb his zealousness for infoboxes, now I am less sure.  Giano  20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I invite the arbitrators to review the entire, and short, discussion at Talk:Montacute House/Archive 1#Infobox (only eight short posts), which was not about the addition of an infobox. The first two posts there were:

The infobox on this article is hidden. This is unhelpful to our readers. I un-hid it, but I have been reverted, with no explanation. The infobox should be displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You are trolling from another page and another discussion! Go away or you will be blocked for disruption. Giano (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

.....and indeed you were trolling for trouble from yet another of your many infobox disputes; or have you suddenly become an expert of 16th century English domestic architecture? No, the truth is that you just cannot resist bombastically trying to impose your will and views on pages about which you know nothing. Wherever you show up, there's trouble.  Giano  21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. This seems to rest on three premises, all questionable: that the persistence of the infoboxes is a good indicator that their addition was not disruptive; that the controversy is caused by "ownership by one project"; that if, arguendo, the project has displayed unacceptable ownership, Andy's conduct has not in itself been disruptive. Judge for yourself. Choess (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

eerrmmm... " [85] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away." Sorry to dip my little fly into the ointment, but that's not strictly true that you walked away. I tried to come to a compromise: you dismissed it on spurious grounds, saying "each [[WP:POINT|deployed]] by vehement opponents of infoboxes". That's falling well short of any attempts at good faith and evidence of a battlefield approach, rather than any serious attempts to come to a collective agreement - oh, and yes, as per the usual tactics, spurious allegations of ad hominem comments were thrown out to both me and Cassianto - simply for daring to have a different opinion to you, it seems. I find that your evidence on this one is extremely lacking and I don't have the spirit to go back through the others to see what has taken place in those arguments. - SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ownership

Choess raises, above, the question of ownership by the classical music project(s); I'd widen that to include some of their like-minded allies. I and others touched upon the matter in the evidence stage. WhatamIdoing said:

One of the main complaints in the music area is <!-- hidden comments --> demanding that editors respect the (dis)infobox POV of one particular group of editors, merely because the one group of editors has decided that they're interested in the article's subject. Some of the hidden comments say things like After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. Text similar to this appears in a substantial number of composer-related articles. This editor behavior needs to be addressed directly. A significant example of the debate can be read at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 8#Routine_use_of_infoboxes_for_biographical_articles.

(some of the other hidden comments are more forceful than that; I'll add an example later see below).

My evidence includes:

infobox opponents (IOs) have represented... guidelines as binding (hidden comments; see above; "adding infoboxes... against guidelines") and/or representing consensus (ditto), or "instructions", even after being asked not to. They cite them in edit summaries.

and;

IOs have frequently exhibited, or supported, ownership, in contravention of core polices; in talk, and even here: ("WP:IAR trumps WP:OWN", "use of infoboxes ... more than settled ... in terms of a clear project consensus"; proposed findings)

The "views of creators and maintainers of articles (and of projects relating to them)" have not "been summarily dismissed as WP:OWN", references to OWN have followed examples or suggestions of breaches of it. e.g. Folantin's examples:

• [86] Not about infoboxes; followed "the main contributors... You have made one drive-by edit... If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise"
• [87] followed the bogus claim that "info-boxes are left to the principal editors discretion"
• [88] does not refer to WP:OWN, but refutes a claim of implied "PR/FAC consensus against an infobox"
• [89] follows reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (after others raised OWN).

I repeat this here, in the light of AGK's comment about having forgotten my evidence.

RexxS, Moxy (here) and others also touched on it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it more than a little rich that you accuse members of the classical music project of thinking they WP:OWN articles, an accusation I have seen you make numerous times, since it seems to me that you think you WP:OWN Wikipedia itself and are on a mission to make every article emit "machine-readable metadata", as in this edit from February this year, only one of many many such, [90],I recently fixed this article's infobox, which was not displaying. Another editor has now removed it, saying "it adds nothing anyway". That is patently false, as the infobox, in addition to providing a summary of key points for the benefit of our readers, cases the article to emit machine-readable metadata, such as is used by DBpedia, search engines, and, soon, Wikidata. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 February 2013" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the comments above indicate ownership nor are beyond standard discussion. And "it seems to me that you think" is so clearly the entry to laying out an personal opinion that it is alarming to see this presented either as rebuttal or evidence of wrong doing.(olive (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

Andy says - "[77] Not about infoboxes", no it isn't, you provide a perfect example there of what I said earlier on this page, this is not actually about infoboxes at all, it is about your fanatical drive for "metadata" as a diff from just a little before the one you quote shows:[91] Somebody has just said "it doesn't add anything" and you reply "That's patently untrue. It's adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article, as well as emitting the former as metadata, which can be understood by machines, and mapped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 19 July 2012 " Not everyone who edits WP is obliged to arrange articles so that machines can read them, there is no policy that says that.Smeat75 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the part of the comment, in your quote, which says adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article. That's adding them in a human readable form, so that our readers can see them with their eyes. Ownership on Wikipedia has a specific and clearly-defined meaning - clearly evidenced as having been breached by those opposed to having infoboxes on "their" articles - which is not "he says something I don't like". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We are all working on machines. This is a wiki, machine driven. And nothing being said in the quotes you offer suggest "require", and by extension ownership. This encyclopedia some think should be edited so it can be handled easily and read easily, while suggesting that is not ownership. One is free to dislike the suggestion even the editor but extending that as somehow proof of ownership is fallacious logic, and to sanction an editor based on that kind of evidence or any like it is wrong and unfair.(olive (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

The more forceful hidden comment, to which I referred above, is <!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->. AIUI, well over 300 articles include that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

The only arbitration in my personal Wikipedia history where I have seen remedies this severe were with Will Beback in the Timid Guy case. Is this in any way even remotely comparable?Remember that you are laying out the worst possible remedy for Pigsonthewing. As a committee you have established where the most extreme outcome applies, have created a scale. How does this situation compare? Since I was very familiar with the TG case, I can tell you this does not compare. Where do you go from here if editors transgress on a level comparable to the worst case. There must be a consistent gradation and scale out of fairness, but also to make your job/decisions easier the next time and the next. (olive (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

A more apt comparison might be to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram: one user repeatedly engaged in an activity that he finds constructive but annoys other people, brushing off criticism, and a group of other editors interested in the subject matter responding to that intransigence with increasingly bad behavior. The two seem broadly comparable in terms of severity of the proposed remedies. Choess (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a project in which people volunteer their time and knowledge, for fun, I would imagine, in most cases. The vast majority of us are not doing it for money, anyway. Where is the fun in being confronted with an aggressive editor like Pigsonthewing, constantly insisting that articles be arranged so that machines can read metadata? Most WP editors care nothing about that and there is no reason why they should.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Where is your evidence that Andy is "aggressive". I never found him aggressive. Don't say that's because I am on his side. I wasn't always. I disagreed with his view on Samuel Barber (March 2012), but found him factual, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour even: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". I don't have time for more right now, but to see labels such as "intimidating", "belligerent", "battleground mentatality" etc. with no evidence apparent to me, simply repetition of experiences from a time past, makes me question why arbitration in the true sense of the word (as I understand it) is not even tried. - This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Stress on "was". I know well what "frustration" means right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, just as one example of his aggression, you could look at a discussion he himself references above - [92] where he put a table of distances into an article the day it was on the front page of the site, after literally years of arguing for such a table and being told that the creators of the article did not feel it was useful, or valuable. Yes, I think that is very belligerent, very intimidating and shows a battleground mentality, and it is not anything to do with infoboxes either, it is his obsession with metadata. There would be a dispute about infoboxes without Andy but no one else argues for them with such obsessive fanaticism, that is why I say this feud is not actually about infoboxes but about his disruption to the project and inability to collaborate amicably with others.Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion to which you point was again in 2012, right? I fail to see how adding a table is an "aggression". - Andy is collaborating amicably with me, with people developing templates, with people working on templates, etc. You may want to try yourself. I love his latest article, peace and reconciliation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No fun so we sanction the editor? I understand frustration, frustration though, does not equal sanctions especially of the kind I see here, further, your insistence is as direct as anyone else's. This is a squabble long term yes, but a squabble, and squabbles require more than one side to even exist. The sanction should be of the kind, "Don't make me stop this car", not, "you're out of the family."(olive (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

This would all be true if it were the first time. This has been going on for eight. bloody. years. The exact same issues over three arbitration cases including a year long ban. MLauba ^(Talk) 07:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see above. Define "this" more precisely. That a project introduced an infobox which is opposed is new! It has nothing to do with Andy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The context changes, the behaviour doesn't. No feedback registers. When an issue is pointed out, Andy endlessly finagles around details and takes nothing in. There is not a iota of difference in the way he handled the feedback regarding his multi-year long obsession with inserting a BLP's date of birth at Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) against the subject's wishes and annoyance, the behaviour that led to his topic ban from TFA, or what he displays in discussions around every single infobox feud listed in the whole evidence section. Heck the ANI report he filed a few months back complaining he was being stalked is a perfect illustration. Nothing registers. He's right, no matter how many uninvolved people tell him otherwise, and he will grind on and on and on. This is what has been going on for 8 years. The only relationship to infoboxes is that it so happens that this is the most common obsessive subject of his. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again I invite the Arbitrators to review my edits and comments at Manchester Ship Canal. In the cited discussion, it is pointed out by Tagishsimon (another editor driven off the project by ownership) that the table of coordinates and distances had been in the article, uncontested for four years. Having found it recently removed without discussion on the talk page, I restored it. When I was reverted, I joined the discussion on the talk page, where I was accused of making drive-by edits, despite my along association with the article. If I intimidated Malleus Fatuorum there, I shall of course apologise to him.

Likewise, I repast my invitation to them to review the Hawkins case, which polarised both editors and admins, but where it was again decided that there was to be no sanction against me. Both cases were over a year ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is Andy Mabbett

Carcharoth comments It is worth noting somewhere for the benefit of those reading the decision that are not familiar with the background, that Andy Mabbett is User:Pigsonthewing (and vice-versa of course).. This is something that I agree would be worthwhile, and could probably most easily be done by copyediting the start of FoF3 to read "pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as "Andy Mabbett")". This is consistent with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Justin A Kuntz, which begins "Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) (who signs as "Justin the Evil Scotsman")". Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of Arbitrators

It seems like this decision has taken so long because it's taken so long to get a quorum. Are a lot of Arbitrators gone for the summer? It seems like this hasn't gotten the attention from the entire committee it deserves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For a complex case with loads to read, this doesn't seem to have taken an unusually long time to me, though there may be a bit of an August effect. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, Johnbod. I saw that the case was due to be decided on Aug. 14th so I was wondering what was causing the delay. At this point, unless new motions are made, it's a matter of casting votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, nice to meet you (so to speak). Actually many of the Arbs have had a look around here. Roger is really the only one that hasn't weighed in at all yet. It's a very complex issue, so as individuals they are all going to have their own views. Several things come to mind for me though - 1. Trying to sanction some scapegoat is not going to resolve anything. 2. While most arbs can agree on the "Principles", and even many of the "FoF" things (some of which I would dispute), there seems to be virtually NO agreement on any "Remedy". That makes things tough, or more to the point - unresolved. We all want to present ourselves in the best possible light, and since arbs are people too - that include them. 3. AGK is still looking and even asking for some diffs (which if I have time I'll try to offer this weekend). 4. One forward thinking arb (Carcharoth) is looking beyond this case, and suggesting a global discussion. How much time he would have to actually guide that only he can say. But he does see the need for it. The thing is that it would need to be structured to achieve an end result rather than a circular "I like it", "I don't like it" type of thing we've seen for years.

