User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/Boxen Wars I

Apologies if you find yourself reflected here, if you take it personally please know it wasn't intended that way, except that if one is pissed off I hope everybody is. I did my best to piss myself off about myself in this. Anyway:

The Infobox Wars, in 600ish Words.

Facetious, perhaps, but as someone who didn't know the infobox wars two weeks ago, I'll have a go.

You've got a group of hardcore editors who think their credentials in bringing articles to FA status comes across like they feel they're better than other editors. They readily point out how much work they put in, perhaps not quite realizing those outside their circle may put in long hours deciding *not* to ultimately edit things. Tampering with their precious little snowflake of an article is tantamount to defacing the Mona Lisa or calling their kid ugly. But they feel fully justified in criticizing any attempt or opinion to include an infobox. In short, tantrums.

You've got another group of hardcore editors who may think that uniformity across articles is an important thing, and the lack of Infoboxes on some articles break that uniformity. Or they don't see the harm in them. In their way, they have just as much ego as the first group. They fail to see that first really does see some kind of article quality issue should an Infobox be contributed, or view that quality issue as secondary to placing the information there over the will of the first group. How could others be so blind to the stunningly obvious: if in doubt, include the infobox, they think. But they're still vocal about inclusion. In short, tantrums.

You've got editors from the community who have opinions one way or the other but aren't fanatical about them. From what little I've seen, the majority have inclusionist tendencies but I could be wrong. They feel that, like the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians, that they have a right to comment - especially when an RfC is filed on an issue. And they tend to get pissed when editors want to argue with them / persuade a closer that the opinion is meaningless / turn around a differing opinion into a cause celebre supporting their position. (All under the cover of thinking they're "discussing" the issue.) After that group starts getting wound up.... In short, tantrums.

You have the majority of readers and editors, who don't give a flying fig one way or the other, but they don't figure into this. Sad. Although they're probably off throwing tantrums about different things.

Then Arbcom screwed up by deciding that in matters of Infoboxes the local article is where discussion occurs, and others read into that either it's ok to bring the whole wider community into the discussion on one article talk, or that the local editors of an article should have special weight. Policy/procedure/essay crap supports both positions. Everybody misunderstands the infobox decision in the frame which supports their decision. This decision directly fuels the squabbling and enables the collective cognitive dissonance to flourish in all its squabbling glory. (What else could the Arbs have done except pick one side over the other? Set up a High Commission of Infobox In/Ex-Clusion? Ignore all the squabbles?)

So, you have three groups of squabbling children in the article talk, each convinced they are right and only one can have its way in any given article. You have a tiny few who attempt to participate in good faith, only to be caught up between multiple groups of squabbling children. (Those few in good faith are the real losers in this. At least non-contributing readers have a shot at missing the squabbling.)

And then you have the smart ones: Those who stay the hell away from the issue entirely and wish all groups would simply stop squabbling.

My advice to you: Be smart.