Talk:Ezra Pound

the Ginsberg bit at the end

I'm surprised there wasn't a bit where Ginsberg said Pound told him the only way to heal the world was to breed out the white race. Ginsberg was clearly making that up to viciously and nastily bury an 'anti-semite' and try to destroy his literary reputation by falsely claiming he himself thought his work was shit. That this is included here at all is ridiculous - that Ginsberg's obvious lies are quoted as if Pound said them directly somewhere is obscene.

Infobox?

Why is there no infobox? Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Harizotoh9 That is a very good question! It probably means that nobody ever made one. Somebody should take on the task to do it! CryMeAnOcean (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Re: "Undid revision 850340885 by Ceoil (talk) How can you say there is consensus not to have an info box when the talk page clearly shows that two people agree to have it and nobody disagreed?" - CryMeAnOcean Two and a half hours, during the middle of the night in the Americas, is not enough time for consensus to form, and CryMeAnOcean, with all due respect you have 179 edits. As such I have reverted, twice now. Note this has been discussed at length on this talk, as I mentioned in the first revert, with a broad consensus not to include a box. For my own part, these days I am inclined towards boxes, but given the fraught and complicated nature of this bio, cannot see one working one here. Ceoil (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (ec) to all: If you look at the article history, you'll see that several made one. A more general discussion is here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#ArbCom wants there to be an RfC and the drafting of infobox inclusion criteria. It's as long as the title suggests ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks Gerda, from one battle weary trooper to another :), although "that several made one" is a weird sentence. I do appreciate CryMeAnOcean's energy however. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (After church, had no time for history before, sorry:) "Several made one" means: 14 Oct 2007 by Deor (probably until 26 June 2010, didn't check all in between) 29 Sep 2010 by SlimVirgin, again 5 October, self-reverted immediately 25 Feb 2011 by Ksnow 24 Mar 2011 by MrLJM 12 Feb 2012 by Tuckerresearch 17 Mar 2012 by Curly Turkey 29 Jun 2012 by Soerfm 1 Oct 2012 by Rrburke (self-reverted after look at talk) 9 Oct 2012 by Betempte 10 Jun 2013 by Bubka42 19 Jun 2013 by Faustus37 25 Jun 2014 by Xenxax 5 Feb 2016 by Fireflyfanboy 4 Oct 2016 by Victoriaearle 19 Apr 2017 by Elisa.rolle 30 Mar 2018 by Etzedek24 and today. - To all: please discuss, also at the general place about inclusion criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Keep on stoking the fires Gerda. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Fires? Facts. I didn't even know what an infobox is until 2012, and am completely cold regarding this one. Just observing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Noting that argument and consensus are not so important to some.[1]. Explain your thinking Harizotoh9. Ceoil (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Gerda, all those people just got pinged, myself included (and still on my first cup or coffee). That's called stacking the decks and not helpful. I just saw this discussion, haven't read through, but would like to think about it carefully and slowly and decide about what and when to post in a rational way before it gets out of control. Bringing in all the people who have added infoboxes might not have been the way to go. To me this article represents the pinnacle of collaborative editing on Wikipedia, where compromises were suggested, discussed and implemented throughout, from issues such as what text to include, sourcing, images, formatting throughout (including infobox or not), down to the smallest details such as background colors for the quote boxes, how to format the bundled refs and so on. All the many people who were involved are justifiably protective of our achievement, not in a "own the article" sense, but in the a "this is how Wikipedia works at its best" sense. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) All those people just got pinged? Exactly. Gerda is an agitator, and aw shucks doesn't cut it. "Just observing" is an insult, after all these years Gerda, and you treat me like a fool. To say nothing of these multi accounts below where In consider silence as consent. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, Victoria and Ceoil, - no link would have been talking behind these people's backs, I decided against that. Please copy what you said just above to the MoS discussion about inclusion criteria, linked above, for a better future. - Ceoil, your question above ("several made one") provoked me, I confess that sin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Butter and mouth. Talking behind Fireflyfanboy's (for example) back? Give me a break. You are transparent as they come and again you try and fool me, now with utter nonsense. I should open a SPI re you and CryMeAnOcean, the MO is remarkably similar, as I said below. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Infoboxes are to just have quick references instead of having to scan the lede or articles. They're boring, and on every other page uncontroversial. Literally all that's been added so far is his birth name, date of birth, and dead. That's controversial? If Erza Pound's life is "complicated", then it just means the infobox should be smaller and stick to areas that aren't up for debate. I'm re-opening this debate, and would like outside viewpoints on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC) More correctly you are reopening this debate following a self instigated edit war. Your arguments, such as they are, are generalist, shallow, and wholly lacking any reading or understanding of previous debates on this talk. "If Erza Pound's life is "complicated" then...infoboxes then to be expansionist. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Your tone is a bit defensive, and you seem to act like you WP:OWN this page. And what's up with the phrase "battle weary trooper", and attacking a user for making 179 edits? Also, I have made one revert. You have made two. WP:BRD applies. Debates can be re-opened at any time. Looking at the archives, it looks like this issue hasn't been looked at since 2016. That's 2 years. A fairly long time. A lot can change on Wikipedia, in both it's content, software, philosophy, and userbase. Nothing is made in stone and can't be debate. For my stance on infoboxes, I believe they should be required for biography pages. If various elements are up for debate, simply stick to the non-debatable facts. Date of birth, death, locations, spouses, etc. Don't over think this. People will open up a WP article to just check for some quick basic facts, like when someone died. With an infobox, that's easy. Without one, someone has to start digging through the text or read the entire lead. Also it's a bit silly to have 99% of bio articles have infoboxes, yet a few don't. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry Harizotoh9, didnt mean to sound defensive, and I certainly don't "own" this page but, this all seems so sudden, an established editor and a new account tag teaming and edit waring after a talk notice and interval of some two hours. Perhaps I am used to a more collegial and inclusive approach. Nor do I find your arguments ("boring") convincing. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt, thank you. I briefly searched the history of the page but did not have time to search every page to see that Ezra Pound had an info box and someone reverted it to nothing. @Ceoil I don't know why you mentioned how many edits I have. Is that relevant at all? Frankly not having an info box makes the Ezra Pound article look like it's substandard when it is one of the most important and best articles at Wikipedia. We are not in an edit war at all, I just wanted you to experience the feeling that Harizotoh9 must have felt when you deleted the work that he did! Have you considered that readers might think that the info box was deleted by a vandal? CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Well there are rumours of sock puppeting and sleeper accounts all using your type of faux naive speaking voice (the self pitying "aw shucks" username is a dead giveaway), which are used to form false consensus and drive in boxes, so I was being cautious. Per AGF, I wouldn't call for check user or anything. Gerda, you have condoned this behaviour for years. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC) I condone the behaviour to miss something and add it. I pointed out (above, go to that discussion please, all!) that in a few cases, it has proved controversial. AGF, - why shouldn't that be a user new to the topic (of the alleged infobox wars dating back to 2005)? - Did the article have a hidden message warning someone new? Is there a link to a consensus discussion on this talk? - I don't know. I don't remember to have participated in this article (but have a bad memory). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Ceoil Who are you calling a new user? I registered my account in 2011 and Harizotoh9 is not a new user either. Thank you for being an established editor. I had no idea that when I registered in 2011 that there is some magic number of edits that would make my edits at Wikipedia worthy or not. Also I don't know where you live but mentioning that I am in the Americas has nothing to do with the info box discussion. My username is from PTSD and you don't need to make fun of my username. You are a rude person today. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Ceoil Per AGF, you should not use words like "sock puppeting and sleeper accounts" on this talk page because that is not assuming good faith and your asking Gerda to back you up that I have somehow demonstrated "this behavior" ("form false consensus and drive in boxes") is insulting to me. I am certainly not faux naive and I am not malicious; just a normal person who thinks you have been on your high horse. By your leave. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) When I said that the common tactic is for new accounts to adopt a faux naive guise, you encapsulate it beautifully with the phrase "just a normal person". I now also have a read of the intelligence level and the lack of skill in adopting personas. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC) @Ceoil Can you stop the personal attack? I am sure that personally attacking me is not allowed. Bringing up my intelligence level is rude. Please stay on topic: info box for Ezra Pound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Oh, awesome—more infobox drahmah at the very page that introduced me to infobox drahmah—and the nasty-nastiness that it ineluctably devolves to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Stop fucking with the talk page, Ceoil, especially when you can't even tell who in the flying fuck you're trying to insult (it was Victoriaearle who {{atop}}ed it, for fuck's sake). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Pot, kettle, black. You have read the tread right, and why we were disappointed that Gerda choose to summons the likes of you, swearing like a puffed up second rate King George. Ceoil (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

Proposal: add a Pound/canto typo box: put in everything + the kitchen sink. Because there's little black & white in his life it's not the easiest box, but if we have to have a box then we should include all the gray. I'll try to make a mock up. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly is being proposed?

