Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:28, 31 July 2013

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion re infobox discussions

1) *Motion: Arguments based on the overriding primacy or necessity of 'metadata' provision are not acceptable in discussions about infoboxes.

Rationale: 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles - The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.' 'Metadata' arguments, which are themselves in principle highly contentious, should not be acceptable as overriding this optionality. Such arguments in infobox discssions are in effect an attempt to change the nature of Wikipedia by stealth, rather than by open policy. The acceptance of the present motion would imo remove a major source of acerbity in infobox discussions.--Smerus (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is disingenuous of Smerus (and others opposed to infoboxes, in some or all places), to argue that (I paraphrase) "infoboxes add nothing", and then to seek to prevent people from pointing out one of the types of value they do add. Arguments pointing out the emission and reuse of metadata may be contentious to (i.e. not liked by) such people, but they are also irrefutable. The "overriding" point is a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement, but suggest that this is a finding rather than a motion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about infoboxes should be based on "how can we improve this article for the reader?" If Metadata provides additional benefit to the reader of that article than it is a valid consideration. But it is only one consideration amongst many and it is not a reason in and of itself for inclusion or deletion of an infobox.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The reader" may not be looking at our site, but at one which reuses our content; we must consider them also. Where is the evidence of anyone wanting to include an infobox "in and of itself" for metadata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, here, I believe, is that Wikipedia does not exist to serve Google or any other metadata extracting sites. That is to say, why should Wikipedians take on the extra work of creating metadata to suit these unaffiliated companies, as opposed to the companies wishing to catalogue Wikipedia's data taking the steps to find ways of finding it themselves? Therefore, I do support this motion/finding: we're building an encyclopedia, not working for Google. Bramble claw x 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "serving Google". We are serving the world, and Google are just one example, albeit significant, of the world reusing our machine-readable content. As noted in my evidence, this accords with our mission mission and the objectives of the WMF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why should we be the ones who have to do the work to make it readable by Google/machines? This is what I'm not quite understanding: Yes, as you have asserted, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a database of information. As such, it should be searchable. We have a search function though. If outside companies want to use data in the articles, why should the work fall to us, instead of them? You would think we have enough work to do as it is writing articles; if other groups wish to reuse Wikipedia's information, shouldn't that be their work? Taking Google's search engine as an example, it is their mission to catalogue information in a way that allows users to search the web. Why aren't they making adjustments to reach their said mission, as opposed to us downloading the work to Wikipedia itself to accommodate others, when we already have a big enough task producing the information? Bramble claw x 05:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, the work to make content in our templates machine-readable is already done; so your point is of historic interest only. Why would we undo that work? For the remaining mopping up, you don't have to do any work; I and others are prepared to do it (as with any task on Wikipedia; there is no compulsion, but many volunteers). Furthermore, this is not just about companies (and indeed still not just about Google); by making our content machine-readable, it can be and is used by individuals (who of course do not have the massive resources of companies like Google, and so cannot write and operate their natural-language processors and spiders to analyse our prose) , non-profits (I've already mentioned the BBC) and academics, too. I know someone, for example, who based her Masters degree on analysis of data read from our infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Giuseppe Verdi in the workshop

My latest birthday gifts were not well received (Bach, Wagner). The next remarkable birthday will be Giuseppe Verdi's. The proposed infobox shows at a glance his place in history and geography and links to the list of his compositions. Imagine a reader who arrives at the article by chance and has no idea who Verdi is. Details can be found in the footer navbox {{Giuseppe Verdi}}. The infobox does not (and should not) add information, but adds different layers of accessibility. Imagine!

Scenario I: if I added this to the article:

Nikkimaria might arrive soon and revert it, edit summary "cleanup".

Smerus might explain that it damages the article.

Kleinzach might say again "the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole.", as if any infobox ever could, - nor can any article ever capture the genius of Verdi. The infobox is to summarize key facts of the article.

Scenario II: if I suggested this for the article on the article talk:

Toccata quarta and others would say again that it "would add nothing to the article". It should not add, as a lead should not add.

Victoriaearle might say again: "I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window".