As an aside - one thing that has troubled me in this case is the "bully" aspect. Intimidation is a very subjective thing, and is as much befalling on the the subject, as it is on the so called bully. As someone who was small in stature growing up, I learned that if I wasn't going to stick up for myself .. then I would be subjected to bullying tactic all my life. So I refused to be intimidated at ANY level; and especially over the internet. And standing up for one's beliefs is not an attempt to intimidate. I also understand that there are quiet, shy, and timid people in life who are easily hurt and intimidated. Good, kind, caring, loving people who simply choose not to battle others; either in debate or argument. But when a group of people get together to try to force a situation through in their own walled garden, outside the global consensus, then yes, I do consider that intimidation. So it all boils down to talking to one-another and getting to know the people we write with. But the "Wikipedia is not a social network" stigma sometimes thwarts those efforts. But I'm drifting into "lecture mode" again, so I'll close here. (so much for my "Closing statement" eh? Later all. — Ched :  ?  05:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Ched. Although I've been editing on & off for 6 years, paying attention to Arbitration Cases is new to me so when I read that the decision is due Aug. 14th and it's Aug. 23rd and only a few Arbs have voted on solutions, it just got me wondering whether people were on vacation or something. Now that I've been told that this rate of progress finishing up a case is the norm and believing, as I do, that a better resolution is preferable to a faster resolution, I feel like my question has been answered.

As for your statement about "bullying", having worked in the area of conflict before, I'll just say that consensus building does not come naturally to people. It's slow, it delays an individual from taking action that they believe is necessary while one waits for people with different opinions to weigh in. It can be maddening to Type A personalities who just want to get the work done and not spend a lot of time talking about the process. I truly believe that aside from vandals, most editors that might be seen as bullies truly believe what they are doing is for the good of Wikipedia but that doesn't justify any effort to silence, badger, ignore or intimidate other users so one gets one way. But aside from a few personal feuds (which end up finding their way to AN/I), I don't think bullies are malicious in intent, they think they know better and trust their own instincts rather than the judgment of others. It's an unfortunate byproduct of their sense of rightness that their pursuit often results in alienating or, at worse, driving away some of their fellow editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I agree with Montana above that one editor may have been made a scapegoat here. This is a difficulty that arises with a case like this when its difficult to see where the problems are coming from. What I see is that a group of editors have been interacting in a less than positive style. Some have maintained a collaborative posture throughout as Gerda has. Others like Andy have shown improvement over his past editing practices and that must be noted.

The standard way of dealing with arbitration cases, doling out individual sanctions seems illogical here given all parties were involved in the squabbles surrounding info boxes. What Id' like to see is some out of the box thinking about how to deal with this kind of situation. Is there something that will fairly treat everyone, is not punitive while supporting ongoing work by knowledgable editors.

Suggestion: A restriction (time out) on all editors on infoboxes for one month. None of the editors named here touch an info box or comment on them. Further if any one editor does deal with infoboxes in any way, the whole group of editors will be restricted for another month. I am suggesting true collaborative work here, that those in this group be responsible to and for each other. I've worked with people in collaborative situations and used this technique, and found that the group begins to police itself, draw closer together, and those not willing to collaborate stand out in a hurry. Probably nothing new here but some thoughts on this case.

All sanctions should be specified per each editor as they are now. Editors who are not willing to improve in their collaborative skills will given this system show up immediately and that point sanctions may be applied. I realize this will be considered impractical but thought it might trigger novel thought. This is a collaborative community and collaborative remedies may be meaningful.

My concern is that three editors that I know of show a willingness to improve this situation. That in my mind is the best and most important aspect of this case.(olive (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

Nikkimaria

I am sorry to note that I don't see attempts to improve when an editor who is being scrutinized during an arbitration continues to make this kind of edit. [93] which seems very like the pattern of edits made before the arbitration[94] . (olive (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for notifying us of this (I have taken the liberty of correcting the username spelling in your heading). I'm not at all impressed that all three editors involved there (Gerda, Andy and Nikkimaria) have engaged in a discussion and sequence of editing like that during the case. The evidence presented was ample already. I will draw this to the attention of my colleagues. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my spelling, No disrespect meant to Nikki(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))

Er, my sole edit on that page during this case (I have not posted on the talk page since 9 April) was a technical fix, made on the (apparently mistaken) assumption that the renewed and seemingly resolved talk page discussion had settled the dispute. Whether we have an infobox or not; we certainly don't need two copies of the same one (I doubt even my most strident critics would argue for that!), so I removed the one which (no doubt because it was styled |bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;) Gerda had obviously missed when she re-added the other infobox in the immediately preceding edit. (I also made a minor tweak to the position of some parenthetical text for readability at the same time.) In what way was that disruptive? I trust that will draw this reply to your colleagues' attention, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC) - added @Carcharoth:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Olive, your second diff is from months ago, well before this case was open. As to the first: Gerda suggested on talk that we change the type of infobox that was being used; I agreed and made the change, noting on talk that I had done so. Gerda then added a second reformatted and expanded version of the same infobox; I disagreed and reverted, once, with a pointer to my explanation on talk. Can you explain why you see that as problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. I left out part of the comment which unfairly created evidence of two diffs instead of one. Nikki I'vw watched your edits for quite a while and as you know commented to you on them. I thought that with this arbitration you might move towards a less aggressive style of interacting, with less a sense of ownership, but I'm not seeing that in the thread I linked to. I hope I'm wrong.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))

@Carcharoth. I don't see a concern with Gerda's or Andy's comments on this thread. I was concerned about Nikki's. With respect, I think its mistake to tar all editors with the same brush.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))

The orchestra: I found the article in the list AN/I list, an infobox added by Andy, reverted/hidden by Nikkimaria, one case of several. I restored an open version, It looked reverted the same day to me. I failed to see a collapsed version. What should an invisible infobox be good for, anyway? - No, I would not call this style "aggressive", but it's no clear communication, leading to waste of time. (Spare me the other steps, it's all in the history and on the talk.) - None of us is an "owner" of this article. If you ask me it should simply look like other orchestras, with {{infobox orchestra}} developed by Kleinzach in 2013, for example Lautten Compagney. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems beyond infoboxes

As both Newyorkbrad and WormThatTurned have cited Andy's behavior outside of the infobox realm as a factor in their decisions, I would point to the following as evidence of disruptive activity outside of infoboxes. There appears to be a similar issue over Andy's use, or overuse of Template:Coord, which is discussed in Rschen's evidence (roughly Sep 2011 – Mar 2012), with continued sniping here Apr 2013 and here Jun 2013. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by Roundhouse0 is arguably connected (both revolve around the "coord" template.) Compare also the behavior at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Discussion of recent controversial changes to this guideline and Talk:Jim_Hawkins (radio presenter)/Archive 2#Edit request, neither of which, in my eyes, covered him in glory. On the other hand, Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Accessibility and equality shows Andy quite restrained and civil when a number of people contradict his policy proposal.

I'm not quite sure what the arbs are looking for or expecting here. (The scope and title of the case have probably influenced the nature of the evidence presented, both about Andy and other parties.) None of these, coordinates included, are on the scale of infoboxes in terms of disruption caused; the non-coordinate incidents aren't anything I would have kicked up to AN/I, let alone arbitration (indeed, I agree with Andy's position on accessibility and avoiding definition lists); and the last link makes it clear that Andy is capable of accepting criticism of his proposals with equanimity on some occasions. All that said, I do think there is evidence of Andy's battleground mentality and difficulty accepting consensus, mentioned elsewhere in this case, extending at least to other metadata and markup-related topics. Make of it what you will. Choess (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I have said several times in this discussion, this is not just about infoboxes, but about Pigsonthewing's obsession with "metadata" and several arbitrators say on the PD page that there needs to be wider discussion of this issue. I agree, otherwise this problem will not be solved, even absent Pigsonthewing.Just as the guidelines for infoboxes state "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines" so they should state something like "It is neither required nor prohibited for any article to be arranged so that it emits metadata" and "put this-or-that into the article we are talking about because it emits metadata" should never,never be accepted as a reason for altering the visible appearance of any article. There is no requirement, and there should not be either, for any WP editor to care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are.Smeat75 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you postulate, but with very few of your conclusions. Surely none of us would want to see editors compelled to enable metadata, just as we don't require them to use inline citations or make articles accessible. Nevertheless, improving accessibility, enabling metadata and converting raw sources to inline citations are part of the natural development of articles that improves them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we don't need editors to have expertise in every aspect in order to contribute. Many editors are quite capable of writing excellent prose, but rely on others to upgrade rough sourcing into more maintainable formats, or to ensure that their work is usable by a screen reader, or to enable third-parties to read our information in a format that is appropriate for their needs. Each good-faith change to an article - whether it be converting raw urls to citations, or identifying row and column headers in tables, or converting a bare image into an infobox - needs to be considered for the impact that it makes on the other aspects of the article, of course. But I reject the proposition, so often assumed here, that the self-proclaimed experts on a topic should be the only ones who are entitled to an opinion on such changes. Editors must be able to propose what they believe to be improvements to an article, even if the owners of that article don't care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are. Ignorance is seldom a good starting point for having a sensible debate on any issue and Ludditism isn't actually a cool stance to take. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Update and reminder

A brief update pointing to what David Fuchs said here. Please be patient until any new findings are posted. A reminder to everyone to please maintain decorum on these pages. Robust debating has its place, but please hold off on that while the case is still going. I said on the proposed decision page:

"I think several of the parties to this case are quite capable of changing their conduct without the need to pass formal remedies. I would like to see how things go after the case closes and wait to see if further remedies are needed."

I also said:

"Overall, I think a 'parties reminded' clause is needed here. And (after a period of some quiet) a way for people to discuss these issues in a calm manner at a central venue, building on some of the proposals made in the workshop, without tensions rising again."

I am still hoping this will be possible (my colleagues may in any case disagree with this approach that I have suggested), but it does depend in large part on people being able to discuss things calmly and being patient as we finish voting. I've asked the case clerk and the other clerks to keep an eye on this talk page over the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed principle 'Mission' and metadata

I think that the comments on this principle, and particularly the recent one from SilkTork, reflect a microcosm of the issues faced here. I would invite the Arbs - or anyone else - to examine these propositions to try to get a sense of what we need to understand in order to make progress:

1. The very act of emitting accurate metadata helps others use our data. It cannot per se be harmful to the project and its current mission, and will most probably be helpful.
2. As data is inherently dynamic, the metadata will only stay accurate if it is updated when the data changes. For that reason, an invisible mechanism for emitting metadata will always be inferior to one that is visible.
3. Infoboxes are a feature of the majority of our articles and already contain both the structure and content needed to emit accurate metadata. They are therefore an obvious candidate for implementing metadata, as they require no duplication of data entry, nor special effort to update.
4. In many articles, some particular key facts are too nuanced for a summary to be accurate metadata. In those cases it is not helpful to include that data in an infobox.
5. There will be other valid, often aesthetic, reasons against including an infobox in a given article, but the job of seeking consensus is to balance the advantages (of which metadata is just one factor) against the disadvantages (which may be manifold or entirely absent). Both the issue of having an infobox and its content if one is included are properly subject to the process of consensus.