• I agree, please explain Work permit (talk)

• Exactly. I believe that an infobox should be an extension of the content and this article, in many ways more than others I've worked on, exemplifies collaborative editing at its best. Those who have pitched will understand the proposal. I can't get to a mock up immediately, but the central issue here has always been how to box the person who was caged for treason, while in a cage wrote award winning poetry on toilet paper, got caged for 12 years after, did horrible horrible things, was a bastard in many ways, yet mentored the best and brightest of his generation of modernist writers? The simplicity of In a Station of the Metro (i.,e no box), hasn't worked, or rather invites discord. Instead, should we consider the complexity of The Cantos? I'm willing to give it shot, will post a mock up here when it's finished (it won't be immediately because I have little time for wikipedia), and we could take it from there. Or we could continue to fight over a bog standard box on an article where people admit that they know nothing about the subject but show up to fight for the sake of the fight. I'm tired of the latter and am willing to try to make a box that will fit. It's easier to make a box for a plant, than for a man whose life was a series of intense creativity and serious disasters, but we should at least try. No? Clearly if consensus is that we can't do justice to the subject with a box (which is entirely possible), then that's the consensus. If everyone is ok with it, I'd like to try. But if consensus goes against me, I'm fine with that too. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle, thank you. I only watch this Ezra Pound article because of his writing; could care less about his personal life. I support you in creating the mock up, whenever you have time. Not having an infobox makes the article look substandard. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, but you raise the central problem. Because the infobox is content, focusing only on his writing is NPOV; we have to address both his writing and that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor. This is the biography so the infobox has to give the bare bones biographical details, i.,e place of birth, though I think that's misleading because his parents left Idaho Territory when he was not yet two and he was raised in Main Line Philadelphia. There's a big difference between a western poet and an eastern one. We need to fill in "Resting place" (is he at rest?), then there are all the fields infobox writer wants, i.,e languages he wrote in. Some of the languages Ezra wrote in are English, Langue d'Oc, Greek, Latin, and some he probably made up, and, personally I prefer not to have a box that falls down below the lead into the first section. Anyway, I'll see what I can do, but it will have to include biographical details and be done correctly, because once installed it goes to Wikidata and from there any field can and will be filled and magically show up here, whether accurate, verifiable, or not. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I liked your 2016 version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Victoriaearle, Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your patience, kindness and help. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I see where you are going. Looking forward to your mock-up. And thank you for doing this, sounds like alot of work. Work permit (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• "we have to address both his writing and that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor ..."—non sequitur, and just more of the bad-faith drahmah. Victoriaearle's about to give us an infobox of absurd length to "prove" it's inappropriate. For the record, I've stopped using infoboxes on the articles I've edited for the last couple years, but I find the bad faith in these ridiculous "discussions" utterly disgusting. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I liked the 2016 version as well. My good-faith assumption is that this is a case of overthinking the infobox. It's not meant to be a summary of the article and there's no need to include all of the intricacies or fill every parameter. The article as a whole must be NPOV, but there is no need for every part of the article to cover every aspect of the topic. My suggestion would be to start with the basics (year of birth and death, schools attended, etc) and then have a conversation about which additional items to add. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  dlthewave: Please take a dive into the talk-page archives. You're not the first to make the suggestion and won't be the last to be shit on for doing so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Curly, please stop assuming bad faith and for a moment believe that I'm tired of the fighting. Can someone please link to the 2016 box? I remember adding one once, is that the one you'all are referring to? Can't remember, haven't been very active for the past two years. Thanks. I do think we should have more than "poet" for this box. I tried to experiment, but immediately ran into edit conflicts, so it's gone to my sandbox. I think with child modules a lot can be done. This isn't a case of making an absurdly long box, as Curly accuses, but wanting to get it right. Please give me the opportunity to try. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. The 2016 version - as all the others tried - can easily be seen, following the links above. I support the call to assume good faith (just for moment believe I wanted to show the versions that have been tried, and by whom, no more). The link to his Wikidata record is on the left when in his article, and I don't think it will be changed much by our infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please let Victoria work in her own time in her sandbox. There's no rush. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. When we're told an infobox is impossible unless "we ... address ... that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor [etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.]", the proposal is obviously in bad faith. This is part of the game: assume all those proposing an infobox are working in bad faith (or are insufferably stupid), while insisting that the anti-infoboxers are working strictly in good faith, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll go for insufferably stupid, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I thought I'd try to design an infobox that might mention political essays, etc., b/c he wasn't only a poet. This was done in good faith, and as a bridge building exercise, rather than a bridge tearing down exercise. Incredibly impressed Curly, with using terms like "spazzing" out, and Martin, jumping in within minutes so I was met with edit conflicts during the few moments I had earlier in the day, and now your youtube link. It's all yours, gentlemen. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Incredibly impressed" with the inevitable parting snark in lieu of discussion, but none of it's mine—I've already stating I'm not supporting an infobox, only calling you all out. Glad to see at least you didn't dump this WP:POINT-y, drahmahtic thing in ("Citizenship: ex-pat, US traitor"?). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Curly, you should be blocked for your tone here. I use sandboxes to brainstorm & play, and as the last in a long list of editors to tell this to, have been sick as a dog recently. Stop. talking. to. me. like. that. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I will continue to call out these games as long as the participants continue to play them. You'd see less "tone" if you didn't stoop to sniping people as in your previous comment. If blocks are to be handed out, they'd start with this, and would get to some of your comments before mine. I'd normally sympathize with your condition, but it's hard with someone who's shown you six years of disrespect—right up to this very day. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, Victoria! - I made a few changes but just revert if you don't like. I'd not need nationality, - rather obvious from birth and education. if you want more items added to poet you can say "plainlist| * poet * second * third" within the curly brackets, and all * at the beginning of the next line. - I love your version with the kitchen sink ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, on the scale of things that are important in my life right now, this is extremely low. I resent being pinged into this conversation and shouldn't have jumped in. Stupidly, I thought I could try to build a bridge. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been told to chill for a moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm now frozen.

