It is a widely acknowledged fact that the original infoboxes case did little to contain the infobox wars. I've thus far avoided getting into this in any detail due to an off-wiki friendship with one of the main parties to the original case. However, that party (Pigsonthewing) was the subject of the recent review and his conduct was addressed there and various remedies imposed and altered. This primarily concerns a recent ridiculous edit war at Laurence Olivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I believe is a symptom of a wider problem involving edit-warring and article ownership with regards to infoboxes. I believe multiple parties' conduct bears examination, and discretionary sanctions of some sort are in order. I do not consider myself an involved party or an invovled admin except with regards to Pigsonthewing, as I honestly couldn't care less about whether any given article has an infobox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would a clerk please remove Dr. Blofeld's statement as a baseless personal attack. He hasn't provided a shred of evidence or a single diff, and I have no vested interest in this (I don't think I've ever so much as added an infobox to an article I didn't write, nor removed one). He also uses the term "confess" to describe the upfront disclosure that I have an off-wiki friendship with Pigsonthewing (who is not a party to this request) as if to imply misconduct on my part. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

Statement by SchroCat

Statement by Cassianto

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I would appreciate if this case request would stick to one article, Laurence Olivier. I wrote yesterday, before I was surprised by another case that is not about infoboxes:

Did you know that Laurence Olivier had an undisputed infobox from 25 May 2006 until 14 January 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here. I missed the peer review and the FAC because I wrote articles, noticed what had happened only afterwards, and only then (!) added it to the list which I keep since the first infoboxes case, of infoboxes which were damaged. I am passionate about the Passions, not about the little boxes. Real people really die (article not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask to respect that I have more important things to do than even watch this during the Holy Week and Easter. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that Chopin would be another interesting discussion to investigate. A compromise was reached, accepted by a main editor, installed by Brianboulton, and what happened then? - I encourage the arbitrators to request more willingness for compromise and respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld (mostly): Laurence Olivier was added to my list of articles with a former (!) infobox that was reverted on 28 February 2015, when I noticed that it was not just another article without an infobox (something I don't mind) but one where other editors had established an infoox long ago which readers were used to see.

@We hope (mostly): what you say my statement implies is not implied.

On Palm Sunday: Did you know ... that Bach used music of thanks from his cantata Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29, for his final Dona nobis pacem (Grant us peace)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope (mostly):

"If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here." This implies there's something wrong with the Olivier article because it does not have an infobox.

No, it does not imply that, or I could say by the same logic that the change to no infobox implied that something was wrong with the article before. An infobox is not "something wrong, it is meant as a service to readers.

It can also be said that if those who are vigorous about their belief that infoboxes belong on every article ...

Whom do you mean, and what do you think is "vigorous" in any belief? I don't believe that infoboxes "belong on every article", I simply believe they are useful. For an actor, I believe that readers are helped if they see at a glance that the person shown on the pretty picture IS an actor, who lived about when where, possibly a list of his achievements. Remember the ballet with the long discussion in 2013 (was there anything disruptive?) which looked like an article about a painting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its moments of productive collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arkon

For real? I guess I stand by my 1 article edit, and 2 talk page edits. Oh, and I don't care about infoboxes in any fashion. Arkon (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth noting that Dreadstar has removed his t-ban from MarkBernstein and unblocked them, after "retiring". Arkon (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

KMN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

The behavior of certain parties regarding this article has been quite abominable, all the more remarkable for the stunningly insignificant matter being fought over. Apparently yet another reminder is needed that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Also, if editors are going to continue squabble over infoboxes after the previous ArbCom case, discretionary sanctions might be helpful. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given his allegations and behavior, I formally suggest that Dr. Blofeld be added as a party to this case. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:NE Ent's suggestion here, though I realize that the end result is inevitable, and maybe should be. Despite his flagrant missteps here, Dreadstar has done a lot of hard, thankless work for the community, especially related to Gamergate, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Gamaliel (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

