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

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

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:

I don't see any reason to disallow arguments based on their origin, especially as arguments to that point seem largely irrelevant as we're not going to be arbitrating the use of the templates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are able to give as much or as little weight to each argument that they wish, some may not care about aesthetics, others may not care about meta-data. Consensus should be based on an overall picture, and we should not disallow arguments that are within policy and made in good faith. Worm^TT(talk) 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Also per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 31 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]

One common argument regarding infoboxes in arts-related articles is that because the nature of infoboxes is limited to simple parameters, and the arts often do not have clear-cut data (most notable works, influences, movement (for example, Debussy is often called an impressionist when he vehemently disliked the label)), does this mean that should you wish to insert an infobox, such information should be excluded? As our data will be re-used by many others (and often taken as reliable without checking the level of citation), we have a responsibility to adhere to NPOV and objectivity. If we indeed avoid such arguable parameters, many artist articles will be left with little but birth/death date/location: if that is the case, would it make more sense, in your opinion, to have such templates as {{Borndied}} emit the relevant metadata? I'm sorry if this is something you've answered in the past, but really, the volume of those discussions made them difficult to follow. Bramble claw x 15:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this straw man - nobody is arguing "the overriding primacy or necessity of 'metadata' provision". Where are the diffs? I have regularly argued that infoboxes would improve an article by making it easier for many re-users to extract or aggregate data, but that it is merely one of many considerations that must be debated in making a decision. This is a naked attempt to stifle discussion and is typical of the poisonous atmosphere that has been created around the topic by those unwilling to accept that infoboxes actually do have some value. The nature of Wikipedia has always been defined by its mission to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible - and re-users are a valuable part of that process. That is why we don't have NC (non-commercial licences); at the top of this very box that I'm typing into are the words Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions, with a link to Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, a page I'd strongly recommend reading. To those who ask "why should us volunteers make content more easily available to others, who may be commercial re-users?", I reply "why should we volunteers write any content for Wikipedia, as it is all available for those re-users?" and the answer is the same in both cases: "because we volunteers choose to." Nobody is forcing any volunteer to make our content more usable by others, but I certainly don't expect other editors to block my choice of doing so, simply because they don't like it. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a motion? What is the ArbCom being asked to do?

Motion by Gerda: Giuseppe Verdi in the workshop

2)

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]

For easy comparison, I started a list of some articles with disputed infoboxes, showing in comparison how they look with and without. For another comparison, you can look at TFA Duino Elegies which started without. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note: The committee cannot and should not make decisions on content. This isn't a motion, by any means, though I do appreciate seeing how infoboxes can cause such controversies, very quickly. Because the facts are intended to be succinct, the necessary verbosity for an accurate explanation is lost. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Note in response to WTT: I am new here and took the term "motion" too literally ;) I see a different problem: the article is in a way too simple by just saying Italian, which might easily be misunderstood as today's Italian. The fields are of course subject to discussion, you have to start somewhere. My point is that you typically could discuss which parameters and fields. But imagine what would happen if I inserted this in Verdi's article. - Something was set in motion below, that's all I expected, thanks for the attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is this a motion? What is the ArbCom being asked to do? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a motion to see. Do you see what happens (below, I don't want to move your comment)? The infobox shows how I interpret facts of the Verdi article, that causes reflection of the article (Is he simply Italian? Was he influential?) which can help the article. It happened on Don Carlos, the article improved greatly because of the infobox discussion. For another example, see The Rite of Spring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true Gerda! I wouldn't do that, have never done anything to that effect, and have repeatedly stated that while I have a sick tag on my page prefer not to be dragged into this situation. Quite frankly this is the type of behavior that makes me want to throw in the towel and stop editing because it's provocative to the extreme. Victoria (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it sounds constructive that you would no longer hold that argument. I removed it then. I had no idea it would be provocative and apologize, wishing you good recovery, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the piece you refactored because now my post doesn't make sense. I would have removed had you not replied. Moreover, you've misrepresented my argument and position to the extreme. Having done so and replied to that effect, it now needs to stay in context. Thank you. Victoria (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for context, thanks for the permission, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the link for the removal, did not give permission [1] to restore a position that in the least misrepresents what that post means and in the worst shows bad faith. Victoria (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I fail to understand what you mean, please fix it yourself the way you want it, I will not mind, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, the infobox is indeed informative. However, I believe you yourself have mentioned this before, so I do not doubt you've considered it: don't you think the notable works field has the potential to lead to arguments? Bramble claw x 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like discussion of content! We could drop the works altogether, - just data on birth and death would already be something. The "notable works" link to his "list of works", better wording welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could discuss what to include in that parameter, if anything, on the article's talk page; that's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Provided we're not banned from doing so, that is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that discussion is how things work, but, well, seeing as even experts can't agree on an artist's most notable works, might we be a little over-optimistic thinking we can find a solution that can be compressed into an infobox? Bramble claw x 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why no single work is named, - I learned since Wagner ;) - Many are listed in the footer navbox, but a direct connection is at present against the MOS, - perhaps something to think about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is a hand-picked example, it shows quite well some on the problems with infoboxes. Verdi was born in "Le Roncole, then part of the First French Empire" - never mind that it is now some 250km (as the crow flies - say 350 km by road) from the French border. How helpful is that to an American teenager? Was Le Roncole "French" even then? Of course not. He died in "Milan, then Kingdom of Italy" - also just confusing (I notice American pre-independence places rarely get this silly but official treatment). Verdi wrote "operas, sacred music" - actually all his sacred music together is about the same length as just one of his 37 operas, and he also wrote lots of (obscure & rarely performed) songs, as well as some chamber music, piano music, orchestral pieces etc (All of these are "notable" in WP terms, if not the most notable of his works). And so on. Infoboxes work well when the information included is incontestible, clearly helpful & important. Much of the stuff here is not. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like discussion of content! "Italian" would be too easy and without historic nuance, no? - I don't know how you arrived at the length for his sacred music, the Messa da Requiem alone is as long as an opera, and there are the Quattro pezzi sacri. Better summary line welcome. I could live without "notable", but that would require a change in the template, which we could try if needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - both Abbado, Giulini etc get both works together onto 2 CDs. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking duration only? - "Italian opera" might be worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of that fact to American Teenagers, John, is that they can quickly spot the answer to the question "Where was Verdi born?" it has never been the intention that it should provide a complete history of Le Roncole, although the obvious hyperlink would lead them to further detail. We must be careful not to throw out things that are merely good or merely useful in a vain quest for perfection. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The locations are perfectly fine in my opinion. Bramble claw x 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of that fact to American Teenagers, John, is that they can quickly spot the answer to the question 'Where was Verdi born?'"...and come away believing Verdi was a French composer.--Folantin (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really going to do all the old arguments again here, as well? The answer to your "Verdi was French" concern is the |nationality= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I promised myself not to get involved here, but I really can't help pointing out a little compare and contrast. Try reading the first two sentences of the Verdi article (NB: refs removed purely for convenience):

"Giuseppe Fortunino Francesco Verdi (Italian: [d͡ʒuˈzɛppe ˈverdi]; 10 October 1813 – 27 January 1901) was an Italian Romantic composer primarily known for his operas. Verdi is considered with Richard Wagner the most influential composer of operas of the nineteenth century, and dominated the Italian scene after Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini."

Beautifully succinct and clear. Now try conveying the same information in infobox form. For instance, how does an infobox deal with the idea he is considered the most influential opera composer of the 19th century alongside Wagner? It can't. But the averagely intelligent human reader will have no problem coping with those two sentences and will come away with a perfectly good idea of who Verdi was, his nationality and his importance in music history. I don't care about our machine readers. --Folantin (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved here of all places, but may I just strongly object to Gerda putting words in my mouth? If Gerda has a case let her state it in her own words, and let those who oppose it do so in theirs. And let it be stated in a proper forum, e.g. WP Opera or Verdi article talk, not in the context of an arb discussion which is not about infoboxes, but is about editor behaviour.--Smerus (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This case is not about editor behaviour, but about infoboxes, so let's see one. I didn't put "words in your mouth", Smerus, but quoted what you actually wrote in a different case, and I cautiously said "might". Repeating (from above and many other places): an infobox is not supposed to summarize the article and its beautiful prose and evaluation, but key facts from it. I would be very careful about not using nationality at all, in the complex politics of those times, "Italian" is overly simple. The term "influential" is also debatable. The parameter was just removed from {{infobox person}}. - If the infobox doesn't serve you two personally, but others, isn't that reason enough to have one? - To be discussed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::It's the prospect of having these bloody stupid arguments about boxes on every single talk article talk page that is making many of of us consider leaving Wikipedia. The first thing you should know about Verdi is that he was the "leading Italian composer of opera in the 19th century" (Britannica, first sentence). The first thing you need to know about who Adolf Eichmann was is this: "German high official who was hanged by the State of Israel for his part in the Holocaust, the Nazi extermination of Jews during World War II" (Britannica, first sentence). The Wikipedia infobox on Eichmann won't tell you that but it will tell you that Eichmann won the "War Merit Cross 2nd Class with swords". Very informative, straight to the key facts there. --Folantin (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see that "influential" is not part of the Britannica sentence? - Why not offer dates and places in the infobox - facts of birth and death are nowhere together in the article - and evalution in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::You do know you are wasting your time discussing this here? ArbCom is extremely unlikely to pass this "motion". (And, yes, I admit I'm dumb too for getting drawn into this debate).--Folantin (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is disengenuous that you are comparing the lede of the Britannica article with our infobox, and not our lede. We have that lede, and the infobox, which is an extra feature, complementary to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree ;) - The Britannica seems better than our article, because I doubt that Verdi was influential for future music in the way Wagner was. As pointed out above, the addition of an infobox is a chance to reflect the content of the article, Don Carlos and The Rite of Spring were improved, due to infobox discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a very early point in this arb case I contacted User:Salvio giuliano to establish the nature of arb procedures, in which I have not previously been involved. His answer was 'arbcom does not make policy and does not get involved in content disputes, so we will not be solving the content aspect of this issue. However, we will be examininig the conduct of all parties wrt this particular conflict and, if warranted, impose sanctions.'. I think that is clear; and Gerda, who was kibitzing the thread of my discussion with SG and indeed contributed to it, will be perfectly aware of this repsonse. It is therefore incorrect to say that this discussion is about infoboxes; it is quite wrong of her to tell the arbitrators what they ought to be doing; and it is wrong of her to try to start an infobox discussion here. This is all of a piece with her continuing infobox provocations under the cover of being just a good-natured innocent flower of the field, a pose which is becoming wearisome not only to myself, I think, and is now extending to cryptic posts on my own talk page. --Smerus (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:There is no chance of this "motion" passing anyway. --Folantin (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just one further note: if editors really wished to provide a 'birthday gift' for Verdi, they could do so by improving his article to GA or even FA status. A fraction of the efforts wasted on the futile stunt of Gerda's "motion" could have made some difference to this end. The purpose of Wikipedia (and a factor which underlies this entire discussion) is to produce good articles, not to witter about infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your POV, mine is that an infobox is added value, an extra service to readers. I spent perhaps 10 minutes on the design of this one and consider that time not wasted. I better don't reflect the time spent in educating opposers, but don't consider even that time wasted. It took me several months to accept the merits of infoboxes, - it may take some others longer ;) - I better don't reflect the time editors spent on the design of infoboxes that were reverted, - gifts that were not wanted and sometimes regarded as a "disruption". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a further note: despite the fact that the issue is clearly controversial, Gerda Arendt has chosen this time (after evidence has closed to this arb case) to insert an infobox in Götterdämmerung. I have reverted this, with my reasons, at Talk:Götterdämmerung#Infobox. I am at a loss to understand why Gerda Arendt is seeking to pour oil onto this situation, especailly at the present stage. I restate my opinion that installing infoboxes without prior discussion, ands without notice to relevant projects or to article principal editors, is deliberately provocative.--Smerus (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of "pouring oil onto this situation", you reverted with an edit summary of "unreasonable to insert without discussion" (the essay WP:DNRNC refers) and proceeded to pejoratively canvass the Opera ([2])_ and Wagner ([3]) projects, but none of the others mentioned on the article's talk page. Nowhere in your subsequent comment on the article talk page, which includes the unfounded assertion that "This major [sic] change to the article... should not have been undertaken singlehandedly without discussion", did you raise any issue with the content included in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acted by my statement below, earlier today and perhaps hard to find: "I don't agree that infoxes are of "contentious nature". Most are not. It is not practical to ask "permission" on the talk page every time, and not easy to determine who may grant that permission, especially in cases of "no consensus". I suggest to add an infobox to the article in cases believed to be not contentious, and only go to the talk page - with the infobox visible - if someone sees a reason to revert it." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding too strongly to a no changes without discussion flies in the face of WP:BB, and could prevent legitimate improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Proposed final decision

*L'infobox infernale*
L'infobox infernale
opera semiseria in 25 acts by John Smith
	The final scene in a future time
Translation	The Hellish Infobox
Librettist	Jane Doe
Language	Italian
Premiere	23 December 2005; Wikipedia, ongoing
Website	Infobox wars

Ludwig van Beethoven
Ludwig van Beethoven
	Portrait of the composer by Joseph Karl Stieler, 1820
Born	16 December 1770 (likely); Bonn
Died	26 March 1827 (aged 56); Vienna
	List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven
Signature

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

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]

Also per TransporterMan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

What's meant by "rule-making" in this context? Policy? Guideline? Both? I support the idea that rules at policy-level and higher shouldn't be made by WikiProjects, but guideline creation seems acceptable to me as guidelines represent consensus. It also leads to inter-article consistency and that's a worthy lesser goal. I'm guessing this proposal is aimed at killing bloc-!voting behavior, but I don't think that's easily. If you want to change consensus you have to do so through persuasion, not by decreeing prior consensus invalid. But again I agree that WikiProjects should not be making policies. -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposal 4, with "rule" meaning both guidelines and policy. A project is a fine place to draft a policy or guideline proposal, especially one particularly applicable to a certain topic or class of articles, but before that draft becomes a policy or guideline it must be given the chance to be evaluated by the entire community, not just the folks who hang around that project, and then be published in the kind of place where general policies and guidelines are kept, not just at the project site, so that new editors who work on an article work which happens to come within that area have the chance to find the policy without going to the project site. Otherwise, participation in or, at the very least, reference to projects becomes an essential part of working at Wikipedia, which it is not now and should not be. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 7 August 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 recommendations, they do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article. There is also no restriction for infoboxes for musical compositions (including operas), orchestras and so on for these projects.

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]

Note the restriction for biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles, there is no restriction for musical compositions (especially operas), orchestras etc. Infoboxes for these topics were created to be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose the inclusion of "guidelines and": Projects do not have the authority to publish guidelines. They can draft and propose guidelines, but not adopt them on their own without general community assent. Otherwise, support. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Possibly because for some observers, infobox equals to your name? They should look closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 2 August 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:

Infoboxes in road-related Featured Article Candidates

4) In the past, Pigsonthewing opposed every road-related Featured Article Candidate citing the lack of geocoordinates for months. This is prevalent in the following FACs: A1 (Croatia), M-185 (Michigan highway), U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, and

Old nomination for Ontario Highway 401 and Ontario Highway 401's second nomination.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Untrue. Irrelevant to infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Past tense, as he eventually did stop. --Rs chen 7754 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 [4] that you are referring to? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The year ban was his ban from Wikipedia as a whole as a result of RFAR:Pigsonthewing2. He had previously been banned from Wikipedia for a year as a result of RFAR:Pigsonthewing (1). --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which occurred in 2006/2007. Over six years ago. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I proposed a "clean start" below, but caution would be an obvious part of a clean start. I don't want to vote "support" because I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't want to vote "oppose" because I don't want my views to be lumped in with the mob with pitchforks calling for Andy's head in other sections. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 6 August 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:

(paraphrased from below) I am afraid I can only be sarcastic here: ban a prolific contributor and excellent teacher, what a service to our readers? Again: is this the encyclopedia that everyone can edit? (You would also need to ban me if you don't want to hear again that infoboxes are good for most articles.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) [5] would be better.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. He has had two site bans, but they weren't effective. I think a topic ban would suffice, since I think that an indefinite site ban from the project could be a little bit too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I fear is that he will take his attitude towards enforcing his preferences in some other way on articles. --Rs chen 7754 21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: are you saying that Pigsonthewing may take his attitude towards adding his preferences on different articles if we do not ban him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a bit nonsensical - I'm concerned that if he's topic banned from adding infoboxes, he will begin adding metadata of some other form to articles, and we may be back here again in a few months, per the evidence I have submitted. --Rs chen 7754 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would only make sense if adding metadata to articles was a bad thing. Is that actually the position you are espousing? --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Andy is an expert on infobboxes; his contributions are valuable. He also has learned from past mistakes and can be a perfectly congenial editor when he is treated with similar congeniality and respect. Which I have yet to see being tried in the classical music area. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - if there ever were an editor who fulfills the definition of "disruptive", it is Pigsonthewing, an obsessive pusher of his agenda onto unwilling volunteers with the unflagging energy of a fanatic, and I have to ask, as others have without receiving an answer, is he being paid to push his infoboxes emitting "metadata" for the benefit of Google etc by a for profit corporation? A complete and permanent site ban is the only thing that will make any difference.Smeat75 (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what shaped your point of view. It is not supported by evidence, kindly read that before commenting. A short version is here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He says so himself - [6] "the [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already sued" (he obviously meant to say "used") "by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo. Infoboxes are also parsed by DBpedia. It is retrievable as JSON. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)" Smeat75 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 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]

Oppose and support clean start: See my above comments to the ban and caution recommendations. Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 6 August 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]

oppose Andy is good at what he does; the issue is not his ability to create good infoboxes, to lose his ability to look at these and fix them will be a loss to wikipedia. This is just a personality conflict, and Andy is actually a lot better at working congenially with others when they are friendly to him and work in good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is not my experience. To be perfectly blunt, losing the minimal improvements he makes to infoboxes is a small price to pay to put an end to his behavioural issues. A full topic ban is the minimum that should be considered, and even that is a slap on the wrist for someone who's already been site banned twice, including for the exact same problems. Reso lute 16:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project participants advised

5) All participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera are urged to seek advice on producing guidelines for articles that fall in the scope of these projects with outside help.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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:

Similar to some comments below by other particles, on the face of it this seems to directly contradict Wikipedia's ethos, which welcomes all good-faith contributors, even those who are not especially vested in the article or are subject-matter experts. The corollary is that evidence-, policy-, and practice-based guides likely evinced by the vested contributors and subject-matter experts should not be disregarded out of hand. In terms of the heading of this proposed principle, I would agree that as volunteers there is no obligation that certain elements of article structure or development must be prioritized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Also per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 31 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]

Strongly oppose - this is an attempt to wrap up a fundamental tenet of ownership in the guise of "stewardship": the need for outsiders to ask permission. In fact the very language of "outsiders" is anathema to the way that Wikipedia works. It is perfectly reasonable to give due weight to arguments made by the principal author of an article; after all they have familiarised themselves with the subject far beyond most other editors. It is another thing thing altogether to give them the right of veto over changes to an article. This is the sort of behaviour that ArbCom really does need to concern themselves with. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, on the whole. In these days, the time of content editors is what the project is most short of. @RexxS, how much is "due weight" as far as Andy is concerned, would you say? Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask a question about Pink Floyd, I'd give a great deal of weight to Andy's comments, of course - he's a published author on the subject. But what makes someone a "content editor", John? Do you see yourself as a content editor, but not me? I've written Featured content and I'm an active member of two WikiProjects; I've also helped develop technical guidance on accessibility and the {{hlist}} template, not to mention helping create programs that import parsed data from Wikidata using Lua. Isn't that content? I'm afraid there is a disconnect in outlook between those who would categorise editors into "content editors" and "others". Why do we have to label editors and to what purpose, I wonder? --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could always ask me, John. Due weight means if an editor more knowledgeable than me corrects me on a point about, for example, the instrumentation or key of a composition, I will listen to them closely. If they tell me an infobox "looks awful", I give that personal opinion no more weight than that of any other individual. If they say that an infobox "adds nothing" or that arguments about metadata are "a scam", I give it less weight, as they have demonstrated (and in some cases, also admitted) an ignorance of the subject; just as I would expect my hypothetical comment that Mozart was a Swiss minimalist to be given little weight. What due weight, John and others, do you give to those with expertise in web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered then. Thanks. @Rexx, I notice the content-related "To do" list on your user page hasn't changed much in the 5 1/2 years since January 2008, tending to confirm my subjective impression that these days you spend most of your time on things other than writing article text, which with images etc is what I mainly mean by content, as most people do. But that comment referred to the general situation of course. Our inability and disinclination to distinguish between adding article text and other kinds of contribution leads to many misconceptions in the community about what is going on in the project imo. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have overlooked my question: "What due weight, John and others, do you give to those with expertise in web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a supplementary question for you, John (though of course others are welcome to answer, also). A yes/ no answer will suffice. Do you regard me as a content contributor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Due weight" is Rexx's concept, which I think is complete humbug in this context. Several editors have made up their minds that all articles, or certainly all the sorts of articles involved in this case, should have infoboxes, and give no weight whatsoever to to the views of local editors. Equally the anti-infobox local editors (though none are against all infoboxes, and they are readier to compromise with concealed boxes etc) have also made up their minds. All the regulars on both sides have by now heard all the arguments before, and proceed straight to scrapping. So here we are. Yes Andy, as you know I have added touches to articles of yours, & am aware you are a content editor, though I wouldn't say it's your main activity, & probably the considerable diversion from collective content-editing caused by the rows that follow you around is unfortunately your main impact on the content of the project. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS may have been the first to refer to the concept of "due weight" in this discussion, but you used it in your question "how much is 'due weight' as far as Andy is concerned". As both he and I have done you the courtesy of answering it, I would be grateful if you would now do me the same courtesy, and answer my question, which I repeat here for the third time: "What due weight, John and others, do you give to those with expertise in web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse?". I note that you acknowledge that I am a "content editor" but do not answer my question: "Do you regard me as a content contributor?". Finally, I note that your assertion " Several editors... give no weight whatsoever to to the views of local editor" is entirely without evidence; as is your snide and bogus allegation about my impact on the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence in your reply just above "If they tell me an infobox "looks awful", I give that personal opinion no more weight than that of any other individual. If they say that an infobox "adds nothing" or that arguments about metadata are "a scam", I give it less weight, as they have demonstrated (and in some cases, also admitted) an ignorance of the subject" and at many other places (from various people) in this case. Here's you giving "due weight" in practice (short section). By no means all of those asserting "expertise in web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse" take your line on infoboxes. Rexx & I talked of "content editors", normally the same as "content contributors" I'd say, though I have touched above on what your own net direct + indirect "contribution" might be. Here's one for you. Can you recall any article anywhere for which you have argued against having an infobox? Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to why you think me saying "no more weight than that of any other individual" or "less weight, [when] they have demonstrated (and in some cases, also admitted) an ignorance of the subject" equates to evidence of editors ((plural) giving "no weight whatsoever". Please can you explain? In the section to which you link, I describe a claim that "Infoboxes are an old fashioned, arguably outdated, way of presenting key information" as being "unsubstantiated and/ or bollocks". I am not sure on what basis you think Kleinzach, who made that comment, has expertise which adds weight to it. Nor, given that the discussion is on the talk page of a project of which he does not appear to be a member, how he qualifies as a "local editor". Please can you explain both? I note that you again fail to answer my two earlier questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have - you certainly haven't answered mine. Which of Kleinzach's other comments "One of the big problems with the bad boxes, is that the people putting them up don't read the (sensible) infobox guidelines. Infoboxes are an old fashioned, arguably outdated, way of presenting key information, and they must be actually useful to the reader to be viable" are "unsubstantiated" and which are "bollocks"? Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are unsubstantiated. Kleinzach obviously has no knowledge of what other editors have or have not read. The question of usefulness to the reader or re-user is a judgement call to be weighed against the other considerations on an article-by-article basis, not by a blanket ban by WP Classical Music. Note that the sensible guidance at Help:Infobox doesn't mention asking permission before making an edit. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