I believe those propositions reflect reality. I don't know whether SilkTork would on reflection modify his present stance, but I'd be more than happy to debate the points he raises in a broader forum, at a later date. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Silk Tork says in that comment you refer to, and agree with you that the issue needs discussion in a broader forum.Smeat75 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

One point that I think was raised in the workshop or in evidence (or in earlier discussions) is that the placement of the infoboxes may be what causes some of the friction. In desktop view, the infobox is at top right, next to the lead section. In mobile phone views, infoboxes are above the article and the first thing you see. If infoboxes were placed further down the article, or down the bottom of the article, the way categories are, the way navboxes (footer navboxes, not the sidebar ones), and the way some succession boxes, and some 'invisible' metadata (such as 'persondata' and DEFAULTSORT values) are, then infoboxes might be a lot less contentious. You would still get some arguments (over accuracy), as people do still argue over categories and navboxes, but from what I've seen, the arguments are less - possibly because the visibility is less (my general observation is that some people get rather annoyed with five or six collapsed navbox templates at the bottom of an article, but suffer it because it is 'down the bottom and after the article'). The reduced visibility means that updates may not be as accurate or timely, but what I wanted to ask is whether any serious attempt has been made to explore other possible positions for infoboxes? (I've only seen the examples where infoboxes have been placed invisibly right at the bottom of an article - not showing but still emitting metadata, and the visible but collapsed examples - with arguments against both these attempted solutions). Do examples exist where the default location for an item on a page (not just infoboxes) can be changed if needed? Has anyone tried to do an alternative infobox design that would fit across the whole page like a navbox footer template? Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was tried at one of the country house articles, but is disliked, as you note. I hope someone has the link(s). I'm not sure if any such as in place now. Andy's note in this case that the lead image can be above an infobox has some potential to help where a landscape image is the natural lead pic (not composers, but very often in art and architecture), though I suspect keen infoboxers (not really those in this case) would be forever coming along and changing it. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) There are a few articles that have infoboxes embedded lower down within the article (eg Mini and many other vehicle articles), but none (afaik) that place the infobox at the bottom. Nor are there any that use a full-width layout - this would be very difficult to design, given the succinct nature of each field/value pair. Moving them would also have to be done site-wide for consistency (otherwise readers won't know where to find them) and it would no longer match the way all other language Wikipedias are setup. It would also make the {{sidebar}}-navboxes more prominent, which is a can-of-worms itself.

(2) Collapsing has been tried in various places, from Ponte Vechio (2010) to Little Moreton Hall (current). I've tried to enumerate all the problems with collapsing in my evidence.

(3) I think I was the first to suggest that lead-images could/should display above the infobox. At my sandbox4, I made a mockup of that (and a few other changes). I gave further details about this idea in response to one of Andy's workshop proposals - particularly "Ideally, the image could (would?) still be "part" of the infobox's code, it would just display above the box-outline - this would allow all sorts of articles to use larger images, without making the box extra-wide." I tentatively suggest that this should become the default for all lead/infobox-images - this wouldn't require changing any articles, it would simply require changing the templates.

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

With a lead image above an infobox, we have the "Rite of Spring" problem: a picture suggesting that it is an article about a painting, instead of telling the reader prominently that it is a ballet by Stravinsky. I tried a new approach which I called "title box" as a certain word is not to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not if it is an article about a painting, Gerda. And why is that more of a problem when it is above rather than in the infobox? One might argue it is less likely to confuse that way. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am confused now. At present (no infobox) The Rite of Spring looks (!) like about a painting, The Ban on Love looks like about a person. What do you think of my title box? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This debate notwithstanding, Arbcom does not have the power to dictate to the community whether to accept or reject the use or inclusion of metadata. That is a content decision. Even if passed, this proposed principle should simply be ignored lacking an actual community mandate for it. Resolute 13:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 'Parties reminded'

I wonder if it might be worth renaming this remedy to "Editors reminded" and making a corresponding update to the wording. I'm conscious of being as much caught up in the arguments surrounding infoboxes as many of the parties and there will be others in the same position as me. I'd willingly sign up to this proposed remedy and hope that everyone else can. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• The reminder certainly serves my benefit as well; which by the way, I intend also to heed. :) John Cline (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom needs to decide on rationales for edits: does the tail wag the dog?

Arbcom needs a finding on whether debates regarding Wikipedia content that postulate benefits to "downstream re-users"—the argument ad Google—which Riggr Mortis outlined as a common feature of pro-infobox debate (diff), should be allowed, or have any standing in content discussions. Such a clarification is surely within the committee's remit, since it would seem foundational that Wikipedia volunteers do not get to re-define who Wikipedia's "client" is. This cannot become a case of the tail wagging the dog. We again provide the following diffs as examples, quoting here from Riggr Mortis' post on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence (and showing only comments by User:Pigsonthewing; there are more there from User:RexxS):

The methodology is simple: I searched the talk page namespace for "Google" and "Pigsonthewing". Here is what I found (emphasis mine):

1. "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to, because they do good and useful things with it, and because it serves our mission."
2. "Using an infobox makes metadata about the subject downloadable from the browser, or to partner sites which use it, such as Google[,] Yahoo and DBpedia"
3. "parter [sic] organisations such as Google also make use of them"
4. "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo."
5. "the metadata emitted by infoboxes, the hCard microformat, is a generic, open standard understood by tools such as Google and Yahoo."

Who is Pigsonthewing's "we" and "our" referring to? He is not speaking for us. He is not speaking for Wikipedia. He is speaking to his agenda.

Signed, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Riggr Mortis, User:Victoriaearle 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Combined response in section below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing—an understanding of the huge scope of Andy Mabbett's agenda and activity

A few of us have discussed by email what we think is missing from this case to date. We are issuing one comment.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) has made hundreds of thousands of edits (via bot requests) to Wikipedia over the years that have no conventional effect on article content, yet there doesn't appear to be an understanding in the Arbcom's comments to date about the scope of Mabbett's agenda, which put briefly is to create templates and insert them into as many articles as possible so that "metadata" can be read from the articles more easily by computers. The Arbcom does not appear to realize that a remedy that, for example, disallows infobox editing, does not prevent Mabbett from continuing to build the infrastructure that supports his agenda. Indeed, arbtitrator David Fuchs has written "I'm hopeful that forcing him [Andy Mabbett] away entirely from the infobox issue would alleviate the cause of conflict for this case"! The "infobox prevention" remedy is not sufficient. We will explain this below.

Mabbett's entire project is to overlay his infrastructure of templates (not just infoboxes!) upon millions of Wikipedia articles so that they can be better "parsed" by computers. Mabbett must want Wikipedia to act like a database, and databases must have very defined structures. So every article (or template like {{Geobox}}, or "non-conforming" (e.g. collapsible) infobox) that deviates from his strategy and his structures is a potential battleground for him. An article edit that deviates from his template build-out, wherever he notices it, will be met with a revert, which regular editors are expected to accept, without policy grounds, for reasons that "they just can't understand"—it "emits metadata this way, you see"—it feeds third-party computer systems. His project is nothing less than re-defining Wikipedia for his own out-of-scope purposes. His "walled garden" of templates overlay the conventional editorial process and provide him with a self-reinforcing pseudo-technical rationale for controlling what appears in the wikitext of an article.

We must observe that Mabbett is perhaps Wikipedia's ultimate article owner, because his owning occurs via an entire infrastructure developed in the template space and applied to millions of articles. His methods have the effect of taking away editorial control from regular editors who may see no value in a template that adds complexity to the wiki-text without benefit to the reader. We all recently witnessed him attempt to take editorial control away from people who maintain articles about composers, for example, because their choices didn't fit his grand "data-feed" plan.

We will highlight one current initiative within Mabbett's project as an example of how he builds his infrastructure through templates and bot requests, to show why he must be stopped at the root. This recent bot request initiated by Mabbett proposes that dates already in infoboxes be put inside a new template—his template, ({{start date}}, created by him—so that the affected articles will output data that is easier for computers to parse. The infobox aspect is irrelevant, being only the container for the template, which in turn "emits" a microformat, another major part of Mabbett's infrastructural plans. (One can go back to 2007 and find quotes such as the following: "Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page [ANI], including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him".) You see, infoboxes are nothing special here—they are just another template involved in Mabbett's strategy; infoboxes and "microformats" and so on are all part of the same agenda that dates back half a decade, and involve the same battlegrounds. How will a simple "infobox ban" affect his behavior? Not at all. If Mabbett's behavior has caused controversy, it is because it stems from his agenda—probably the strongest agenda a single Wikipedian has ever attempted to implement without a fairly quick ban following. The solution is to prevent the agenda, by preventing the person holding it from implementing it.

The bot request linked above demonstrates everything this case is really about. It demonstrates that Mabbett will continue to find battlegrounds regardless of being "banned from infoboxes". In that discussion, he accuses the most thoughtful commentator on the page of "filibustering"; he refers to minor documents somewhere else to discount the informed opinions of the people who have taken the most time to respond. And so on. We see that, even when the topic isn't literally infoboxes, he's still doing the same thing, years on, and still acting the same way toward others.

Does the Arbcom see how wide-ranging and problematic Mabbett's agenda is? The Arbcom will not accomplish anything by preventing Mabbett from editing a given infobox on a given article. His battleground encompasses all articles, and the template space. He must be banned from all activity relating to templates, including edit requests on the protected templates he frequents, and from asking for or participating in bot requests, because these are the methods by which he establishes his agenda on Wikipedia. His agenda and his "enforcement" style are why we are here. No other named party on either side of the debate demonstrates the aggression and tenacious enforcement of Mabbett. To not ban Mabbett from all template and bot activity is simply to move Mabbett's battleground a little. The battleground behavior and agenda-pushing will not stop until the Arbcom introduces a very broad restrictive remedy.

Signed, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Riggr Mortis, User:Victoriaearle 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. This hardly starts to examine how Mabbett achieves his goal via poor behavior. It does not focus on his bullying behavior, his ignoring any argument which he cannot attack, the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors (who are the lifeblood of this project).

P.P.S. If others agree with these statements, please sign your names below.

Responses

Thank you for this input, which relates to an issue I've been trying to read up on, but had trouble getting my arms around. The input raises a few questions in my mind. What community discussions have been held concerning the desirability of including microformatted information in articles? With greater specificity, what practical uses does the computer-readable microformatted information have, either within or outside Wikipedia (i.e., what are the actual or claimed benefits of including the microformats)? Can the microformatted information be included without visual effect on an article, as opposed to via an infobox, when the inclusion of one is disputed? I may have more comments later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The small scope of my agenda (forgive me that I don't understand all of the above): part of a microformat is for example {{start date}}. You enter year/month/day as yyyy/mm/dd, and worldwide can be understood "this is a date" and the single elements, which different cultures can represent with month names in their languages and their order of rendition. It's a great concept! I support that! More on microformats by RexxS on the specific example of Talk:Mont Juic (suite). Nikkimaria reverted the infobox, but the principal author liked it. Please note that Andy didn't argue in the discussion, only answered questions and explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If Brad (or others) are interested in what the above contributors are describing, I suggest he takes a look at what independent scholars have to say about it, rather than taking the word of those who simply wish to keep us in the world of a paper encyclopedia. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World-Wide Web, wrote an article for Scientific American in 2001, where he describes his vision of a Semantic Web - it's available as a pdf here. After describing a brother and sister finding a specialist to treat their mother he writes:

Sorry to interrupt but is there a more legible version of that article? All I see is a page of "}A³Rҝ¬�^ät/�ßξ÷®g½ë›iï�Ä„‡³dHéøŒ" when I tried to open it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Try saving it to your hard drive and opening it from there, in a PDF reader, rather than in a browser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Pete and Lucy could use their agents to carry out all these tasks thanks not to the World Wide Web of today but rather the Semantic Web that it will evolve into tomorrow. Most of the Web's content today is designed for humans to read, not for computer programs to manipulate meaningfully. Computers can adeptly parse Web pages for layout and routine processing—here a header, there a link to another page—but in general, computers have no reliable way to process the semantics: this is the home page of the Hartman and Strauss Physio Clinic, this link goes to Dr. Hartman's curriculum vitae. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users."