Sjones23 and others might say again "oppose per WP:COMPOSERS. Also, the use of an infobox for composers like these are mostly contrary to the strategic goals of the Wikimedia Foundation". Sorry, I don't understand.

GFHandel might say again Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start. --- if only he was still with us.

We can start today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Giuseppe Verdi
Giuseppe Verdi
	Portrait of the composer by Giovanni Boldini, 1886
Born	10 October 1813; Le Roncole, then part of the First French Empire
Died	27 January 1901 (aged 87); Milan, then Kingdom of Italy
Notable work	operas, sacred music
Signature

Proposals by Sjones23

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Struggle and standard of debate

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one. It is also inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policies. Nevertheless, discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric without attempting to seek help and advice from others in other areas of the project

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia depends on consensus, which involves decision-making to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns through talk pages. If editors are having a difficult time reaching a consensus, other venues such as a request for comment or third opinion can be used. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, edit warring undermines the consensus-based decision making.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WikiProjects

4) A WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia and coverage of specific topics. Its pages are used as resources to help coordinate and organize the group's efforts at creating and improving articles. However, WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor do they have special rights or privileges compared to other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. This was also a finding of the 'Composers' RfC referred to in my evidence; and I have argued this point consistently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute concerns editors of Wikipedia debating on whether to remove or add infoboxes. This has been debated by the classical music, opera and composers projects since September 2007. A request for comment concluded that Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles and that infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive. Even though WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations, they do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Omits the important finding that "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Pigsonthewing

2) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), in real life Andy Mabbett, has been a highly-active editor of Wikipedia since he started editing in October 2003. He has made more than 106,000 edits to Wikipedia, served as a Wikipedian in Residence at numerous locations including the Queen Street Textile Mill Museum in Burnley, the New Art Gallery Walsall, Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service, as a Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, and has shown a high level of interest and dedication to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you. ~~I have had more than one residency; see my user page.~~ Why, though am I the only edutor with such a potted biography here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just to say I'd leave the RSA out of here - though selective, it is essentially a club you join for a subscription fee. The rest is fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing ArbCom cases

3) Pigsonthewing has been sanctioned previously by the Arbitration Committee twice. In early 2006, the first case resulted in a one-year ban from Wikipedia and on indefinite probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts. However, a second case in August 2007 resulted in another one-year ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Pigsonthewing cautioned

1) Pigsonthewing is strongly cautioned regarding his involvement in infobox-related discussions and adding infoboxes to articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not sure that this is sufficient, as the user in question has already been banned for a year for essentially the same reason. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is totally inadequate, given the failure of much more stringent earlier remedies (such as the year ban) to stop this repeated pattern of behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be water off a duck's back to him. Giano 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo the comments of those above. Its too wishy washy. Folantin what is the "year ban" you refer to? Is that the ANI ban from editing infoboxes on FA of the day articles ban [1] that you are referring to? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing banned

2) For disruptive editing, Pigsonthewing is to be banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. He may wish to appeal his block through community discussion, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or through the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Either this or my suggestion below for a complete topic ban on adding infoboxes and taking part in any discussion about infoboxes. Nothing else will be strict enough. --Folantin (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~This may be over the top. A strict topic ban on all infobox edits AND discussions would be better.~~-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: seems excessively extreme. Bramble claw x 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what I meant to say above was: This may be over the top. A strict topic ban on all infobox edits AND discussions on FA of the day articles only (per the community at ANI) [2] would be better.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing admonished

3) Pigsonthewing is admonished for his behavior on-Wiki in infobox-related discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Same problem as "Pigsonthewing cautioned". It would be water off a duck's back. He's already had major sanctions, including two year-long bans, and they've had no effect.--Folantin (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough, per Folantin. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Hasn't this been done already? Bramble claw x 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing topic-banned

4) For disruptive editing and failure to respond to good-faith community concerns, Pigsonthewing is to be topic-banned indefinitely from editing all infoboxes and from participating in discussions on the FA of the day articles only, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because of the evidence that I have posted, I am skeptical that this will solve the issues. --Rs chen 7754 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project participants advised

