Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

I'd like to add as an uninvolved party that Michael has taken to harassing Guy Macon on Guy's talk page despite Guy's request that Michael not post there anymore. Michael has proven himself to be completely incapable of dropping the stick. He also seems to not understand WP:NOTTHEM. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. —MRD2014 T C 21:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM 'parties'

I am not a party to the TRM request in any possible sense of the word, and nor as best I can tell is anyone else listed in here. Can one of the clerks do the necessary? (FWIW, there seems to be some fairly blatant canvassing going on here.) ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks… ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox warring

Before I propose anything I'd like some prior discussion here on what we should do. I think it's become very clear that this infobox warring/universal enforcement situation has got out of hand. It seems to drain most of the energy of a lot of us on a daily basis now. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see a mention of an infobox or unpleasant exchanges betwene people because of it. It's become an impossible situation to deal with and has grown out of control, especially when articles written by one or two editors are systematically targetted. It's become a form of bullying on here and one of the most disruptive aspects of the site right now. Even more concerning is the way that articles are targetted especially once they're promoted to FA/GA. We're in danger of losing FA contributors because of it. Most of us dread TFA now because we know that somebody is going to turn up to start a new infobox discussion.

I think it's high time we did something about it and propose an amendment to the current arb ruling on this. User:SlimVirgin proposed INFOBOXVAR in 2012 on WT:MOS (though not by name), but it got shot down. Four years down the line and the problem is still here, and it's got worse, to the point that editors who previously greared most of their editing time towards content have now being roped into disputes which spew onto multiple pages. The current ruling on infoboxes leaves it open for the "cult", and it is a cult, to systematically turn up on article talk pages and start new discussions on infoboxes. Often it happens four or fives times on the same article. Given that Featured Articles tend to be especially vulnerable, for a start I would suggest that we make an amendment which protects what was decided on an infobox or no infobox by the editors who contributed to the article and decided at FAC. Editors who work hard to promote articles don't deserve to have to deal with this. How do we put an end to this current situation? I would make a formal request but given how many people support infoboxes I can't see it having any success. But something badly needs to be mediated here to stop this happening time and time again. It's not good enough to leave the ruling as it currently is. Some advice/input from others here would be useful. Do we all admit that there is a problem with ongoing infobox disputes across the site? That would be a start, admit that there is a problem..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem, but perhaps a different one. Please provide three diffs for what you mean by "systematically turn up on article talk pages and start new discussions on infoboxes", or even for "infobox warring", which sounds so clear but can mean many things. - I, for example, tried hard this year to avoid the topic, systematically so. It's not good for my health. I argued on an article talk page in two cases where an infobox I had inserted was reverted (Pierre Boulez, Peter Maxwell Davies), I tried to get general support for a minimal infobox following the example of Beethoven on WP:COMPOSERS (not successful), and commented a few times when I noticed discussions, including the open ARCA request. I went to users' talk pages a few times to clarify, for example Smeat75 about Giulio Cesare, where I think we found an agreement. - Arbitration was not successful in the past to settle infobox disputes, - I would not set any hopes in them ;) - How about making it a reader's preference to see or not to see an infobox? It should be technically possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't have to look far to spot them. Two or three articles written by Tim riley or Brianboulton have been targetted in the last week or so. Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox and that list you maintain also indicates that it is your intention to impose infoboxes on every article which currently doesn't have one eventually.. This is really more than just about you, there's a lot of editors now causing disruption with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The list you mention is strictly a list of infoboxes reverted, no target list. The correct link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox, but thank you for promoting my old dreams of 2013. I have not edit-warred once in my career on Wikipedia, if it means - as I understand it - returning the same thing three times one day. - "Two or three articles written by Tim riley or Brianboulton have been targetted in the last week or so.", - can you please name these articles, because I am not aware of them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: before complaining about Brian's articles perhaps look what he did himself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What WP:CITEVAR does is acknowledge that citation style is a matter of editorial choice which should not be changed without consensus; it shortcircuits discussion and avoids bad feeling. What I'd like to see from INFOBOXVAR or something like it is a similar acknowledgement that a decision taken by the editors working on an article should not be revisited without a good reason -- something that can be used to end the discussion (either pro or con) without absorbing a lot of time and energy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The amount of ill-will and lost time is astonishing. The pro-infobox warriors possibly imagine they are saving the world, but is the cost really worthwhile? Clearly the two sides will never agree, and there are two possible outcomes. First, one side might wear down the other causing them to retire or drastically cut back their activity. Second, a sensible solution like WP:CITEVAR could be imposed by third parties to avoid the pointless bickering. A third solution, and one that I favor, would be to put infobox warring under discretionary sanctions with escalating blocks for anyone who proposes adding or removing an infobox against the opposition of the group who care about the issue. Then the participants could spend their time arguing about what was the established style, groan. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, if this was solely about you it would be about you. It's not. There's a lot more editors involved in nasty discussions than you. You don't edit war, but you definitely have a habit of commenting on infoboxes and do want to see articles written by Tim and Brian with infoboxes, and you've undoubtedly hit the "thank" button a lot of times towards people starting disputes, I've checked the log a few times on that. You're entitled to your opinion on infoboxes as much as anybody else, but the constant warring and ill feeling between editors over infoboxes has grown into a massive problem which needs to be resolved asap for the sake of future content production if nothing else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the time I really couldn't care less about an infobox. They're in a lot of articles i've written with people, no problems. But the constant warring and attempts at enforcement in arts biographies in particular where they might have very limited use has become a major site problem which needs to be mediated by arb I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We still have - under the colourful header of Infobox warring - not a single example of that happening. Nor an answer to my suggestion to solve the problem technically: by letting those readers who want an infobox see one, but not the others. - I don't check thank-you logs, - I see bigger problems than expressing thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Allowing readers to choose isn't the answer; I don't know any editors who argue that infoboxes are bad everywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers rely on caching to display pages—frequently accessed pages are retained in a cache of formatted pages that require very little overhead for display. There are occasionally suggestions that a reader preference could control the format used to display dates, or what kind of units are displayed for measurements. However, suggestions like that do not proceed because of two factors. First, they would reduce the effectiveness of caching. Second, only logged-in users can have a preference, and the vast majority of readers are not logged in. Regarding the suggestion that examples be shown—why? Are you seriously unaware that there are infobox wars? Or, do you consider any attempt to grind down the opposition as being an acceptable means to achieve a desirable end, and so, by definition, is not warring? Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am seriously interested in understanding what is meant by "Infobox warring" in this thread's header. I am not aware of any recent edit war over an infobox in article space, so I keep asking for an example I may have missed. To insert an infobox, be reverted, go away - that is no war. To restore one that was removed, that is also no war. So what is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Warring goes beyond article space reverting/restalling of infoboxes, 90% of the warring goes on on article talk pages for weeks sometimes. And it's all pointless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you qualify a RfC as warring? A discussion as warring? - I'd still prefer if you didn't say that 2 or 3 articles were targetted last week without saying which, and "Often it happens four or fives times on the same article" without saying where. How often is often? - Always learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If we could start with a simple adjustment to the ruling, such as articles which have passed GA and FA where the principal editors have made the editorial decision to omit an infobox that would be a start. Make it a blockable offence for anybody to war with adding infoboxes to an article multiple times where there is consensus to not have an infobox and starting discussions on infobox enforcement where the people who have promoted an article don't desire one. They should get one warning should they bring it up but then if they persist and an argument ensues that it to be blockable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow much what arb do these days but would it be possible for them to assess the current infobox dispute problem and propose an ammendment/change in ruling to the current ruling between themselves? I really think intervention is needed here, for the sake of the peace of the site and content writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For background, there were similar problems 10 years ago with people changing date formats, and it was dealt with successfully by ArbCom in two decisions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan. I believe it was those decisions that started the "VAR" concept: WP:STYLEVAR, WP:DATEVAR, WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR. What is needed now is WP:INFOBOXVAR.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" (30 June 2005).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike (25 February 2006).

A key passage in the 2006 decision is: "nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style." What would be helpful is for ArbCom to confirm that these rulings apply to infoboxes (perhaps by amending the 2006 ruling), and to impose discretionary sanctions on infoboxes so that admins can more easily stop the disruption. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)