So the concept of adding meaning to web pages is nothing new and doesn't belong just to Andy. Have a look at some of the results from this search on Google Scholar and you'll see that building the semantic web has been a task embraced by many scholars, designers and engineers over more than a decade of progress.

Nor is building the semantic web confined to microformats. For those of you who want to learn how our structured content is being used to train new generations of natural language processing programs, there is a video entitled "Intelligence in Wikipedia".

Every single web designer is aware of the potential of adding meaning to web pages. Our problem as a crowd-sourced website is in enabling everyone to contribute without throwing away all the other aspects of web design that most contributors will not be interested in. On the whole, we have made a good job of that, by using templates to hide the complexities of web-design inside a simpler wrapper. Even so, the fear of the unknown will still drive some to reject any sort of progress.

I submit that the essay above is nothing more than a device to stigmatise Andy's desire to see Wikipedia evolve into a resource that is usable in far more ways than simply reading an encyclopedia - I have the Encyclopedia Brittanica on my bookshelves if that's all I want to do. Let the three authors above honestly answer a simple question: "Would their opposition to infoboxes be any less if they did not emit metadata?" I think we already know the answer to that.

The authors also repeat a lie: that Andy has driven away editors. Not one single jot of truthful evidence has backed up that smear. In fact, Victoriaearle made that claim in her evidence, but had to retract it when it was shown that the editor whom she claimed had "left the project" had edited continuously ever since.

ArbCom should look carefully at the agenda of these editors: they have employed smear, innuendo and fabrication to create a caricature of an editor with whom they disagree. There is nothing sinister about wanting Wikipedia to be used as more than a paper encyclopedia; most editors share the goal of broader use and dissemination of our content; and there is no reason whatsoever why those goals should run contrary to the process of writing good content. --RexxS (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to endorse everything in RexxS' rebuttal to the three editors above. It is true that not everything can be accurately summarised in an infobox, but there has been no reliable evidence presented anywhere that emitting metadata for things that can is anything other than a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument is not that metadata is a Bad Thing, but whether the approach Andy takes is helpful or causes problems. Is it better to have 100 editors doing what Andy does in small amounts, or Andy doing what he does in large volumes, as a speciality, and persistently, over many years? When people take a de facto leadership role in over-arching matters like this, is that a good thing or not? And how responsive are they to community concerns? That is my understanding of the argument being made here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you from me too for this. It does clearly lay out the concerns that I've seen expressed elsewhere as well. Could Ruhrfisch clarify whether the postscripts (PS'es) are from him or all three editors issuing the joint statement? NYB, to answer one of your questions, I believe that when you Google for something that has a Wikipedia article, the Google summary that comes up to the right on the standard search results screen is based on what Google can read from machine-readable sources, including Wikipedia articles. I believe the other questions you ask have been mostly answered in the evidence and workshop pages, though it can be difficult to find the links among the other material there. I too may have more comments to make later, but the closest ArbCom can come to limiting scope of activity is if the overall editing is bot-like or aimed at achieving a fait accompli against existing community consensus. Beyond that, it would be the role of members of the editorial community to initiate discussion within the community on whether consensus exists for such wide-ranging activities. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad, There are other methods of obtaining this information, including the {{Persondata}} template. Interestingly a Google search for Terry-Thomas carries one of these side boxes, even though our corresponding FA article doesn't; the same is also true for a Google search of John Le Mesurier and again our (FA) article doesn't carry the box. Metadata in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: if we can provide a method of disseminating microformats in a hidden form (even if that is a collapsed box) then that can only be a benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple more comments, based on what I've read about this while looking into some aspects of this case:

• My understanding is that metadata here means data that can be included in and extracted from articles. This can take the form of infoboxes, but can take other forms as well. Microformats are ways of using existing html tags to mark and allow extraction of this data. You don't need to edit pages direct but the tagging is included elsewhere. It is a technical back-end allowing computers to 'recognise' what is on the page (i.e. semantic markup).
• In an attempt to get a feel for the sort of work Andy does on this, I looked at some of his edits this year:
  • An example of his microformat work is here. Change made to sandbox here. This is (as far as I can tell) an example of allowing external data reusers to more easily access the data contained in Wikipedia articles.
  • An example of Andy's outreach and consulting(?) roles is here (from May 2013, about the ORCID "works metadata" working group), though I'm still not clear on the full scope of what Andy does outside Wikipedia on this sort of thing.
  • I noted the extent of the work done on data-related issues, templates, and infoboxes on some of his user pages: to-do and infoboxes.
  • I noted an example of a recent infobox merging discussion that drew a fair amount of attention: Template:Infobox journal.
  • I noted an example of a discussion on gender here.

My overall conclusions from this were that many people do lots of work of this nature (on templates and infoboxes), but most manage to do it without causing waves. Either because they are more sensitive to concerns, or because they edit less, or because they restrict themselves to a narrower area and don't edit across the whole gamut of infoboxes. What I'm trying to articulate here is whether there is justification for a principle that sometime less is more (to put it crudely)? I'm not sure there is justification for that, but there is a long track record within Wikipedia of individuals trying to do too much themselves, over-reaching, and running into problems with various parts of the community. It is very difficult to edit widely across a large number of areas without eventually running into those sorts of problems. It would help to be able to compare the participation in such discussions of all the editors named in or participating this case. Who participates in the most discussions, and who contributes most productively to such discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to note that I completely endorse the statement of the three editors above. My own evidence touched on the edges of Andy's metadata obsession, but having not looked at it as deeply as they have, I felt that an infobox ban would have been sufficient. They quite eloquently and convincingly (imo) argue that such a topic ban would not be sufficient in this case. Metadata by itself may not be a bad thing - this seems exactly what Wikidata was set up to achieve - but Andy's behaviour around it has been a continual and significant source of wasted time for pretty much as long as I've been here. Resolute 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• I also endorse the statement, and thank the editors for laying out with clarity the real problem here. I should note that the inclusion of metadata seems to me an important goal (I've said as much before in the debates about infoboxes), but that is not what is at issue here. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• I add my thanks and endorsement to the three editors' statement above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the metadata isn't the problem here, it's the zealousness which an editor approached the task he saw before himself. Building consensus and handling conflict is messy and time-consuming but an essential aspect of how Wikipedia works. I can see how anyone who believes they are working for greater functionality of Wikipedia would become impatient with ever present debates. But, I think for WP, the ends (greater functionality) doesn't justify the means of overcoming resistance by either steamrolling over it, denying it exists or bypassing the debate altogether.

I need to say this is a general observation about editor conduct on WP that may or may not apply to Andy. I only have these proceedings to go on and it seems like there are some conflicting statements in the lengthy proceedings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I fully endorse the statement above; this is further supported by my evidence that I submitted a few weeks ago. --Rschen7754 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I emphatically OPPOSE the witch hunt against Andy and the character assassination above. Here you have an editor who has clearly learned from his mistakes over the years, but is being hounded to death for a mere passion for a topic. The merits of the issue itself are being drowned in a sea of scapegoating. I see nothing of excessive "ownership" or some sort of dark agenda in Andy's behavior over the last year, and though he gets a little intense at times, he is merely a fellow editor with a strong area of interest. This is character assassination at its worst and it seems that any attempts by Andy to defend himself are met with the same chorus of outrage. The logic of the above statement is ludicrous: "let's ban people who care about improving the encyclopedia." Hmmph. Next thing you know, someone will want to ban Jimbo for his passion for wikipedia! Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Further responses

Note: I also endorse RexxS' rebuttal.

So much for Carcharoth's request for the maintenance of decorum. What we see in two sections above, as others have noted, are further attempts to misrepresent and smear, devoid of any actual evidence of wrongdoing or ill-intent - exactly the kind of behaviour seen (and evidenced in earlier stages of this process), from those opposed to infoboxes, or metadata, or having our content reused by external partners, or objecting in some other way to normal Wikipedia practices.

Ruhrfisch has found some instances of me discussing the reuse of our content by Google, Yahoo, Bing, DBpedia and others. So what? A similar attempt to spread FUD in that regard, also referring to Riggr Mortis' ill-conceived essay was given very short shrift by the wider community when brought up on Jimbo Wales' talk page during this case. One editor there, User:Equazcion, commented:

"I fail to see the difference. Services that benefit people should be hindered because a company is also profiting from it? Why? To prove a point? To stick it to the man? Wikipedia is about providing your knowledge for free to whoever might use it for whatever purpose. What's the difference if it's structured data or prose? The same argument holds either way. I guess it sounds scarier when you throw around words like 'Google' (big ie. evil) and metadata (automated ie. evil), but really, it's all the same"

adding

"the wishes of the "primary" contributors shouldn't take any kind of precedence; The counter-arguments based on WP:OWN are perfectly valid in response to arguments referencing the amount of time or effort contributors spent creating or developing articles. We have that policy to deal precisely with these types of situations. You shouldn't contribute here if you think you have some sort of right to maintain control because it was 'your' work."

Ruhrfisch quotes me as saying "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to" (emphasis newly added). What he does not reveal, is that I was replying to the question (from Toccata quarta) "why should we shove our information down Google's throat?".

He also neglects to mention that my comment "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo" is a reply to the assertion that "[that] microformats... will one day facilitate the development of the Semantic Web, [is] just a leap of faith".

The "we and "us" I use refer to Wikipedia. Wikipedia shares its content using metadata. Wikipedia invites its reuse. Wikipedia's mission is enhanced by that reuse. And if I've done more than my fair share of the laborious and unexciting work to make that possible, for which I've been thanked by WMF staff and numerous fellow editors, then I'm very proud of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch responses

Newyorkbrad - I know that User:Pigsonthewing cited the existence (since 2007) of the category Category:Templates generating microformats as evidence that "The use of infoboxes to emit microformat metadata has been supported ... in practice" (take that as you will). As for actual RfC's, he cited two:

• RFC / Bot request from May 2012 in which ~10 editors participated and which supported including the start date template
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats from August 2010 which was closed with no clear consensus (you can also ask SilkTork, who closed the RfC)

I do not know of any other RfCs which support inclusion of microformats. I do know that when the start date template was proposed to be added by bot to about 40,000 articles on listed properties in the National Register of Historic Places, it was done as a bot request and Pigsonthewing made only one post to the NRHP WikiProject web page about this - see here. I think it would have been much better if the NRHP WikiProject (to which I belong and which includes infoboxes in articles as a matter of course) had been asked directly for its input by User:Pigsonthewing. [Please note Pigsonthewing says below that he did not make the original bot request. I apologize for my error, as I said I am quite busy in real life and just recalled his comment on the NRHP talk page.]