5) All participants are urged to seek advice on producing guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera with outside help.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks

1) Should Pigsonthewing violate his topic ban on editing all infoboxes and/or participating in discussions on FA articles of the day, he may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Peter cohen

Proposed principles

Volunteers should not have work imposed on them

1) Wikipedia is written by volunteers. It is up to those volunteers who develop and maintain an article to decide how it should look within the limits allowed by the manual of style. It is not up to an outsider to impose their preferred approach and the accompanying work overhead when they are unwilling to look after the contents themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "impose". If I add an infobox to one of your articles in an effort to help, you can revert it, and I will perhaps ask why or not even that. Where is the problem? I find that an infobox provides you with a form of feedback how an outsider understands the key facts of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cold Turkey & DGG. This is completely contrary to the Wikipedia ethos. Any such core change to that would require a well-advertised central discussion; where, of course, the community would almost certainly trash it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree completely. Giano 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Editors should not be discouraged from editing by restrictions forcing them to beg permission of article OWNers. Their right to edit should not be dependent on agreeing to maintain articles. Their edits should not be subject to the whims of those who statistically happen to have a higher edit count on the article. "when they are unwilling to look after the contents themselves" is a totally unacceptable wording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was fixing a spelling mistake or rewording a sentence to make it flow better, then the existing editors would have no right to interfere. But what we have here are editors with no interest in a topic area trying to impose a way of working on the people who actually look after the article and then disappearing never to be seen again. That imposes a maintenance overhead on other volunteers and is totally unreasonable. When Gerda adds an infobox to a classical music article, it is different. She is one of the most productive article writers in that area of content and would take on the work burden themselves. it is the people who feel proprietorial about infoboxes and impose them on people who have done the hard work to create an article and raise it to FA that are the problem. Andy Mabbett knows full well that when an article is slated for TFA can be stressful for the principle authors and yet he comes in with his size twenty boots trying to impose his wishes on others at just that time. And then he's never seen at the article again. And the infobox-owners who join him in the sudden appearance and disappearance act are just as bad. In any case, Wikipedia does have a policy of prior ownership of an article by those who have worked on it. See WP:ENGVAR. WP:OWN is to prevent cranks with fringe opinions from imposing particular slants on an article. It isn't there to allow outsiders to impose particular stylistic preferences such as what variety of English to use or what type of templates to use on those who will continue to be the ones looking after the article.

ENGVAR has nothing to do with OWNership. It prevents pointless editwarring over an issue that can never be solved through reason.
"WP:OWN is to prevent cranks with fringe opinions from imposing particular slants on an article." No, the cranks and slants are dealt with in other guidelines and policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, you have a long record of good faith content contribution in the area of classical music. Your raising the issue every now and then of whether the way we present articles should be changed strikes me as perfectly legitimate. You are not making drive-by changes. And as I said on the intro to my evidence, I actually have no strong views on whether infoboxes are a good thing or not. What I do know is that they have a maintenance overhead, sometimes just for vandalism if it is a box for a long dead person, rather more if they are alive. Sometimes more even if the person is dead because their date of birth, nationality etc are disputed. In such cases the lede, the infobox and the article body can get out of line with each other on a frequent basis. It is up to the people caring for an article on a long-term basis to decide whether the benefits of there being an infobox outweigh the work burden of maintaining it. It's not up to the infobox-fans to go "Here's more work for you. We're off now."--Peter cohen (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OWNership is not just about cranks--cranks are relatively easy to deal with because almost everyone will oppose them. Ownership is about good-faith editors who wish singly or as a group to edit articles the way they want them, regardless of what others may want. Within my very modest capabilities , I sometime work on an article in this field, and I expect to do so on the same basis as I edit other articles. Were I to make ignorant edits reflecting my unfortunate lack of specialized knowledge,I would hope and expect to be corrected, and I would take this as strong advice about what not to try. When I make edits to a bio, I recognize the special needs of such a bio to cover what is important in the subject area in the way knowledgable people handle them, but I also expect that the general principles of writing biographical article are consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia.