I'm aware that my statement here is a waste of time given the power of certain people here but from my perspective this looks like a clear stitch up and about as corrupt as you can get. I've watched (from my perspective) HJ Mitchell and Ched play this like a chess game in recent days meticulously thought out and plotted, weakening the opponents: [1] [2] (admitted to off wiki discussion), [3] (Six reverts in 48 hours before [4] and the inappropriate use of admin tools by HJ to lock a page down without the note himself, despite being involved), [5] (the questionable blocking of the most outspoken editor against it), "little creeps" [6] (Personal attacks, one by email which they were told was inappropriate), [7] (Attempts to censor talk page comments half of which in this edit shouldn't have been deleted), [8] (An attempt to close this key thread because of the ancient incivility of an IP), [9] (HJ blocked SchroCat less than an hour before opening the case here over this which is a very questionable block given that he'd toned down the note and didn't edit war), and finally the general hostility, stirring and accusations here and here. HJ has confessed that he is a friend of Mabbett's (see Gerda's last arb case) and Olivier has been the target for infobox enforcement for quite some time by those individuals arb imposed sanctions on previously, clearly acknowledging there was a problem. I knew what was happening a few days ago, I found it suspicious that a mere note over infoboxes was gradually turning into a discussion about consensus to have an infobox (Gerda) [10]. When HJ arrived to block the article here it seemed inappropriate for him to intervene, knowing that he is in contact with Andy in real life. Whether or not Schro and Cassianto were heated in their response, I think it's out of frustration that every article taken to FA without an infobox inevitably becomes a target for enforcement.[11], [12], Talk:Frédéric Chopin, [13] etc, need I really cite every case where Mabbett and Arendt have been involved with Schro, Cass, Tim riley etc? There's obvious canvassing and plotting behind the scenes ([14] [15]) and it displays a lot of disrespect for the people who brought this core article up to FA status. They contributed a magnificent article and they're essentially made to look like criminals here. Very sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gamaliel "Also, if editors are going to squabble over infoboxes, discretionary sanctions might be helpful. " Let's be clear on this. Tim riley, Cassianto and SchroCat are not squabbling over infoboxes. When they write articles they agree on infobox or no infobox and promote it like that. John Barrymore for instance makes it clear that they're not completely against them, but disagree where they're of very limited use. They move on constructively and develop other articles. The squabbles result from several editors magically turning up on the article talk pages to mention infoboxes. Olivier has been on that target list for a while now, in fact he tops the list. I think something should be passed which respects the editor's view who promote articles to FA, whether or not that implies ownership or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell They're not baseless personal attacks. They're an account of what I've witnessed over the months and recently on here. Do I really need to provide diffs over everything that I've claimed? The arb have imposed sanctions on Andy and Gerda, in fact Pigs on the wing was banned from infoboxes. We all know what I'm saying is largely true that they go through articles adding infoboxes. By asking for my statement to be removed it looks as if you're trying to override the opposition and win out. My statement is on my talk page should it be removed here. If it is removed it will prove how corrupt the premise behind this is, I would ask the committee to give this case a fair look, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel I wasn't involved in the editing dispute. I did comment on the talk page though that the actions by HJ were suspicious. You and I had a personal run in, but that was over comments made over the blocking of Cassianto and your false perception of racism. I'm outspoken on this largely because I see a repeat pattern with infoboxes and I think it wastes a lot of time and causes unnecessary hostility. I'm of the opinion arb should recognize that infobox disputes are becoming a major problem and that in practice their ruling of infoboxes being an optional thing by the article writers in practice doesn't work. In fact HJ's very case here is contrary to their previous ruling I think. I think before an article is promoted to FA a formal consensus needs to be made very clear on the infobox situation and that seen as final once promoted and to find a way to stop people trying to enforce them after promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda and Ne Ent Fact: "the article had an infobox until [15] until a couple editors decided to replace the entire article". Yes it had an infobox between 2006 and Jan 2015. But that was before the article was fully developed. "Decided to replace the entire article" happened to be extremely productive and resulted in a featured article on a core topic, the holy grail of actors. The decision to exclude an infobox on the weight of things is an extremely trivial one, yet you seem to view these editors as having done something destructive in their editing of it to FA. The arb have previously ruled that infoboxes are optional, why isn't their ruling being respected here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad Agreed that the edit war was disruptive. My concern though was that it wasn't just any admin who blocked it in the version without the message, it was HJ, who had been emailed by Ched and is a personal friend of Mabbett whose central focus is infoboxes on here, and that the blocking admin has proceeded to come here, despite a consensus seeming to be forming on the talk page which even Dreadstar accepted to tone down the message. If HJ really doesn't care about infoboxes I don't know why he'd go to such lengths over this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies. Exceptionally good point you made there. Yes, the infobox issue needs a review in general and some strict ground rules laid out. In my experience it tends to be featured articles in particular involving a lot of the people commenting here which are subject to infobox enforcement not long after promotion. while the hidden message dispute was silly, it is just part of the overall problem. Arb previously ruled that infoboxes are optional, which I thoroughly agree with, but in practice a group of editors are ignoring it and treating them as essential article components. I do think something needs to change perhaps at FAC in which a new clause like "Is the infobox stable, has consensus been made apparent" sort of thing before passing it and then when somebody comes along it can be swiftly averted. I'd very much appreciate it if you could review this situation and try to provide a solution to what has become a major recurring problem and source for incivility. It is probably best though that somebody neutral on the issue opens an RFC to avoid a possible backlash either way. Somebody like Drmies who I believe is on the fence on the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone. You and I are on very good terms but I respectfully disagree with "The main point IMO is that an infobox has no downsides except some disputable questions of appearance". I believe the main concern among editors is the redundancy in relation to the lede, trivial parameters, not to mention emptyish infoboxes looking unprofessional when printing out. I generally support infoboxes where there is informational value but in arts biographies I really think they function more as furniture pieces than for providing information. So if there is a consensus among established editors who promote an article to FA not to have one, any person who shows up and says "I want an infobox" we add one just like that based on your reasoning?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigs on the Wing I've always supported the work you've done on standardising infoboxes and reducing the redundant ones. Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think it is essential eventually that all articles on wikipedia have an infobox. You can't deny that infoboxes are a major interest of yours on here and standardising and making things consistent is a core goal of yours. It's clear that there is offwiki discussion about infoboxes, you for instance turned up just eight minutes after your ban removal here with this. Even if you haven't edited Olivier it's clear you strongly object to the removal of infoboxes on core articles where they've existed for a fair time. HJ has even stated that he's not interested in infoboxes and enforcement. So why all this? You don't seem able to respect that certain editors believe the article looks better without one, so don't say all that about unfounded personal attacks and "mud slinging". The delegates might want to address the tone of some of the things you've said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim riley