If microformatting is desired, it can be incorporated in articles in places other than an infobox (to be very clear, infoboxes and microformats do not have to go together). One possibility would be Template:Persondata which is hidden from readers and is already included in over one million articles. As for microformats changing an article's appearance, they should not if done correctly, but even something as simple as a date runs into issues with the different date formats used around the world and in articles here which might cause it to change appearances (see the discussions above). I also worry that editors will not understand what the microformat templates are asking for which may lead to issues - again an issue raised in the NRHP page and touched on by us as part of the ever-growing complexity.

As for practical uses, I do not know of any within Wikipedia (Persondata is used for categories, perhaps microformats could be too?). Many third-party data-reusers can and do make use of machine-readable data (from microformats). As we asked, does the tail (Google, et al.) wag the dog (Wikipedia)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have little time in real life today, and will reply to the other arb comments / questions next as I am able. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Persondata is only for people (hence the name), not buildings, events, and the many other things for which our infoboxes emit microformats. Please provide an example of a microformatted persondata template for a person, so that it can be tested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And again Ruhrfisch misrepresents what was said, this time at the NRHP project talk page. I was replying to Doncram, a project member, who said "Please see wp:botrequest#Mark a lot of pages for microformatting. Not sure if they should be discussed here or there" and I replied "I've answered these questions at BOTREQ; I suggest we centralise discussion there.". Doncram and others joined the BOTREQ discussion; there were no posts objecting to the suggestion to hold it there. Note also that the bot request was not made by me but by User:Nyttend and the aforesaid comments are in reply to his notification of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth - the PPS is all mine. The PS reflects things that we discussed via email, but I will take responsibility for it now. I have asked Victoria (who has asked for a block) to comment on her talk page about the PS (since she cannot edit elsewhere). I assume Riggr Mortis will comment here if needed. More later. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep on hearing the argument that we could incorporate microformats into something that isn't an infobox. Yet the truth is that nobody has ever done it with any success. {{Persondata}} could emit microformats, yet it doesn't. Any number of invisible data structures could be embedded into our articles, yet they are not. Why? Because anybody who actually sits down to the task quickly realises that the problem with invisible structures is that they don't get updated on a crowd-sourced site. Then they spot that they want a structure with a number of label/data pairs, like a table with two columns that's relatively easy to create and update, and it needs to be a template so that we can hide the classes needed to emit microformats. And voilà! they've re-invented an infobox. There are already well over 2 million of them in use on our Wikipedia, so why not just use them as the basis for emitting the metadata? The only reason why not is that some folks just don't like 'em. I'll start to take seriously Ruhrfisch's assertion that we could incorporate microformats in some other way when he manages to create one of these other ways and shows how it will be adopted in our articles. Have a look at Ruhrfisch's recent contributions and at my recent contributions. Which one of us is more likely to be producing technical solutions to problems? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be a template or coding expert, nor do I wish to engage in a pissing contest with RexxS (and if I did, I would direct him to look at WP:WBFAN or at the number of peer reviews we've each done ;-) )(the smiley face means I am trying to use humor here). All I said was that infoboxes and metadata do NOT have to go together. To prove this, I have used {{Start date}} and put a microformatted datum into an article on a covered bridge without resorting to its infobox or a hidden template or anything hidden - diff.

On a more general note, members of ArbCom are asking for clarification and more information, and all Pigsonthewing and RexxS can do is resort to their usual tactics of attacking the messenger (me), pointing out one error (Pigsonthewing did not initiate the NRHP bot request, so I struck that and apologize), and challenging me to a code off (or whatever you call it). Why not give them what they ask for? Or could it be that the best evidence for consensus to add microformats everywhere across the whole encyclopedia is really a category (but hey, it is 7 years old!), a no consensus RfC, and 10 editors who could out-code me saying yeah, you can try this with a bot. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No-one attacked you; its just that the flimsiness of your arguments and falseness of your claims was (again) exposed. I don't know of any outstanding requests from Arbcom for clarification or more information about microformats, metadata or infoboxes, but if there are and someone points them out, I shall be happy to answer them. And no, you have not added "a microformatted datum" to that article, You have added a template which emits one element of a microformat, without a parent microformatted container to give it context (i.e. the start date for what - the page? Consider also a page with two infoboxes). The template documentation explains this. No microformat-aware tool will recognise it, because it does not conform to any published microformat standard. So you have not proved your assertion. (I have fixed your error) And do you really think inline templates, in running prose, are preferable to, or more likely to find favour with the wider community than, those in infoboxes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ruhrfisch: I don't remember trying to tell you that you should be doing peer reviews in a different way - the way that you tell me I should be writing metadata-emitting templates in a different way. In fact, I'm happy to acknowledge and commend your work in doing peer reviews because I know it improves the encyclopedia. But then you keep making the claim that we could put metadata elsewhere, and ignore my explanation of why it's a bad idea - based on what? Your expertise in doing peer reviews? I agree that it has a certain humorous quality. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pigsonthwing - So just to be clear, you, Pigsonthewing are the author of {{Start date}}, a template specifically made for emitting microformatted data. However, and here's the catch, it only works when embedded inside other "microformat-emitting templates". So you made it so it won't work unless it is in an infobox or other appropriate template - how does this not conform to our arguments above? i.e. you OWN Startdate, and it has to be in a box to work, so then you OWN the box too? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't own any of them. Where is your evidence that I attempt to? Please explain how you would have {{Start date}} work outside a parent container. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ruhrfisch: you need to actually read WP:OWN. It's not about creating articles or templates; it's about stopping other editors from contributing to work that you feel you own. It is exactly what has happened with biographies of classical composers. It is exactly what has not happened with {{Start date}} - another half dozen editors have contributed and Edene is now the main contributor. For information: many infoboxes allow dates such as "about 212 BC", "15 or 17 December" which are not suitable for emitting metadata. So the way that we emit metadata for dates that are sufficiently precise, like "27 August 2013" is to wrap them in a template that adds a microformat - which is what {{Start date}} does. It works sensibly when the date it wraps with the classes "bday dtstart published updated" is inside another class like "event" which names the event that it is the start date for (or the person whose birthday it is, etc.) Please try not to use {{Start date}} outside of suitable containers like infoboxes otherwise re-users can't tell what it relates to. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth - Riggr Mortis indicated to me on email that he is fine with the PS. Victoria posted the following on here talk page: Yes, per Carcharoth's question, I agree with the PS. It's been amply demonstrated on the pages of the arb case and on other pages where I've witnessed these discussions and is in my view the reasons it's difficult to impossible to discuss these matters elsewhere, which goes to Newyorkbrad's question. Only one more thing, in response to RexxS assertion that I accused Andy Mabbett of driving away editors: the evidence states editors become discouraged and leave. But - and this is important - I don't wish to engage on that level because frequently in these discussions the concept or the main point of the discussion devolves quickly into a "he said, she said" scenario which is almost always counterproductive. Feel free to copy over, or to link, or to point to this post. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) End of quote posted here by Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well of course Victoriaearle doesn't want to engage in discussion after she's been caught out in a lie. But her so-called evidence is still there on the talk page of Evidence even now for anyone to see and she hasn't had the decency to retract those untruths. Here's what she says referring to Yllosubmarine: "In September 2012 ... She became discouraged and left the project. ... . Keep in mind, too, we lost a prolific female content editor from the Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek episode." It's pure fabrication. Yllosubmarine never left the project. Here's a link to her contributions so you can see for yourself. Count the monthly contributions since last October when she was supposed to have left the project: 28, 10, 6, 11, 3, 7, 11, 2, 7, 3. She even edited today. It's on the back of this sort of mendacity that we get the smear "the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors". There is zero evidence. Strike it if you have an ounce of honesty left. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comments above in the #Comment from Victoriaearle/Truthkeeper88 section. While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not left entirely, her edits dropped by just over 90% in the 10 months after Pigsonthewing's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek infobox argument (compared to the 10 months before) and she has not written any new articles I could see or brought any to GAN or FAC (and this from an editor averaging over two GAs and FAs per year from starting here to Tinker Creek as TFA. As I said above, how is this not the loss of a productive editor? I know you won't answer that, because you can't. I will repeat what I said to Pigsonthewing and now say to you, you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be the section where I disproved your and (not for the first time) Victoria's bogus claims by showing that Yllosubmarine had edited more times in some of the months after the Tinker's Creek discussion than in several of the months before it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ruhrfisch. Rubbish. Yllosubmarine made more edits in the month after the Pilgrim's Creek debate (October 2012 = 28) than she made in any of the four months prior to it (May, June, July, August 1012) and she was busily contributing to Today's Featured Article requests during the rest of the year. It is disgusting that you try to spin that into evidence of Andy chasing editors off the project. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

newyorkbrad and Carcharoth and any other members of ArbCom reading this - I see further attempts at discussion will get nowhere, since I cannot code templates and mendacity is supposedly rampant. I hope that our arguments offer a useful way for you to look at this whole mess. Ask yourselves this: if infoboxes and metadata and microformats are a content issue (as many have argued) and we have a small group of editors who are pushing this content everywhere they can, despite a lack of broad consensus for it, isn't this really a WP:POV case too? If this were some content on the Middle East or (Northern) Ireland that was being pushed, wouldn't the solution be obvious? In POV cases, ArbCom has topic banned or site banned the POV pushers. Is this that much different?

And now, since Carcharoth has asked for a break (as it were), I bid you all adieu. Good night and good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

[I've cut this way down, Carcharoth]

On the lying accusation: Don't call people liars. I had the same impression about Maria/yllosubmarine--that she was gone, I mean. It's an easy mistake to make, in general, about people you've encountered a tiny bit. Maria certainly has cut back on editing, having made maybe 70 edits since the infobox debate she participated in almost a year ago, which went something like this: Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox.

"Give example of an editor leaving because of Pigsonthewing?": OK, me. Not as a matter of direct conflict, but in the way that one has an instinct to walk away from something they think might explode. Or worse, stick to them and explode. Wouldn't want to be within a country mile of the next Tinker Creek Box Battle.

(Why am I back? I participated in proposing the remedy we gave above (that bold part), because if it passed I would feel much better about the culture and editing environment of Wikipedia.)