Let us imagine the bio of a Brazilian composer. If the people working on Brazilian articles have one fixed set of expectations about formatting, and those working on composers have another, we will never resolve the issue--the only possible way to go is to treat all bios similarly when they apply. The classical music editors should determine how classical musical works should be named; the people interest in bios of all types should agree on a common overall format for articles. The general body of editors should see to it that the format for bios is not inconsistent with the general format. No editors should need to learn a different sort of way of handling common things, depending on which article they're working on. That's the true meaning of not making work for others. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this proposal is poorly written. If WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we are all volunteers, who are the "outsiders" whose editing you are attempting to limit?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Orlady

Proposed principles

Users do not own articles

1) No Wikipedia contributor owns an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is clearly a core Wikipedia policy, and requires none of Semrus' caveats. No-one has ever said anything like what he suggests, as can be seen by the absence of any diff in his or the other evidence to support his allegation. However, the proposal may be better as "no editor nor group of editors". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No one should dispute this. But just read the text : 'No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.' That applies to visiting editors, as well as original editors. Too often in the issues under discussion here, this rule has arbitrarily been interpreted as meaning, 'Because you (and/or colleagues) wrote this article, your objections to criticism or change should be disregarded, because they are only symptoms of WP:OWNership.' Which in itself is 'act[ing] as though' owning the article.--Smerus (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language like this from WP:OWN nutshell might be better: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topical Wikiprojects facilitate informed and focused discussion

2) One way in which a topical Wikiproject can deliver value to Wikipedia is by providing a venue for informed and focused discussion of specialized aspects of writing and maintaining content within its topical scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikiprojects do not own content

3) Wikiprojects do not own the articles and other content within their scope of activity. A corollary of this principle is that consensus within a Wikiproject does not supersede a conflicting community-wide consensus on the same subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One again, support as a core policy. None of the allegations below is supported by evidence, and IAR most certainly does not exempt editors from this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

*Wikiprojects may not 'own' an article, but they undoubtedly have a greater understanding of the subject than an editor who has just wandered in off the street. As such, the opinions and knowledge of those who have physically written an article should be granted respect and consideration. Giano 21:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Rs chen 7754 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN may say what is proposed here, but WP:IAR says that common sense should apply ahead of any rule. If the people who maintain an article, aren't interested in maintaining an infobox, then people who aren't prepared to maintain the article themselves should not impose one just to make some stupid WP:POINT, because an unwatched infobox will inevitably degrade.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"respect and consideration" however do not in any way mean that editors who have developed an article should be able to overrule others. If it did, then presumably an editor who developed a fairly good article on a marginally notable religious group could say that he doesn't think material critical of the group should be in the article, even if the WEIGHT of reliable sources covers the controversy possibly more than anything else. Also, unfortunately, in at least quite a few biographical articles, the individuals involved might be significantly notable for one primary aspect of their life, but also signicantly, if not perhaps to the same degree, notable for other aspects as well. This might include, for instance, people like Thomas Aquinas and Hildegard of Bingen who wrote music and whose music is to at least some degree notable, but are in general not best known for their music. In some cases, those articles might also suffer from being unbalanced to one perspective or another. I'm not myself sure how best to deal with such content myself, but I recognize that it is and can be a problem in several articles. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OWN issue was raised on talk pages as a tool to claim "your comments should be disregarded because you have an OWN problem", so I oppose any finding of this nature because it is obviously true, and making it explicit would hint that the claims were justified. A statement of the obvious on OWN should only be made if there is evidence to demonstrate that there was an OWN problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the "corollary" as a general principle. "Community-wide consensus", which is nowhere in sight on these issues, can be a blunt tool, and it may be appropriate to over-ride it locally on minor matters (of which this is one), but not on major principles. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling circuses of metadata fans don't own articles either. If Wikiprojects are accused of WP:OWNERSHIP, this principle should apply even more to the team of a handful of pro-infobox editors which turns up time and time again in talk page discussions, usually led by Andy Mabbett. These "Metapedian" metadata-pushers have rarely shown any prior interest in the articles concerned. At least Wikiprojects are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.--Folantin (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the sentiment expressed, the wording is problematic, as indicated by the comments above. Also I would remind everyone that this case is about Infoboxes ie article format, not article content. Anyone can join a Wikiproject. It is not a gauge of expertise. If expertise is claimed, then it is just that, a claim. WP is an egalitarian collaboration. No one person's views carry more weight than anyone else. Respect is earned, not bequeathed by membership in a project or a large number of edits to an article. Respect is earned by demonstrating a working knowledge of the topic, a willingness to be civil, to collaborate with others,to listen to others and by showing respect for the actions and view points of others, all the while working towards consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Infoboxes in general