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]

What are "visiting editors"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 31 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:

I'm not sure you can argue that a Wikipedia-wide use of a template "supercedes" a smaller consensus. There are certainly times when Wikiprojects end up with bad guidelines or policies that specifically violate site-wide guidelines or policies; off the top of my head I remember that at one point the Harry Potter wikiproject had some really, really atrocious recommendations on writing about fictional subjects. But that seems different than this conflict, where MOS:INFOBOX contains no specifications on where or when infoboxes must be used, unless I'm mistaken. In that respect you could argue this is more akin to a case of federalism—where elements not explicitly stated in policy or guideline become fair game for Wikiprojects to tailor to their own needs. There are dangers to Wikiproject insularity—walled gardens of content and the like—but can that really be said about the use or lack thereof of a template? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I don't see reference to a template in this proposed finding, so David Fuchs' comments don't seem relevant here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 1 August 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]

I'm not clear which editors have "wandered in off the street", but if the assertion is that members of wikiprojcts, where there is no criteria for admission and no vetting, "undoubtedly" have a greater understanding of the subject than an editor who is not part of that project, or who is new to the article concerned, or even new to Wikipedia, then it is is plainly nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 3 August 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]

Johnuniq, you say "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'" Would you care to back up that assertion (Specifically "your comments should be disregarded"), with some evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do that right after you produce evidence that good-faith content builders have exhibited ownership (evidence other than ILIKEIT). Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire section of my evidence devoted to this topic. Your refusal to back up your claim with evidence is clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped the words "exhibited ownership" would indicate that I had read your evidence (the words are an adaption of your heading). Ownership is where one editor (or possibly two, rarely more) resists change to an article based on an opinion that proposed changes are unhelpful, and where there is no reason for opposition to the changes other than they are not liked by someone who has developed a major portion of the article. In the vast majority of infobox battles, there is no reason (and obviously no evidence because it involves a state of mind) to think ownership was a problem—plenty of reasons to oppose infoboxes were given, and infoboxes are not mandatory. If objecting to an infobox exhibits ownership, why is repeatedly inserting an infobox not the same? Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your narrow definition of ownership does not accord with that at WP:OWN, which also has a section on "Multiple-editor ownership". Since neither I nor anyone else has claimed that merely "objecting to an infobox" exhibits ownership, your question is a straw man. Your edit summary for the comment I'm replying to was "when I do it, it's good; when they do it, it's exhibiting ownership". Evidence of me exhibiting ownership has not been given. There is none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better summary would be there is no evidence of ownership by anyone in this dispute—claims of "ownership" are in the eye of the speaker. Why would I talk about WP:OWN if I had not read it? The section on multiple-editor ownership provides no support for your assertions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 5 August 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]

Does this motion apply to Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement too? It seems to have adopted a pro-infobox line. The brief membership list contains some familiar names from this RFAR (Pigsonthewing, Gerda Arendt, Ched, Montanabw, Pumpkinsky) [7]. The now banned Br'er Rabbit was also an enthusiastic boxer.--Folantin (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where WP:QAI would "own" anything, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Teaming up to push infoboxes on articles would constitute ownership. --Folantin (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ownership of what? The concept of an infobox? This proposed FoF is about WikiProjects. Are you going to accuse WikiProject Infoboxes of getting together a team of editors to push infoboxes? Where's the evidence? There are 63 named participants on Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes #Participants, how many of them have teamed up to push infoboxes onto articles? --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention WikiProject Infoboxes. --Folantin (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Folantin: define "teaming up". If two members of one project have the same point of view, may they both speak freely, without that label? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you have a project ("Quality Articles") which hosts a pro-infobox page in its space[8] and provides a handy guide to the location of current infobox disputes[9],it's hardly surprising when its members turn up on talk pages to approve boxes there (Talk:Rigoletto, Talk:Don Carlos, for instance). --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so surprising that two extra members (no more) turn up at one opera, commenting the redundancy of two navboxes on the same page which is no specific opera topic. Any editor is free to discuss, right? It wasn't even "voting", but collecting views. "Outside" views should be of interest. (Please note that the tables were assembled after the discussion contributions mentioned.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:QAI has only 10 members (let's leave the banned one out of this calculation). Five members of the project (50%) have taken part in this RFAR. In fact, one of its members initiated this very case. The scope of the project claims it is concerned with GAs and FAs. Yet four of its members (i.e. 40% of the project) have recently turned up at pages such as Talk:Rigoletto and Talk:Don Carlos, both merely B-Class articles. The project also hosts a page pointing to a selection of current infobox disputes [10]. 48 articles are listed there but - as far as I can see - only three are within the scope of the project (i.e. GAs or FAs). By my reckoning, 17 of the 48 articles (i.e.34%) listed on the project table concern opera and 29 of them classical music in general (i.e. 60%). That's a very surprising bias, especially given the fact the overwhelming majority of the articles listed (over 90%) do not appear to be within the stated scope of Wikiproject:Quality Articles Improvement. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the evidence, and can't seem to find any examples of people claiming that consensus at the QAI project gives weight to any argument for the exclusion of infoboxes. Can someone remind me where it is, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is WP:QAI hosting a page concerning infobox disputes, 90% of which are outside the scope of the project?~~

WP:QAI is a mysterious little outfit and I've only just become aware of it. It has very little visible presence around Wikipedia, does not advertise, and recruitment seems to be by invitation only. You don't need to state your consensus explicitly at QAI if members are handpicked.

A quick examination of the few references I could find to this project show at least two others have previously raised concerns about this being more of a team for mutual membership support than a regular project:

A comment at ANI last October (Br'er Rabbit ban proposal): Also, all of the members of the TFA clique at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement]] have commented here by now, with the exception of PumpkinSky. Seems that all his friends are coming out to support him and excusing the bad behavior

On a later occasion: You should be aware of [[WP:QAI]] by the way...

To which the reply is: I actually am aware of that page, and have noticed with some concern that certain editors FAs are always allowed a free pass in spite of long-standing and already discussed prose issues. It's most curious; some editors are exempt, while others are scrutinized. A bit cabalistic IMO --Folantin (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, absolutely no evidence whatsoever of people claiming that consensus at the QAI project gives weight to any argument for the exclusion of infoboxes, then. Unlike the many arguments about so-called consensus at the classical music projects to the reverse effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please answer my question: Why is WP:QAI hosting a page concerning infobox disputes, 90% of which are outside the scope of the project? --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't think it has anything to do with the topic "ownership of projects", but I can answer anyway: I made a list not of disputes, but mostly uncontentious infoboxes initiated by project members and often reverted or changed by others within short time. If it bothers you that it is on the QAI page I can put it in my userspace. The list was done AFTER some (very few) members appeared at some (very few) discussions. A look at the many reverts, culminating in yesterday's, would be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: update It's just been brought to my attention that Ched - never a very active member - left WP:QAI in April, although his name was subsequently re-added to the membership list by another user (see here for details[11]). Apologies to Ched for any confusion. That means - as far as I know - WP:QAI only has 9 active members, four of them involved in this case (Pigsonthewing, Gerda Arendt, Pumpkinsky, Montanabw). Those are the four members (i.e. 44% of the project) active on Talk:Rigoletto and Talk:Don Carlos, both merely B-Class articles and therefore outside the stated scope of WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what your calculations have to do with "ownership of projects". I may have a language problem, you "define" the scope of the project too limited, "namely GA and FA" means "mostly GA and FA" to me. We don't team up, every contributor pursues own goals and topics (sometimes together, Kafka, Sergeant Reckless, Opernhaus Wuppertal), with some common goals such as "Improving and proper use of referencing, infoboxes and templates are areas of interest to this project.". If you need to do math: I listed 46 places where 2 members added or suggested infoboxes. You found 2 cases where 2 other members commented. You didn't look closely: on Don Carlos it was only one. What is your point? My math is: of the 40 additions, 31 were reverted, - and please note the charming edit summaries, from no summary at all via "cleanup" and "No thanks, Gerda, this infrobox is absolutely horrendous and ugly" to "Revert infobox - unreasonable to insert without discussion". (Note: It is reasonable to insert without discussion = without asking permission for an edit.) Waste of time was mentioned above, wasn't it you? Götterdämmerung could look like this, - now it looks again like all other works by Wagner. I invited for a discussion when I added, and it had started, on content, until the revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: The guidance concerning infoboxes is not only located at MOS. Infobox templates are so ubiquitous on Wikipedia that they have their own help page: Help:Infobox, where guidance is given about where, when and how infoboxes can be used. There is policy (in the sense of a clear outcome from a community-wide RfC) that "infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited". Any Wikiproject that prohibits infoboxes from articles that it deems within its scope is in breach of that consensus and is guilty of ownership, pure and simple. Arbitrators will hopefully understand the damage that sort of behaviour does to good-faith editing and be willing to acknowledge that fact. Not doing so will be seen as a green-light for a Wikiproject to create the very walled-gardens that concern you. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Breadth of issues related to infoboxes

1) Decisions on the inclusion or non-inclusion of infoboxes (whether in individual articles or in broad classes of articles), infobox design and coding, and selection of information to include in infoboxes have diverse implications (for example, for the look and feel of the encyclopedia, for the interfaces experienced by different users, for the availability of metadata, and for information integrity) that few individual contributors (if any) fully understand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Robert McClenon (talk)

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.

Establish an EN-Wikipedia editorial board

1) Establish an EN-Wikipedia editorial board to provide high-level coordination of (and arbitration on) policy and standards on editorial style (i.e., the Manual of Style) and similar content issues, including the inclusion, design and content of infoboxes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've been thinking about this for a while and I don't agree. From a bureaucratic point of view, the Arbitration Committee should not be recommending the setup of other committees. It should be solely down to the community to suggest and design such a group. From the stand point of a member of the community, I don't like it either. The end goal appears to be taking decisions on content out of the hands of the community as a whole and putting it in the hands of a selected group of people. However, that goes against the way the encyclopedia works, decisions should be made by consensus and that consensus can change. As long as there's a smaller committee, these things will be more difficult to change as institutional memory becomes a much larger factor. I'd have a lot of questions before supporting an editorial board, or any new heirarchy. Worm^TT(talk) 11:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The end goal appears to be taking decisions on content out of the hands of the community as a whole and putting it in the hands of a selected group of people" - Quite so; and the same goes for proposals to put decision-making in the hands of wikiprojects. Except that they're self-selected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Out of scope here; start an RfC if you want this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Years of experience indicate that some content disputes, including the disputes over infoboxes, don't ever get settled through discussions on article talk pages and at Wikiprojects. As in this case, different good-faith contributors often come to these issues with different knowledge bases and perspectives (e.g., a focus on providing metadata versus a focus on accuracy of factual information); each party is convinced that their position is in the best interest of Wikipedia; and they often lack the knowledge background and other resources needed to fully evaluate the merits of the other parties' reasoning. Arbcom can't arbitrate content disputes. An editorial board could be empowered to arbitrate chronically unsettleable broad questions of "style", such as what criteria should determine whether an article gets an infobox or whether to use lowercase or uppercase in the common names of species. An editorial board determination would foreclose future community discussions on the broad question that it addressed, although focused discussions would still occur on specific implementations (such as what to include in the infobox on the "Foo" page), and editorial board decisions would inevitably be open to some sort of appeal. The editorial board probably should consist of volunteer contributors, with "ex officio" involvement by WMF personnel who can weigh in (as needed) regarding matters like relationship to WMF visions, effect on server loads, legal implications, and effects across WMF projects. --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett: I recognize that Arbcom cannot take unilateral action to establish an editorial board, but a recommendation from Arbcom to the WMF (and the community) would carry a lot of weight -- particularly if supported by an indication of the number of cases (both accepted and rejected) they have received that involved problems that might have been avoided or ameliorated if such a board existed. --Orlady (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - An editorial board, with control over the MOS and at least a strong advisory role on high-level content issues, would be very useful. It is true that ArbCom cannot create it, but I would ask them to recommend its creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably out of scope here, but the usual discussion model has more or less broken down here, and beyond conduct issues, some solution is needed, although this could be just a few changes to the wording of WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have mixed feeling about an editorial board, but leaning support. Like Worm, I'm concerned about taking editorial decisions from the hands of the community and vesting them in a select group. It goes against the desire to avoid a hierarchy, as much as possible. That said, there may be a way to eat our cake and have it, too. While I recognize the folly of using ArbCom as a model, I'll do it anyway. Rather than choose an editorial board which has authority over all things editorial, choose a body which is to be the venue of last resort. The desired process is the same as always - editors discussing and reaching a consensus, informally on small issues, with a more formal RfC on bigger issues, and reserve the committee (I'll call it EdCom as placeholder) for issues that have not been resolved by the usual channels. Picking on infoboxes as an example, if EdCom were created tomorrow, their first piece of business would not be to resolve the infobox issue. Someone would have to ask them to get involved, and the committee would have to see evidence that serious attempts have been made to resolve it and failed. To summarize, a board would not be the venue of first resort, but the venue of last resort. (However, I do not feel it is the place of ArBCom to propose such a board, it is up to us.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unauthorized ArbCom action, but support the idea of a content arbitration board in general while at the same time noting that this is a perennial suggestion (including my own conceptual draft for one) which never gains traction with the community as a whole. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

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:

I'm not happy with the word "often", per Keithbob. The large number of infoboxes across all articles (something like half the articles, certainly hitting "random page" a few times demonstrates how prevalent they are) means that we should tread carefully on how big a problem this is in terms of this very large encyclopedia. We should not be discouraging bold editing for the vast majority of the encyclopedia, just because there are issues in this corner. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Agree with Keithbob, especially "Assume Good Faith" regarding the addition of an infobox. - However, at present one editor even removed a reverted infobox from the talk page, as you will know from my evidence, for an opera (Don Carlos), not even a contentious topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 August 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]

Oppose. Infoboxes are not inherently controversial and 1.5 million uses testify to that. It is perfectly true that some infoboxes may oversimplify and therefore require discussion, but it is a non-sequitur to demand that all edits that add infoboxes must be discussed on the talk page first. This is symptomatic of an ownership mindset and contrary to the nature of editing on Wikipedia. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit (but only if you ask permission first). --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's well over 1.5 million. Over ~~1.58 million~~ Update: over 1.7 million use {{Infobox}}, but there are also very many infoboxes which do not (yet) do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rexxs, I don't think that's a non-sequitur; I would say it is excessive to require every infobox be discussed. The statement doesn't say every box need be discussed though. It says questions should be addressed first. If there are none, then no discussion ought be required. For example, I think there would be no questions regarding an infobox on an athelete: the numbers are concrete, no one will dispute them. Bramble claw x 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the proposal "whether an article should have an infobox -- should be discussed on article talk pages first" is exactly the requirement that every infobox be discussed before editing, so I'm at a loss to understand how you could interpret it so differently. I assure you that those who wish to stop any infoboxes being added to the articles they own would read this proposal as a green light to insist that everybody has to ask for permission first under pain of ArbCom sanctions. No, this really won't do. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're parsing the sentence differently while reading. What I see here is "it is important that questions about infoboxes... should be discussed on article talk pages first"; with the parenthetical "-- including whether an article should have an infobox --" indicating that this is one such question. You seem to be taking it as this is a question which must be considered for every page, whereas I'm seeing the sentence say that this could potentially, but not necessarily, be one such question. Bramble claw x 01:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we're parsing differently. The proposal declares that questions about infoboxes should be discussed first; and parenthetically states that the decision to have an infobox is such a question. I can't see how you can then claim that the decision is not necessarily such a question, when the proposal unambiguously says it is. There really is no doubt that the proposal requires anyone wanting to add an infobox to discuss that on the talk pages first. That contradicts WP:CONACHIEVE and therefore makes it unacceptable as a principle. You should be opposing this proposal as diametrically opposed to a core Wikipedia policy: consensus. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is if no one questions it, then that particular question need not apply in that situation. Bramble claw x 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but surely the normal editing process is to make the edit first and then see what questions arise? --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, seeing as this sort of action has tended to be controversial in the past, I would say that to persist in adding boxes boldly starts leaving the territory of "bold" and more "foolhardy", knowing very well such an action is likely to cause arguments. Bramble claw x 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We debate issues to find consensus (when it is disputed) by argument. I see no reason to abandon our principle of bold editing as the first step simply because we suspect that we may need to argue our position later. The problem here is not bold editing, but refusal of the anti-infoboxers to engage in constructive discussion. Even when good-faith editors raise the issues on the talk page first, they are attacked immediately - see Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive 13 for a blatant example: no attempt to engage with the arguments, just a personal attack. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for noting that Wagner is not the right example, because it was only to the talk page and intended to stay there, not bold at all. Better look at example Götterdämmerung. I didn't think the change was bold, but looking at the discussion on the talk, it was. Paraphrasing from just above: I think there would be no questions regarding the facts in this infobox, no one would dispute it. Wrong: there are those who dislike the concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Oppose: Support the idea that infoboxes are often controversial, oppose the idea that they cannot be added boldly. The problem isn't infoboxes, it's fighting over infoboxes (and their content) which is the problem. I'd propose that a one contentious edit per week (not per day) rule ought to apply, but ArbCom cannot do that arbitrarily. They can however impose discretionary sanctions on the creation and use of infoboxes and that's what ought to be done here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 7 August 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:

There are some good points here, especially that of CurlyTurkey. Infoboxes do not appear to be contentious on a larger scale, just in the context of some articles. Keithbob and Johnbod's discussion leading to the idea of "using common sense to avoid disruption" is also worth considering. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I don't agree that infoxes are of "contentious nature". Most are not. It is not practical to ask "permission" on the talk page every time, and not easy to determine who may grant that permission, especially in cases of "no consensus". I suggest to add an infobox to the article in cases believed to be not contentious, and only go to the talk page - with the infobox visible - if someone sees a reason to revert it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Gerda said here, sometimes consensus for every single article is problematic. WP:BRD applies and is the better policy, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 7 August 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"~~ "systematically". 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]

Oppose. The presence or absence of an infobox should indeed be determined by consensus, but consensus is determined on Wikipedia primarily by making an edit and seeing if it sticks. See WP:CONACHIEVE. This proposal subverts the natural mechanism of editing on Wikipedia by attempting to force editors into seeking permission from the article owners before making an edit. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 31 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~~ 1.7 million) used throughput Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey: an extra c. ~~200,000~~ 130,000 infoboxes in three days? Who has added those? - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? BTW, I've already evidenced the statistics in my evidence; you've misquoted them - downwards - in yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No: when I added my evidence, the figure was correct (1.58 million, from memory, and indeed was a figure you also used). It still means that since my evidence was added, when the figure stood at 1.58 million, it has now risen to 1.715 million, a rise of c. 130,000. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Your evidence says "There are only c.1.5 million infoboxes present on the 4,294,480 articles on Wikipedia". Even if the first figure in that statement were changed to 1,715 million, it would still be a false claim, misleadingly understating the true figure. My evidence is "Wikipedia has well over 1.7 million infoboxes using {{Infobox}} alone ([12]) and many others beside (N.B. very incomplete list)". You are misrepresenting the figure for the subset of infoboxes using the {{tl|Infobox}] base template as being the number of all infoboxes. Anyone can see through such disinformation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balls to your accusations of disinformation and misrepresentation and don't use such inflammatory language. Jarry's toolserver counted 1.58 million articles using {{Infobox}} 3 days ago: today it counts 1.715 million articles using that same template. Regardless of all the other specialist or minor templates, it's still a rise of 130,000 for that template alone, and however you may try and fudge the figures it's still a significant rise that seems to be completely out of the norm. - SchroCat (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deliberately misrepresent a lower figure as being the totality of something which in fact has a far higher figure. The rise of the former has nothing to do with that; and my evidence proves that you do. Your smear of "fudging" though, is baseless and I challenge you to substantiate it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My original question related to the rise if the ocurrances of the {{Infobox}} template over the last three days from 1.58 million to 1.71 million. That question still stands. You have tried to fudge that question by bringing in elements that mean nothing to the rise of the {{Infobox}} template by 130,000. That fudge is now substantiated. Care to address the original question, or will you try and evade it again? -SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of "Fudging the figures". That accusation is false; you have yet to substantiate it. You now accuse me also of " fudging a question". That accusation is also false. The question to which you refer was "an extra c. ~~200,000~~ 130,000 infoboxes in three days? Who has added those?". I responded to that question by asking you "Who said that?". My question has not been answered (has it been "fudged? I'll let others decide). Since no-one, but you, has claimed that anyone added "~~200,000~~ 130,000 infoboxes in three days", your question is both nonsensical and unanswerable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid, evade, smear, dodge and finally don't bother to answer the question. All it needs is a false accusation of an ad hominem comment and a misused claim of a non-sequitur and you'd have covered all your usual "discussion" techniques. Don't bother about answering the question of where 130,00 new articles using the {{Infobox}} template come from: I don't have the appetite to listen to any more. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was not "where 130,00 [sic] new articles using the {{Infobox}} template come from"; it was "an extra c. ~~200,000~~ 130,000 infoboxes in three days? Who has added those?". I'll leave it for the reader to determine the significant difference between them. And I'll note again that you not only misrepresent a subset of infoboxes as being all infoboxes, but have neither acknowledged nor rectified that. Through further diligence, I have now identified that we have over 2,178,000 infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure most readers will wonder where 130,000 new infoboxes have come from in three days, just as I am sure they will see you have avoided the main point again (and again and again...); sadly it won't surprise anyone as not answering questions is common in most "discussions" in which you take part. - SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask you again: Who said anything about "130,000 new infoboxes"? Until you answer that, and thereby clarify your first, nonsensical, question, it remains unanswerable. It is you who is evading and not answering. Also, you have still not substantiated your smear that I have "fudged the figures". Will you acknowledge that you cannot do so, or do you intend to avoid, evade and dodge that point, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are failing to understand here, although I suspect you are doing it deliberately and I hugely bored of going round in circles while you oil your way out of any discussion. Let me try and put this in the most simple terms possible, so that perhaps even you can understand it:

Three days ago Jarry's Toolserver reported 1.58 million incidences of the {{Infobox}} template being used.
Three days later the figure of uses of the {{Infobox}} template had risen by c. 130,000, from 1.58 million to 1.71 (now 1.72) million
Where have those additional 130,000 (now 140,000) uses of the {{Infobox}} template come from and who has added them?

Is that simple enough for you to understand? It's the same question I have been asking throughout, and it is perfectly normal, makes sense, is correct and is the same question you have been struggling to understand throughout. If you fail to even attempt to answer something so straightforward then I am sure people will be able to draw their own conclusions. If nothing else, the Arbs will also have yet another piece of evidence of how you conduct yourself in discussions and how you frustrate others trying to get a simple answer. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for finally clarifying and rephrasing your question, which I can now answer. The likeliest reason that the figure for the number of transclusions of {{Infobox}} rose by 130,000 is that a template with 130,000 transclusions (or ten templates with an average of 13,000 transclusions each, or some other permutation) which was coded in HTML or raw wikicode and did not use {{Infobox}} as its base, was converted to do so; or redirected to one that did; or deleted and replaced by one that did. This happens a lot. This does not mean that there any additional infoboxes in articles. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Your original question, "an extra c. ~~200,000~~ 130,000 infoboxes in three days? Who has added those?" is not the same as "Where have those additional 130,000 (now 140,000) uses of the {{Infobox}} template come from". It was not "the same question throughout". The former was unanswerable, as I have already indicated, because the "extra infoboxes" to which it refers do not exist.