Metadata misdirection: All cut—except for a short comment on semantics and retro-fitting. I didn't know that buildings and bridges had birthdays, were "published", were "updated", or fit into a calendar event, but the HTML source of one example tells me so: <span class="bday dtstart published updated">1872</span>; the Eiffel Tower has a "nickname" that happens to be in French: <span class="nickname" lang="fr"...>La Tour Eiffel</span>; Chelsea Manning was also going to have a "nickname" that consisted of their prior name (sounds controversial in any other context, doesn't it: [95]); and biographic metadata for the most part "emits" contact card data. "Semantic"? Hehe. Not so much. This "tail wagging dog" concept comes up again. What to do with it... Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Where has anyone called anyone else a liar? The HTML class names used in microformats are just labels,; (they could easily be in the style "parameter23"), but were chosen by the authors of the microformat standards to match the internationally used vCard standard, and as already discussed, are widely and interoperably recognised by a large number of organisations, web services and software tools. In the case of the bridge, the classes "published" and "updated" are disregarded, because the parent microformat includes no definition of them, unlike the "dtstart". Since they are not exposed to our readers, there is little chance of them being cased any confusion. I've already suggested that people read the archived section of Jimbo's talk page, where your user-page essay got very short shrift, and quoted some of the response to it, above. In that essay, you give your reason for leaving as "As long as Wikipedia drifts from its origins as a tool for human learning to a second-rate quasi-database—apparently to the benefit of ADD-inducing tech companies—I will no longer participate as a volunteer". Let's have another quote from the discussion of that on Jimbo's talk page, from User:Cyclopia: "So someone is led to retiring because we're making it easier to reuse data and make Wikipedia interoperable with other tools? I am sorry but I can't think of anything else but 'insane' when reading this essay... Licensing is how we deal with wishes of people who wrote the data. If you don't want your contributions to be used in ways you wouldn't think of, you better not contributing to a project under a free license." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Riggr Mortis: I call someone a liar when they are clearly telling lies and damaging another editor as a result. Did Yllosubmarine leave the project - yes or no? Is Victoriaearle a liar? Of course it's easy to make mistakes, but honest people withdraw the accusation when they realise they've made a mistake. Victoriaearle's mistruths lie on the Evidence talk page to this day and you use them to call for sanctions on another editor. You suffer no damage by defending such lies, but for the person who is maligned as a result, it may possibly result in an indefinite ban for something that you've helped to fabricate. Shame on you. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Information on microformats

If anyone still needs information on microformats, as suggested above, please see microformat; my statement in the 2010 RfC; and my essay giving a comparison with persondata.

As I said in the second of those, Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation [spoke], in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". Note, in particular, the part about "allow[ing] software to know, for example, that the numbers shown in one of the columns in this table listing U.S. presidents are dates". That's exactly what microformats do.

The cited article is also a very accessible overview.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I would also add that I am firm believer in the benefit of infoboxes to our human readers; I added them before we started to use microformats, and I have worked hard to ensure their readability by humans, both visually and for those with visual impairments requiring them to use screen readers. And I would still add and improve them if they did not emit microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Smerus

I note the arb opinions that I have degraded infobox discussions and the examples cited of my comments against Gerda; I apologise for these and certainly intend not to indulge in such behaviour or employ such techniques again. May I ask then whether the unprompted incivilities (and sometimes gross incivilities) of Rexxs,(examples of whose handiwork I gave in my original evidence), Montanabw and PumpkinSky against myself during infobox discussions are also to be considered? There is PotW as well of course but his general behaviour is adequately covered in other aspects of this arb case. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept the apology. - I said before that I didn't need one and would like to only look forward. Thanks for expressing it anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda is very gracious, and between the two of you, I hope you've patched things up. However, that leaves Andy and also your overall attitude toward anyone who proposes an infobox anywhere that you claim ownership in the topic. if you fail to see your own incivility, Smerus, and still cannot even when it has been pointed out to you (and others) with diffs and examples, then it proves my point that you are a mere bully who is mean to people who you think are weaker than you, but when called on your own behavior can only cry crocodile tears and claim that you are the victim. Montanabw^(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope it is clear from the above edit what I mean. I have not anywhere claimed that I am a victim. The abuse, name calling, unsabstantiated allegations and pose of moral superiority, is part of the culture of PotW, Montana, Rexxs and PumpkinSky, and if this arb case is about editors' polite behaviour towards others, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders. In Wikilawyering capacity I am a six-stone weakling compared to the professional intimidation carried out by these characters. But I do not seek, like Montanabw, to be a moral touchstone, exonerate myself or to be claim to be heroically intervening on behalf of others; I only ask that all participants be evaluated as I have been. It seems from the recent request for diffs about me and Montana's ready response to this that the closing date for evidence has become irrelevant to this case; I can see it for extending for several months or years yet at this rate; so if arbs request me to produce diffs, there is no shortage of them and I shall be glad to oblige. Meanwhile, as Montanabw seems to note, Gerda and myself have taken constructive steps to make things work, which is more than most other contributors to this discussion have done. --Smerus (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to see the diffs, particularly of my unprompted incivility. If I see you bullying Gerda, or saying that Montana is "libelling other editors", or attacking other women editors again, you can be sure I won't be civil when I take you to task for it. But that won't be unprompted. I am perfectly civil when I'm interacting with those who debate in a collegial and constructive manner, but a lifetime involved in resolving disputes has left me with little tolerance for those who deliberately don't. Mea culpa. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But you are not an arb. I will gladly list them, as I clearly state, if an arb indicates that s/he will be willing to take them into consideration.--Smerus (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Limited number of comments in discussions

While I completely understand why this has been proposed, and I can see that it will be a big help to curtail some of the unproductive discussions, it has as I see it two potential downsides:

• Hampering productive discussions about content.

  In pretty much every area of Wikipedia that is not watched by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes, the existence of an infobox is not at all controversial. Sometimes though the content of an infobox is not always clear cut and it requires discussion between various parties until everyone is happy that the information is correctly summarised, this can sometimes take several comments until people understand each other. Now imagine that there are three fields of an infobox that require discussion but you're limited to two comments. How do you proceed?

• Discouraging productive discussions about infoboxes or their content.

  Evidence presented shows that a not infrequent sequence of happenings in the classical music sphere is that someone proposes an infobox for a given article, whether they know (or can know) it is likely to be controversial or not. This is either reverted or responded to with a comment along the lines of "No infoboxes on this article!", the proposer then responds with the reasonable question, "Why do you not want an infobox?" gathering only the response "I said no!". If someone has a maximum of two comments to make then this sort of behaviour is encouraged because it means you get to keep the infobox off 'your' article without having to explain why you don't want something that other editors think will improve the article.

As Carcharoth notes, "The fault (if any) seems to be more a frustration that others won't discuss things fully.". This is the crux of the matter, those who think infoboxes on articles improve them generally seem to want to discuss them and get them right. They are generally interested in why someone thinks that something is incorrect or too nuanced so they can understand the objection in order to work around it (by which I mean either correct the information, present it in a different way so it doesn't mislead or omit that bit of information from the infobox). In far too many cases this has been met with a refusal to discuss - often the infobox in its entirety or sometimes the objections to specific aspects of it ("piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox, therefore we must not have an infobox", rather than "piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox therefore the infobox will include on information ABCDEF which can be accurately summarised.").

It is not possible to have a productive discussion when one side refuses to discuss anything, and I don't see these proposed restrictions as helping that. Some things that I think would help would be:

• A ruling that no party to this case may revert the addition or removal of an infobox from any article or talk page
• A ruling that proposing an infobox on the talk page of any article where there has not been recent discussion of one is disruptive only when the proposal makes no reference to that article.
• A ruling that arguments about a (proposed) infobox on a specific article are disruptive if they make no reference to why the infobox is or would be or not be beneficial to that specific article; and that such arguments may be removed by any uninvolved [editor|administrator].
• Imposing a limit on the number of concurrent discussions about infoboxes that may be initiated by any party to this case. If that number was 3, then an editor must wait for the first discussion they initiated to conclude before they my start a fourth discussion.

As for more general alternatives, would the committee regard any of the following to be within their remit?

• Mandating that discussions of individual infoboxes must take place only at the level of the individual article, and take into account only arguments related to that article?
• Mandating that WikiProjects may not impose a blanket requirement for or against infoboxes on 'their' articles?
• Mandating that discussion of whether articles should emit metadata is irrelevant to whether a given article should have an infobox?
• Rule that WikiProjects do not own articles?

This is not a recommendation that the committee should do any of these things, it is asking whether they could do so if they felt it would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts for better collaboration! As for wording: "by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes", it seems a bit too general, for example Kleinzach initiated infobox orchestra, infoboxes for compositions have a tradition to at least back to 2007, project opera initiated an infobox opera. The restriction is for biographies in the field. But you are right that some members dislike infoboxes, period. - We can practise consensus at The Ban on Love which I moved (for this purpose) from the case workshop back to the article where an infobox had been reverted twice. I just left the discussion for today with my self-imposed limit of only one entry to one discussion a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think something like a 1RR restriction might be useful. The problem with "consensus" is that no one knows what it is or when it has been achieved...for example, the WP Classical Music project claims a "consensus" against infoboxes, but that claim is then used to bludgeon anyone, anywhere, who proposes one. Yet, to have 10,000 individual article discussions seems other fruitless also. I DO think your comment about "one side refuses to discuss anything" is the crux of the matter, you can't reach consensus if one side covers their ears and shouts "lalalalalalalalaaaa!" or if there is a Greek chorus drowning out everything. If that can be addressed, the rest might fall into place. Montanabw^(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Propose that a community-wide discussion be held to determine global consensus on infoboxes

Apologies if this has been mentioned, as I've only been peripherally involved in this. I was reading through the proposed decisions and saw @Newyorkbrad:'s Locus of dispute. I honestly don't see any way for the infobox question to be resolved on an article-by-article basis. The first bullet point reads:

"It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely)."

Setting aside the question of how to handle a tie, are we really content to resign consensus down to a vote at each individual article where it might arise? It seems like that's what this comes down to, and if that's the case, it would actually save everyone a lot of grief to state it plainly and simply: Do not discuss, but rather simply vote, as this comes down to individual preference, so majority therefore rules in each case. As far as each individual article is concerned, there is really nothing to argue about. It doesn't seem like the infobox question is actually all that article-dependent, beyond the infeasibility at certain topics (an article about an author is feasible, while something like dystopia might not be), and the fact that different people with different opinions on infoboxes might be editing at those respective articles. Again, it comes down to individual preference.

The above really doesn't seem like any sort of Wikipedia-style solution though. If any semblance of actual WP:Consensus currently seems impossible as there is no relevant policy or guideline, nor even a logic to point to on a per-article basis, maybe this is the time to start answering the question by putting it to the community at large. I'd like to see that as one proposed decision, assuming those can still be added. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:20, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why someone can't independently launch an RfC at a village pump, or some other appropriate location. That being said, for myself, I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory. There are always exceptions to the rule. Resolute 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Reso. I update Infoboxes all of the time but don't think they should be mandatory, especially on articles that are not biographical. I can't see there being a straight "Yea for Infoboxes", "Nay against Infoboxes" vote because however it was decided, it wouldn't reflect a consensus, just a majority for those editors who cared enough to cast a vote. I'm not sure if there any solution other than deciding this article-by-article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Some if us have been trying that. Look where it's got us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

[ec] "I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory" - Me too. Who is it, remind me again, who wants to make them mandatory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well me for one, for certain types of article where the Wikiproject so decides, and with a certain allowance for IAR, as I've said more than once in the case. And the 31 users of Template:User Infobox pref - "This user believes that all articles should have an infobox". But certainly not for all biographies - biographies are one of the problematic areas for infoboxes. A pertinent example today, from my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Kinda getting off point. I think rehashing the opinions of all involved here on the infobox question isn't going to be all that helpful. We've seen arbitration decisions before that a community discussion be held to gauge a broad consensus, and I think such a decision would be appropriate here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be an appropriate remedy in the sense that nobody would object to either its relevance to the case or disagree that it is within the committee's remit to pass such a remedy. I don't think that it would be useful though - at the end of it I would be prepared to bet a significant amount of money that the answer would come back "The community supports infoboxes but doesn't think they should be mandatory" - i.e. exactly where we are now. This is because other than a very small minority of people who dislike infoboxes per se, almost everybody agrees with the status quo. Even if anybody wanted to make them mandatory (which I've never seen any evidence of) there are some articles where its just not possible (e.g. Orthogonality and Types of inhabited localities in Russia), and there are other articles that are structured by their very nature and so any infobox would just be duplicative (e.g. List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom). You would therefore have to mandate them only on articles where they were appropriate - which gets us back to exactly where we are now. What needs to happen is for the discussions about infoboxes on pages within the sphere of classical music to become detoxified such that they are as productive as the discussions about infoboxes on the other 99.99% of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting only those two questions be asked. We could additionally ask the question, "Should infoboxes be mandatory on every article about a person"? I think that would produce interesting and useful results, just as an example. Let's start fleshing out some guidelines here (not literally here, but at a global discussion) so that people arguing at articles actually have something to discuss. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:54, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