1) Infoboxes are often controversial and contentious. By their nature, they summarize, and often oversimplify. For that reason, it is important that questions about infoboxes -- including whether an article should have an infobox -- should be discussed on article talk pages first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't agree. Infoboxes on musical compositions (including operas), buildings and churches are not controversial and contentious. To all these topics I add infoboxes without a previous suggestion, ready to accept a revert by a principle author of the article, not so ready to accept a revert by someone who just dislikes infoboxes. - For biographies of classical music composers and artists, I suggest first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Keithbob. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Giano 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree.

"are often cntroversial" Suggest changing to "can be controversial". In many areas, they are accepted as a matter of course, to the degree that I've seen many editors claim them as standard.
"and often oversimplify." Suggest changing to "and can oversimplify". We have no statistics for how often they do oversimplify, or for how often that oversimplification is a result of something inherent to the infobox, rather than poor editing.
"should be discussed on article talk pages first". They should only be discussed on the talk page first if there is good reason to believe they will be contentious. Many editors have no idea that infoboxes are contentious at all; we should AGF unless we know otherwise. Drop the "first" and the text is fine—nobody should be expected to bring it to the talk page if questions have not been raised and the infobox as added has not been reverted. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is itself problematic and contentious and I think you have mis-characterized infoboxes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a "finding of fact," not a principle. As for its substance, there's truth here, IMO, but the statement is overly broad (dare I say "oversimplified"?). I'd submit (agreeing with Gerda) that a lot of Wikipedia infoboxes are uncontroversial and that not all infoboxes oversimplify. Change this to "Because the structure of infoboxes does not lend itself to presenting complex, nuanced, or ambiguous information, their content is often oversimplified -- meaning that the content is erroneous, misleading, and/or unbalanced." --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes and consensus

2) Due to the contentious nature of infoboxes, both whether an article should have an infobox and what is content should be should be determined by consensus after discussion on article talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Keithbob's first two comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and per Curly Turkey. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also, consensus can change. Just because an article's editors decide one way this week, does not mean that 6 months from now a different decision is warranted. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with perhaps a corollary that some sort of broad based discussion on both the presence and the contents of infoboxes of any sort in any article which is of direct relevance to more than one WikiProject, which I think pretty much most of the major articles are, should be discussed by all those WikiProjects and members/contributors to content relating to WikiProjects which have displayed an interest in the topic. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, adding an infobox is a standard bold, good faith, improvement to an article. Any other viewpoint is contrary to existing policy in my opinion. If the infobox addition is reverted than WP:BRD advises taking the issue to the talk page to discuss and gain consensus. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What existing policy would that be? There are many types of articles, on abstract concepts etc, that no one tries to add infoboxes to, quite rightly. That infoboxes are always an improvement is highly controversial in many areas. For editors who are well aware of local sentiment (as with some in this case) adding an infobox without asking is at least tendencious rather than bold. Those new to the subject area may be excused for acting this way, but not those who continue to make additions they know will be objected to. Note one of the conclusions of the RFC on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC#Closing_remarks: "Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive." Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there John is "systemically". An infobox addition may or may not be an improvement. Improvement is in the eyes of the beholder. Users should be allowed to add them in individual instances in good faith as they would any other article changes intended to improve. If others disagree, then discussion is the next step. This is standard operating procedure on WP per WP:BRD. This is spelled out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles which says: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you know it will be contentious you should ask first. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use those words but if you are saying- editors are expected to use common sense and to avoid actions that they know will create disruption- then we are in agreement :-) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is nothing in the nature of infoboxes that is contentious. They should only be discussed on the talk page if it turns out an infobox is contentious for that page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes and disruptive editing