If nothing else, the Arbs now have yet another piece of evidence of how you conduct yourself in discussions and how you frustrate others trying to deal with factual matters.

Will you please now address the following points, numbered for your convenience:

Your evidence misrepresents the ~1.7 million transclusions of {{Infobox}} as being the only infoboxes on Wikipedia articles. As I have demonstrated, this underestimates the total number of infoboxes on Wikipedia articles by at least 500,000 (half a million). the English Wikipedia has more than 2,265,000. infoboxes. You have done nothing to acknowledge or address this. As such, your evidence is disinformation.
You have yet to substantiate your allegation of me "Fudging the figures". You cannot do so.

I have put these points to you more than once, already. If you fail to even attempt to answer something so straightforward then I am sure people will be able to draw their own conclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @SchroCat:, who, though editing several times since I asked them, appears to have overlooked these questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to wait some time and go to some frustrating lengths to get a simple straight answer form you. You can now wait for an answer, which I will give when I am ready, and not at your behest. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you had my response to your first question, asking for clarification, in four hours to the minute (during most of which time I wasn't editing). It took you some time to make that clarification, but once you did, you had my full and frank answer in a shave over half an hour. At no time, though, did I tell you you would have to wait merely for me to be ready to give you the courtesy of a response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance the speediness (or not) of the responses actually is. My editing time is severely decreased at weekends and I prefer not to spend it in further depressing rounds of bitch fighting, which I find hideous at the best of times, but especially when I am trying to spend time with my family. Having you ping me and harass me about providing an answer I find most unwelcoming. I suggest we draw a line under it as it is an entirely pointless discussion.
Thank you for finally providing an answer. I think the interaction is one of the major problems when it comes to infobox discussions. Could I offer an alternative and far more attractive scenario?

SchroCat: Blimey: an extra c. 200,000 infoboxes in three days? Who has added those? The question may be slightly inaccurate, (and the figure also), but it's obvious that there is a desire to find out where the extra boxes came from.

Andy Mabbett: "It's not a question of who, but what. The likeliest reason that the figure for the number of transclusions of {{Infobox}} rose by 130,000 is that a template with 130,000 transclusions… etc with the rest of this edit". You could even have pointed out the error in the infobox figures, which I would have subsequently addressed, but you get the general idea.

SchroCat: OK. Thanks for that, interesting to know. Followed by addressing the point on the erroneous infobox figures.

See? Not so difficult, was it? Look a bit more closely at the scenario: Interactions: Three. Frustration and anger levels: non-existent. Even a possibility that you would have gained a bit of respect in speedily identifying the issue, explained it clearly and neutrally and then gone on to address the figures. What actually happened? Interactions: FOURTEEN (and then your subsequent pinging). Frustration and anger levels: Bloody high.

I don't know if you enjoy the drama of arguing with people, or whether you have to somehow treat others with some sort of arrogant disdain, but most of us edit Wiki for enjoyment, not for cock-fighting. I don't find it strange that a number of people have left Wiki after numerous dealings with you. Your method and style of interaction are so infuriating that you do you pro-infobox colleagues more harm than good when you interact with others. You could easily have answered what was a simple and obvious point, but you chose to dance around the topic, not giving an answer for reasons I can only guess at and I actually pity you for approaching interactions like this. I will not respond to any further questions or points you wish to raise, although I doubt very much whether that will stop you soapboxing further. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to address the figures. Yes, you are entirely right about the extra templates, which I had overlooked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the speediness of my responses is that you chose to bring it into the conversation ("I had to wait some time... to get a simple straight answer"), despite the fact that these delays were wholly due to me having to wait for your clarification. Another imaginary conversation could have had you clarifying what you were asking, the first time I asked you to; but instead you choose to resort to abuse ("Avoid, evade, smear, dodge"). You claim to have merely overlooked the half-million plus infoboxes deficient in your evidence, but when I pointed out your misrepresentation, above, your response was "Balls to your accusations of disinformation and misrepresentation"; not an acknowledgement that your evidence is false. I take it that your stated intent to not engage further means that you acknowledge my point above, which you again do not address: You have yet to substantiate your allegation of me "Fudging the figures". You cannot do so.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 4 August 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]

Strong disagree. The vast majority of additions of infoboxes are done in good faith, with the intention of improving Wikipedia, and should not be treated as disruptive editing. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This depressing section seems to encapsulate one of the main issues. SchroCat asks a simple question, for which there is a simple answer. Yet we have to endure a long, tiresome wikilawyering sequence before finally learning the boring answer. Need I point out the dual irony of disruptive editing in a section about disruptive editing, and a party to a case about bad behavior, behaving badly? (Presumptive response—yes, it is possible to be disruptive without uttering a false statement.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heading needed here?

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]

Agree This is not in conflict with the mantra that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. However, when an article passes either the GA or FA hurdle, the process of making further changes should become a little more difficult. Not impossible, as we do not have an FA that cannot be improved, but I see nothing wrong with making the process somewhat different than for a stub that is begging for improvement. I'll also add strong agreement to a special case of this concept: It is extremely rude to add (or remove) an infobox from an article that is about to be named a TFA. While a newbie might not fully appreciate the effort needed to get an article to an FA level, and the resulting pride at seeing one's efforts showcased on one of the world's most trafficked websites, I am unable to comprehend the mindset of a regular who thinks this is a fine time to make a substantive change.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:57, 7 August 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]

But, as far as I'm aware, only one editor has been present in all the infobox discussions linked in the Evidence: Pigsonthewing.--Folantin (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence? Not mine where I list more infoboxes for myself than him. Not Nikkimaria's who watched me adding 14 in 30 minutes, - she knows my edits much better than I do. "Infoboxes" is the topic, not one person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you, and a few others have chosen to target my editing rather than discuss the wider issues at hand is clear for all to see. But even so, your insinuation is false, as Gerda explains, and as can be seen by examining evidence from people not in that group, such as Montanabw and Orlady. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few others? There's a good reason why multiple independent witnesses from across Wikipedia mention your name time and time again. I've been counting the number of infobox disputes you've been involved in since your last block. So far there are well over 30 and I'm not done yet. --Folantin (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything wrong with being involved in infobox discussions? I am involved in many, it's part of finding consensus. You can take my list (link above) as a starting point. Look at some of the latest entries: Infobox reverted by third party, but the principal author likes it. Infobox suggested and accepted by the principal author, article nominated for GA, the image a Featured picture now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason I chose the phrase "infobox disputes" here.--Folantin (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folatin, you are drawing conclusions unwarranted by the evidence. Please quote evidence that supports your accusations or withdraw them. It is quite clear that no editor has been present in all of the discussions linked in the Evidence, as Gerda has already pointed out and it only takes a few moments to see that Montanabw references Talk:St Matthew Passion structure where Andy is not involved. You should not be making false statements in an ArbCom case in the hope of advancing your POV. We don't conduct arbitration cases by simply throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick - and I see far too much of that already from the pitchfork brigade. I hope that arbitrators reading these fabrications will seriously consider steps they can take to prevent unsupported calumnies in this case - does Wikipedia:No personal attacks somehow not apply to ArbCom pages? --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all is an exaggeration then. Pigsonthewing is simply the most enthusiastically tendentious editor in infobox disputes. The evidence multiple independent editors have come up with at this RFAR supports this.--Folantin (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's enthusiastic, but not tendentious (partisan, biased or skewed) - there's a difference. When was the last time Andy was sanctioned for tendentious editing? Of course, since that's just an essay, you won't find any sanctions. Where are the relevant, recent diffs that illustrate disruptive editing, as that is sanctionable? Or are you advocating banning Andy from topics because you feel he's violated an essay? --RexxS (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hairsplitting over terminology is dodging the issue. The key point is that multiple independent editors at this RFAR have said they have had severe problems with Pigsonthewing's behaviour. This doesn't just concern articles about music, but architecture, paintings, novels, roads etc. etc. When users I've never met from areas of Wikipedia I've never edited are reporting they've had same experience with PotW, that's telling me something. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hairsplitting when you understand that substituting a pejorative term for an accurate one unfairly maligns another editor. You also need to show the diffs where the problems with Andy's behaviour happened - preferably something a bit more recent than years ago. Just because those editors who don't like infoboxes don't like Andy, that doesn't mean we have to take their condemnation as Gospel. Where's the evidence? --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is on the Evidence page.--Folantin (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't and you're just making this up on hearsay. That's not evidence --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I view Andy's infoboxes as helpful additions to articles where I have not yet added one. I find he does not "demand," he simply presents a compelling case and I usually see the wisdom of his comments. Where I have had minor disagreements, I have found him willing to drop the stick and move on. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 6 August 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 sided. So far PWW/Andy has been banned from editing info boxes on FA of the day articles. I would be in favor of extending the ban to FA of the Day discussions but not sure I would extend it to all infoboxes on any article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The principles that this remedy is built upon are contradictory to core Wikipedia policies; the finding of fact preceding it makes claims unsupported by Evidence. This so-called "tendentious editing" is based on events that happened in 2006 and 2007 - yes that's a history, but it's ancient history, and as far as I can see completely unrelated to the problems of infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all of the above and all my comments elsewhere on this page. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 6 August 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]

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]

RexxS has dealt with the issue of statistics; and for several of even the small sample listed, there is no relevant infobox available. Is it any wonder that there is perceived to be no-one "clamouring for the addition of an infobox" on TFA talk pages, when an editor adding one is hauled to AN/ANI for supposedly being disruptive, and then hauled there again more than once for having the temerity to politely suggest one on a talk page? Of course, such actions against one editor have a chilling effect on others. A cynical bystander might think that the point of such actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 1 August 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]

Gerda, allow me to translate: "There was no-one clamouring (sic; read: "asking") for an infobox until someone asked for one". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 1 August 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]

So what you're saying is that in the 180 days or so since 1 February 2013, when English National Opera appeared on the Main Page, you found 18 articles that had no infobox. That's 10% of Featured Articles lacking an infobox. It looks to me more like the finding-of-fact ought to be "90% of Todays Featured Articles have infoboxes". In fact, if you examine a random sample of about 30 articles from the list at Wikipedia:Featured Articles, you'll probably find about 75% have infoboxes. There is little doubt that the majority of developed articles have an infobox. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those on discrete "object" type topics (people, places, taxa, works, single events) may well do, but most of those on more conceptual topics, which are actually the core of our encyclopedic content, mostly don't. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are composer not people? "Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. One of the issues here is the combination of lip service paid to our policy that infoboxes are not required combined with an unshakeable belief that all (or almost all) articles are improved by an infobox. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"lip service paid to our policy that infoboxes are not required" - Evidence? Talking of lip-service, I think you will find that the policy is "Neither required nor prohibited". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with so many of these issues relating to the improbability of normal discussion reaching a consensus you and Rexx are kindly providing volumes of evidence daily on this page. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 6 August 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]

It is simply untrue that 'all recent opera articles have an infobox' - although Gerda is keen to add them where they don't. It is an option which has been discussed on WP Opera without direction as to whether it should be a standard. Gerda has in recent weeks frequently added infoboxes to both recent and existing articles without consultation, although she is perfectly aware that this is contentious. Provocative behaiour of this type should be restrained.--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's not "all", only "most". Infobox is not a standard, but an option that I like to use. The addition to Fatinitza was suggested on the talk page first (!) and further discussed with the author. Recent opera-related articles which were shown on the Main page (DYK) have included: Staatstheater Darmstadt, Staatstheater Mainz, Opernhaus Wuppertal, Fatinitza, Die Hamletmaschine, Cyberiada, Friedrich Meyer-Oertel, Gormenghast, Yvonne, Prinzessin von Burgund and Bluthochzeit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"without consultation" - Which WP policy requires consultation before bold edits? "aware that this is contentious" - aware that there is ownership in place, more like, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

I don't agree. See similar section above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Disagree, per comments above. Andy is an expert on infoboxes. This would be like saying classical music experts should be topic-banned from editing classical music articles. Cut off someone's head isn't going to help the wiki. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen and noted Andy Mabbitt's behavior on the subject, recently and in the past, regrettably, short of an outright ban from the project this is the wisest possible solution. However, even if this solution were to be accepted, I feel that he would have difficulties accepting it and would eventually have to be banned again, but at least he has a chance and the Arbitration Committee can avoid accusations of Draconian law. It's said above that Andy Mabbitt is an "expert on infoboxes" and for that reason cannot be prevented from editing on the subject; quite frankly, even I can make an infobox; I fail to see what is so expert and difficult about it. Perhaps saying that he's an 'dedicatee of infoboxes' would be a more accurate term. Giano 09:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. The best solution by far. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw admonished for incivility and increasing talk page friction

~~On 15 July, Montanabw made an unprovoked attack on another user (Smerus) on Rigoletto, calling him a "nasty S.O.B."[13]. --Folantin (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

@Pigsonthewing: as if phrasing it "you're just behaving like a rather nasty S.O.B." makes a big difference. The unsubstantiated claims of "bullying and intimidation" have still not been withdrawn. --Folantin (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

@Montanabw You still haven't supplied any evidence to back your "assertion that Gerda has been unjustifiably bullied and that other editors have attempted to intimidate her." --Folantin (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

@Montanabw Once again I invite a neutral observer to look at Talk:Rigoletto. You and three other members of WP:QAI were present there before Smerus even turned up. Your first edit was 8 July [14], Smerus's was 12 July [15]. Gerda Arendt, Pumpkinsky and Pigsonthewing were also there before Smerus. So much for "ganging up". --Folantin (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arbs: I'm withdrawing this in a bid to decrease some of the friction here --Folantin (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Folantin keeps repeating this false accusation, here and on other pages, despite me pointing out to him above: "What she said was, in full 'Smerus, I read that article, that's a different discussion about style and content. Here, you're just behaving like a rather nasty S.O.B. who is insisting that everyone else is far inferior to you. It's this sort of bullying and intimidation that discourages the people who actually try to improve the encyclopedia.'". Further, she has already apologised above for what she did say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

::Like Andy said. I firmly stand by my assertion that Gerda has been unjustifiably bullied and that other editors have attempted to intimidate her, while she has remained gracious and above the fray. I also stand firmly by my assertion that Andy has also been bullied and subjected to attempts at intimidation, though he's been feistier and punched back pretty good. As for moi, I'm not a party to this case, but if Smerus personally asks me (not demands, asks) for an apology specifically for a moment of hotheadedness where I made use of the term "S.O.B." - beyond what I just apologized for below, (noting that I HAVE already apologized) then I will think about it (noting for all concerned the precedent of Eric Corbett, whose use of profanity is legendary). Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

@Folantin, see evidence page, or heck just read what Smerus said to Gerda at Rigoletto and other pages within the same time period. Add to that his treatment of Andy throughout all the evidence presented. If you don't see what I see, then I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Absolutely not "unprovoked." I don't start this stuff, but I will stand up to bullies and I don't back down. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comments above per reciprocity and truce with Folantin. Withdrawn Montanabw^(talk) 22: 35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposals by RexxS

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as standard first principle needed in this case to establish what we're doing and how we expect to be doing it. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission

2) Wikipedia's mission is to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support. I'm here precisely because of this. When people oppose restating this principle, ask yourself why they would. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that we intend to disseminate our content as widely as possible. Taken from Jimbo's quote. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as relevant. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes by Jimbo might work nicely for the fundraising banner, but aren't relevant here. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (Main Page), or more simply "an encyclopedia" (WP:5P). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: Feelgood but meaningless. "The sum of all knowledge?" Going to be posting classified military information and the secret formula for Coca Cola, are we? (Plus, "every single human being" discriminates against our most important readers: computers). --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every single email from WMF contains those words. It is Wikipedia's mission to give as many people as possible access to as much knowledge as possible. Those that disagree with that are free to set up their own wiki and leave the rest of us to get on with our mission here. It is also very relevant to this case which needs to examine blinkered attempts to straitjacket contributors into a narrow endeavour that would simply duplicate a paper encyclopedia. That is not what we're about at all. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::So it's a mission to straitjacket information into boxes rather than show potential terrorists how to make a dirty bomb (which would be covered by "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge")? --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I had expected it was below you. Do you really want to censor information on Wikipedia? That puts you in a pretty small minority. You should be working with the rest of us to spread the joy of knowledge as wide as possible, not lock it up into some elitist endeavour for just the privileged. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::: Are you familiar with the expression "motherhood and apple pie"? I'm guessing not. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm familiar with the expression. Why are you against it? --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, nobody is advocating censoring information, but recognizing that there are things that Wikipedia is not. The WMF may adopt the mission you propose, but under the Wikimedia umbrella are several projects, of which Wikipedia is only one: WikiQuote, WikiSpecies...and the one most relevant to your proposal, WikiData. We might agree that Wikimedia may have the mission you propose, but Wikipedia is dedicated only to the "encyclopedia" portion of "all human knowledge". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what point are you making, Nikki? This principle can be found at meta:Vision and is part of our shared aspiration for all our projects, not just some. Wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, especially needs to be disseminated as widely as we can arrange, and nothing in "things that Wikipedia is not" contradicts that. There is a mindset, evident throughout this case, that believes we are producing nothing more than the equivalent of a paper encyclopedia online for a pre-determined, circumscribed audience. We will kill our project if we attempt to limit who may use our material. I'm not even asking editors to join me in making Wikipedia's content available to everyone; I'm just asking that others don't actively try to stop me doing so. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making my point for me: the principle at Meta is for Wikimedia projects together, not individually. Your proposal, though, was that it was for Wikipedia alone, which is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikidata is a database; together they and the other projects may aspire to the sum of all knowledge, but separately they aspire only to fulfilling their specific missions. We're not trying to be elitist, but we must recognize that different users have different needs, and that one project cannot reasonably satisfy all needs: you'd want to send a non-English-speaker to a Wikipedia in their language, you'd send someone seeking travel guides to Wikivoyage, and someone seeking data would be best served by the project whose mandate is to compile it – Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're way off the mark. The vision at Meta is for each and every Wikimedia project, not just some. My proposal certainly doesn't advocate for Wikipedia alone as anybody who reads it can see: "Wikipedia's mission is to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." There's nothing there that excludes any other project. Anyway, that's a red herring - if anyone wants to deny that we have a mission to make the content of Wikipedia available to everyone, then let them just say so. Personally, I believe that is part of our mission. Surely you don't want 4 millions articles that only a select group can read? Sadly that's exactly what elitism is, and I don't think you can review my work on accessibility without accepting that I'm the first to recognise that different users have different needs and I'm actively involved in doing something about it. But they don't need different projects to access the knowledge contained in Wikipedia; they just need that knowledge disseminated to them. I can't send a non-English-speaker to a Wikipedia in their language if the article doesn't exist in their language, can I? But I'm involved with helping Translators Without Borders make our medical articles available to those non-English-speakers, so I think I know something of the problems. As for Wikidata, I have a suspicion you've never looked at it. Are you really suggesting we send people wanting data on Stanley Kubrick to wikidata:Q2001? Seriously? If it's ok with you, I think I'll carry on working to make Wikipedia available to everybody. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in a mission statement or policy does it say that infoboxes are mandatory? This proposed principle could be claimed as supporting any view in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed principle does not mention infoboxes, either way. Do you wish to dispute it ion a relevant basis? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus by editing

3) Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that consensus is normally achieved by editing. Taken directly from Wikipedia:Consensus. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. But here this process has largely broken down, and "discussion on the associated talk pages" does not "continue[s] the process toward consensus" but adds further rancour to a gap that is not likely to be bridged. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed John, and that is precisely why I bring this principle to this case. I take it then that you support the principle as accurate and relevant. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of the "process toward consensus" continuing in the extremely extended discussion of the issue in the various pages of this case. All and any arguments that not every single article should not have an infobox is dismissed as "bogus" (word of the week apparently) and so on. Everybody involved agrees only that infoboxes suit some kinds of articles well; there is no anti-infobox equivalent of the hard-line view that all articles (except lists, disams etc) must have one, and the views of the people who wrote them are just OWNING. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of "all and any arguments that not every single article should not have an infobox [being] dismissed as "bogus'". I see no sign of anyone arguing "that all articles (except lists, disams etc) must have one". I see no sign of anyone asserting "that views" of any people "are just OWNING". Once again, John, where is your evidence?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus by discussion

4) A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that consensus building has to acknowledge all views and should attempt to seek common ground. Taken directly from Wikipedia:Consensus. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

5) All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that collaborative editing is the paramount mechanism for contributing to Wikipedia, and to refute suggestions that no editor, no matter how expert or industrious, can deny other editors the right to make good-faith attempts to improve an article. Taken directly from the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship requires explanations

6) Reversion of edits does not necessarily constitute ownership, when supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An understandable and supportable proposal, but the devil is in the detail. A revert with "per WP:COMPOSERS" is a reference to a guideline, but still, in many of the cases evidenced, represents attempted ownership. Tighter wording would make this less gameable, perhaps? Also, individual "specific grammar or prose problems" should be fixed, or the single parameter blanked, rather than an entire infobox removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that stewardship of articles is distinguished from ownership by the willingness to civilly explain reversions of good-faith attempts to improve an article. Summarised from WP:OAS. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see some kind of a final decision that mandates proper edit summaries. The shorthand used by editors like Nikkimaria is mightily confusing for the uninitiated. Terms like "tr", for example, could mean anything from "translation" to "trivial" to "trolling". When terms like "cleanup" or "restore" are used to summarize the removal of a seemingly proper infobox then the only ones who can make any sense of this summary are those on the other side of the infobox turf war. I'm sorry if typing out a proper explanation would make mass edits like this considerably slower but perhaps that's not such a bad thing in the end. I'd like to see proper edit summaries mandated even beyond the infobox issue if possible because this problem extends into a wide range of mass edits I've seen. Unless it's in the WP:GLOSSARY, it shouldn't be summed up in a personal 2-character shorthand. -Thibbs (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until then, I keep asking, she answered "Your reverts had to be expected, but please translate your abbreviations: "prv: no deadline, no need for templates, article created", "wrong. rm, ref, tr": tr" means "trim", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not helpful here - dubious anyway, and in practice the reasons are well known to all the regulars. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that our policy on Stewardship is dubious? - if so you need to explain why your opinion supersedes policy. Why is this principle not helpful here when the evidence page is littered with examples of breaches of the obligation to properly explain reversions? Is "rm" or "fmt" an "explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit" (the wording of WP:OAS)? --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people are removing a newly-added infobox, they ought to make this clear, or at least that it is a reversion. But edit-summary styles vary, and the failure to do so cannot be taken generally as evidence of OWNING, lack of good faith, or anything except a certain laziness. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it mention this specifically in WP:OWN? You spot the owners by seeing them revert good-faith edits with less feedback than we'd give a vandal. Pretending that it's just generally laziness makes a mockery of having policies forbidding that sort of behaviour in the first place, and making excuses for the owners is cocking a snoot at the community who developed those policies. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Andy's point, although with a slightly different twist. I don't necessarily interpret "per WP:COMPOSERS" as asserting ownership. However, given that the link doesn't justify removal (partly because it doesn't say one can remove, and partly because it doesn't have such authority), the editor using it should be politely informed that they made an edit without a valid rationale. Citing reasons for an edit should be encouraged; citing reasons which do not support the edit should be discouraged.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of Wikiprojects

7) WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support per proposer. Note also that this echoes the finding in the Composers Project's RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of conflicting project guidelines, when, say, Wikiproject classical music decides that Wagner's biography must not have an infobox, but Wikiproject Germany or Wikiproject biography or some such (or Wikiproject Foo, which an editor unilaterally declares looks after all articles for people with surnames beginning with "W") decide that it must. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish what Wikiprojects may not do, which is relevant to this case. Taken directly from Wikipedia:WikiProject. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quote, added a few months ago by User:WhatamIdoing (personal account), as far as I can see without any prior discussion. Does this have community backing? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John, it has consensus. Or are you going to tell us that WP:CONACHIEVE doesn't apply? Am I to assume that you want to make WikiProjects into rule-making organisations? or that you want them to have special rights above other editors? or that you want them to be able to impose their preferences on articles? None of those are acceptable and this principle is fundamental to this case and to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". You should be supporting it. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as I note above, it reflects the finding in the Composers Project's RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern isn't really with the current MOS, and the current classical music "no infoboxes" policy is like saying they don't have to follow WP:CITE or something equally ridiculous. BUT I do have a concern with what I am hearing as an implied idea that WikiProjects really have no input at all, which could render them basically useless. While I agree with the bit of current policy that a wikiproject cannot impose a whole new set of rules separate from wikipedia's general policies and guidelines, I do think that participants in a wikiproject do deserve some degree of respect for their subject area expertise -- which is not the same as veto power. But I personally have had to deal with situations at a different wikiproject where, for example, some ignorant troll (no one here, BTW, some hotheads around this place, including moi at times, but no trolls) came in complaining that proper technical language was "jargon" and seeking to remove things that would have totally destroyed the credibility of certain articles making them look as if written by a 10 year old, then when the wikiproject said no, ranting that the wikiproject "owned" the article, etc... Just a comment and a caution about completely disempowering wikiprojects. Montanabw^(talk) 15:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"an implied idea that WikiProjects really have no input at all" - not my meaning at all. Projects are good places for editors to coordinate work, notify others of items of interest (WP:CANVASS applying, of course) and put forward proposed guidelines to the wider community to see if there is consensus for them or not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks needed This needs tweaking. My view, which for all I know is only my view, is that over-arching guidelines like MOS are understandably and intentionally general. Even though they sounds incredibly specific at times, they are not attempting to cover all possible situations which may arise, and this is where Wikiprojects play a role; they can convert a general guidelines into a specific set of rules for a specific subset of articles. So I do not want to exclude the possibility that wikiprojects set rules, I want to exclude the possibility that they can set rules which over-ride the MOS. If I may illustrate by example: MOS is remarkably silent on the use of color. I see nothing wrong with a Wikiproject setting rules on what colors should be used in sports conference membership timelines. That local consistency is a good use of Wikiproject rule making. However, if the proposed violated the MOS accessibility requirements, the MOS prevails. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really germane to the issue. As the MOS itself neither supports nor opposes the use of infoboxes, a project consensus to not use one is not creating a rule. Likewise, disagreeing with a project consensus does not automatically invalidate it. Reso lute 17:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of notifications

8) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions with the intent to broaden participation in the discussion, it is disruptive of the consensus process to selectively post messages to users based on their known opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, but it also disruptive to notify projects of discussions elsewhere using pejorative or biased language. WP:CANVASS has a table demonstrating good and bad practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that notification of a debate to a single, selected Wikiproject with a known attitude to an issue is a blatant violation of the spirit of consensus. Summarised from Wikipedia:Canvassing. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one would/should oppose this. But this also shouldn't be seen as "you should not inform the Wikiproject because it has a known bias". It is pretty standard practice to notify relevant Wikiprojects of discussions. Bramble claw x 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but its relevance is that on several occasions, an editor has notified just a single WikiProject, knowing full well that WP Classical Music has a stated aversion to infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with that if there are no other related Wikiprojects. You cannot exclude relevant parties to a discussion just because they have a stated position. By that logic, if I wanted to remove an infobox from an article which only Andy has written on, since Andy has a stated preference for infoboxes, anyone notifying him would be canvassing. Bramble claw x 15:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in the cases quoted in the evidence there are other related wikiprojects (five others in one of the cases!) and Kleinzach selectively notified just one, fully aware that he would be attracting a partisan audience. You really need to follow the links and read the evidence. I'm not excluding anybody from debate and I resent your suggestion that I am; our policy on canvassing is concerned with notifying everybody who is interested, not just your mates who will come and support your position. The question you need to ask yourself is "Is there something wrong with notifying just one out of six wikiprojects, knowing that members of the single project you picked are opposed to infoboxes?" I think you'll find the answer is "yes". --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In another case RexxS noted on this page, a few hours ago Smerus' removed of the infobox from Das Liebesverbot, and stated on its talk page "I an [sic] notifying the projects concerned", and has indeed notified WikiProject Opera ([16]) and WikiPoject Wagner ([17]), both with the partisan wording RexxS quotes. However, he did not notify the third project tagged on the article's talk page, WikiProject Germany; nor has he notified WikiProject Infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) The dispute is primarily focussed on the addition and immediate removal of infoboxes from articles in the scope of WikiProject Classical Music, and the failure of discussion to be conducted in a reasoned, collegial manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to make clear the area mainly affected. Taking a random sample of the Evidence submitted reveals a large majority of the problems occur on articles in the scope of WikiProject Classical Music. Secondary problems exist where an infobox has been merely suggested on talk pages in that area with the same resultant breakdown in consensus-building. This case is mainly concerned with behaviour on pages dealing with infoboxes, not coordinates, roads and other extraneous matters. If ArbCom wishes to broaden the scope at this stage, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to adduce evidence to a broader scope. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted elsewhere, "This [i.e. the problem with Pigsonthewing] doesn't just concern articles about music, but architecture, paintings, novels, roads etc. etc." If there has been a "disproportionate" focus on classical music, then that's because Pigsonthewing has focussed a disproportionate amount of his attention on pushing infoboxes onto classical articles. --Folantin (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And because more of those have been TFA in the last year or so, compared to architecture & the visual arts at least. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes - if you want to start Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Cases/Pigsonthewing, then click on that red link and get on with it. We don't need your hijacking of this case for your personal agenda. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way RFARs work. ArbCom deals with behaviour, not content. This isn't my "personal agenda". Plenty of people share my concerns as is evident from the Evidence. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the scope of the RfArb is defined by ArbCom and this one is about the problems that I and other editors have in discussing rationally the pros and cons of infoboxes in numerous articles. It's very common for the torch-and-pitchfork brigade to hijack ANI and smear an unpopular editor based on hearsay, but ArbCom expects to see evidence and facts established first rather than just leaping to judgement. You have shown quite clearly your antipathy to Andy, and others clearly share it. That is not sufficient to start throwing around remedies that are not based on any evidence, principle or fact. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None so blind as will not see. You're his buddy. It's not "based on hearsay". It's based on long and weary experience. --Folantin (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not his buddy and I back up my statements with evidence, unlike you. You have established your clear agenda to punish Andy and you have prosecuted that line without ever bringing forward a diff of the behaviour that you seek sanctions for. You have decided on the punishment first and are now blustering vaguely to try to justify your stance. That is utterly transparent. I'll ask you again: Where's the evidence? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Evidence page. "I back up my statements with evidence, unlike you". Your Evidence contains a couple of links but no actual diffs, as far as I can see. Bluster about "the torch-and-pitchfork brigade" and "clear agendas" is merely rhetoric. Many users have brought up serious concerns about Pigsonthewing's conduct. --Folantin (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to clog up the Evidence page by repeating diffs already supplied by others. If you want a simple diff that underpins my evidence have a look at Talk:Frank Matcham where I summarise the issues concerning infoboxes there. This is the Workshop page and all that I've seen from you here is conjecture and hearsay to justify your attacks on Andy. I'll deal with your evidence in the appropriate section at the bottom of this page. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to bring up Talk:Frank Matcham as evidence in favour of Pigsonthewing? Um, OK, as you wish. I hadn't even noticed that dispute before. --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments there and am quite happy to have them included as evidence. By looking at the comments there by those against the infobox, anyone can see the kind of nonsense we've been having to put with from them, for months- though admittedly there's been far worse elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed show your inability to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward way, and your inability to even discuss in any constructive way, any thoughts of a compromise. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat, I don't see Andy's comments that way; I think he's presented reams of evidence to support his positions, and most of his strongest opposition seems to have not looked at it, though I hope ArbCom is. I do see pretty much the majority of the main combatants on both sides (other than Gerda, who remains eminently reasonable) getting pretty dug in. This is partly why I recommended a beer summit and Kumbayah for all parties when this is over. Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving our mission

2) There are 7 billion people on Earth and we have only 116,969 active editors on the English Wikipedia. We are going to need some help to reach every person on the planet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to establish that Wikipedia is designed not just to be read as if on paper by sighted readers of English, but is designed to be skim-read, linked, translated, repackaged, mirrored and its data extracted in many different ways. These third parties help us to spread knowledge and infoboxes play a not unimportant part in that. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeatedly questioned: why does it have to be extracted from the infobox? Bramble claw x 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been repeatedly answered: because the 2 million+ infoboxes in our articles already contain the information, and they are templates. We need a template to allow us to hide the CSS for microformats so that editors don't have to learn how to do that. And why would anybody want to copy out the information that goes in an infobox into yet another (presumably invisible) template that has no other function but to hold a duplicate of the information? That would be a nightmare to maintain and be a huge waste of effort for absolutely zero gain. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Italian colleagues use a template in a radically different way: it:Template:Bio; I understand the data provided in it was largely resposible for getting Wikidata going. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexxS, A question asked from the point of ignorance, I'm afraid: is it possible for Wikidata to be extracted from one template ({{Persondata}}, for example) in the absence of another ({{infobox}}, for example)? If the consensus of opinion on a page is that an infobox is not relevant for that page, why is it not possible for an invisible template to take the place as a provider of wikidata for that single page. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schrocat, I'm sure that bots designed to populate Wikidata, one of our reusers, could read metadata from the Persondata template, but unfortunately Persondata doesn't mark up its data semantically. It just calls every item "persondata-label" rather than, for example, marking one date as class "bday" (birthday) and another date as "dday deathdate" - which are globally recognised standards. That doesn't make the job as easy as an infobox does because an infox uses that standard markup. That's not to say it can't be done with customised programming, but remember that Wikidata is just one of many, many reusers that we have, and standard tools are available to all of them to read the microformats that an infobox provides and Persondata doesn't. Does that help explain why many feel that Persondata is better than nothing, but a poor substitute for an infobox? --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS. So {{Persondata}} is flawed, in not having sufficiently accurate fields to provide information for the meta readers? What about other articles (ie. non-biographies). How is meta data picked up from these articles, if there is no infobox? I'm sure it's not beyond the wits of template writers to tweak {{Persondata}} and similar templates to pick up data for those articles where there is no infobox. I'm also sure it's not beyond the monumentally deep pockets of Google to pay their programmers to tweak their meta readers to pick up information from (for example) a re-vamped and more efficient {{Persondata}} template in the absence of the (for example) {{infobox}} template. In terms of the metadata alone (and I appreciate there are other preferences claimed for the inclusion of infoboxes) this would seem to be a potentially valid alternative to an enforced infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google are far from being the only re-users of our data. How does the depth of their pockets help all the others? What "enforced infobox"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A meta reader can pick up from more than one template source, and if its not from the infobox, then a different template could act in its stead for those articles without an infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I foresee is that if you create a template with all of the data and metadata that the infobox has, it would be an infobox! Unless you suppressed the display, but that would still lead to the issues of putting inappropriate data into the parameters, lack of synchronisation when information is updated, etc. compounded by the problem that you wouldn't see the errors unless you were editing the whole page (and that complaint applies to Persondata already, of course). I suppose it's no help to tell you that if you don't want to see any infoboxes ever again, you could always put something like table.infobox {display:none;} into Special:Mypage/skin.css? I know, good editors want to see how the pages look to the normal reader, so you won't want to do that. It might help somebody though :) --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is a format which can be used in place of the infobox, not as well as. If meta readers can't find one of the many forms of infobox in an article, they can look for the alternative. (Or, if you prefer, reclassify {{Persondata}} as a non-visible infobox so our "partners" can identify and look for it. The {{Persondata}} template only offers the most relevant, verifiable factual information and tends to be clear of all the dumbed down rubbish people try and cram into the bloated boxes. (The "notable works", "influenced by" and "influenced" fields in many actors/architects/musicians/etc articles are normally going to be filled with fancruft, OR and POV, for example). With a high-quality article—one which has been given a complete workover—the "hidden template" (be it {{Persondata}} or something else) would be part and parcel of the process, in much the same way categories are. I would never want to supress viewing infoboxes. I am a great fan of them and use them extensively in the appropriate place: I just don't think they need to be in every article and what I am trying to get to here, is an alternative effective way to provide the same metadata from a non-visible mechanism. (A separate suggestion, where there are aesthetic concerns for an article, would be for a horizontal infobox at the foot of the page, acting as a conclusion to the article overall. I still strongly believe that the fields would have to be carefully moderated as many people also see the bloating of infoboxes to be an issue – Hollywood Squares is a particularly painful example) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see infobox bloat and structural questions about visual appearance as a separate issue. Some metadata doesn't necessarily need to be displayed, and for me, the benefits of an infobox to the human reader seeking a basic summary of core data is one reason I like to see them. A "horizontal infobox at the bottom" would be confused with a navbox, I think. Invisible parameters could go anywhere, really. JMO Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are separate, which is why I make the differentiation. I'm not sure there will be much in the way of "confusion" regarding an at-the-bottom infobox: both they and navigation boxes are designed to provide information, albeit of different types, and to assist the reader. A selection of clearly defined pieces of information from an infobox is, in a number of ways, little different from a navbox, which... does the same, even if it is looking at the provision of related information from a slightly different viewpoint. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of Infoboxes

3) Infoboxes are a common feature of developed articles and the addition of an infobox to an article is not unusual, or inherently controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Over 1.7 million of our 4.3 million articles have infoboxes, about 40%, with that proportion rising to about three-quarters when well-developed content (e.g WP:Featured Articles) are considered. This shows that adding an infobox to an article is a normal part of the development of many articles and should be treated as any other edit - i.e. evaluated on its merits. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same stats, 60% of articles don't have an infobox. Maybe because infoboxes are suitable for some articles, but by no means all. AFAIK German Wikipedia has sensibly banned infoboxes on most biographical articles. --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's over 1.7 Million using {{Infobox}} alone, well over 1.7 million in all. See evidence talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the 60% of all articles that don't have infoboxes include lists, stubs and articles for which no infobox has yet been created. You're right though, it's clear that the proportion of articles lacking infoboxes drops as the articles develop from about 60% to around 25%. That's tells you something, don't you think? --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a "finding of fact" when even the statistics it is based on are highly speculative? --Folantin (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative: Engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge. Highly speculative? 1.7 million out of 4.3 million is about 40% - where's the conjecture? You can probably do the maths as well if you try. Feel free to estimate the proportion of Featured Articles that have infoboxes. I have, and the answer is about three-quarters. What proportion do you get when you do the same? Let me know if you need any help in statistical sampling techniques. Or are you just attempting to discredit my calculations by calling me names? Inconvenient as it may be for your agenda, this finding-of-fact holds up to any scrutiny that anyone applies to it. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What names am I calling you? --Folantin (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Running total is now at least 2,348,000. Don't forget that our article count also incudes over 278,000 disambiguation pages ineligible for infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Over 2.3 million infoboxes out of 4.3 million articles is roughly 53%. It weakens my argument a bit, but it now seems quite certain that as articles develop, the proportion with infoxes rises from about a half to about three-quarters. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this finding. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Value of infoboxes

4) Infoboxes have the following advantages:

They provide a very quick overview - they are a condensation of the key points of the lead in just the same way that the lead is a condensation of the key points of the whole article.
They provide a convenient means of marking up some of the data in standardised format (a microformat) so that the resulting HTML can be read by automated tools and aggregated for easy re-use by third parties.
Their predictable structure allows researchers to re-use our content in innovative ways.

and have the following disadvantages:

They require extra effort to keep updated and synchronised with other data in the article.
They may oversimplify the data they summarise, losing vital elements or nuances.
The large number of parameters available may encourage editors to add misleading or inaccurate information.
They may spoil some readers' aesthetic view of an article (including potentially limiting the size of a lead image).
A very large box defeats the object of being a very quick overview.

However, it is impossible to predict a general class of articles where the infobox's disadvantages will outweigh the advantages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support the advantages; which my evidence unequivocally substantiates. They apply to all infoboxes (microformats not in all); but the disadvantages listed are far less prevalent, and so overstated; and remedies are available. RexxS: It may be better for you to divide this into two findings, and to add that caveat to the latter. Your latter point is well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It has been suggested that for all articles of a particular type, infoboxes will necessarily have greater disadvantages than advantages - a proposition that I reject because there are always exceptions and edge cases, as well many articles falling into multiple categories. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy: I prefer to keep this together as it is the juxtaposition of advantage and disadvantage that must form the basis of rational discussion on these issues. Each of those disadvantages has been mentioned in good faith in some discussion, and seeking to find remedies is the right way of building consensus. It is true that not every infobox in an article suffers from the same disadvantages, but it is that very variability that requires us to civilly weigh the factors through discussion, rather than having a pre-determined blanket ban for particular classes of article. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One key disadvantage for many visual articles is that the space they take reduces the room for necessary images below the lead. I don't think the last point should be a finding of fact - the evidence hardly covers this. You also should mention that the infobox may not just "oversimplify the data they summarise, losing vital elements or nuances", but actually contradict it on simple & basic matters such as dates, for a wide range of reasons, such as the text being corrected but not the infobox. This is pretty common in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reduces the room - I hadn't realised that. What's the maximum length of a Wikipedia article, then? Note also that infoboxes do not have to be at the top of the article. As for incorrect statements, I've also seen (and fixed) cases where infoboxes were correct when the article lede and/or body was not; and the same both ways for persondata; that's not a fault inherent in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Additionally, it is just as likely - if not more so - that information in the lead may become inconsistent with the information in the body of the article, by an editor updating one but not the other. Are you prepared to use that as an argument against having a lead in an article? the logic is identical. At least with infoboxes, you can quickly spot out-of-date data. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you read them , which most content writers don't. A lead is mandated, an infobox isn't, & rightly so as articles need a lead, but not an infobox. Andy, see the image guidelines, & pass the word to the infoboxer community that they don't have to be at the top, because of course they invariably are, and imo normally should be when one is useful. Have you ever added one anywhere else? Obviously an infobox might be correct & the text wrong, it's just so much more common the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'm a content writer and I read them, as do plenty of others (as well as the wiki-gnomes who keep track of these issues). Plenty of articles don't have leads, so articles don't need a lead, although I think having a good lead improves an article - as does a good infobox. Actually, it's much more common for the infobox to be correct and the text wrong - take it from someone who actually reads them. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rexx, I won't take it, thanks! See WP:LEAD for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with WP:LEAD - having added leads to numerous short articles over the years. Although by your reasoning, I suppose I should have not added those leads just in case someone later added something to them that contradicted the rest of the article?

Adding infoboxes

5) Infoboxes are to be added to articles in the same way that any other edit is made, and subject to the normal WP:BRD cycle. Thereafter, a contested infobox should be discussed rationally, civilly and with the intention of building a consensus on the talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, but needs an additional sentence, to the affect that "the discussion should focus on the specific pros and cons of the infobox in the article in question, and not objections as to the efficacy or desirability of infoboxes in general"; such views should be raised in more general discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I said so above, but this wording is better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Building upon Principles 3 & 4. Accepting this finding-of-fact will establish that the normal mode of editing on Wikipedia applies equally to infoboxes. There are no grounds for treating infoboxes, a very common feature on Wikipedia, any differently from any other content. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Any type of edit that it is known will be controversial in a particular setting should not be repeated without discussion, either in the same article or in a series. Do continue doing so, causing a long series of disputes, is simply disruptive. I would welcome a policy that said so, as we have for other common aspects of articles that are subject to similar issues such as WP:ENGVAR, WP:ERA, WP:CITEVAR etc. But that is not an issue for Arbcom. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such edits are generally only contentious in the face of the ownership evidenced in this case, which prevents the kind of constructive discussion described in this proposal. The problems with comparisons with ENGVAR etc have already been highlighted above. However - unlike the suggestions elsewhere on this page - we don't prohibit editors from asking on the talk page of an article whether the type of English or citation used on the accompanying article is the right one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I think we would all agree that making bad-faith edits are prohibited already by policy. But to single out one type of content addition by assuming that it is always bad-faith is an appalling breach of collegial editing. You cannot simply say that all articles of type X are unsuitable for an infobox, and circumvent discussion, which is what you seem to want. That just opens the door for ownership of articles by Wikiproject X and all the unacceptable practices of reversion without discussion and stonewalling of discussion. The Arbitrators need to put a stop to that sort of behaviour before it gets worse. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good and bad-faith editing, which you keep introducing, are not the issues here. Everyone is all too sincere in their views. What is disruptive is the issue. Needless to say, I reject your caricature of my views, & I've addressed elsewhere on the page the issue of the probability of discussion changing minds about boxes for the set of articles this case concerns. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

6) Additions of infoboxes have been regularly reverted by editors with misleading or insufficient edit summaries, contrary to WP:OAS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, now 49 cases, 32 reverts, not counting multiple on one article, nor 11 additional similar operas by Méhul), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There are 19 diffs of this behaviour enumerated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive802 #Persistent edit stalking from 5 June 2013 (referenced in Andy's evidence), but there are others among the 48 cases collected here and referenced by Gerda in her evidence. Some of this borders on WP:HARRASS #Wikihounding. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derailing discussion

7) Opponents of infoboxes have regularly derailed good-faith discussions by deliberately deploying irrelevant and illogical arguments. This has included ad hominem arguments designed to upset and frustrate those who wish to debate the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. There are further examples of this in my evidence. See also Talk:Melville Island (Nova Scotia) for another example (note reference to the removal of the word "settlement" from the article when the use of the settlement infobox was justified by reference to it; the article still has no infobox) and "You are trolling... Go away or you will be blocked for disruption" for another response to an attempt to open a talk page discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another example, from today. Regarding the infobox recently deleted from Das Liebesverbot (see old version with infobox), and in repsonse to the question:

I still await any justification for the infobox. A reasoned discussion... would be nice.