I don't support mandating their use even for articles about a person because there will always be edge cases where an infobox is not appropriate and other cases where it is debatable whether the article is about a person. The first example that comes to mind (although there will be better ones) is Piltdown Man. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's great to know what you think, but I wasn't really asking, with all due respect. I'm again suggesting a community discussion. But just as an aside, yes, if infoboxes were mandated for "person" articles, there would be some scattered instances where the article topic is ambiguous, and that would need to be discussed at the article. As is the case for most guidelines, they're not always easy across-the-board answers, but can rather be a place to start, whereas right now there is nothing on which to base a discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:36, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this be a straight yes-or-no question; only that it be a community discussion on what to do. We can make room for several possibilities. The point is, it seems arbitrary to leave it up to the "i like infoboxes" or "i don't like infoboxes" stances of whomever might be at a particular article at a particular time (that's essentially what it will come down to). Centralized community discussions (especially those commenced by arb decision) tend to make room for several possibilities, not simply a yea or nay. Let's see what we can come up with. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Considering that ArbCom is close to banning a user for advocacy of infoboxes and thus singling one user out as a scapegoat, against an "old guard" of rather mean and nasty-acting sorts who continue to do anything (including collapsible side navboxes) to avoid having "teh dreaded infoboxen" appear on "their" articles - you may have a valid point. If "consensus" leans toward infoboxes, then the sanctions toward this user would be moot. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Any sanctions imposed on Andy Mabbitt will be an indication of his behavior alone - nothing more or less. Any great debate on the general usefulness of infoboxes will be millions of wasted words of waffle - most of them written by editors who have never written a useful page in their lives. The present system of adding an infobox only after debate with the primary editors on the talk page is the most satisfactory and least aggressive way of obtaining consensus that there's likely to be. The problem has always been Andy Mabbitt's inability to accept this.  Giano  20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with this notion of "primary" editors, and how this concept could have possibly gained even moderate acceptance in a discussion here, of all places, where there's a policy called WP:OWN. But I digress. This should be put to a community discussion. I don't care about how various editors have behaved and don't have an opinion one way or the other on sanctions (because frankly I'm not familiar with their history) but the way these things are handled in general should be discussed broadly, as this is a broad-reaching issue, regardless of how lowly you regard the opinions of those who might respond. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:41, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, those seeking to bombastically impose their own views on others have always erroneously invoked WP:OWN. Fortunately, most people see the flaws in such false reasoning.  Giano  20:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not erroneous. If someone is imposing their own views on others then they could be wrong too, but if you counter with any argument based on "primary" editors or anything synonymous with that, you're just as wrong, as you're doing precisely what WP:OWN warns against. It is the very purpose of the policy to prevent such stances from being credible. You may have a point that an editor acted inappropriately, but if that's the case then you've got the reasoning wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:57, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that a community-wide discussion about some of the issues raised in this case is needed. The trouble is that in the past when ArbCom have stated that explicitly, the response is at times a resounding silence. Literally. I may have missed it, but in the Doncram case earlier this year, ArbCom suggested (in relation to the stub guideline) that "this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way." I am not sure if that ever happened. In part, this is human nature as the last thing most people want to do after a lengthy ArbCom case is to carry on the discussions. You can take a break for a month or so, but people are often still reluctant to return to things especially if some of the ArbCom remedies may have calmed things down. Bit of a Catch-22 really. The other problems are that many casual editors will be completely unaware of WP:INFOBOXUSE, and many editors will have widely varying experiences and expectations in relation to infoboxes, which makes centralised discussion not as easy as it looks. You need to prepare such an RfC and gain input from all those who have strong views on the matter, otherwise the results won't be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If the decision is made to put the question to the community, and no one is mandated to actually create it, then yes it could result in silence. I think if an RfC actually appeared, with a watchlist notice, there would be widespread participation. I would create one myself right now if I thought I could make a good one, but I was hoping someone smarter and more capable than myself could craft a good one. It needs to present all the right information and distill all the issues into a viable group of questions, and if that happened I think it could work. I have a feeling the infobox issue isn't quite as contentious in the broader community as it is with those vocal few present currently. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:04, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. Almost anything would be better than the way we deal with disagreement now. Today I looked at the history of Sparrow Mass again, and I suggest you do the same, it's short. I added an infobox, after doing so to the liking of the principal author for Schubert's masses. Was that aggressive? Less than two hours later it was reverted, edit summary "cleanup". Was that aggressive? It looked to me not very thoughtful, so I reverted, asking for discussion on the talk. Edit conflict war, page protected. Andy was not on the scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See, here's the issue. Per WP:BRD, you never should have restored the infobox after being reverted, regardless of whether you agreed with Nikkimaria's removal being characterized as "cleanup". Rexxs (with an ironic edit summary) and Diannaa should not have tag teamed to try and force its inclusion, nor should Nikki have edit warred against the three of you. But all of that came about because you incorrectly figured the guideline was bold, revert, revert, discuss. Once the page protection was lifted, the infobox was again removed to restore status quo ante, and you were right there to restore it yet again. Why? What did you expect to gain when there was already a discussion on the talk page, involving the usual suspects? Resolute 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I should not have reverted. But was it "aggressive". It was a spontaneous angry reaction to something unexpected I could not believe. By now, I am on 1RR, voluntarily so. Looking back to April and June gives you a wrong picture, I improved. So did Andy, no? (He didn't touch that article, sorry I was not precise about the meaning of "scene"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Andy was, in fact, on the scene, apparently misrepresenting the outcome of his microformats RFC to try and gain the upper hand in that discussion. Resolute 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What I said was We've had RfCs which have shown community consensus to use infoboxes to emit microformats}}; and though I commented on the talk page, I did not edit the article, which is what Gerda is referring to. [Note Gerda means edit war, not edit conflict. Corrected.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and SilkTork's closure of that RFC made it clear that no such consensus existed on the use of microformats, let alone the use of infoboxes as the delivery system. They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general. Unless, of course, there is a different RFC that I am not aware of. Resolute 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are other RfCs, yes, one cited above; and the Composers Project RfC authorised the use of {{Infobox classical composer}}, which has emitted a microformat from the get-go. Your reading of ST's admittedly ambiguous-in-part closing statement also omits some important detail: "In general people felt that microformats had a place on Wikipedia, and there were no views calling for an outright exclusion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Err, no, I quite clearly said "They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general." Resolute 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Section of Propose that...

I think it's important to note what ArbCom can and can't do. The Committee can impose binding decisions regarding inappropriate behaviour - such as users consistently ignoring consensus. The Committee cannot make decisions regarding content or policy or guidelines, nor force the community to have discussions regarding content or policies (the Committee can recommend or suggest such discussions, and the community can quite rightly ignore such recommendations). We have community wide consensus on the use of infoboxes which has been quoted in the findings: WP:INFOBOXUSE. This has been in existence since October 2011. If people feel this needs amending then the appropriate place to open a discussion would be on the talkpage of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. What this case is partly about is not that we don't have a guideline regarding the use of infoboxes, but that some users may not be appropriately following that guideline - that is to say that some users may be urging either the consistent use of infoboxes on all articles as standard, or conversely, some users may be insisting that infoboxes are not to be applied to a certain section of articles. The guideline indicates that use of infoboxes on a particular article, if contested, is decided by discussion and consensus on the talkpage of that article. Discussion has been taking place. The decision for the Committee is whether such discussion has been handled appropriately, whether those taking part in the discussions are taking on board the concerns of others, and whether certain users are having contentious discussions regarding the use of infoboxes so often as to be considered disruptive. The Committee's considerations on these matters will be informed by awareness of existing guidelines and consensus, but it is outside the scope of the Committee to alter consensus or to ask the community to set about altering consensus. My own view on infoboxes broadly aligns with consensus - properly used they provide useful information, but they are not always required, so making them mandatory would be inappropriate. If editors cannot reach agreement in a discussion regarding the use of an infobox in an article, they should avail themselves of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures we have in place.

However, making a focus on infoboxes is perhaps taking the spotlight off the real issue, which is the use of metadata. Infoboxes come into the picture, it seems, because they are regarded as the best means of employing the metadata software. The issue is that those in favour of employing the metadata software wish to place an infobox on articles which don't have one. Some users are objecting to having an infobox on an article where it may not be appropriate merely in order to employ the metadata software. If there is to be a community discussion on something, it should be on the use of metadata software on Wikipedia. Infoboxes would come into that discussion, as they are seen as fairly indispensable to the employment of metadata. My understanding of the metadata software is that it is able to encode certain basic information, such as the date of construction of a building, its location and size and type, and that can be translated into whatever readable format is appropriate by compatible software. This means that information can be transferred by means other than text. In previous discussion on metadata there is a consensus that it would be appropriate to explore this technology. Where there hasn't been consensus is how to use this technology - and how much we should be adjusting Wikipedia to fit the technology (such as employing infoboxes on all articles, regardless of local consensus on the appropriateness of such infoboxes).

That is, however, only the background. This case is not about should Wikipedia be using this technology. It is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. It is a grave error, and one that may prove costly both to him, and to the advancement of this technology. It is frustrating that this is the third time he has been involved in an ArbCom case related to the same issue. Though a user may be pursuing the right end, the means are also very important, and the community cannot work well if some users are allowed to ignore consensus because they have a good idea.