3) The addition of infoboxes to articles that previously did not have them without discussion and consensus is considered to be a form of disruptive editing and is subject to the usual sanctions for disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't agree. Adding an infobox is like writing a lead, I don't have to ask "permission", unless the topic is controversial, such as classical composers and performers. I question, however, that these persons are really different from other artists (writers, painters) who typically have an infobox. I don't believe that adding an infobox - helping the reader, after all - is "disruptive editing". The reader's point of view seems underrepresented in many infobox discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely contrary to how Wikipedia works. This case is about a handful of dozens of infoboxes at most, not the vast number (well over 1.5 million) used throughput Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What about new articles, or articles where the prospect of an infobox was not rejected before? --Rs chen 7754 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a new article, adding an infobox is not disruptive editing, but a case of being bold. My comment had to do with Good Articles and Featured Articles, where "infobox people" come up out of the woodwork. Perhaps the wording can be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too strong. But "The addition of infoboxes to articles that previously did not have them without discussion and consensus, in a subject area where the editor who adds one is aware infoboxes can be controversial, is considered to be a form of disruptive editing and is subject to the usual sanctions for disruptive editing." - Any innocent editor may stray into say opera articles without realizing the history of controversy. Once. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gerda, I'm not sure painters, for one, "typically" have infoboxes, though many do, which are all too often full of inaccuracies. Better quality artists' bios tend not to have them, in line with WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree, per my comments above at 4.1, and per Gerda above, we don't need special rules for special topic areas.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree. Adding an infobox while expanding a stub is disruptive editing? I should be permanently banned for that one, then. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) The addition of infoboxes to stable articles, especially Good Articles and Featured Articles, that previously did not have them without discussion and consensus is considered to be a form of disruptive editing and is subject to the usual sanctions for disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree. Every FA talkpage says "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." If I feel an infobox would be an improvement, why should that be disruptive? I never added one, and probably never will, but I believe that a rule like that is not in the spirit of the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. (You know that I am the proud co-author of a successful FA with an infobox.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. GAs and FAs should not be treated that much differently, if differently at all, to the rest of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong disagree, per my comments above at 4.1, we don't need special rules for special topic areas.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Tendentious Infobox Editing by Pigsonthewing

1) User:Pigsonthewing has a history of tendentious editing in adding infoboxes to articles and in demanding the addition of infoboxes to articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree. I didn't see any recent adding of infoboxes to articles. For the talk of The Rite of Spring (mentioned below), I didn't see "demanding" but the question "Why no infobox?" It's a composition, not a composer, I think the question is valid. He didn't get his way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Obviously, but it also applies to the talk page discussions (e.g. the 65 comments he recently made to Talk:Rite of Spring). He badgers other users until he gets his way. --Folantin (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording to include demands for addition of infoboxes to articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some tendentiousness on both sides of the fence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Pigsonthewing Topic-Banned from Infoboxes

1) User:Pigsonthewing is topic-banned from adding infoboxes to articles and from discussing infoboxes on article talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am afraid I can only be sarcastic here: ban the one from the topic who knows it, what a service to our readers? Again: is this the encyclopedia that everyone can edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This doesn't go far enough. See my modified remedy below. He should be banned from the discussions as well, because that's where most of the disruption occurs. --Folantin (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded wording to extend topic-ban to discussing infoboxes on article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK, with the addition of the words "widely construed" to avoid any weaseling. At the same time I'm not sure that the behavioral issues are that one side. So far PWW/Andy has been banned from editing info boxes on FA of the day articles. I would be in favor of extending that to FA of the Day discussions but not sure I would extend a ban all infoboxes on any article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

2) The addition of infoboxes to articles that have already achieved Good Article or Featured Article status, or the discussion of the addition of inboxes to such articles, is subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions and may be dealt with by any previously uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Utterly unwarranted, per my comment on GA/Fas, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nope-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the GA or FA status would be a good reason to assume the infobox is intentionally absent, but banning even discussion of it on the talk page? Absolutely not. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Escalating blocks