Having read the original statement by HJ Mitchell I can't work out what it is intended to mean or what outcome he/she seeks. But given the virulence of his/her reaction to Dr Blofeld's addition my own reaction would be very cautious indeed. If it becomes clear what outcome HJ Mitchell is seeking I shall add my comments here, for what they are worth. Meanwhile I urge caution and restraint by all contributors. Tim riley talk 22:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later, seeing the Mitchell comments and the Blofeld replies unfolding here I think it would be quite wrong to censor Dr B's comments, which are easily verified. The arbiters can reach a judgement with all the relevant information. Tim riley talk 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dr B's comments have been redacted, wrongly in my view. It is for bullying about info-boxes that Andy/Pigs has been topic banned and was considered for site banning, with lesser penalties for other allied offenders. Tim riley talk 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

A couple of people have asked me whether I planned someday to return to the arbitration pages. This isn't what I had in mind.

Two days ago, an administrator full-protected Lawrence Olivier, which is a featured article, for one week, in order to end an edit-war. There had indeed been some edit-warring. However, the edit-war did not concern the content of the article. The edit-war did not even concern whether or not there should be an infobox on the article. Rather, the edit-war concerned whether the article should contain two sentences of hidden text (i.e., text that shows in the edit window but is not visible to readers), cautioning against adding an infobox.

Full-protecting an entire article for a week over a dispute about two sentences, while occasionally necessary, is usually undesirable. Full-protecting a featured article for a week over a dispute about two hidden sentences struck me as even less desirable. After posting a comment to this effect on the talkpage and waiting two days (see here), I lifted the protection. That was my sole involvement in this matter, and I have no other comments at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dreadstar has posted a retirement notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

My "involvement":

Edits to the article proper 1^{(note 1)}
Edits to the article talk page: 0?
Administrative actions taken: 0?