My view is that I am inclined to support a site-ban for Andy Mabbett, but I also see the need for the community to have a full and detailed discussion on the metadata technology, and such a discussion would benefit from the involvement of Andy Mabbett. I am wondering if a suspended site-ban would be appropriate. Allow Mabbett time on Wikipedia to get others to buy into his vision. Build some bridges. Explain more clearly how the technology works. And listen carefully to the concerns of the community. Perhaps get the site developers and the Foundation involved. While doing that, there would be certain conditions which if he broke would trigger an indef ban. Conditions such as: edit warring; arguing over using an infobox in an article (if someone objects, simply back off - there are over 4 million other articles on Wikipedia to work on); and being dismissive or incivil to other users (think twice before clicking "Save page" - has that comment the potential to be read as offensive or hostile? As an example - repeating in bold three times "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile). I haven't decided yet to simply support the current site-ban, or to propose a suspended one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile. It can also be read as helplessness when faced with missing a basic common ground in a discussion, which needs to be established before you can reasonably talk. See (from Don Carlos):

• My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. --Kleinzach 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole. Kleinzach 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can one say politely that a key player in the infobox discussions has a misunderstanding of what they are? I wonder how much conflict could have been avoided if it was accepted that infoboxes hold key facts, not a summary of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." I understand that this means only key facts, avoid trivia. - What do you think? - Do you think an infobox on Verdi has to capture his genius? It's a myth. Not even an article can do that. - A common understanding of such basics is crucial for a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While particular users' behavior in these particular cases is certainly a big part, if not the focus of the case, I think the arbitration committee has an opportunity to make a recommendation regarding the larger underlying issue that causes these conflicts to arise, even if until now they've taken place on a smaller and less noticeable scale. The guideline we have really offers no guidance at all -- it is in the end merely a negative statement: that there is no policy, so just decide amongst yourselves, using no criteria in particular. In addition to deciding what sanctions to impose on users, I think making broader recommendations when an underlying issue is present seems to have always been within the purview of arbcom. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:37, 27 Aug 2013 (UTC)

The "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" comment was in this discussion, where (as Gerda suggests) it seemed a proportionate response to the wall of the demonstrably ill-informed and ad hominem dismissal of a proposed action which already has unequivocal support at an RfC (and which as a result of that unfounded intervention is currently stalled). Since that's not how it read to you or others, at whom it was not addressed, I apologise. I wonder if you, @SilkTork: would like to comment on similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments addressed to me and others on various talk pages, by parties and commenters in this case, along the lines of "you clearly have no interest in..." or "you clearly have no knowledge of...", which, unlike my comment under discussion, are not accompanied by evidence and have no basis in fact? Also, which are the other two "metadata arbcom cases" to which you allude? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be more reassured Andy if you were reflecting and taking on board concerns that people raise rather than arguing against them. If any user proposes something - regardless of what it is - they will likely meet some concerns. Some of these concerns will be valid. Some will arise out of a lack of clarity regarding some aspects of the proposal. Some may well be wide of the mark. All concerns need to be met with the same politeness and genuine attempts to allay the concerns. If after several reasonable attempts to allay the concerns they are simply repeated without showing signs of understanding, and if after reflecting on the adequacy of the explanations, perhaps asking what aspects are not clear, possibly rephrasing if needed, the same concerns are again repeated and it starts to appear as though the person asking is being disruptive, then it is better to ask for assistance rather than resorting to be impolite. If at this stage you don't understand that, then I am concerned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, a fair point, and one I'm taking on board as a a result of this case (if you will, consensus not only has to be done, but be seen to be done), and I would indeed seek third party assistance in such cases in the future (you can read that as a formal undertaking if it helps). You appear to have missed my question about similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [This case] is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. This to me is the heart of your apparent misunderstanding. As evidence has repeatedly shown, it is not Andy who is failing to get the community to buy into his vision, the problems all stem from a small number of users who have a dislike of infoboxes and who refuse to engage in discussion about it. You can continue to try to ban Andy for having been banned before if you want, but you can't expect people who have actually read all the evidence in this case to support your "grand vision" for an Andy-free project, nor can you expect it to solve the actual problems in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there an article showing an infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page? Why are those who oppose infoboxes considered to "refuse" discussion, whereas supporters are just trying to help? Some editors are able to propose change in a manner that is not disruptive. When such an editor encounters stiff opposition, they adapt, assuming that the opposers are acting in good faith, and that assistance or time is needed so others can understand the benefits of the proposal. A good editor might even contemplate whether the opposers have a valid point of view. Some editors can collaborate, while disruption seems to follow others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is ample evidence in this case of where I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not strictly true Andy. In the Frank Matcham discussion you were offered an alternative compromise version, which you refused to even consider "because it finds no favour". To say there "is no evidence of the reverse" is just misleading, I'm afraid, although I'm sure it may have just slipped your mind. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, SchroCat, it is strictly true. In the Matcham discussion, I replied: "...the collapsed infobox, with hidden content, hasn't been implemented across WP because it finds no favour, unlike the million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes we have... Collapsing the infobox not only defeats its primary purpose, of providing a quick and convenient fact-list for those readers who desire or find useful such a thing (and there is evidence that readers [...] do), but also hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata, since hidden content is more likely to be overlooked when pages are updated. However, if you still think we should adopt that model despite such shortcomings, then - again - a centralised RfC should be the way forward." (of course, I should have said "2.5 million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes". Mea culpa). That might be a discussion that you find inconvenient, or even dislike intensely, but for you to attempt to portray it as a blank refusal to open a dialogue is at best misleading and quite possibly disingenuous. You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we do on so many things. You were offered a compromise solution on Matcham: you rejected it out of hand with a line of argument that a)smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and b) I am not sure I believe ("hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata"? Not at all true). It's not a question about an argument that I find inconvenient or dislike, so please don't try and double guess my rationale again: try to stick to the more concrete things people can understand, without trying to look into the psyche of others. I'll ignore your regular passing (and baseless) ad hominem comment, I find them part of the scenery in discussions with you, so there's no point in trying to rile me with such silliness. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Like something or not is one thing, but accepting something that "defeats its primary purpose" seems strange. I also have to disagree with you on this, SchroCat, as I disagreed with Nikkimaria on it, see? Dealing with a cantata "There is a contrary and despairing thing" (illustrating my present feelings quite well) I phrased about collapsing: I "regard (crossed out stronger term for dislike) the other as against the spirit of an infobox as openly accessible information. I don't revert it in articles of others (Little Moreton Hall comes to mind), but please please please don't do that to me in my articles, - it's against my sense of quality." The reply was: "functionally, there is little difference", which told me that I was not understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please feel free to disagree all you like with my reasoning in the cited comment, and the basis for it; and even to wrongly doubt my sincerity. But to pretend for a minute that it is evidence of refusal to engage in dialogue is fatuous in the extreme, and to describe it in such terms and link it to a pattern of similar incidents is not ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence." There was no false allegation and I find your words an ad hominem that are, at best, unhelpful, as is following it up by accusing me of being "fatuous". I stick by what I first said, that you were not being entirely accurate when you said "I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse." There was evidence of the reverse, it's just that you didn't like what was being offered to you and rejected it out of hand. I'm taking this off my watchlist (again), so feel free to write whatever you want: others will judge your words for what they are. I find interacting with you utterly frustrating and demoralising: you can't see beyond beyond your own opinions on things and cannot behave like discussion is anything but a battlefield for you to smear and wound your opponents - and well done for beating another person away from a discussion. I'm utterly sick and tired of it and hope that I never see another petty, supid and pointless infobox argument break out again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page", it seems logically impossible, - it's war or it's only one side. Wars are rare, thank goodness, we try to learn, really. More frequent are discussions with repetitions of similar arguments, see Rigoletto, reaching no consensus. We need a procedure to solve those cases, and banning one contributor will not solve them. However, as mentioned above, one protector of the status quo found a simple solution: change the Manual of Style. (Rigoletto would fall into a category which has no more option for an infobox.) Can we please come up with something more constructive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, SilkTork, about what ArbCom can and can't do. In WP:ARBDATE, a protracted and difficult case that occupied seven months of 2009, ArbCom passed the following Enforcement:

• Stability review: "If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus."

Ryan Postlethwaite (God bless him) put a huge effort into organising and conducting a grand RfC to settle the content issues. It succeeded and there has been no war over any form of date de/linking to this day. I agree that ArbCom can't settle the content issues itself, but as you have indicated, it could go a long way to making sure it's in the interests of all involved for the warring to stop. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Further update

By my estimation, it is likely to take at least another week before the case is close to closing (possibly longer). I'm aware that there has been a large amount of debate on this page in recent days, but can I ask that everyone please show restraint and focus purely on the proposed decision from now on? That will help those arbitrators who have yet to vote or complete voting, as there is a lot on this page for them to read. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is to be hoped, not least given AGK's undertaking and his request for additional evidence, that those who have voted will also be reconsidering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I can speak from bitter experience that if you're going to railroad somebody in an arbitration proceeding you need to do it fast before people notice what you're up to and start asking pesky questions about evidence and motives. By all means, let's drag this out and see if some clueless administrator will block one of the participants while you all decide whether or not to jump off the ledge. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Better a well-thought out and consider decision, Carcharoth, than one made to hastily made. As far people posting, I'm not sure what can be done about that. People want to talk about this case and they will look for an appropriate forum to discuss it. If not here, it has to be on another page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand Carcharoth's frustration quite well. He's trying to get the stupid case in the can (whether it's just or not is beside the point now) but no one dithers more than a half-active arbitrator who has just realized this job isn't what s/he signed up for and can't bear taking an unpopular stand. In the meantime, the talk page is exploding and he knows sooner rather than later someone's going to say something rash enough to earn a civility block, and then we'll have to hold a whole other arbitration case to deal with the inevitable fallout. Clock's ticking.

As to the merits, it's clear from the proposed decision that the committee should never have taken the case in the first place. None of the proposed bans are really supported by the evidence; if that's all it takes to get someone banned these days I've some scores to settle and some cases of my own to bring, although somehow I don't think I'll be as successful. No one's indispensable, but that doesn't mean prolific editors should be banned, blocked, or restricted lightly. This is ultimately a content dispute, not a personal one, and it'll have to be settled in the usual, painful way. You ought to just dismiss it, or water it down with the usual adjuration that we should all be nice to each other. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mackensen (a former arbitrator) makes some good points. Liz, it would be a good idea to centralise 'overflow' discussion at another page and leave links from here (anyone is welcome to do that). Specific commentary about aspects of the proposed decision is what is really needed. Some wider debate has been helpful initially, but that can only go on for so long before it detracts from the specifics of discussing the proposed decision. More specifically, those facing sanctions need the time and space to respond to what is being decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, I beginning to wonder why anyone would want to be an Arbitrator. Seems like a thankless job. Thanks for plugging away at it, even in mid-August. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to give an update from me; I'm one of the dithering Arbitrators referred to above. I have been trying to keep up with this case, but I have other Arbitration work too: CheckUser/Oversight appointments, Ban Appeals work, and the Tea Party Movement case. All three have been neglected just as this case has. I'll try to get this done by next week, but realistically that may or may not happen. For now, my preliminary analysis it to support the first several paragraphs of what SilkTork wrote above but again, there are a billion RFCs and talk page discussions to read and for someone who found out that there was a serious problem with infoboxes on Wikipedia in July 2013, it's not exactly the easiest thing to immediately grasp. NW (Talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want a gentle suggestion, it looks really bad when your (the committee's) proposed decision essentially ignores one side of a dispute, even though ample evidence was presented. Arbcom isn't supposed to take sides in a content dispute, but you are here. Mackensen (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to take another gentle suggestion: don't look at a billion RFCs but at 2013, it would make your life easier and mine. Remember:

@NW: your wording "ban the worst offenders" reminds me of "arrest the usual suspects". As one of them, I urge you to go beyond suspicion, to facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)"

I am not concerned about myself, and I haven't seen recent facts that would justify banning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and new articles

Any restriction on adding/not adding infoboxes to articles should specifically exempt creating new articles. As it currently reads, the first Pigsonthewing remedy seems to say that he cannot add an infobox to an article that he creates. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor an eight-word stub that I turn into a proper article. Nor an article on a subject well away from classical music and he other parties in this case, where there is no dispute on the use of infoboxes; or even where infoboxes are the norm. Note my evidence higher up on this page, listing the 60 infoboxes I added to existing articles in the first six months of this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Finding of Fact No. 4

Could I prevail on whomever's drafting this decision to clarify the problematic behavior? I see much forceful arguing, yes, but that's not impermissible and in general appears to be within the bounds of civil discourse. The evidence linked is also rife with personal attacks, bad faith, and innuendo from editors not named Pigsonthewing, none of whom are themselves subject of findings of fact or "remedies." If I were looking at those linked pages as a matter of first impression it would not occur to me that it was Pigsonthewing who was being sanctioned, and I'm still not sure what policy he's alleged to have violated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)