Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Infoboxes	Motion	(orig. case)	5 January 2014

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Amendment request: Infoboxes

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

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Andy notified

Information about amendment request

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

Statement by Gerda Arendt

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

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

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

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

Statement by Andy Mabbett

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

Comment by Penwhale

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

As your starter for 10, how about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Nikkimaria

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

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

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

Statement by Folantin

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

I don't know whether this is socking, meat puppetry or something else, but there are more than enough WP:DUCK grounds for suspicion here. According to Nikkimaria,several of these IPs have been behaving in the same way [1][2][3]. All Birmingham educational addresses. According to his own Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett lives in Birmingham and works in education.

Examples: The only users to edit the Birmingham Union workhouse article are Pigsonthewing and an anonymous infobox-adding IP: [4]. Almost exactly the same thing happens with Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet [5]: the only edit the IP makes is to add an infobox, while all other edits to the article (barring a minor fix) are by Andy Mabbett. On Denville Hall, the only edit [6] an anonymous IP makes to the page is to add an infobox right among a bunch of edits by Pigsonthewing [7]. An IP manages to produce a fully formatted infobox in its sixth ever edit to Wikipedia [8], again right in the middle of a bunch of Andy Mabbett's contributions to the same article.

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

More evidence collected here [9]. I could request an SPI but I don't think it's necessary per the duck test. The behavioural evidence that these IPs and Pigsonthewing are connected goes well beyond reasonable doubt. --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I've now gone ahead and asked for an SPI per Arbitrator Beeblebrox's request. The evidence is here [10]. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by NE Ent

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

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

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

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

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

Statement by Montanabw

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

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

Statement by Chedzilla (aka User:Ched)

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

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion 1 (Andy Mabbett)

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

Majority reference

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

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

1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.

Passed 7 to 3 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed:

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

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

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support

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

    Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose

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

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Gerda Arendt)

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

Majority reference

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

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

3.2) Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.

Passed 6 to 4 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed:

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

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

to be enacted on the passing of this motion.

Support

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

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

Oppose

1. Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
3. LFaraone 03:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
4. I've been reviewing but don't see sufficient cause for this at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Per Carcharoth. And also, I would urge Gerda to not become too embattled over the issue. She means well but this whole area is so tangled in drama further actions only tend to stoke the fire. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
6. I'm moving to oppose (effectively withdrawing this motion). There's a number of reasons for this, I've been mulling it over since this statement by Gerda[11] that 2014 was about new beginnings. It does imply that she is trying to move on. I would have switched then, but for the fact that she raised this very amendment request in 2014. Having read through some of her recent editting, I do agree that her actions in 2014 have been less focussed on the infobox case. On top of that, Floquenbeam's comments do ring true, this request is more "for her own good" than preventing active disruption. Worm^TT(talk) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

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

Comments by arbitrators

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