I'll do my best to answer any questions the arbs have for me, although I request an understanding that I am not online in any consistent manner at the moment. I do get email on my phone if there's something important I need to address. As far as the statement "I've watched HJ Mitchell and Ched play this like a chess game in recent days, meticulously thought out and plotted, weakening the opponents to inevitably form a case here." - I will have to think on that, because at the moment I have no idea how I should respond. — Ched : ? 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I believe the case (if accepted) would be more accurately titled "Hidden text", "Personal attacks" or perhaps "Oliver". — Ched : ? 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets archived I would like to make a further statement. I would like to thank both Salvio and Euryalus for acknowledging that there are conduct issues which are relevant to multiple parties that should be examined.

I offer my own sympathy to both Dreadstar and Gamaliel for the personal attacks and injustices that they have been subjected to (some of the most egregious attacks and BLP violations I've been witness to in my time here) . I understand that given the manner in which this case request was framed that it was unlikely that a group misconduct case would be heard.

As far as the derogatory implications made about my use of email - I did forward my email to the entire Arbcom group for review.

In reply to Roger's suggestion of a RfC: While I do agree, and in fact attempted to establish such back in the original 2013 iBox case, it was deemed unacceptable at that time. Since many members of the "pro" iBox faction are under restrictions while none of the "no" iBox faction are restricted, I do have to wonder how equitable such a RfC would be. I will also say that I did suggest that some sort of "main editor" or "creator" be given a certain latitude in regards to a preference to an IBox; which was quickly frowned upon for wp:own reasons.

In the end, I saw a claim that there was some sort organized something regarding pro iBox ... but it appears that quite the opposite is fact.

Thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 03:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{(note 1) I saw some back and forth debate on a hidden text note that I felt was intimidating to editors, so I felt it would be best to remove it.}

Statement by Collect

(Redacted) Shut this "case" down before it spreads, IMHO. Collect (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Noting that no "personal attacks" existed in this post - only an opinion that this case is not something I would wish on anyone at all, least of all ArbCom) Collect (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

My involvement prior to the case has been removing the most blatant personal attack and discouraging Dreadstar from mixing the editor and admin roles [16].

Fact: the article had an infobox until [17] until a couple editors decided to replace the entire article [18].

Since then, they've been claiming ownership since the article is "featured." This concept of ownership is something the prior arbcom unfortunately endorsed in part of the infoboxes case -- despite the finding that Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia., it passed a remedy the enshrined the ownership concept.

If the committee chooses to take the case, I hope it is not to simply enact discretionary sanctions, but rather get to the core issues here; specifically,

do featured article writers earn special privileges, or do we actually believe Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone like its says above my edit buffer here?
is what is actually important the wishes of the editors who contribute the most to the article, or what most benefits the reader? NE Ent 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on desysop motion

About that email: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which Berstein reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment. NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About protecting the "preferred" version: To anyone actually important (i.e. Wikipedia readers) both versions under dispute were the same (that's why it's called "hidden" text). NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the out of process unblock: if that's mistake, how come no one has reblocked? NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dreadstar has worked themselves into a bad spot, but there's a good, longstanding tradition about avoiding in absentia decisions, I suggest simply passing a motion similar to last year's suspending the case until if / when Dreadstar chooses to return or is desyopped for inactivity. NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by We hope

Belief is that infoboxes are optional and shouldn't be forced overtly or covertly. Reading the talk pages and activities of some of those named as involved should br convincing of this.[19] [20][21] [22] Project Classical Music, Composers and Opera don't use them. They also have hidden text to inform of this.[23]

There's also consensus among editors who have worked to make articles GA and FA quality re: use of infoboxes. These people are accused of ownership when they object to those who haven't worked on the article adding an infobox. The authors have contributed their "sweat of the brow" and without their efforts, WP would be missing many GA and FA articles. People come to WP to read the written text; they don't come here to look at the infoboxes we have; no one joins because of the "great infoboxes". We have all too many stub articles with "great infoboxes"; what's needed is good text.