1) Any editor who is topic-banned from infoboxes or infobox discussions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. The initial block may be for up to one week, with subsequent blocks (also by uninvolved administrators) for increased periods of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nope... there maybe an etiquette for making changes to FA's but that should be established by community consensus, not by DS from ArbCom.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User: Folantin

Proposed principles

Quality articles do not require infoboxes

1) I’ve looked at some of the Featured Article of the Day archives and from the past few months alone, I found the following articles had no infobox: Big Two-Hearted River, Franco-Mongol alliance, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, Ancient Egyptian deities, If Day, Tichborne case, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five, Adrian Boult, Representative peer, Midshipman, Gospel of the Ebionites, History of Gibraltar, Leg before wicket, English National Opera, Green children of Woolpit, Tanks in the Spanish Army, We Can Do It!,History of Lithuania (1219–95). That’s far from an exhaustive list. I checked the talk pages and found nobody clamouring for the addition of an infobox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. No article "requires" an infobox, but many are better with one. How long was the period of TFAs you checked? How many had an infobox during that time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Another Featured Article with a different history was The Rite of Spring. It didn't have anyone clamoring for an infobox until Andy Mabbett showed up, after it had already been a Featured Article, and said that it needed an infobox, but wanted to know which of two infobox templates to use. There was consensus that no infobox was required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say it needed one, he asked why it didn't have one. Please note the difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, he knew full well why it didn't have an infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another one was Georg Solti. In that article, Andy Mabbett showed up and added an infobox. The resulting discussion, as well as his actions resulting in Tim riley being driven off temporarily, resulted in a topic ban on TFA. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was July 2012. I don't recall any such addition since. Do we really have to deal with behaviour from a year ago? In case you don't know, I won Tim riley back to editing. Tim was also the one to ask Andy for help with infoboxes, and recently about his health. That attitude shows a way forward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour last July is relevant since he's kept it up: Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, September 2012 and Cosima Wagner, December 2012. The fact that he waited until the minute those articles came off the main page or confined his disruption to talk pages, e.g. Rite of Spring, April 2013 is, in the view of several editors (including me), violating the spirit of the TFA ban, gaming the system, and simply discourteous. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been trying to express (probably not very clearly) in my comment about the metadata travelling circus below. There just isn't a huge public clamour for infoboxes on every article. In fact, it's only a small group of editors - usually headed by Andy Mabbett and usually associated with metadata - which is pushing strongly for them. --Folantin (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content ruling and is largely outside the scope of ArbCom. --Rs chen 7754 08:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are neither required or disallowed in any circumstance. If an article can be improved it should be.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling circuses of metadata fans do not own content

Wikiprojects have been accused of WP:OWNERSHIP. However, this principle should apply even more to the team of a handful of pro-infobox editors which turns up time and time again in talk page discussions, usually led by Andy Mabbett. These "Metapedian" metadata-pushers have rarely shown any prior interest in the articles concerned. At least Wikiprojects are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.

NB: I've struck this and moved the comments to a discussion further up the page. Folantin (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In case you mean me, I typically add infoboxes to operas and other fields where I show interest. I use the word metadata only in quotation and when asked. So you can't mean me. Did you know that all recent opera articles have an infobox, as an option of the project? Did you know that Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Pigsonthewing banned from adding infoboxes and banned from discussing infoboxes on any Wikipedia page