Sincere apologies for Robbie & Nicole. (No public domain versions of Frank & Nancy). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that part of the point of the recent ArbCom case was to stop this kind of needling and swarming. One of the findings was: "Multiple editors, including IPs, have engaged in baiting and goading behavior surrounding the addition of infoboxes." To take action, someone would have to issue DS alerts as soon as it starts, which in itself tends to escalate. But fail to do it in time and you get this.

KrakatoaKatie and Worm That Turned, as the drafting Arbs in that case, please examine what transpired here, and see how the case has made no difference. The background is that the authors of this featured article decided years ago not to add an infobox, because of complexities in Pound's life and work, and there has been regular needling every since. And now again, post-case, including from some of the usual suspects, including (of course) Gerda. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent edit removed the infobox with the summary "rmv boxclutter". In my opinion, the infobox was a useful element which was added after discussion by several editors. Are there any specific concerns that we can work to address? –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion certainly took place, yet consensus there came none; is about the size was the end result of it I'm afraid. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I used a—slang?—term. As you all say, size has nothing to do with it  :) and I widn't want this to confuse things even more. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

How should we address the size concerns? –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I don’t see a conversation about size. If there is a disagreement about size, I would be happy to make the infobox collapsible. Work permit (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Collapsible is a rather unwanted option (for someone who has physical problems hitting the show-button), - we could also drop parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please leave it as it is and please let's all back away from this discussion. The infobox that's been called mine and linked as such in this edit and later in the discussion referred to as mine multiple times, is not mine. It was added here on 17 September, 2016, followed by this long, bruising discussion and finally in a fit of frustration I put it back. But I did not design it, I oppose a box, and I do not see any reason at all to continue these discussions. I might, someday, when things calm down, consider creating a box instead of simply slapping back one that someone else created and then years later attributes to me, but this is not the time for it. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you added now what you built in your sandbox, as announced above, and didn't (mean to) say the former one was "yours", just that you added it. Forgive me for not checking the content of the 16 infoboxes that have been tried in the past. - Leave it as it is/was when I wrote that sounds like a good idea. Can someone write that in a hidden notice in the article? I tried once for Beethoven, but don't feel in the position to do it here, having never edited the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No need to make something go and on and on. No need to reply at all. If an admin could add a DS edit notice to the article, that would be helpful. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

For those who are watching the Ezra Pound article for a long time, the deletion of the infobox and remaking of it again and again must be annoying. Someone who just started watching it does not know that it has been there and removed many times. Is there a way to lock the info box so that new editors won't be able to do so?CryMeAnOcean (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi CryMeAnOcean, in fact the sequence is the opposite of your telling. In complex bios such as this, out of the blue passive aggressive accounts rarely have a grasp of the more subtle reasons against box inclusion.[2] By the way, in my day if I knew nothing I would have the self awareness to watch and learn.) Typically these accounts lack enough edit history to earn suffrage, but typically as socks, certainly seem to know the well trodden ropes of this "dispute" and which buttons to press.