Perhaps the 2013 Infobox case needs to be revisited as some of those named as involved then are back here once more. We need to either continue with infoboxes being optional and stop the overt and covert pressure on those who elect not to include them or make them mandatory for every article. I also see that 3 people were blocked when the case was opened and only 2 have been unblocked. I think it's unfair not to unblock Cassiano to allow him to speak here if he wishes. At present, he is not even allowed to use his talk page, should anyone want to ask him questions. We hope (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt says ""If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here." This implies there's something wrong with the Olivier article because it does not have an infobox. It can also be said that if those who are vigorous about their belief that infoboxes belong on every article would not appear to have been setting edit conflicts into motion [24], "The review resulted in that. However, my personal AE (arbitrary enforcement, and I could tell you other readings) resulted in this edit was a breach of my restriction, so I can't revisit the article to say that I find this questionable. Next will be that I get called to arbitration again for this edit." [25], we would not be here. We hope (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Per the laconic Floquenbeam, all involved in this little fracas are being petty and ridiculous. Arbcom should not encourage the pettiness and ridiculousity by accepting a case. Admins should of course sanction any blatant misconduct that arises, but there's no reason to waste the community's time on this.

Having said that, I was astonished to find that User:Dreadstar is and remains an administrator. But that's properly a different case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected regarding the final sentence above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

This controversy did not begin as an infobox case. It began as a suggestion to use text in a hidden ibox that was less aggressive than what was in place, and which would not inhibit editing. Caps are generally considered shouting and a good part of this text was caps. The discussion almost immediately moved to a discussion of info boxes, a highly contentious area. That fact, along with edit warring and the tone of the discussion seems to have warranted protection which the protecting admin said he would lift if things calmed down. Ensuing discussion became at times vicious. In my opinion a locked down article would have prevented the deterioration in discussion which had become highly objectionable. An admin was taunted on the discussion page, and another tried to control the situation. Allowing the kind of abusive comments and discussion that occurred on and in relation to this page is a big problem for Wikipedia. By default control is in the hands of those who are the most uncivil since others as I did left, and those who stay are likely to become upset (possible understatement) with the situation. What the arbs can do about it, I don't know.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Cavarrone

My opinion is that infoboxes could well be optional, but when even a single editor feels the use of an infobox is useful then it should be (allowed to be) included. For sure, inclusion of an infobox is NEVER detrimental to the quality of an article, and the removal of the longstanding infobox in the Olivier article was certainly not an improvement of the article per se. Furthermore, in the current case, both the general tone of the talk page discussion and the wording of the hidden text appear to be quite threatening IMO. Cavarrone 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus:, I'm with the latter, I don't necessarely consider an infobox a "standard", but as long it is considered useful by an editor or a minority of editors, I don't see any strong argument to prohibit its use. An infobox does not interfere with the content of the article, so I consider the arguments such as "...but without the infobox the article is now a FA" blatanty nonsense. It is only a shortcut to have some basic informations, sometimes even ignored in the lead (eg age and place of death). Generally the (hidden) reason for prohibiting infoboxes is "We spent so much time in writing/improving the article that you readers should do not have these shortcuts, you have to read our article and apprecciate our work! (we deserve that!)". The main point IMO is that an infobox has no downsides except some disputable questions of appearance, but usefulness (even if minimal, even if only for a minority) >>>>>>>>>>>> appearance. --Cavarrone 08:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, then this time we'll agree to disagree ;D. In my view if the biographical article is decent the relevant infobox HAS TO BE redundant, but I don't see it as a downside, I always considered infoboxes as summaries or as I wrote above as shortcuts for basic infos (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox, " keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article."). My best, Cavarrone 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

While it may be tempting to open a request, rake through contributions and dish out punishments afterwards, we're talking about potentially sanctioning some of the most prolific content editors on Wikipedia. Is all this grief and drama necessary? It appears that all that's really happened is that angry mastodons got the better of everyone (as happens once in a while) and harsh words were thrown about. And an admin retired. Not a good result, and I don't believe there's a case here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