RexxS writes:

...the infobox provides a quickly accessible overview of key facts in the article. It not only provides facts for any reader wanting that brief overview, but it also provides microformats that make the information available for reusers in a standard way, such as "vevent" and "dtstart". In addition, the standardised layout of label-data pairs enables researchers to extract that data from the article far more accurately. By making the information available to broader audiences without predetermining who should be reading or using our content, we improve the article. Readers expect this sort of information to be available, rather than a hidden list of navigation links, which have no place at the top of an article. The argument for consistency with other operas is merely an argument for consistent mediocrity - any and all of those opera articles would be improved by the addition of a well-crafted infobox. Now, please either engage with the arguments presented and quit the ad hominems or revert the damage you've done to this article.

and Toccata quarta (who, per the projects mentioned above, is involved here) replies:

So, in summary, it offers no advantages.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This has occurred not only when a discussion has followed a revert of an edit - a clear example exists at Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek as my analysis of Evidence below illustrates, but even when editors have gone to the talk page first to start a discussion. The latter problem is amply illustrated by Talk:Richard Wagner where even the act of raising the issue on the talk page (as suggested by elsewhere by Newyorkbrad) is met in the very first response with "So merely placing this here at this time is I'm afraid Gerda uncommonly parallel to a provocative act of bad faith." It is impossible for good faith editors to discuss issues and seek consensus in the face of such hostility and ownership. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that amazingly, even with these issues at ArbCom, Smerus (talk · contribs) yesterday reverted an infobox with the edit summary Revert infobox - unreasonable to insert without discussion. On the talk page, Smerus replied to Gerda's reasons for adding the infobox with comments including:"This major change to the article ... should not have been undertaken singlehandedly without discussion. Some notification to the Wagner and Opera projects would also have been polite, as well as to editors who have worked on the article". This is blatant ownership of the worst kind, criticising a good-faith edit for being 'singlehanded' and for not seeking permission from the Projects and previous authors beforehand. If this sort of behaviour is not stopped, we might as well throw away any pretence of this being the encyclopedia anyone can edit and accept that we're going to let self-appointed groups decide who may, and who may not, edit our articles. --RexxS (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I'm not saying this is untrue, supporters of infoboxes have likewise demonstrated the same behavior. These proposed findings need to reflect that. Bramble claw x 15:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they have done so, then there will be evidence of that. Where is it? I've given clear examples from evidence where opponents of infoboxes have derailed discussion from their first contribution to a debate, but I find your assertion completely unsubstantiated. My proposal is accurate and reflects the problem that we face in trying to debate issues rationally. Just today, Smerus reverted the addition of an infobox to Das Liebesverbot and gave the reason on talk: "As at Goetterdaemmerung, I am reverting to the previous template the infobox here, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article." - a breath-taking piece of ownership that denies anybody the ability to edit the article unless they seek permission from the wikiproject and the previous editors first. Why do we have to endure this sort of attitude? --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence on the evidence page. I supplied at least 2 diffs of Andy being belligerent, as have Folantin, Schrocat, Nikkimaria, and Ruhrfisch, it would appear. I also didn't try to absolve anyone of blame here, including Smerus. Bramble claw x 00:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merely suggest you are selectively presenting the wrongdoings of one group without consideration that the other group has also behaved similarly. Bramble claw x 00:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence on the evidence page of the infobox proponents derailing discussion by "by deliberately deploying irrelevant and illogical arguments" which is what this FoF says. It is the problem that I see regularly - twice in the last two days even while this case is active. I'm not complaining of belligerence - there are others making that complaint, and your suggestion would carry more weight if you were seen to also suggest to those others above that they are "selectively presenting the wrongdoings of one group without consideration that the other group has also behaved similarly". --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is there evidence of infobox opponents "derailing discussions"; there is evidence of uncivil behavior, but this is also the case with infobox supporters. To accuse them of "deliberately deploying" such tactics is an assumption of bad faith (do you have a diff where a user explicitly states "I'm going to go argue illogically to derail this discussion"?), in which case, the argument can also be made that the intention of infobox supporters when making their uncivil remarks was also to derail discussions. In my opinion, there is a tendency by some on both sides of this conflict to assume bad faith, which is part of what is aggravating what started out as a merely content-based dispute. Bramble claw x 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think that when the very first response to a debate is "So merely placing this here at this time is I'm afraid Gerda uncommonly parallel to a provocative act of bad faith.", that is derailing the discussion from the start? And there are plenty more examples in the evidence. Why does anyone have to assume that kind of edit is good-faith? - AGF is not a suicide pact. I'm sorry, but I've linked sufficient examples to demonstrate the problems we face daily and your denial that those problems exist doesn't make it so. This is a behavioural issue, not a content one and we need a way forward that rejects ownership, encourages good-faith edits to articles, and guarantees rational discussion that examines the relevant issues. Grumbling about incivility on both sides isn't going to fix those problems. The supporters of infoboxes have consistently focussed on the pros and cons of an infobox for an article; many of the opponents have by-and-large studiously avoided discussing the real issues. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying there is a problem. I have clearly stated that I agree there are issues with behaviour on both sides. I agree that the ones you linked to indeed look very uncivil. But not every discussion has started out like that. [[18]] started out looking, in my opinion, fairly promising. It looks to me like it was Andy in this case, who could be said to have "derailed" the discussion. Andy seems to have a tendency of dismissing others' arguments out of hand, frequently calling arguments baseless, for example, in referred discussion. Brianboulton expresses his hope that "will not turn into the kind of sniping and counter-accusation that has disfigured other discussions", to which Andy then seems to take offence and claims that his position is correct regardless of others' opinions. This looks like the start of derailment to me. It is unhelpful to dismiss others' arguments as "irrelevant and illogical", or baseless, non-sequitur, etc. when they are merely expressing their point of view. Bramble claw x 03:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly legitimate to dismiss as "baseless" an argument which is false, in the case described, the assertion - the baseless assertion - that an infobox "added nothing much". As has has been evidenced, Infoboxes add the emission of machine readable metadata. Some editors might not like, or not understand, that, but they cannot logically (and repeatedly!) claim that it does not happen. Note that Brian's "I am hoping this discussion will not..." comment was made in direct reply to one of my comments; and my reply "I hope that your comment about 'sniping and counter-accusation' isn't a response to me validly refuting false assertions" was thus entirely justified. Please provide evidence of me "claiming my my position is correct regardless of others' opinions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do so in the sentence right after the one you quoted. Bramble claw x 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is "That adding an infobox gives the article machine readability which otherwise does not exist is irrefutable, whatever you opinion of its value.". The fact that "adding an infobox gives the article machine readability which otherwise does not exist", is not "my position"; it is an irrefutable truth (and was made in response to the assertion that "The opinion that in this case an infobox adds nothing much to the article is not 'baseless', and is not 'disproved' by any argument that you present"). And it is most certainly not "derailing discussion by... deliberately deploying irrelevant and illogical arguments". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree you are not derailing the discussion with irrelevant or illogical arguments. But your tone is unduly aggressive, which seems to have an effect of derailing. Machine-readability does not depend on infoboxes. They depend on metadata which is perfectly capable of existing independent of an infobox. Bramble claw x 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the assertion several times now that metadata can exist outside of an infobox. That is true in a very limited sense: {{Coord}} and {{Persondata}}, for example, both implement very specific and limited metadata - the latter does not even produce microformats, so is less useful. But what about all of the other events, dates, and other key facts that infoboxes encapsulate? Where else on Wikipedia can those pieces of information be marked up as a microformat, for example? The information is already in an infobox; it is simply the most obvious and conveniently maintainable place to mark it up as metadata. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You supplied two diffs ([19] [20]) which you allege show me being belligerent, but they do no such thing. The first shows me resisting repeated attempts by SchroCat to put words into my mouth; the second refuting Kleinzach's claim that I "follow him around Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Totally partisan. Most of the "discussions" leading to this case revolve round essentially identical issues and the regular participants on both sides have heard all the arguments before, and have entrenched positions, so that apart from any new faces present the "discussion" is most unlikely to change anybody's minds. The case pages here provide ample evidence of what the probability is of discussion reaching an agreed conclusion, and how the various parties conduct themselves in such discussions. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you opposing the proposals of anti-infobox editors as partisan. Why is that John? If partisanship is a genuine reason to oppose, then you ought to be doing just that elsewhere on this page. No, it's just a bogus reason again, designed to excuse the ownership, stonewalling and personal attacks by a handful of the anti-infoboxers that the evidence clearly demonstrates. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Partisan. Particularly given how often Andy and his followers throw out "OMG OWN" as an ad hominem. Resolute 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Followers? I invite you to 'provide evidence to substantiate that claim; and your "OMG OWN" claim, or strike them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - RexxS and MontanaBW nipping at your heels in this very workshop is a good example of the first. As to the second, look at how many times on this page you have responded to criticism of your behaviour with some variation of (insert whiny voice) "but they're violating own!". Reso lute

Ownership

8) Members of some Wikiprojects have displayed ownership of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The behaviour of a member of WikiProject Composers mentioned above is clear, recent example, but the problem has been on-going for a long time. The HTML comments referred to in the analysis of evidence below ("") breach the communities expectations for Wikiprojects, as referenced in my proposed principles 5 and 7 above. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus

9) Despite WP:CONLIMITED expressly forbidding local consensus to override broader community consensus, WikiProject Composers have established a local rule - that "the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page" - and used it as a basis for systematically reverting or forbidding the addition of infoboxes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community consensus is "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." Challenges to the attempt by WikiProject Composers to subvert that consensus are not the problem; the problem is the behaviour exhibited by members of that project to stifle good-faith additions to their articles. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show examples where a consensus within an article to add an infobox was overturned by the Composers project? I see nothing wrong with a project stating a default state for articles within its scope (insofar as it does not directly conflict with other relevant projects) when there is no greater consensus. And like it or not, when an MOS takes no position, that is an example of a lack of consensus within the community at large. Reso lute 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this FoF, I'm addressing WikiProject Composers preventing any consensus being formed. Have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is determined on Wikipedia primarily by making an edit and see if it sticks. Far too often such edits have been reverted with the justification of "The decision of WikiProject Composers is that you have to seek consensus on the talk page first". But they don't mean consensus, they mean permission, because they've already ruled out the possibility of making a good edit and expecting to be able to debate it if it is reasonably reverted - which is how consensus works. Is "... I am reverting to the previous template the infobox here, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article" an acceptable reason for reverting? Some may find it acceptable, but any right-minded Wikipedian is going to call it a classic example of Ownership: "Please clear this with WikiProject X first". Follow the link; that very excuse is there, documented as ownership for all to see in our policy page. The Evidence page has plenty of other examples if you look. Making a rule that subverts the normal process of consensus through editing (which is our policy as shown in my proposed principles) and using it as an excuse for reverting any edits that don't ask for permission first is unacceptable behaviour by a Wikiproject. I trust that the Arbs will ensure that such practices cease in future. --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most charming aspect of this case is that every statement made by one side could be used (after changing a new nouns) by those on the other side. Two groups are arguing. One group is right and the other group is preventing any consensus being formed. Pro-infobox people possibly think it would be too hard to get a policy to enforce their position, so we see arguments like those on this page—we do not need permission to add an infobox, but you need permission to remove it? Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, "making an edit and seeing if it sticks", only to find it does not is the normal process of consensus through editing. What is being said there is "we've discussed this and current consensus is to not use infoboxes." The message is asking you to try and form a new consensus before adding one. And I agree with Johnuniq. For all you complain about their "owning" the articles, I find your position is no better. You're basically trying to assert ownership over a feature (infoboxes), and are unhappy that you aren't freely able to assert your personal world view. Your comment about them "preventing any consensus from being formed" is ironic because your words do not match your complaint. What I see when I read those words is a complaint that they are preventing you from reaching the "consensus" that you want. Myself, I think any "right-minded Wikipedian" would look at the situation, see that when there is a no consensus situation that it might be better to go off and do something else rather than continuously try to grind down the opposition until you end up at Arbcom. Reso lute 13:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not fail to notice that you did not show an example of the composers project failing to abide by a consensus formed via discussion at an article. Reso lute 13:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It's a common tactic from your side to accuse me of the very behaviour that I'm criticising to make it look as if "one side is as bad as the other". But the evidence gives the lie to that, and I've never said that anyone needs prior permission to remove an infobox, so you're floating a red herring for mischief's sake. This FoF concerns itself with the practice of requiring editors to ask for permission before adding an infobox, and I've shown you evidence of that. Either find me examples of hidden comments telling editors to "get consensus" before removing an infobox, or quit the fallacious insinuations.

@Resolute: Exactly. What is being said here is "We've discussed this and our local consensus is to not use infoboxes, so if you add one we'll revert it with no further justification." That's ownership as documented at WP:OWN, pure and simple. Just read the policy if you don't believe me. You find that there's been no prior discussion about an infobox on a given article and yet you want the right to decide the consensus for that article before an edit has even been made. "Go off and do something else"? - you'd like to have your walled garden around composers, wouldn't you? Anybody who disagrees with what you've already decided needs to go off and do something else. I haven't made any assertion that the composers project failed "to abide by a consensus formed via discussion at an article", so why would I need to find you an example of it? You can of course find plenty of examples of them subverting the process of establishing consensus in the first place - which is what this FoF says. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's called WP:BRD. You add the infobox, someone else removes it, then you discuss to form a new consensus. And I again note your continuing inability to demonstrate that the composers project has acted against such a consensus if one is formed for an article. This FOF is little more than you're being upset at the fact that you have to justify inclusion rather than having your personal POV form the default behaviour and forcing your opponents to justify theirs. Reso lute 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

10) WikiProject Composers has stated that "Most members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles". At least one member of that project, fully aware of that, has selectively notified solely that project of infobox discussions on several occasions - although the articles also belonged to other projects - deliberately distorting consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Principle 8 above covers the relevant policies. Andy's evidence enumerates some examples. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

None

1) Somebody smarter than me needs to find a way to defuse the rhetoric, bury the hatchet, and make sure each side understands and respects each others' concerns without crucifying good-faith editors. Every single contributor here believes fervently that they are doing what's best for the encyclopedia, so fixing it is not going to be easy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I wish the two Daves all the best in trying to cut this Gordian Knot. I sincerely hope that your remedy doesn't involve the use of a sword. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Andy Mabbett

General note: I have not made further proposals, because others have covered what I wanted to say. I have shown my support to them, where applicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This applies still to some comments which have recently been struck by their proposer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Template

1) Disputes are not resolved by voting, or counting those taking either of the opposing views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My evidence has examples of this being attempted Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) It is important to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor whose contributions are problematic, which is acceptable and in some cases necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, an important policy that addresses these issues. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The above is verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Following another editor's contributions. My evidence refers.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Number of Infoboxes

1) Wikipedia has at least 2,348,000 infoboxes in article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Almost certainly over 2,5 million; see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence#How many infoboxes on articles?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Size of Infobox Images

1) Primary images in infoboxes can be resized.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is already available in many infoboxes. If it's needed in other infoboxes, the change is trivially easy and can be added on request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Of course they can, but at 300px most infoboxes look grotesque, unless there is a huge TOC the bottom of the box can face. If, as is common in art articles, the lead image is landscape format & needs a good size, this in itself is reason enough to remove the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, and if the wider infobox is not wanted, then it is still possible to put the image markup above the infobox markup, with the wide image outside the narrower infobox. There is no need to remove the infobox. Your fallacious argument here is typical of the "no infobox, no mater what" approach discussed elsewhere in this case. And your comment contains nothing which refutes the proposed finding of fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested below that a wider discussion on this is needed. Perhaps you could point us towards the most useful prior discussions? I'm specifically wondering if it will be simple to change WP:LAYOUT to say that "images can go inside infoboxes, or above infoboxes" - or will there likely be a lot of resistance (whether for technical or habitual or other reasons) to this sort of change? Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any such discussions bookmarked. I think better wording would be "images can go inside infoboxes, or exceptionally (for very wide images) above infoboxes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer to give guidance that encouraged editors to place larger images above the infobox by default. Although it loses the url of the image as metadata, that is a trivial concern; and in some ways it may be beneficial, especially as some lead images may be present under "fair use" and not available in the usual way to third parties (albums, films, TV shows, etc. are common examples). --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible, provided we (the wider community, that is; they'd need to agree to this) can agree a definition of "larger" which covers the kind of artwork (or whatever) discussed above, especially in landscape format, without the majority of regular images being removed from infoboxes as a POINTy way of shoving the infobox from above the fold. It may even be possible to have the image entered as an infobox parameter (and so its address in included in metadata) but rendered outside the infobox, on the page. We'd need to experiment with that. Where such images are moved outside the infobox, unless here us a another good reason, the infobox should come immediately after it. I don't see the copyright/ fair use use as matter of concern; we're not recommending that people use the images, merely saying where they are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the image could (would?) still be "part" of the infobox's code, it would just display above the box-outline - this would allow all sorts of articles to use larger images, without making the box extra-wide. Eg. Angkor Wat is just crying out for a lovely large thumbnail. I've made a crude draft at my sandbox, with a handful of small tweaks, including the image-above-box idea. It alters the vertical position of the infobox by ~0.5cm so that's not a problem. Anyway, possibly best discussed elsewhere, but some food for thought. –Quiddity (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes and FAs

1) Featured articles are considered to be among "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". It is therefore reasonable, for each such article, to discuss whether or not an infobox would be beneficial. If the relatively small number of editors involved in Wikipedia:FAC assessments do not discuss an infobox during the FAC nomination process, it is reasonable for that discussion to take place subsequently, on the article's talk page. If an infobox is discussed during a FAC nomination, any decision ("local consensus") reached is not binding and (like anything else discussed at FAC) does not prevent later discussion on the article talk page, nor changes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. A very pleasing incident happened yesterday: finding a TFA author open for the suggestion of an infobox and adding it himself. Note: I told him that he had to do it himself because if I did it I might be banned for disruptive editing, - exaggerating only a bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Infoboxes are not a required feature of FAs. --Folantin (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are they a prohibited feature of FAs. In fact, most FAs have an infobox. It is anathema to Wikipedian principles to give the FAC reviewers a veto over subsequent content changes. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" and having an infobox are not necessarily related. It is perfectly reasonable for any article, regardless of FA-ness or not, to have a discussion over infoboxes. The article's quality ought not be a factor. Similarly, it is perfectly possible for an article to be considered among the best of Wikipedia regardless of whether there is an infobox or not. The wording of this proposal should not give the impression that the article's quality has any effect on the validity of having a discussion. Bramble claw x 21:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed reasonable for any article to have such a discussion. However, as can be seen in evidence, some editors gave asserted that FAs have special status precluding that; which this proposal addresses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment that the wording at this point in time is too focused on FAs. Perhaps a rewording that states "any article", which would thus include FAs? Bramble claw x 23:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will effectively mean "Infobox discussions with Andy Mabbett and/or other members of WP:QAI are a mandatory feature of FA candidacies." If that's the reward, it should encourage plenty more quality content creation. --Folantin (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary place to discuss new FAs is WP:FAC, where infoboxes are often mentioned (both addition and removal being suggested). It is disruptive to ambush new FAs just after promotion, or old ones just coming to or from TFA. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"ambush John? I think you will find it is not considered (outside of a small circle of people wanting to OWN articles) disruptive to make good faith edits to, or suggestions for improvements about, any article, at any point in its life-cycle. As to the supposed primacy of WP:FAC over an article's individual talk page, that is yet another bogus (*klaxon*) assertion, unsupported and unsupportable by any Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you can add an infobox to any article at any time, but anyone who removes it is OWNING. This is because you are right and they are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"anyone who removes it is OWNING" - where is your evidence that I argue that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John: you would benefit from reading Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - in particular the section which distinguishes between stewardship and ownership (WP:OAS). Nobody is suggesting that the reversion of a bold edit (such as adding an infobox) is ownership, when accompanied by a coherent edit summary and a willingness to seek consensus on the talk page, as described in that policy. It is the absence of any willingness to debate the reasons why an infobox was added, or explain why the disadvantages should outweigh those advantages, that shows how ownership is at play in far too many cases cited in evidence. It's pretty clear to me who has adopted the I don't like it and I'm not prepared to listen your reasons attitude. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the debate is round 27 of a travelling circus, and it is well known that regulars on both sides strongly reject the others' arguments and are not going to change their minds (and that nobody else cares very much either way), then this is not very surprising. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nobody else cares very much either way. As someone who has not been involved in any of these discussions, I can say that I very much do care about whether an article has an infobox. I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia articles, sometimes I want to read about something in depth, in which case I'll read the article including the infobox; sometimes I want a quick overview of the subject, in which case I'll read the lead and the infobox if something I'm interested in isn't in the lead; and sometimes I'm just looking for quick facts, which is when the infobox alone is perfect. Sometimes reading an article leads me to want to know something about a person or topic linked from that article so I can better understand the article I am reading, the infobox on that article is what I need. Other times something in the infobox is a cue to read something in the article. So from a reader's perspective the presence of an infobox is of great benefit to an article, and even having read this case I still cannot grasp why there are objections to them. Given though that there are objections, I'm left struggling to understand why they cannot be expressed without engaging in the demonstrated ownership of articles and adhominem attacks that appear to be intended to avoid any rational discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Arbcom does not rule on content. You know this, of course. It speaks volumes about your unrelenting obsession that you are attempting to use even this very proceeding to push your single-minded agenda. Resolute 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I find this proposal violates the spirit of Andy's topic ban related to TFA. Any newly promoted FA can reasonably be expected to be featured on the main page at some point. He's merely attempting to move his fight from right before main page appearance to right after promotion. It is the same behaviour that resulted in the topic ban, however. Reso lute 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) User:Melodia ceased editing as a result of the behaviour of infobox opponents at Talk:Richard Wagner and elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My evidence refers. I leave it to the arbitrators to decide who was responsible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) User:Moxy was harassed by infobox opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:Quiddity

Proposed findings of fact

There are objective and subjective problems with some infoboxes

1) The individual infobox-templates, and the per-article examples, sometimes have objective and subjective problems, to varying degrees; many of these problems can be fixed in time, with some discussion and research and consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly. I would also be only too happy to look for better solutions to the problems that arise. Perhaps Wikidata and consistency of data between different languages may offer improvements in the future, but we'll never find solutions until we are allowed rational discussions without prejudged positions making consensus-building impossible. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true; there's plenty of evidence of this. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good-faith additions can sometimes be problematic

2) Editors sometimes add information to infoboxes (and article prose!) that isn't perfectly accurately nuanced. The information in infoboxes should mirror the prose content, and the categories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bramble claw x 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Furthermore, possibly due to confusion about the meanings of infobox parameters, some good-faith additions to infoboxes introduce major (sometimes bizarre) errors. I just got done with an infobox that (before editing) contained a lot of data whose origin I could not discern and that turned out to be very different from what I was eventually able to verify: [21]. I assume that the user who added the erroneous data got the data from a valid source, but misinterpreted what belonged in the infobox. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the simplest and most frequent causes of incorrect information in infoboxes is that people create infoboxes by copying over a similar one & changing it. If done carelessly this leaves information about some other subject in the box. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"most frequent causes" - evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of this proposal. Better to create principles and language that is consistent with current guidelines ie. use "summarises key features of the page's subject" rather than making up new language such as "mirror the prose content, and the categorie". ArbCom does not set content policy and will not pass items that use different language and could be interpreted as conflicting with current guidelines-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

All edits are liable to suffer from this problem, but I think what the proposer is getting at is that infoboxes may be particularly prone to it. Infoboxes may contain a large number of parameters and I have seen it argued that they are a temptation for subsequent editors to add mis-nuanced or even misleading information. Infoboxes actually require the same degree of care in selecting and sourcing the information contained therein as any other content in an article. It is therefore a pity that many of the frequent editors of some articles display such an irrational antipathy to infoboxes - they would be the ideal curators for them if only they could be persuaded to give them a chance. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That captures my intent perfectly. –Quiddity (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem with volunteers all round; they'd be ideal for all sorts of work if only they could be persuaded to do it, and persuading people can be almost as much effort as having to do the stuff yourself. It's a real pain. 92.39.207.86 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are intended to be mostly redundant

3) Infoboxes are intended to be "at a glance" information, that some demographics of reader find useful. They should mirror the prose content, and the categories. They sometimes contain unique information (such as the calculated age, in biography templates).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, per RexxS. Again, there are many examples. It may be fair to conclude that localised or per-project arguments that an infobox or its content "is redundant" are disruptive. Those opposing them on that basis are again invited to draw up a centralised RfC to have them removed from Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree, but not sure this is within the scope of the case. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. One of the problems that this case must address is the insistence by some editors that the redundancy of information in an infobox is a principal reason for not having an infobox in their article. It is important to establish that the infobox data is redundant by design (in the same way as is the summary of information in the lead). This might, at least, avoid the futility and frustration of debates such as occurred at Tinker's Creek. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree (partially) I do not like the term "mirror" and not just because it is literally wrong, but because it perpetuates a myth about infoboxes, namely that they are a summary of the article. The lead is intended to be a summary. The infobox is intended to capture key facts. These two concepts are related, but not identical. One of the most important things about Ludwig van Beethoven is his enormous influence. Than can, and is, captured in the lead. That information cannot, and should not be captured in a one word field in an infobox. Date of birth is a key fact and deserves a spot in an infobox (except when it is not adequately summarized in a short field, in which case, it should be the subject of prose). Dates of birth are important enough that they are almost always included in the lead, so this is one example where the same piece of information is in both. Place of death is a key fact, and if not ambiguous or contested, is a candidate for an infobox. It may or may not be an item of information sufficiently important to include in the lead. For example, it is not in the Beethoven lead.