Contentious articles are a tiny fraction (perhaps some 0.00000006 of the overall article population; some 20 or 30 out of 6 million?), and of course all written by targets of, or persons of interest to, Gerda, who has evidently has chosen to otherwise build up personal ammour by being, litterally in Pumkinsyk's rather disturbing foot steps, the.most.engractring.person.ever.[3], and who views this a zero sum popularity contest. Anyway, for the sake of theatre, and as if you are not a sock, the game broadly plays out this: article development / incumbent discussion / consensus / FAC / two or three years happiness and a main page spot / arrival of a new stalking horse account like you / revert wars & civility blocks / Gerda swoop / usual arguments trotted out / hands over heads / Gerda aw shucks defense / incumbents pushed under a bus / Arbcom recognise patterns of abuse but cannot legislate and so kick to ANI / ANI only has hammers / escalating blocks / repeat rinse.

Personally I find the pro Infobox warriors modus operandus of 'localised wars of attrition well worn and distasteful; their use of sock puppets to lead attacks and demand that incumbents are forced to repeat the same argument over and over, page by page, until they break, in an approach that is clearly reliant on grind, and hopes for mental breakdown and editor attrition, sucks on many levels. I have expressed my disappointment on Gerda's page[4] how she would treat me this way, as if a pawn in her greater game, after so many years of supposed friendship, as well as the technical matter of blatent canvassing, of which Collugilia would have blushed. But of course none of this matters, and we are seemingly still as a community tolerating the blame those targeted game, and its all about CIV, because that's the easiest to understand. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Placeholder: please allow me to type and gather diffs before making me run into yet another edit conflict. A post is on its way. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Facts:

• Gerda placed this article, the subject of which she admits she knows nothing about, on her watchlist during a discussion at ARCA as seen here.
• Gerda said she likes my 2016 version. As I've demonstrated it wasn't mine but rather an IPs.
• Others then took up the meme of liking the 2016 version, before consensus developed.
• CurlyTurkey casts aspersions without a single comment back from any page watchers, here, here, here, and here. Apparently there's nothing wrong with those comments and neither drafting arb (calling out you, KrakatoaKatie and Worm That Turned along with the rest of the committee), cares a whit.
• Gerda leaves me a very odd message about a bridge and then apparently punishes me for not doing well enough, and again updates a personal infobox log.

Not a single one of these actions are complained about. Nothing. Nada. The consensus on this page is not to have an infobox. I tried to work against consensus and was attacked for it, which is fine, because I'd prefer not to see a box here. But you all can't complain about some things and turn a blind eye to others. This article can't go to TFA, a piece of sourced information was removed today that needs to be reinstated, and you're all just playing your games. In the meantime you're dealing with an editor who's bending not only backwards but into pretzel shape trying to solve a problem that will never be solved. The infobox wars started here with Jack Merridew and his socks & his buddies. It moved here from another page and it's been ongoing since. This is ground zero of the infobox wars. I can give chapter & verse of the infobox wars since the day they started but have tried to stay out. Tonight, I have had enough. I don't care if I get blocked, I really don't, I'm asking the arbs to take a good look at this situation and decide whether it's healthy. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle Thank you for your efforts. Sorry for your medical issue. Ceoil has called people names and talks about incumbent like he owns this talk page and the article itself since he has more edits than anyone. I am no longer interested in having an infobox for this article because of bullying, being called a sock puppet and other names, as it has caused too much vitriol. I would like someone to reply to my question above: Can the infobox be locked while the article itself can be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

CryMeAnOcean, no, it can't be. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No he doesn't, I do, and no it can't. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, you are surely heading to AE soon; this edit alone is creepy harassment when you already know people are upset. The committee said something about the baiting in its decision; the article talk page has a DS notice on it, and you were alerted in March. Why is this page even on your watchlist if not that you know it has been a flashpoint? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is baiting and I dislike the messages on my page. I dislike all of this. In case it's not been clear. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would remind all editors to stay on topic. Article talk pages are for discussing article improvments, not general editor conduct. I started this thread to discuss what was meant by the "remove boxclutter" edit summary and what can be done to improve the infobox. Please discuss editor behavior on user talk pages or noticeboards and if arbitration enforcement is needed, please file a report at WP:AE. –dlthewave ☎ 04:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)