Two article edits and 1 talk page edit do not an arbitration request make. Happy to discuss having a case named "Dreadstar" regarding his conduct generally, but see no need to respond here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Kraxler

Reverting 6 times (contrary to the pertaining guidelines, too) and then protecting their preferred version is certainly conduct unbecoming an admin. A case looking into the behavior of User:Dreadstar should be opened, and the user having apparently retired, then ArbCom should pass a similar motion as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 . Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by probably uninvolved John Carter

I respectfully disagree with the esteemed arbitrator Euryalus below. This is not in my opinion a "minor candidate for WP:LAME," as I think editwarring about infoboxes in general might be one of the best possible candidates for the position of poster boy for that particular page. Infobox usage might be one of, if not the, most ridiculous objects of disagreements we can have. I know it is a rather, well, emotional, issue on perhaps both sides, and it seems in part to be based on mere aesthetics, which, considering the frankly wretched content of several of our articles, is more than a little amusing. If the arbitration could end the discussion involving this black hole of timewasting, all the better. If it can't, which I think more likely, everyone involved might have better things to do with their time, up to and including senescent drooling, all of which would be more productive than disagreements of this sort. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I have to be honest and say that I've found Dreadstar's conduct as an administrator to be a concern for quite a long time. Even though I opposed a block placed on him in 2011 for making personal attacks, I did find it worrisome that someone of his tenure would be making those sorts of underhanded remarks. His actions since then have left me with the impression that he is often too quick to act on his emotions before taking the time to think things through, which tends to further exacerbate the given situation.

As for the infoboxes case, I don't know whether it should be revisited or not. I've always found infoboxes useful, personally — they make it so that you don't have to dredge through the entirety of a page's text just to locate a few minor tidbits of information. Edit-warring over something so trivial is just ridiculous. What does the community think? If the consensus is in favour of their inclusion, then that is what we ought to uphold. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing)

Given how often I have been mentioned by one or two of the people making statements above, I'm surprised not to have been notified of this discussion.

Dr Blofeld and others make a number of accusations about or involving me; most of which are egregious breaches of WP:NPA; and I am dismayed that no clerks or arbs have commented, much less taken action, in response to such inappropriate behaviour. I suggest they should do so now.

Dr Blofeld suggests that "When HJ arrived to block the article here it seemed inappropriate for him to intervene, knowing that he is in contact with Andy in real life". Quite why this is pertinent here, given that I have never edited either the article nor its talk page, is not clear. Indeed, there appear to be attempts to deflect attention from what has gone on in that article.

He also seems so sling mud by noting that some people are open about having emailed each other (and fails to assume good faith as to their reasons for doing so); while forgetting that he has several times emailed me in the past. Is he therefore also tainted?

He also asks "Do I really need to provide diffs over everything that I've claimed?", but of course does not and cannot do so.

His claim that "in fact Pigs on the wing [who he?] was banned from infoboxes", is utterly untrue; as is Tim riley's unpleasant assertion that I have been topic banned "for bullying".

As to the issue at hand, the edit war over the hidden comment, it's both dishonest and clear breach of policy, but arbcom are partly to blame; I have twice brought such comments (in other articles, mostly related to classical music, operas and composers) to their attention, and twice they have failed to do anything about them or the people who place them. Again, they should do so now.

Furthermore, Gerda has rightly pointed out that the status quo is that this article has an infobox, and has done so for literally years.

We should also be very wary of those who depend on " consensus among established editors who promote an article to FA" to support their position; we have a clear policies (WP:OWN, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:5P) that such "authority" is not binding. Underhand attempts to change or evade these policies, by the use of hidden comments or other tactics, are contrary to Wikipedia's core ethos, and are not the "lame" trivia which some have alleged. (I therefore endorse NE Ent's statement in its entirety.)

Those seeking to close this request now that one party has been sanctioned (largely for unrelated matters) should look again at the evidence presented. A case may or may not be necessary, but admin intervention and stern warnings are, at a minimum. I note that the bullying behaviour and gratuitous abuse from Dr. Blofeld (including the above), SchroCat and Cassianto is similar to what I have witnessed from them elsewhere, frequently, directed against not only me, but also other established and novice editors. It has reached the point where I mostly try to avoid editing articles where they are involved, and only occasionally challenge their most glaringly bogus statements on talk pages (as I did in one of the diffs cited by Dr Blofeld - do read the full exchange).