I do not object to the "at a glance" phrase, although I wish to emphasize that it could be misconstrued. It is the case that the phrase applies both to the lead and to the infobox, but for slightly different audiences and slightly different purposes. A reader who had no clue what was meant when they ran across the name "Beethoven" would be more interested in the lead, to gain a quick summary. In contrast, a different reader who knew the name, but didn't recall the date of death, or age at death or some other key fact, would be more interested in an infobox, because they are usually highly structured, so it is easier to find a specific key fact in an infobox than to scan a lead which may or may not mention the fact.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven: it would be nice to be able to look up his place of death in an infobox, but the hidden undated notice requests: "After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates." You said correctly that an infobox should not capture his importance, impossible anyway (even for the article). I fail to see why a few simple facts would be "inappropriate". Actually, I believe almost every article would profit from a placement like that in history and geography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no!, no!! This is a perfect example of the dangers of an infobox and of inadequate metadata handling in them. The human eye sees "Born: 16 December 1770 (likely)" and understands that this data should not be treated as precise and accurate (for some reason to be elucidated in the article text). Ok, so far. You have used the {birth date} template, which is publishing the equivalent of "1770-12-16" with no qualifier, and nothing to indicate to the metadata consumer that the date is actually unknown. The man was baptised on the 17th .. it's a known fact, and that is what should be presented to the reader, not replaced by a guess about his birth date to fit the requirements of metadata template! Scarabocchio (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed any of these disputes, and I was completely neutral about the infoboxes, but I see the problem clearly here for the first time. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have to agree with Scarabocchio, Gerda. In this infobox the birthday microformat is rendered thus: <span class="bday">1770-12-16</span> and that is misleading. One possibility is that you could change the infobox to | birth_date = probably 16 December 1770 (note 1) with the note being a ref to the source that tells that his baptismal date is known, but not his birth date with any certainty. That way you wouldn't provide misleading metadata but you would have a key fact available for the casual reader. Most of these problems have solutions with some collaboration. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RexxS (and once that's fixed, your example would be a useful addition to the article). I'll look at adding a note to the template's documentation, accordingly; until such time as they have a "certainty" parameter. I'll also resurrect my proposal that we add a |baptism_date= parameter to {{Infobox person}} (done) and other biographical infoboxes, set to render only if birth date is not entered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. I wasn't completely happy with the way I'd phrased it, and you've summed up the problems well. I was purely trying to get across the notion that "it's redundant" is not a useful argument to make in talkpage disputes. I'll leave the current phrasing as it is (because other people have responded, and because I'm still not sure what "perfect wording" would be), and I'll leave it to the arbs or another editor to rephrase it into something better. –Quiddity (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, problematic language (see my point above) including "that some demographics of reader find useful". Which demographics is that?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest better wording? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with "some demographics". Sometimes I read the infobox, sometimes the lead, sometimes the whole article, depending on what I'm coming for and in what context. I strongly suspect I'm not alone, and that this has nothing to do with demographics—it seems to me to stem from the whole black-and-white, us-vs-them mentality that is demonstrated in the opening quote to the WP:DISINFOBOX essay: "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye"—the "demographic" that certain editors want to avoid pandering to by including an infobox, because of course nobody else could possibly find any utility from an infobox. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics and accessibility need to be examined

4) The aesthetic aspects of infoboxes (background colors, main images, etc) can be a problem. The accessibility of infoboxes (collapsible sections) might be a problem. These both need to be investigated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree, but not sure this is within the scope of the case. It is a content issue, and the locus of the dispute is really more basic than this. This goes for the proposed remedies below too. All are probably good ideas, but won't do much to take the steam out of this dispute. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a behavioural problem when opponents of infoboxes refuse to debate the actual pros and cons of the content. Of course the issues in this proposal need to be examined whenever pertinent, and we need to be able to discuss such issues without fear of being accused of disruption and bad faith by those who are intrinsically opposed to infoboxes in their articles. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the types of issues that I believe an editorial board could help resolve. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Johnbod that it out of scope (here), but also agree with Orlady that it leads to support for consideration of an editorial board.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where all this is going, but these principles are content oriented and prone to misinterpretation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my Comment and my Evidence. I believe that other editors are concentrating on behaviour, and whilst I could pile-on with evidence for/against both sides, I prefer to concentrate on the underlying problems which can be solved. I realize this isn't "usual" for arbcom, I'll address that below, in a preliminary statement for my suggested Remedies. –Quiddity (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: I do grok that my proposed remedies are traditionally "out of scope" for arbcom-in-general, and subjectively for this-case-in-particular, but I'm hoping that my phrasing of "Recommend x" will allow arbcom to suggest some non-enforced remedies, which will immensely help us actually get the job done. Alternatively, editors and arbs could weigh-in with unofficial support, just by commenting. Thinkingoutsidethebox and all that. –Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update MOS:INFOBOX

1) Update the WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes to recommend:

Caution against adding the "Full example" (from template-documentation pages) with many empty fields
The addition of  into more of the template-documentation examples, when a field is likely to be problematic. Template:Infobox classical composer uses this widely.
The addition of  into the template fields, that should not be filled, in individual articles.
The addition of Templatedata descriptions that warn against using troublesome parameters, or that suggest preliminary talkpage discussion.
Discussing problematic fields at template-talkpages, using multiple examples, to determine all edge-cases and best solutions. Verifiable accuracy is the goal, in the limited space available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. {{infobox musical composition}} offers in the documentation a set of the most frequently used parameters and only the full set of options. In case of doubt, less is more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In some, admittedly rare, cases, I can see adding a full template, with a lot of empty fields. I am thinking particularly here of stubby articles from editors who may not be familiar with a topic, because if nothing else the blanks in an infobox can show to some editors some material which might be relevant for the article which isn't necessarily added yet. Otherwise, no significant reservations about the above, and I might even encourage ArbCom to perhaps request a more broad based discussion of the Infobox MOS in general from a number of senior editors, to perhaps come up with something which can be more generally agreed with across the spectrum. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope I'm very interested in the issues surrounding the choice of fields in infoboxes, not just which ones to include in the template, but also the choice of which ones should be displayed when the box is added. That said, this is way outside the scope of Arbcom. They do not have the authority to mandate or reject such a remedy, and we do not need the case to close before addressing it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom can only recommend that the community discuss and update the guidelines. They will not decree changes to content policy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking - a not dissimilar case in many ways - the Arbs made the following novel Enforcement:

"If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - Stability review

which many of us felt was the most effective measure as it led directly to a very large, independently organised, RfC which settled the content issues for good. I'd like our current Arbs to be more creative in looking for long-lasting solutions to the problems raised here. It may be they have to bang heads together on content issues in order to solve the behavioural problems, which are only a symptom of the wider malaise afflicting discussion in this area. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss primary image

2) Recommend that the community re-discuss whether it is necessary to have the initial image within the infobox, or if instead WP:LAYOUT could allow a primary image to come first. Otherwise we get this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support John Carter (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss overall aesthetics of infoboxes

3) Recommend that the community re-discuss the overall aesthetics of infoboxes, and attempt a slow-and-cautious update to both the core design, and individual instances which are unnecessarily eye-catching in color-usage (e.g.). Work with the WMF design team, to brainstorm potential improvements/updates (they've already started, but are paused for Wikimania). Prepare for some of the potential improvements that Wikidata integration will bring (eg. population sparklines).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This conversation is already happening. I regularly work to remove garish or inaccessible colours and improve infobox design. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support John Carter (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caution against using Collapse

4) Recommend that MOS:COLLAPSE be updated to strongly caution against widespread usage outside of footer-navboxes and sidebar-navboxes. Suggest a research study into the benefits and problems of using collapse, anywhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support Good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think "strongly caution" is appropriate wording. Better to say AC recommends that the community discuss and create a clear and consistent guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for content decision. Should be discussed at the relevant page(s). I do wonder at the potential reaction if the decision is made to remove such an infobox entirely if collapsing it is found to be unsatisfactory. Reso lute 17:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Gerda Arendt

Proposed principles

AGF in a new infobox

1) An infobox, added by an author other than the principal contributors, possibly adds value to an article, - if not to you personally, perhaps to someone else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An infobox is possibly detrimental to an article - if not for you personally, perhaps for someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk with an example? I can at the moment not imagine any article that would not be improved by presenting at least time and location in an infobox, as you read in an opera program when and where the action takes place. For example today's featured article: the time is given in the title, but the location Oxford is mentioned only after "Sanskrit" made me think of India ;) (Far be it from me to go further than asking the author, a QAI member.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone needs an infobox to tell them a fact that is in the first sentence of the article, they are probably beyond help! The mention of the university in the infobox would come several centimetres into the screen below that of the text mentioning the university. And make that an "ex-QAI" member - I joined in an effort to get people at QAI to help audit old FAs for use at TFA, and that attempt failed. I see no benefit in belonging to QAI at the present time. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone needs an infobox to tell them a fact that is in the first sentence of the article, they are probably beyond help! Ignoring the insult to the vast majority of our readers and editors, this comment completely misrepresents the point of an infobox. An infobox presents succinct factual information in a consistent format and location. It enables people looking for this specific information to find it quickly and easily without hunting through kilobytes of prose, at the same time it provides a summary background of key information for those unfamiliar with the subject, often as a prelude to reading the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's why we have a lead too. And the benefit there is that it doesn't remove nuances from text that is not as "basic" as it seems. One look at the infobox for Bruce Willis suggests he may be German, as that is where he was born: thankfully the lead informs me that he is "a German-born American actor". Clarity from the text, not oversimplified and potentially misleading bullet points. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to a misleading or unclear parameter in an infbox is to to correct or clarify that parameter, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the specific example you gave there are "nationality" and "citizenship" parameters that could be used to clarify - as I have just done[22]. This is exactly the same reason why we don't delete the section of prose an unclear statement is in, we fix it instead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Or perhaps not even put the place of birth in the infobox in the first place? I pass no judgment on the talk page discussion relating to nationality, except to point out that it's already been discussed to some extent. Talk:Bruce Willis/Archive 1#German - American vs. American. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like others have said: An infobox presents succinct factual information in a consistent format and location. It enables people looking for this specific information to find it quickly and easily without hunting through kilobytes of prose Not the same as a lead at all; thinking of examples like Infobox officeholder, things like marriages, kids, succession of offices held, etc. generally aren't in the lead; for someone like Richard Nixon, for example (Where I dabbled a little with it when it was heading for TFA), the lead will have a completely different focus than the infobox, where, for example, even the lead is very long, yet [{Spiro Agnew]] is not mentioned at all in the lead, so if one were seeking th ename of Nixon's VP, the infobox is the obvious place to look. Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Infobox as feedback

2) An infobox, added by an author other than the principle contributors, reflects how an article is understood by an "outsider", as valuable feedback.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Placing scare quotes around "outsider" is apt. The people you are referring to most certainly are not outsiders within the context of this debate. Reso lute 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is not Gerda's native language. Cut some slack, please, as requested above (or on evidence, I don't recall). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? You're ignoring the point that if you or one of your followers adds an infobox, you are hardly an "outsider". As to whether that is "valuable feedback", that is a highly subjective argument. Reso lute 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nobodies follower. By "outsider" I mean someone who didn't contribute to an article. Take The Rite of Spring. I suggested an infobox as I understood the article, - the contributors realised that the use of the word "movements" needed to be reconsidered and changed the article, - that is of value witout subjectivity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Try and improve an infobox before reverting

1) A new infobox, if it is not clear disruption or vandalism, should stay in place in an article to be seen by readers and editors and to be improved. I suggest to try a "grace period" of three days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nope. An infobox can be seen and improved and discussed on the talk page; there is no need for an inappropriate template, even if added in good faith, to remain for three days. Besides, readers who are not already editors rarely comment either for or against boxes (which is why the "no readers complained" argument is such a poor one). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV. Please define "inappropriate". Instead of a complete revert, you could leave those parts that are correct if they exist, and copy questionable parameters to the talk page. - I am much more open to any revert by a principal author than someone who rules over appropriateness by a standard I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely not. It's Bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, fillibuster. Reso lute 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is an infobox for a composition "bold"? (No FA, no classical composer.) See Cantata academica, infobox on the talk, and what now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any action likely to be viewed as controversial is bold, and we're here because placing these infoboxes is controversial. But don't get hung up on the literal definition of bold. BRD is about the process when an edit is challenged. Your proposal seeks to remove the ability to challenge an edit that favours your viewpoint. Reso lute 22:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reach consensus

2) A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency.

(The facts for the infobox example were supplied by Voceditenore, see my talk.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No consensus

2) A way to proceed if no clear consensus is established needs to be defined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:NOCONSENSUS: absent BLP issues or potential compromises, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Very strongly agree You are very right Gerda. The lack of procedure for dealing with no consensus in this type of dispute has definitely prolonged the issue. Bramble claw x 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nikkimaria. The issue here is not what to do if there is no consensus, we already know that. The issue is what to do with those who will not drop the stick. Reso lute 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

partial oppose': I have seen situations where a change is desperately needed and a group gins up a false "consensus" to prevent change. Or at the WP Classical music project, the "we don't use infoboxes lalalalalal" kept being bandied about, but there really wasn't a solid link to a solid "consensus" discussion. So, though WP:NOCONSENSUS applies, I don't think we want to get to the point where articles languish for years because years ago a status quo was set but no consensus was actually reached. At least, let's not claim consensus where none exists. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Brambleclawx

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) Editors should, and are expected to, assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Per WP:AGF. Editors should not be quick to jump to assumptions that other editors are acting in bad faith: it should be assumed that editors are making changes because they believe they are being helpful, and not assumed that they are "trolling".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good principle, although it has to be accepted that assuming good faith does have its limits. How many unexplained reversions of your edits by the same person would it take before you started questioning their good faith? --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself how many times you see someone adding infoboxes while dismissing your concerns as irrelevant or illogical (even though you feel it is right) before you start to question good faith too. Bramble claw x 15:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said somewhere (outside this page, a while ago) that I welcome anybody adding infoboxes to my articles. I try to respect the wish of single people not to have an infobox (Benjamin Britten). Many articles, however, don't have a principal contributor, and some are gone. Feel free to look at some infoboxes I (and others) added to articles of others or suggested, - please compare "with infobox" and "without" and tell me what you feel, "appropriate" or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally support the principle, with RexxS's comment also a component worth mentioning. I'd say if someone is going in and making changes to a hundred-plus articles without discussion, they are exercising rather questionable judgement and really should check in with more active editors to see if that's OK (I remember a time at a wikiproject where one editor went in and removed a bottom navbox from almost 350 articles and then another editor went in and restored all of them. That sort of thing needs to be discouraged...) Montanabw^(talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be civil

2) Even in heated discussion, editors are expected to treat each other civilly, regardless of how others treat them. Misunderstandings and "an eye-for-an-eye" attitudes can lead to unhelpful argument.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree without reservation. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes provide at-a-glance information to readers

3) Infoboxes are meant to provide at-a-glance information to readers of pertinent details. They are expected to be redundant to the article text, as they "[summarise] key features of the page's subject". Per MOS:INFOBOX.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed in general, but I'd strongly endorse SPhilbrick's careful analysis in the #Infoboxes are intended to be mostly redundant section above as more precise. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like RexxS said... and my comments about the difference between an infobox and a lead, such as my example of Richard Nixon above. Montanabw^(talk) 16:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are one way of providing metadata, but they are independent

4) Infoboxes are a way of providing metadata which can be used by external parties. However, infoboxes do not require metadata to be of value, and metadata need not necessarily be in an infobox. Thus, it follows that regardless of whether metadata really is necessary, the provision of metadata alone is insufficient grounds for the inclusion of an infobox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Has anyone ever argued that "metadata alone is sufficient grounds for the inclusion of an infobox"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the edit summary? It doesn't say "alone". - I would not rely on an edit summary as evidence, knowing how often I regret not wording it precisely enough. Was that another revert of a revert? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a non-sequitur. The provision of metadata is one of the advantages infoboxes bring to articles and that improves an article by making the information more available to a greater variety of users. Since no-one has yet found another way of providing all of the microformats that wouldn't involve duplication of effort and difficulty of maintenance, it is simply untrue to suggest that they could be sensibly placed anywhere else than in an infobox at present. The first diff provided shows Nikki reverting an infobox with the unnacceptable edit summary of "rm, fmt" and me restoring the infobox with the edit summary of "restore infobox - not seeing sufficient reason to balance the loss of metadata"; complaining about the loss of metadata is not the same as saying that it is the only advantage for inclusion. I could have just as easily complained about the loss of a brief overview, readers' expectations or standardised structures, but there's only so much room in an edit summary box. The second diff clearly shows my comment: "I don't think that the small infobox is aesthetically unappealing in this case, although I accept that others may disagree. Nevertheless, at present, use of the infobox is far-and-away the most convenient means that editors have to make the metadata available, and I suggest that the advantage of its retention here outweighs the likely disadvantages that I can see (repetition of info and aesthetics, I assume). I'd be happy to discuss these issues here if there is a case to be made for removal of the infobox.". It is disingenuous to suggest that I was making an argument for metadata alone as grounds for inclusion. I have always indicated that I'm willing to discuss the various pros and cons for any individual article as I did there. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a non-sequitur. Provided both of my premises are true, then the conclusion is perfectly valid. It looks to me more like you're questioning my second premise. In that case, it is possible for them to exist independently, so I believe that it is a justified premise. I did not say that it is more convenient for them to be separate, merely indicating that they are in fact separable. Bramble claw x 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by your 'second premise', you mean "metadata need not necessarily be in an infobox". In that case, yes, your conclusion overreaches its second premise by implicitly extending it to mean that there is an available alternative to infoboxes for all the metadata we have - but there isn't. That illustrates the disconnect between what might be possible in theory and the reality of what we have. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only because infobox promoters have resisted the creation of general "persondata" types of format for holding metadata, because they wish to impose infoboxes universally. In fact these could certainly be set up, & might well provide a more satisfactory solution, although obviously would require a lot of extra work. But they would also provide an opportunity to import (where it's free content) more reliable metadata in various areas from the increasing range of other sources, using standardized field-specific vocabularies and formats instead of our home made ones designed for a different purpose (display in an infobox). That would enable metadata to be an actual positive for improving WP content, instead of a distraction from it. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"infobox promoters have resisted the creation of general "persondata" types of format" - Really? Where have these proposals been put forward (and I don't just mean as rhetorical questions), and resisted? Once again, Where is your evidence?

"they wish to impose infoboxes universally" - If by that you mean "on every article", then evidence, please. If you mean "as the standard way of summarising key points where such a summary is used, and making those points machine readable", then yes, that's a good thing. Why would we not do so?

"opportunity to import... metadata..." - this is already possible, and done, with infoboxes. The application of microformats to infoboxes also uses "standardized field-specific vocabularies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To prove that I'm not resistant to those sort of ideas, John, I'll make you an offer. You go ahead and create one of these general "persondata" types of format thing for holding metadata that can import more reliable metadata from a wide range of sources; and I'll put all my efforts into adding one of them to every possible article that doesn't have an infobox; and we'll see how we get on. Deal? --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely beyond my capabilities, and your part of the offer is not entirely attractive (plus you'd have to subcontract Bradley Manning) - see next two posts. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this and this are the diffs of which John is thinking—both absolutely unambiguous statements from pro-infobox hardliners (although not those apparently involved in this case) that "every article should have an infobox". (It's possibly worth noting that one of these statements is in the context of someone saying that "despite my supporting adding an infobox to every article I still believe Andy Mabbett's behavior in relation to infoboxes is unacceptable".) The final comment of the interview here ("Q: How can a new contributor help today?" "A: Andy Mabbett: ...not to mention the many articles lacking infoboxes, to which one can be added by any editor!") doesn't explicitly say "add an infobox to every article" but could certainly be read as such. – iridescent 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: generally pro-infobox, but strongly of the belief that on certain pages they can be a significant net negative. The arbs are aware, but other readers may not be, that the "added an infobox to the talkpage per the advice of Newyorkbrad" that Gerda keeps quoting as if Brad brought it down from a mountain on stone tablets wasn't any kind of policy statement let alone a ruling, but a throwaway comment made by NYB in the discussion on my talkpage which by a long and winding process ultimately led to this RFAR. FWIW I stand by all the comments I made in that thread both about the conduct of both sides in this dispute (which doesn't appear to have improved any, even staring down the barrels of Arbcom's guns), the failure of the BRD cycle in a situation in which there is someone on each side who will never admit they're ever wrong, and the likely outcomes of this RFAR. Since there are at least two people on one side of this debate and at least one on the other who will undoubtedly refuse to accept any resolution with which they disagree, this case will inevitably result in at least one editor being either blocked or placed under a topic-ban so restrictive it may as well be a site-ban, and all that's really up for discussion is which editor(s) that should be. – iridescent 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I certainly read the first, but not I think the second, although I think User:The Bushranger has said the same on other occasions, as have others. On this topic I was looking at the recent(ish) winners of WP:The Core Contest. Many of course have infoboxes, though the one for Nazi Germany gives about as reasonable an overview of the subject as Inglourious Basterds, but ones that don't include Sea, Electricity, Language, Sculpture, Reproductive system and Deforestation in Brazil. Some challenges there for infobox completists, but please keep them in your sandbox. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You've found two isolated remarks by people, not involved here nor in any of the listed disputes or projects, saying they think all articles should have infoboxes. Where else do they argue for this? Are they the "infobox promoters" John referred to in the comment I challenged him (and still do) to verify? If so, how are they "promoting"? My "one can be added by any editor" comment did not include the additional text you image because firstly, some articles without infoboxes do not lack them; it's by design (e.g. disambiguation pages), and in al other cases a disputed addition is open to discussion. So please don't try to put words into my mouth. But do feel free to give a list or examples, of an article to which an editor may not add an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just had some examples of ones they should not be added to, and most conceptual articles can be included, as well as other types mentioned here. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for may not. Are you saying no editor may add an infobox to such articles? Cite, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, & I don't see how the question relates to anything in this section. Meanwhile I'd like an answer to mine. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it! There's a frigging userbox! About 30 people display it. Get yours here Andy! Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A recurring theme in these comments threads is to do with infoboxes adding value because they emit metadata, as in "improving an article by adding an infobox because it emits metadata", and speaking of {Start date}, {vevent} as being Good Things.