1) This is the only alternative I can see to an outright indefinite ban. Not only should Pigsonthewing be banned from adding infoboxes, he should be banned from taking part in any discussion about infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia - and I mean anywhere: no talk pages for articles or templates, no user talk pages, no ANI or other boards etc. This should be strictly enforced via WP:AE. A clear topic ban - no ifs, no buts, no chance to game the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree. I changed my proposed remedies to be consistent with those requested by Folantin. I don't favor a site ban, but an indefinite topic ban is necessary. It is often said that Indefinite != Infinite, but in this case Indefinite ~= Infinite. Two years of site ban has been long enough, but a topic ban really is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am skeptical that this will address the problems. --Rs chen 7754 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::But why should we be the ones who have to do the work to make it readable by Google/machines? This is what I'm not quite understanding: Yes, as you have asserted, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a database of information. As such, it should be searchable. We have a search function though. If outside companies want to use data in the articles, why should the work fall to us, instead of them? You would think we have enough work to do as it is writing articles; if other groups wish to reuse Wikipedia's information, shouldn't that be their work? Taking Google's search engine as an example, it is their mission to catalogue information in a way that allows users to search the web. Why aren't they making adjustments to reach their said mission, as opposed to us downloading the work to Wikipedia itself to accommodate others, when we already have a big enough task producing the information? ''[[User:Brambleclawx|<span style="color:#9A5100">Bramble</span>]][[User talk:Brambleclawx|<span style="color:#00BB00">claw</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brambleclawx|<span style="color:#0ADD0A">x</span>]]'' 05:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 :::::For the most part, the work to make content in our templates machine-readable is already done; so your point is of historic interest only. Why would we ''undo'' that work? For the remaining mopping up, ''you'' don't have to do any work; I and others are prepared to do it (as with any task on Wikipedia; there is no compulsion, but many volunteers). Furthermore, this is not just about companies (and indeed still not just about Google); by making our content machine-readable, it can be and is used by individuals (who of course do not have the massive resources of companies like Google, and so cannot write and operate their natural-language processors and spiders to analyse our prose) , non-profits (I've already mentioned the BBC) and academics, too. I know someone, for example, who based her Masters degree on analysis of data read from our infoboxes. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
+=== Motion: Giuseppe Verdi in the workshop ===
+{{Infobox person
+| name          = Giuseppe Verdi
+| image         = Verdi.jpg
+| caption       = Portrait of the composer by {{nowrap|[[Giovanni Boldini]]}}, 1886
+| birth_date    = {{birth date|1813|10|10|df=y}}
+| birth_place   = [[Le Roncole]], then part of the [[First French Empire]]
+| death_date    = {{death date and age|1901|01|27|1813|10|10|df=y}}
+| death_place   = [[Milan]], then [[Kingdom of Italy]]
+| notable_works = [[List of compositions by Giuseppe Verdi|operas, sacred music]]
+| signature     = Giuseppe Verdi signature.svg
+}}
+*My latest birthday gifts were not well received (Bach, Wagner). The next remarkable birthday will be [[Giuseppe Verdi]]'s. The proposed infobox shows at a glance his place in history and geography and links to the list of his compositions. Imagine a reader who arrives at the article by chance and has no idea who Verdi is. Details can be found in the footer navbox {{tl|Giuseppe Verdi}}. The infobox does not (and should not) add information, but adds different layers of accessibility. Imagine!
+::Scenario I: if I added this to the article:
+:::[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] might arrive soon and revert it, edit summary "{{diff|Sparrow Mass|547806753|547801468|cleanup}}".
+:::[[User:Smerus|Smerus]] might explain that it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Richard_Wagner/archive2&diff=533856503&oldid=533838477 damages the article].
+:::[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] might say again "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Carlos&diff=563384644&oldid=563382889 the box is supposed to summarise ''the article'', i.e the article as a whole.]", as if any infobox ever could, - nor can any article ever capture the genius of Verdi. The infobox is to summarize key facts of the article.
+::Scenario II: if I suggested this for the article on the article talk:
+:::[[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] and others would say again that it "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach&diff=546006425&oldid=546005380 would add nothing to the article]". It should not add, as a lead should not add.
+:::[[User:Victoriaearle|Victoriaearle]] might say again: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach&diff=546177343&oldid=546174416 I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window]".
+:::[[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] and others might say again "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Wagner&diff=555440859&oldid=555438925 oppose per [[WP:COMPOSERS]]. Also, the use of an infobox for composers like these are mostly contrary to the strategic goals of the Wikimedia Foundation]". Sorry, I don't understand.
+::[[User:GFHandel|GFHandel]] might say again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach&diff=546181078&oldid=546178788 Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start.] --- if only [[User:GFHandel|he was still with us]].
+::We can start today. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
+:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
+::
+:'''Comment by parties:'''
+::
+:'''Comment by others:'''
+::
+{{clear}}
 ===Template===