Regarding infoboxes in general; I have for some time called upon those who oppose their use, in some or all of the articles where their presence is disputed, especially on the grounds of "redundancy", to start an RfC for their removal from Wikipedia. This they continually fail to do. I suggest that this because they know that such an attempt will fail; and that they know what is obvious to the rest of us and what is demonstrated by their near-ubiquity: that the community at large favours the use of infoboxes.

Finally, I shall be travelling for the next two weeks, probably with only intermittent access online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

@HJ Mitchell: Are you fine with Dr. Blofeld's modified statement or do you still have a request for the clerks? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've told Cassianto they can email their statement to the clerks mailing list and we'll post it for them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Recuse. I haven't been involved with this specific incident, but I have strong views on infoboxes topic and promised to recuse on matters involving it my election statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to hear from some of the other listed parties, especially Dreadstar and SchroCat, before going further on this one. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in all other respects than the motion below. This is less an infoboxes issue than an "admin behaving poorly" one, and we're dealing with that below. Courcelles (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox hidden text edit war - a ~~minor~~ candidate for WP:LAME. Per Courcelles, awaiting input from Dreadstar in particular. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline, largely per Ritchie333. theres some poor conduct here beyond the one now-retired editor, but lets try making bygones bygones and see how this goes. The history of lame Infobox wars doesn't fill me with confidence that this will occur, but we can always revisit this if the issue returns. -- -- Euryalus (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: Off topic a little, but interested in your view re any one editor seeking an Infobox - do you think it should be a matter for talkpage consensus on any particular article, or should Infoboxes be considered so standard that there is a presumption of inclusion, as there is with (say) "Further reading" sections and the like? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for statements --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline this request as currently framed, but I'm open to examining the conduct of some of the editors involved in this little kerfuffle (of course, this would require a new case request). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. LFaraone 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline the case. I do think that Dreadstar's conduct needs to be examined, but that can be accomplished via the motion below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Roger Davies ^talk 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline comment It seems to me that the solution to the Infoboxes issue, which is essentially a content one, is not yet another case to look only at conduct, but a widely-advertised RFC to establish community ground rules for inclusion/exclusion. There are more than enough people commenting here to give such an RFC a flying start, especially if a little time were devoted in advance to setting up the parameters. Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse, as with Thruduulf. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, as the admin behavior issue is already dealt with. As to the rest, a pond full of trout for making nuclear war over the bike shed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as no longer required. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the motion is here, Decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. AGK [•] 13:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Dreadstar desysopped

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate but necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every last one of these would be worth a desysop, really. In conjunction, no other choice is possible. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is based on actions 1 and 3, because, as indicated above, I'm recused with respect to action 2. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per 2 and 3. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LFaraone 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent Dreadstar has unilaterally reversed an arbitration action before and has already been given the benefit of the doubt. Roger Davies ^talk 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as with Thryduulf, based on #1 and #3 DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
with regret that it became necessary. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 @[[User:We hope|We hope]] (mostly): {{quote|"If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here." This implies there's something wrong with the Olivier article because it does not have an infobox.}} No, it does not imply that, or I could say by the same logic that the change to no infobox implied that something was wrong with the article before. An infobox is not "something wrong, it is meant as a service to readers. {{quote|It can also be said that if those who are vigorous about their belief that infoboxes belong on every article ...}} Whom do you mean, and what do you think is "vigorous" in any belief? I don't believe that infoboxes "belong on every article", I simply believe they are useful. For an actor, I believe that readers are helped if they see at a glance that the person shown on the pretty picture IS an actor, who lived about when where, possibly a list of his achievements. Remember the [[The Rite of Spring|ballet]] with the long discussion in 2013 (was there anything disruptive?) which looked like an article about a painting? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
+Wikipedia has its [[Template:Did you know nominations/Laurel van der Wal|moments of productive collaboration]]. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 === Statement by Arkon ===

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6