We should to take a quick look at enWP's metadata get a better perspective on this.

130,000+ instantiations of Infobox person CAN be wrong

Somewhere above, Michael Bednarek provided a link to the Italian it:Template:Bio brief and full equivalents of the underlying Persondata template. The brief one includes Sesso (Gender) in its 13 key elements of biographical data. Incredibly, Gender is not even included the English list of fields at all. "Gosh!, so if I've got WP's metadata, I can't analyse the data by gender, or filter for female composers -- this is not a big problem". Wrong. Consider Dame Ethyl Smyth, who is a 'British composer' according to her Persondata. In French she would be described as 'compositrice anglaise' (not 'compositeur anglais'), in Italian as 'compositrice inglese' (not 'compositore inglese') and in German as 'englische Komponistin' (not 'englischer Komponist'). You cannot list even this basic level of information about her without knowing her gender, yet there is nowhere in her enWP article a field that clearly defines her as female, neither in the embedded Persondata nor emitted by the Infobox. All one million plus enWP articles with Persondata entries have the same, very low, level of re-useability.

The standards that underlie infoboxes are unsuitable for historical data

The Infobox Person emits microformats. To decode that statement: certain data fields can be set to be output in a tagged-up machine-readable form alongside the human readable version. The machine-readable form is hidden from view through the CSS. The data fields include dates if they are wrapped in the {Start date} template. {Start date} is based on {vevent} (a standard for calendar event scheduling), which itself is based on the ISO 8601 standard (intro here). This is basically a very simple YYYYMMDD format with a few bells and whistles.

This underlying ISO standard works with single dates (or dates and times) that are known precisely. It was never intended for historical data. It has a limited date range and doesn't include any of the mechanisms for dealing with historical dates where there are often ambiguities, approximations, alternatives ... Some of the things that the {Start date} template of the Infobox Person cannot handle:

Ovid, poet and literary source (born 20 March 43 BCE) doesn't handle BCE
Claudio Monteverdi (born 1567) doesn't handle dates before 1583 except by arrangement between reader and writer (not possible in WP)
Giuseppe Verdi (born 9 or 10 October 1813) doesn't handle alternatives
Beethoven (baptized 17 December 1770) no mechanism for the usual modifiers of births/ deaths: baptism dates and burials
Vivaldi's Tito Manlio premiere: Carnival 1719 doesn't handle standard historical period
John Frederick Lampe (born late 1702 or early 1703) doesn't handle date modifiers 'early', 'late' or seasons 'Spring' etc
Pallavicini (died after 1756) doesn't handle bounds 'before', 'after' or approximations 'circa' ...
Tchaikovsky 25 April/7 May 1840 doesn't handle Julian/ Russian Old Style dates

In all of these cases (and others), the data drops back to human readable free text, with no attempt at standardisation or parseability.

I started this note just to rein in some of the unrealistic, over enthusiastic words being written about how good WP was with metadata. I'm now leaning towards a suggestion of pausing any big pushes to add infoboxes (or Persondata) until some thought/ effort has been made to eliminate some of the shortcomings of the existing templates and microformats. Every university now has its own Digital Humanities department, all of them looking at, using and manipulating these types of data. Someone should talk to some of them. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the comment by Scarabocchio:Every university now has its own Digital Humanities department, all of them looking at, using and manipulating these types of data. Someone should talk to some of them.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to reply to every example above (I'm at a business function), but many of them are edge cases; and can be dealt with at individual article talk pages. For every Beethoven, there are a thousand or more composers whose birth date is unequivocally known. Why should his circumstances cause their data to be unavailable? I have argued recently (but before this case) for the inclusion of gender in infoboxes. I dispute the assertions about the unsuitability of ISO 8601; it's the standard for use in vCard, iCalendar, microformats and more and is used many, many millions of times on the web. An RfC demonstrated community support for its use on infoboxes. We don't use it for BCE, vague or uncertain dates and the like; but work is in hand in the wider community to find a suitable alternative and adopt it for microformats; there is reference to this on one of my user sub-pages. There is, remember, WP:NODEADLINE for this. It's notable that the various organisations listed in my evidence (Google, BBC, many more) find our metadata useful, and are happy and successful in using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that my post was redundant -- the metadata is now being taken from Wikidata, and they are collecting the gender from the other language versions: Ethel Smyth's entry includes: "sex=female; sources=2 (deWP, itWP)". They are also supporting the Gregorian/ Julian calendars. I'm taking the rest of my questions there, though I can already see modifier fields available on birth dates for instance. The last posts on the talk pages of Wikiproject Persondata indicate that they think their project is superceded by the migration of data to Wikidata. It looks like it's game over for metadata on the language specific WPs, with everything taken from the global superset in Wikidata (which of course is how it should be because this will ensure consistency and encourage care). Scarabocchio (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give the follwong response afeter due considertation Bollocks. Note for Americans: "Bullshit". Microformats are in-page metadata. Even when Wikidata holds all the information we do; and even when and if infoboxes are populated from Wikidata, each of which is a long way off, they will still have a purpose. And in the meantime, our infoboxes are still actively used as a source of data by many organisations and individuals as explained here several times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, ISO 8601 is suitable in millions of pages and a very large proportion of cases, and the closer you get to the current date the larger that proportion will be as dates and events become better tracked and recorded. I would expect pretty much every date item in the last 50 years to fit, including everything in enWP's pet loves of 20th century weaponry, cult TV shows and all of the other train-spottery trivia of contemporary culture. The corollary is that the further you go back, the proportion of events with YYYYMMDD compatible dates will fall together with the decreasing importance of the calendar before the industrial revolution, the lack of the modern interest in precision, and the declining completeness of the records that have come down to the current day. I could have used later examples for everything on my list (I have thousands), but it seemed important to use the leading figures to underline the fact that once you get to the beginning of the 1800s, the lack of precision is such that ISO 8601 is inadequate even for many of the famous composers. Obviously, as you go further back the proportion (and the suitability of ISO 8601) continues to fall. Scarabocchio (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Microformats are in-page metadata". Here, you have put your finger on the weakness of the current enWP approach. To collect the metadata from enWP Persondata, or from the Infoboxes, I would have to trawl one million pages filled with a large amount of text aimed at humans. How much more attractive is a single pre-parsed clean database download of formatted records with no useless text overheads? Scarabocchio (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the key reason why having microformat markup is so attractive in enWP (or any other website, of course). The data so marked receives a semantic addition; so that a birth date is not just any old date, but has a class that automated tools can immediately, accurately and repetitively identify as a birth date, for example. If you're a researcher who needs a list of 18th-century composers' birthdates then the tools already exist to create that list from enWP - if we have the microformats. If someone wants a list of singles produced by Robert Stigwood, then it's a bit harder because 'producer' isn't a microformat. Nevertheless, it is relatively much easier to write code to scan {{infobox single}} (either the wikitext or the html rendered) in articles and create a list of single titles where Stigwood is the producer, than it is to try searching article text to retrieve that information. Not only that but it would be trivial to adapt the code to find albums produced by Pete Townsend, and so on. An extra bonus is that other research is possible: having code that identifies X as a producer of record Y in one of our infoboxes can be used to train heuristic text recognition engines to examine text on other websites and improve its ability to recognise variations of "X ... produced ... Y" in natural text as a pattern for other producers and records. English Wikipedia is arguably the largest collection of broad-based information yet created and its regular structures like infoboxes, navboxes and citations make it an extremely useful resource for advancing human knowledge in ways we never dreamed of when we started writing our content. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microformats are in-page metadata, and useful in that regard, but the structured data in infoboxes (and in persondata, of which I am not an advocate) is also available in data dumps and via the API. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Bad faith and civility

1) Both sides of the dispute have assumed bad faith and acted in an uncivil manner, as noted thoroughly in evidence and discussion in the workshop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Where is the evidence that people wanting to deploy infoboxes have behaved as described? Such findings should not be made on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is on the evidence page. I believe there are more than enough diffs displaying uncivil behavior by both sides. Bramble claw x 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly evidence like "Mabbett's a notorious troll... with his obnoxious POV-pushing" (Folantin, March 2013). Can you show evidence of people advocating the use of infoboxes in such terms? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Notice the context of my comment. It was the discussion page to a Signpost interview with Project Opera in March. Andy Mabbett made the very first comment there, with an immediate attack on the project and bad faith assumptions: "...We thus have a small number of editors, operating as a team, to override wider community consensus. Their response to this being pointed out often comprises ad hominem attacks; and article talk page debates are often the subject of their partisan canvassing. Once again, he was deliberately trying to provoke conflict. --Folantin (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this point elsewhere on this page, quoting the four comments to which I responded. As there is a large volume of text involved, I shan't repeat it here, Please search for "deliberately trying to provoke conflict" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in infobox discussions

2) Redundancy of infoboxes is an invalid argument because infoboxes by their nature are meant to be so. Inclusion of metadata alone is insufficient grounds for the inclusion of an infobox because metadata does not require an infobox to exist. The existence of infoboxes on other articles, no matter how numerous, does not apply [as valid justification for having an infobox] because MOSINFOBOX states infobox inclusion is neither required nor prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support the first sentence. The second repeats a proposed finding which you make above, and which I have already questioned. The third makes no sense ("does not apply" to what?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Square bracket amendments have been used to clarify. As for the second point, Nikkimaria has responded. Bramble claw x 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The existence of other infoboxes in large numbers may not be "justification for having an infobox" in a specific case, but it is evidence of widespread community acceptance of infoboxes, including their supposedly redundant repetition of key content, their general style, the emission of metadata, its reuse by external organisations and the placement of code in the editing window; all of which and more have been advanced as reasons not to include infoboxes in specific articles. It is reasonable to cite their plentiful existence, to rebut such generic objections to individual implementations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think it's helpful to examine some of the arguments deployed and to understand why repeated use of invalid arguments acts against consensus-building on talk pages. Provision of metadata is one of the valid reasons for including an infobox because infoboxes already provide microformats. Of course you could create another template that encapsulates the microformats, but so far nobody has - why? because the infobox already has all the framework in place as well as all of the key data, so you "kill two (maybe three) birds with one stone" by using the infobox as the means of providing microformats. There is often other metadata available from an infobox, of course, because of its predictable layout. It doesn't seem logical to me to say "you could do it a different way", when it's obviously advantageous to do it the way we already do. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience and logic are separate. I'm just suggesting it's possible. Bramble claw x 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing against using infoboxes to provide microformats or other structured data, just because it might be possible to do it another way is fallacious, simply because no other way presently exists. The infobox templates have encapsulated microformats since at least 2008 and in those five years since, nobody has come forward with a replacement process for supplying that metadata. The widespread supply of metadata is now inextricably linked to infoboxes for all practical purposes. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it a fallacy. It can be done: I've suggested using {{borndied}} for biographies where no other data is relevant. If you can make an infobox emit metadata, I am sure you can make other templates do so too. Bramble claw x 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

All named parties encouraged to assume good faith and act civilly

1) Regardless of what happens in a discussion, all named parties are requested to assume good faith on the part of others, and refrain from accusations of bad faith, lying, and sarcasm, which can be easily misinterpreted and lead to conflict. All editors are reminded that editors are expected to act in a mature manner, and demonstrate an ability to be understanding and courteous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Amen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, however, the proposal is poorly worded ("refrain from accusations of bad faith, refrain from accusations of lying..." or "refrain from accusations of bad faith, refrain from lying..."?) Note also that there is a difference between flinging unfounded "you lair" insults and pointing out that someone appears to have lied, with evidence of their making provably false statements. As RexxS noted earlier, AGF is not a suicide pact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Pigsonthewing topic-banned from TFA talk+TFA grace period

~~2) Extension of Pigsonthewing's topic-ban on TFAs to the relevant talk page, and extending to a 1-year period after their TFA appearance, indefinitely.~~

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An outrageous proposal, addressing no identified problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood what even the ban is good for. I just explained that I might be banned if I insert an infobox in a TFA, as people try to ban Andy for doing that more than a year ago. I think we understand the problem without a ban. A ban from talk pages is against freedom of speech, if you ask me. So is trying to keep an infobox off the talk page where it should be discussed. (It happened, but I am reluctant to point.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The 1-year number is arbitrarily picked. But some sort of grace period needs to be implemented to avoid the seemingly common occurrence of day-after-TFA infobox discussions. Bramble claw x 03:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way too soft and easy to game.--Folantin (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you feel this way about said proposal? Bramble claw x 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he means I might disruptively edit a former TFA's talk page one year and one day after it featured on the main page. After all, such articles are never to be edited, except by their owners, right? Perhaps we should have a {{This article is finished}} template and be done with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are "day after TFA" discussions prohibited? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not prohibited. But it would appear some editors feel you are gaming your ban, and it looks like raising the issue immediately after TFA has been causing unnecessary disruption. Bramble claw x 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors "feel" that way, but AN/I and AN found no breach of ban (see my evidence). "Seemingly common" - that is once in December, once in May, or did miss something? I remember The Rite of Spring, - that is not even a contentious topic, it's a composition, not a composer. How would a question (no more) on the talk be a disruption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem that this proposal seeks to remedy? It seems a direct contradiction of the "assume good faith" principle that you made above. If Andy believes in good faith that an infobox would improve a particular article, then what justification do you have to prevent him from editing normally. What if Gerda adds an infobox the day after the TFA? Do you ban her next? What if I do? Me next? What about the uninvolved editor who reads a TFA and thinks "that would benefit from an infobox"? I can see some sense in not adding to the stress of having 'your' article on the Main page by having to discuss an infobox at the same time. I'd voluntarily keep away from such proposals around that day, but I'd be furious at the suggestion that making a good-faith edit at another time is 'disruption' - even more so for discussion on a talk page. The only thing it would disrupt is the cosy assumption that the article is owned and that nothing that the owners don't like is going into the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted I floated the idea as a possible solution for others to discuss and possibly refine. You are right that it assumes bad faith; as such I am striking it. Bramble claw x 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impose harsher warning for violation of BRD regarding infoboxes, and regulate mass action

3) BRD violations to be warned more strongly, and mass action to be regulated. Details in proposed enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The BRD essay, though good, is not binding, and so cannot be "violated". Note though, that its 'nutshell' description begins "Making bold edits is encouraged"; and that the essay says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, but haven't you accused others of breaking BRD yourself? Bramble claw x 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[23] Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary there was, in full, "(Undid revision 542001777 by Toccata quarta (talk) WP:BRD)". that is neither mandating BRD, nor complaining of others "breaking" it. If you have some other point, it's not clear from your posting only a diff. Incidentally, that article, Enrique Granados, still has no infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this proposal contains a lot of good sense because we don't take BRD seriously enough. I find edit warring one of the most destructive behaviours to occur on Wikipedia, and like Gerda, I have voluntarily restricted myself to 1RR for years. It's a pity BRD is just an essay as it is so widely observed that it feels as though it should have enforceable status. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage a compromise

4) Wikipedia is not about "winning" and getting your way while disproving all arguments in opposition to you. As such, a compromise should be worked out which can satisfy both sides. Many arguments have above been asserted to be invalid, including redundancy, the necessity of metadata etc. However, some very valid concerns have been raised:

infoboxes can be helpful providing at-a-glance information, which some readers find useful
infoboxes are a convenient way of providing metadata, which is nice to have
some fields in classical music infoboxes could be contentious: for example, influences, most notable works, etc.

As such, a compromise should be reached. Those in opposition to infoboxes are asked to stop rejecting them outright, whereas those in favour are asked to acknowledge the possibility that an article may not always benefit from having an infobox. As a next step, all involved are asked to work to address the issues which concern either side:

determine what fields are important, both to the reader and as metadata, to decide what fields are to be included
constructively determine which fields will not be contentious
agree on ways to deal with potentially contentious fields: exclusion, hidden-comment notices, etc.
as suggested below by montanabw, give WikiProjects more control over aesthetics; but discourage collapsing as a hindrance to accessibility
discuss cases where infoboxes are not helpful, and find ways to include metadata in other widely used templates. For example, could {{borndied}} be adjusted to emit relevant metadata in cases where infoboxes would not contain any other data than name, birth/death date/locations?

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I think there are solid thoughts in your PD, I would say most of the above is not within the realm of arbitration, but would be useful for an RfC or similar after arbitration. I encourage you to float it then to the wider community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Götterdämmerung
by Richard Wagner
Composer Richard Wagner, 1871
Translation	Twilight of the Gods
Librettist	Richard Wagner
Language	German
Premiere	17 August 1876 (1876-08-17) Bayreuth Festival, as part of the first complete performance of the cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen

This sounds like a good approach to me. I live by examples more than theory, lets look at the points you raised. I inserted this infobox {{infobox opera}}, an option of project opera since 18 June, on 2 August.

I believe it offers at-a-glance information for a random reader who may not know that Richard Wagner lived in the 19th century and had to do with the Bayreuth Festival, and that this work is part of the Ring Cycle.
It offers metadata.
I believe it does not contain contentious fields.
I believe it could have been improved in place, its flaws and merits be discussed, including parameters, their content, and aesthetics.

Compare article and discussion. The edit summary of the expected revert said "Revert infobox - unreasonable to insert without discussion". Was it unreasonable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good infobox. I would have no problem with it. If someone feels it's unreasonable, I cannot explain why they feel that way; best to pose the question to the reverter. Bramble claw x 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda did ask. Did you not see what then happened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. That doesn't mean I can answer for someone else why they feel it is unreasonable. I feel this one would have been fine. Bramble claw x 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I took a look at it again, and I do have one concern. What is the rationale for using an image of wagner to illustrate this work? Might the cover of his initial manuscript or maybe a poster for the premiere (if such things were produced back then, I don't know) be better? Bramble claw x 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a note, Gerda, I added italic title=no to this infobox here because it was italicizing the title. Bramble claw x 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration! (and for fixing the italic, sorry I forgot, I explained it here) - Discussions about which picture to choose, which parameters to include, how to fill the fields, can all happen with an infobox in place. The picture: I proposed one that I found eye-catching, but another user whom I respect highly thinks it's awful, - a matter of taste. For this page, I chose Wagner, because it's the image the side navbox also uses, as a nod to its designers. Also, he has the right age for this work, - not so for Das Liebesverbot (compare) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points, but "give WikiProjects more control over aesthetics" brings us back to issues of ownership. Projects do not control things on Wikipedia; the community does. Using alternative templates to emit metadata puts an additional, unnecessary burden on editors (to lean extra techniques) and re-users. I refer to the Terry Riley, CBSO, and similar examples, mentioned in my evidence, as an example of what happens when certain members of the project concerned use "compromise" infoboxes merely as tool to remove material from infobox display. One of the benefits of emitting metadata from infoboxes is that editors use infoboxes anyway; they don't have to think about metadata or additional templates. Can anyone say how Gerda's infobox, above, would have a detrimental effect on the article in question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise is a process whereby people with opposing views find common ground, then build on it by conceding the remaining issues fairly in an attempt to satisfy both sides. If we want to give people with concerns over metadata and visual appeal equal representation, why not let the metadatans do their metadata thing, while let the people concerned with visual aspects like image size deal with that (as far as I know, visual appearance of infoboxes does not affect metadata emission). As I noted, collapsing is discouraged, and fields are not an aesthetic thing: they are, as I noted above, to be discussed in order to work out potential issues viewed by all involved. Bramble claw x 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that people concerned with visual aspects should not have an equal voice; I said that we don't give decision making powers to projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A project is a group of people. Bramble claw x 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm no arbitrator. Nor would I say I am talented as acting as a negotiator. But judging by the arguments discussed in old discussions and in this Case, it seems to me that behavioural issues aside, a reasonable compromise can be reached. I have collected what I'm under the impression to be the most pertinent concerns expressed, and tried to put them into a list to more clearly see the issues at hand. If I have missed any, I understand that as someone who has not been very involved with this issue, I could have missed something. However, this will only work if editors on both sides of the issue can remain civil and focus on the issues at hand instead of arguing. Bramble claw x 01:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit and intent of what is proposed above (along with much that Quiddity has offered as a way forward) deserve support. I'd be happy to help in whatever way I can. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

BRD/Mass action

1) Violations of BRD relating to infoboxes (whether the addition and subsequent removal, or the removal and subsequent reversion) should be given a neutrally-worded warning regarding BRD and strongly urged/reminded to bring the discussion to the talk page. Violations to be punished by escalating blocks starting at 1 day. Named parties are not to engage in mass action, defined as more than 3 uncontested additions/removals within a 1 week interval; if this action is contested, no further action of this sort may be undertaken by the editor until a consensus is reached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my comments on the BRD essay, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a voluntary 1RR rule regarding infoboxes, and I would not insert one for biographies of classical music other than those where I am the main contributor. (I don't understand why these people are treated differently from the rest of Wikipedia subjects but respect history.) There is no such restriction for operas, architecture etc, or is it? What would a violation be? Why that arbitrary definition of three per week? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. The three-per-week was arbitrarily selected. I just want to suggest that since mass action of this sort has tended to be controversial in the past, perhaps a way to limit the disruption that follows mass addition/reversion is by slowing things down by limiting this, and ensuring discussions finish in one location before another discussion starts elsewhere. Bramble claw x 01:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I need to understand better what you mean by action. I did what might be called a mass action by adding 3 infoboxes to works by Franz von Suppé, to make them consistent with Fatinitza, a GA nominee. I would not be pleased to earn sanctions for achieving consistency. I inserted 5 infoboxes for masses by Schubert once the first one was appreciated. I went over to one by Mozart, Sparrow Mass, you know what happened. (If not, that is the case to study, with all diffs (protection, edit summaries), not just what is left on the talk, calling me an edit warrior.) Needless to say, I didn't revert again and stopped Mozart, without the threat of sanctions, it's just unpleasant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I know this doesn't directly address your question, but I was under the impression I once read somewhere that articles need not be consistent with one another, only within themselves. However, this may have changed since I last remember seeing it, and I do acknowledge that having consistency can be helpful. Bramble claw x 16:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I explain a bit (for more see the project talk): many operas have a side navbox in the top right corner where readers expect an infobox. I suggested an infobox instead for Fatinitza which the author accepted. To replace the missing links, I created a footer navbox for the composer, as {{Richard Wagner}} and {{Giuseppe Verdi}} have them for a rather long time. For consistency, I created infoboxes for the other works by the composer. So much for that case. If you miss the mentioned Verdi footer in most of his operas, it's because an editor mass-deleted them recently, and stopped me reverting that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A little extreme by my own standards, but something needs to be done to deal with the excessive use of bold and mass editing. Bramble claw x 03:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"excessive use of bold and mass editing"? Isn't that how Wikipedia works? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every one of Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that we should apply common sense when applying guidelines. And as far as my understanding of common sense goes, if following the guideline tends to create disruption, then something should be done to reach a compromise, as I have attempted to write out here. I feel this is a fair way of controlling excessive disruption caused by mass bold action: take it step by step, and if someone objects, then work it out before proceeding. Bramble claw x 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic-ban of Pigsonthewing

~~2) To be enforced via the standard escalating blocks.~~

2) User:Gerda Arendt persists in undertaking, without prior dicussion, infobox placement edits which she knows to be contentious, and indeed has explicitly rejected an invitation to seek consensus before undertaking them. Such behaviour is provocative and unacceptable in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Such behaviour is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Demanding that another editor obtain "prior consensus" is provocative and unacceptable in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Andy's view. When I inserted the infobox on Götterdämmerung (a composition - not a contentious composer), I started a discussion at the same time. I added a plea to it today (before reading this). My concern is the information of our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This from the editor who, when Gerda raised the issue of an infobox on a talk page first, immediately responded, not by discussing the infobox, but by attacking her: "... it will encourage some smartass to put the ugly column you have created on the main page. So merely placing this here at this time is I'm afraid Gerda uncommonly parallel to a provocative act of bad faith." That's the behaviour that is provocative and unacceptable in Wikipedia. Gerda's editing conforms with all of Wikipedia's norms, BRD in particular, and it is obvious that Smerus is attempting to further his ownership of the articles by trying to insist that editors get permission before making an edit to his articles. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles #Statements documents the problem. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once this issue became contentious, Gerda has immediately assumed good faith. For several weeks at minimum, I have seen Gerda either placing the infobox question at talk for ~~the anti-infobox cabal to create a drahmahzone~~ discussion, or she has placed infoboxes on quiet articles where it doesn't appear their has been much activity, except perhaps her own work to improve a given article. But in at least one case, even putting the mention of the dreaded word ~~[[Voldemort~~ infobox at talk made some of the anti-infobox cabal threaten her with sanctions. Sheesh people. Was that "browbeating, bullying, dismissive or threatening" to Gerda? I think so. Yep. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: the mentioned case is Richard Wagner where I not even suggested to have the infobox in the article, but - following advice by Newyorkbrad - placed it on the talk page to stay there. Looking at what followed I'm afraid he was wrong. - I didn't add an infobox where I knew of contention. Who would think that replacing a redundant side navbox in an opera article would be contentious? Or Sparrow Mass? Not me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Flash-mob editing.

3) Where an infobox inserted by User:Gerda Arendt in an opera article is queried or reverted with a request to discuss, the same editors, not known otherwise for their interest in music or opera articles, appear out of the blue to support the infobox, and sometimes to re-revert. (See e.g. many of the pages already cited in this arb discussion, Talk:Das Liebesverbot, Talk:Götterdämmerung, etc.) These editors include User:Agathoclea, User:RexxS, and three members of the so-called "collaboration resource", Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement of which User:Gerda Arendt is also an active member.- User:Pigsonthewing, User:PumpkinSky, User:Montanabw. On this project, which is supposedly dedicated to "improving the quality of Wikipedia's Quality Articles, namely Good Articles (GA) and Featured articles (FA)", User:Gerda Arendt maintains a page with an unexplained 'hitlist' of articles for infobox discussion. Very few of these are GA or GA articles, and many of them are operas , which feature elsewhere in this arb discussion. Perhaps they have some function in alerting otherwise disinterested editors to 'where the action is'. Whatever, this sort of "flash-mob" editing is inappropriate to Wikipedia. --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"not known otherwise for their interest in music or opera articles" is a baseless (there's that word again!) ad hominem assertion. How on Earth can Smerus claim to know which articles interest me or any other editor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't see what you see. User:Agathoclea is an editor of project Germany, which you typically fail to notify, and makes a valid point which applies to all opera side navboxes that appear in the position where a reader would expect an infobox: "The reasons are very simple. An infobox should relate to the article in question, not the vehicle to garnish one specific picture on a vast multitude of articles.". I don't know that editor otherwise. Please accept, assuming good faith, that editors may arrive at the same view independently and without influencing each other. The scope of WP:QAI is broader than you describe, I tried to be more precise in "Scope", now matching "Goals" better. What you called "hitlist" is a (not comprehensive) table of cases where infoboxes (on uncontentious topics, such as architecture and compositions) which were installed by project members were reverted, so far mainly by Nikkimaria and Kleinzach, now - while this case is open - also by you (Smerus, added for clarification, it was misunderstood) in two cases. It is unexplained removal of content that I hope the arbitrators will look into, for example Talk:Götterdämmerung#Infobox. Some editors agree on this view, - is that a mob? I started a second table listing how some articles could look with an infobox, comparing also to similar articles which have an infobox already. Needless to say that in all cases I think that readers would be served better with an infobox than without. That is my motivation to add them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

::WP:QAI is certainly a peculiar WikiProject. It has only nine active members, it does not advertise its existence and membership seems to be by appointment only. The main discussion page is striking for its lack of activity [24] (I note, however, a reference to IRC on that page, so maybe that's where project discussions take place). There are very few references to WP:QAI at all [25], but – as noted elsewhere on this page – those few references include other users describing it as a "clique" [26], a "bit cabalistic" [27].

The project also hosts a page pointing to a selection of current infobox disputes [28]. 48 articles are listed there but - as far as I can see - only three are within the scope of the project (i.e. GAs or FAs). (More to come)--Folantin (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did't see this (ec) when I answered above but think covered your questions at the same time. - Every article to become GA and FA starts as a normal article, - our scope is not as limited as you assume. WP:QAI collaborates with WP:TFAR, the page with activity is WP:QAI/TFA, for planning future TFA and wording nominations (just for information, it is not relevant to infoboxes). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::::What this table is doing in the space of this particular project is still a mystery. As I've said, 90% of the listed articles are not within the stared scope of WP:QAI.--Folantin (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered just above, avoid repetition, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite that "by appointment only" allegation? I have never used IRC with any of the editors named. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::@Pigsonthewing Here's Gerda's invitation to you to join WP:QAI [29] and here's your acceptance[30]. Very few such invitations have been issued. As far as I can tell, you were the last person to join the project - and that was back in January. Whether you took place in IRC project discussions or not, it's obvious from the context of that comment that some members did. It's still not obvious where project policy is decided. --Folantin (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invited Andy, but that doesn't mean "invitation only". Similar goals brought us together, not the other way round, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do people join this project if no one's aware of its existence? I mean, its got nine members and there have been no new additions since January.--Folantin (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are merry as we are, TFA is running smoothly although the so-called director is absent for almost a year. - Thank you for advertising, but what has it to do with the case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] That I was invited is not in dispute. Invitation to join projects is not prohibited. However, that does not mean that "appointment only" and that assertion - like so many others made by infobox opponents -= is unsubstantiated. Who has tried, without being invited, to join that project, and been refused? As can be seen, my joining - as a courtesy to Gerda who had invited me - and an earlier edit to fix a minor accessibility issue were my only posts to the project page (asking people to ping me, because I had little interest in being actively involved, since GAs and Fas are not an area in which I generally seek to edit). I have not posted there since then. Likewise, I only ever made one edit to the project;s talk page, also last January. if the project has a policy, other than what is on its wiki pages, then no-one has informed me of it. If you wish to assert nefarious activity, then you are going to have to provide evidence, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::You posted to WP:QAI only last month [31]. This was at the same time you and three other members of the nine-member project were involved in an infobox dispute at Talk:Rigoletto. --Folantin (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:QAI, that's a different, sub-, page. Even so, is that evidence of "nefarious activity"? I was resondiing to a comment by Kleinzach; is his activity there also suspect? I have made just that one post to that page, the same number as him, and as Tim riley and Frietjes. Is their participation there suspect? I have made fewer posts there than Victoriaearle or Robert.Allen. What are they up to? Like I said, if you wish to assert nefarious activity, then you are going to have to provide evidence, please Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::::It's a sub-page of WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)~~ :::Folantin, consider this an invitation to join QAI, as I also said to you at at WP:Opera. As for the rest of your ~~rant~~ commentary, all I can say is that QAI helped me personally with two successful FAC candidates this year, both related to horses, and as far as I can tell, on one at QAI knows horseshit from shinola, yet they were VERY helpful to me and their assistance was greatly appreciated. So your comment about "not otherwise known for their interest..." well, so sanction me for helping in new areas, but QAI brought me to in turn help with articles such as Thaddeus Stevens (where I was "not otherwise known for" working on history articles) or a little bit with Kafka. But horrors we should stap out of our cliques and niches to help others. My bad... Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally this new notification system is useful, seeing my name mentioned in this context. I find it quite a lack of AGF to attribute my commenting on that talkpage to some secret summons, it was a very open summons: your posting on a talkpage. A very simple check on your part would have alerted you to the fact that I had this article watchlisted prior to your first edit to it. I also have a large number of Wagner related articles on my watchlist from round about that time. Again easily checked. Agathoclea (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been well aware of the activities of QAI for some time as it seemed to have started off as a place where featured articles could be informally suggested for the Today's Featured Article queue at a time when Raul was failing to schedule with any regularity. It seemed useful, but I was busy with Today's Featured Lists (that I helped set up) and accessibility issues, so I didn't add myself as a member. The members are a pretty eclectic bunch, some of whom I know, and most of whom I'd say have a similar interest in innovation and article improvement. I admit I have sometimes followed both Gerda's and Ched's contributions because Gerda is interested in the German Rheingau as am I - and Ched tends to relax with posts to the Bishonen menagerie as do I. I'm afraid Smerus is whistling in the wind with his insinuations because I've been on a wiki-break for the last month and not edited at all. I returned a few days ago as a result of this RfArb case; and it has led me to look at the recent editing by the principals, so it's no surprise I spotted Smerus' recent display of ownership on Das Liebesverbot and Götterdämmerung and challenged him on the former. You can read for yourselves the talk pages and compare my explanation of why an infobox would benefit Das Liebesverbot with Smerus' demands to "Please clear this with WikiProject X first." (see WP:OWN #Statements). You can also all see the contribution that another anti-infoboxer, Toccata quarta made to the debate in reply to my patient explanation. Absolutely clear evidence yet again that they have no intention of discussion. How much of this disruption do we have to document before anyone is prepared to put a stop to it? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You can also all see the contribution that another anti-infoboxer, Toccata quarta made to the debate in reply to my patient explanation." – First: I'm not an "anti-infoboxer", otherwise I wouldn't have created the article Alexei Bezgodov, which has always contained an infobox, in the first place. Straw man. Second: "We can all" also see that you referenced one of my admittedly least informative posts on this matter as an example of what our arguments in such discussions look like. I don't have the patience to repeat the same arguments in every discussion. You could have referenced [32] or [33], but you chose to portray me as one with no arguments. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were an "anti-infoboxer" in that discussion; as you were in both of your alternative examples. It was particularly unreasonable of you to respond in that manner when RexxS was answering a question. The first of your two alternative examples has you saying "Infoboxes are outstandingly ugly and merely duplicate information contained in the lead", which kind of subjective and vacuous objection has already been discussed at length on this page; the second has you using edge cases as sledgehammer to dismiss completely the idea of infoboxes on any classical music articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

1. Rules of procedure for infobox discussions

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.

The institution of an infobox in an established article which does not have one, and the removal of an eastablished infobox which does have one, should always be preceded by a notification to (amongst any others) the article's priciple editors and to any WikiProjects with wshich it is associated. To quote User:Gerda Arendt "I think that the author [of the article] should be respected."
Discussion of the institution of a new infobox (or removal of an established infobox should take place on that article's talk page. The coments of article editors and of members of relevant projects should be accepted as eligible for consideration ion the same basis as those of any other Wikipedia editor.
Editors who in such disucssions behasve in any manner of 'cyber-bullying' should havbe their opinions disqualified in detemrioning consensus.
The criterion for adding or removing an infobox in these circumstances should be a clear consensus in favour of the change.
To ensure a 'level playing field', any hidden text in articles by WikiProjects advising against (or for) infoboxes should be removed. *However this does not prevent WikiProjects making statements about their attitude to infoboxes (if any) on their own pages. These opinions can be legitimatley adduced in discussions should editors wish to do so.
However, any rationale for change should be evidence based - not on the basis of I like it/I don't like it. Where arguments are based on opinion, they can be legitimately given a lower weighting in assessing consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have numbered these bullet points for ease of reference.

A blatant attempt to enforce ownership. As has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, more than one, this is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. Secondary to that, "priciple[sic] editors" is not defined. Who will determine this? How? Number of edits, or percentages? Over what time? Do 100 small edits count more than one big one? What if an editor did 80% of the editing, but that was five years ago? As much as this is inappropriate, it is also utterly unworkable.
All editors' comments should be eligible for consideration, equally.
Again, this describes many infobox opponents. But who will decide this?
It appears from your preceding proposals, that you mean "consensus among vested interests, disqualifying those who disagree"
Agree, noting that such opinions carry no more weight than the expressions of individual editors.
Who will decide which arguments "can be legitimately [sic] given a lower weighting in assessing consensus"? Why have you not previously given weight to the evidence for the benefits of infoboxes?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Smerus has made an undeclared modification to his proposal (point 1), after others have commented on it. He added a quote for Gerda. No-one has suggested (despite his unevidenced assertions elsewhere on this page) that "authors" should not be respected. That respect does not extend to allowing them ownership, nor exempting them or the articles they have worked on from normal Wikipedia polices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Ownership clear and unambiguous. "Please clear this with WikiProject X first." is documented at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles #Statements. That list is worth a look because you'll see most of those arguments trotted out with minor variations by the anti-infoboxers throughout this case.

2. Discussion belongs on the talk page indeed. But the discussion needs to be subject to the policies of Wikipedia:Consensus ("Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns") and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ("No one, no matter how skilled, ... has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article"). That would be a much more satisfactory wording.

3. The processes for building (or determining) consensus are documented at WP:Consensus, but I wouldn't be averse to seeing those who repeatedly derail consensus-building with blatantly invalid arguments being disqualified from taking further part in the process. I'm pretty sure that spotting an invalid argument is not difficult; establishing "cyber-bullying" would seem to me to be far more fraught with difficulty.

4. I would hope this would be achievable. Experience and evidence shows that anti-infoboxers tend to just count numbers and make no effort to seek common ground, contrary to WP:CON: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

5. A step forward. But while the opinion of a Wikiproject may be quoted in a debate, it still must be subject to the requirement that reasons are "based in policy, sources, and common sense". A Wikiproject's "I don't like it" is just as worthless as an individual's.

6. The processes for building (or determining) consensus are documented at WP:Consensus. Insofar as this agrees with the policy, this should be achievable.

In summary: a mixed bag of propositions, some justified, but all cut from fresh cloth, as not one is built on any evidence or principle proposed. --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Flash-mob"

Where a group of editors comment, superficially independently, on a topic, but are actually carrying out a pre-agreed agenda or campaign which is not made clear to other participants, their contributions to the discussion should be disqualified from consideration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You describe the behaviour of a good number of infobox opponents perfectly. Should we now disqualify their comments? Who is to determine what does and does not qualify under this proposal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose Will likely lead to bad faith assumptions, and wide misuse by both sides. Bramble claw x 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. General editor behaviour

Editors who are aggressively rude, threatening, misleading, dismissive of other opinions or seeking to turn the topic of discussion outside its remit, or who raise fatuous and provocative ANIs or issue intimidatory messages (here's another example - they have started springing up after the evidence deadline has closed) to editors with whom they disagree, should be penalised according to the extent of their deviation; and if they repeat the offences the penalties ashould be raised. (Of course there is nothing new in this proposal).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

For others to decide

I have no knowledge or experience of enforcement procedures, so leave such proposals to others. I notice however, that some of those whom I criticize can scarely contain their enthusiasm, elsewhere in this discussion, in itemising the penalties that I myself (and some of those who are in broad agreement with me) should undergo. Evidently I lack the lust for blood.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Montanabw

Proposed principles

General principles of infobox insertion

1) Infobox insertion should first be governed by WP:MOS where inclusion is neither mandatory nor opposed. However, given that at least half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes, it is clear that the use of an infobox is neither unusual or unprecedented. Further, infoboxes are becoming part of the standard design in wikipedia articles and have value to readers.

@Johnbod: "never-not?" Do you favor infoboxes, then? FWIW, though not really relevant to resolution of these issues here, I personally favor infoboxes quite a bit and think that most articles benefit from a well-designed one However, making them mandatory on all articles may not be the best approach, as I can think of exceptions. Also, in the interest of peace and future precedent, I hesitate to make WikiProject input completely meaningless on certain MOS issues. WikiProject expertise is something to be developed and respected. It's just that when there is irreconcilable differences WITHIN a wikiproject, between editors who all have expertise, as is occurring here, we need some sort of way to prveent a morass like this case from occurring again. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In what way are they becoming "part of the standard design"? Bramble claw x 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - part of the arguments being put forward by several here that while "inclusion is neither mandatory nor opposed" per guidelines, there are in fact never any good reasons not to have them. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"arguments being put forward... there are in fact never any good reasons not to have them" - Yet again, John, where is the evidence to support that assertion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it up as you go along, John. Putting false statements into the mouths of those with whom you disagree isn't a very clever way of debate. Who has said "there are in fact never any good reasons not to have them"? Not I - I've acknowledged multiple reasons why an infobox may be disavantageous to particular articles, although I haven't yet found a valid reason that would apply to all articles. Diffs to support your accusation, please, or I'm going to call it as baseless. --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But those reasons are never enough to justify not having an infobox, are they? Even after giving them "due weight". Andy has refused to answer my question above as to whether he has ever supported the non-inclusion of an infobox in a particular article, which I will extend to you. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. I await your answer to my earlier questions which, contrary to your assertions, you have not provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have, but you certainly haven't answered mine about whether you have ever supported not having an infobox on any article. If you think you have, you'd better supply a diff - you now have over 250 edits to this page. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is in the post to which you respond. You have not, though, answered several of my questions, though you may have replied to some of them with waffle and deflection. Do you need me to repeat them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in the post to which you respond" mean? It's not in the section where I asked the question, or here. If you really want to repeat your questions, then do so (and I'll repeat my answers), but only after answering mine. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your question is just above, in plain view, for anyone to see. I'll repeat it for your: "Yes I have". I won't repeat all my unanswered questions to you, some pre-dating your question here, for reasons of space, but let's start with: "What due weight, John and others, do you give to those with expertise in web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse?"; ""Do you regard me as a content contributor?" (N.B. the last word there is "contributor", not "editor"); "I see no sign of anyone asserting 'that views' of any people 'are just OWNING'. Once again, John, where is your evidence?"; "'anyone who removes it is OWNING' - where is your evidence that I argue that?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes I have" I naturally took to mean "yes I have answered it". Any, er, evidence? If there is you should be shouting from the rooftops, as it would helpfully show an aspect of your views that has not so far been displayed in this case. As I said before, I'm aware to different degrees of the issues re web usability, accessibility, metadata standards and content reuse, and that not all of the many people here with some claim to relevant expertise agree about such matters (I was involved in the ALT caption fiasco ages ago), and that expertise in such matters can be er, something of a mirage. I give metadata standards and content re-use a lower priority than the use of WP as an encyclopedia by those just reading it. I regard "contributor" and "editor" as synonyms here, so yes. Anyone who has read this far will have gathered your view of what constitutes OWNING, & I'm not going to go through your 260 edits to this page alone to find diffs. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Montana (above). I've said many times, here and elsewhere, that I favour them when they are useful to an article: "Infoboxes work well when the information included is incontestible, clearly helpful & important" (from above). I've also set out at length many times elsewhere the sort of factors that often make them inappropriate for certain types of article. I've also said on the evidence page that I favour WikiProjects being able to mandate them, as a normal thing, just as I favour WikiProjects being able to exclude them as the norm for some types of articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John: You've extended to me the question "Have I ever supported the non-inclusion of an infobox in a particular article?". The answer is "Yes, lots of times" and you can read the evidence that I submitted for a very recent example:

On some rare occasions, an author has deliberately put effort into the visual presentation of the article. Giano, for example, will spend time when he is developing an article to position and size images that illustrate the architecture to create an aesthetic - Buckingham Palace is an obvious example. In these cases, an infobox could easily destroy that effect. Admittedly, this isn't a consideration for screen readers and mobile users, but it is still important. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence #Problems with infoboxes

That's good enough to have me banned from the Pro-Infobox Cabal™, so is it good enough for you? If it is, I'll buy you a pint when next we meet. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on "rare occasions ... [for] visual presentation", which is something. It certainly seems to separate you from Andy, who has still not answered. You made me an offer in some other section I can't find, but that is well outside my technical capabilities. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered, you, as pointed out above. RexxS challenged you to "create one of these general 'persondata' types of format thing for holding metadata that can import more reliable metadata from a wide range of sources". If that is "outside your technical capabilities", on what basis do you assert that that is achievable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It's a very simple database record to write, for those who can write in the relevant languages. The difficult bit is working what to put in it, making it compatible with existing standards and vocabularies, & then doing the imports & placing them in the right articles etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject input on insertion defers to Broader MOS

2) Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Thus Wikiproject views on inclusion or non-inclusion of infoboxes does not trump WP:MOS. However, per #3 below, the style of infoboxes, where used, IS within the scope of a wikiproject to determine a workable design or multiple designs

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

But the MOS takes no position on infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes seems to take lots of positions, including "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears.", "Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats." and most famously "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." --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Play with words if it makes you happy, though I suggest you remember it will be tedious for others to read. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject should have significant input into unique factors

3) Infobox design should first be governed by the general guidelines of WP:MOS. BUT: the expertise of affiliated wikiprojects as to content, parameters and images in particular should be weighed heavily due to the uses of technical language and other important factors in making certain that an infobox, when used, is relevant to the project and topic involved. A wikiproject may need to have multiple infoboxes for different topics or, in rare cases, to resolve irreconcilable differences subject to a 1RR restriction as noted in remedies below. Edit-warring over minor details such as color borders in infoboxes or which image to use should be Trouted when lame.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just as WikiProjects do not own articles, they do not own templates. Their members are, of course, entitled to comment and will do so from positions of expertise, but being banded together in project does not, of itself, give extra weight. Editors with years of experience in making infoboxes, in website design and accessibility, and in the use of metadata, also speak from positions of expertise. I have yet to see this latter point acknowledged by those opposing infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example for input from both project and experts: {{infobox opera}}, intentionally kept simple. Don't miss example 4 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus can change

4) Per WP general guidelines and policies, consensus can change. However, attempts to change a consensus reached within the past year should be viewed with great caution. But conversely, no editor should claim "consensus" on an issue unless they can point to an actual discussion at the WikiProject talk page where the issue on point was discussed and an actual consensus reached.
@Andy: Though I generally support most of your positions in concept, and I generally favor infoboxes, on this one - particularly after having lurked at the ridiculous "The/the Beatles" dispute, I do think that a well-reasoned local consensus as to content (as opposed to format, which I see the infobox existence question as being) should be given weight, though, clearly, not a veto. Montanabw^(talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sorry. but no. Consensus reached on wikiproject pages carries no weight, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No default where irreconcilable differences exist

5) Where no clear consensus emerges or where irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved, there is no default on infobox inclusion or exclusion; each involved editor should be held to a 1RR restriction on infobox inclusion or exclusion from a given article. That said, deliberately stalking other editors or deliberately racing to every tagged article within a wikiproject in order to be "first to the courthouse" on this issue shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
@Nikki, I think what I'm trying to say is this:

WP:MOS has no "default" position that an infobox is or is not a default element to all wikipedia articles, so though a given area of articles may lean one way or the other, the "we don't like any infoboxes ever, lalalalalalalala" position of the classical music wikiprojects is also not OK. A preference can be expressed, but not a veto.
You and Gerda self-imposed a 1RR restriction on yourselves, which is what I am thinking about above (though you apparently did then go out and "tag" a whole bunch of previously-ignored classical music article, which appeared to me like a "race to the courthouse", but never mind that bit...)

Does that clarify what I'm trying to say here? Montanabw^(talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As written, this appears to conflate a number of different issues, and doesn't really make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Infoboxes are an integral part of wikipedia, not an anamoly

1) Over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes. Thus, their inclusion per se is not a topic suitable for sanctions. WP:BEBOLD and WP:BRD apply. @all: "integral" - the cruise control example is a good one. Integrated into the overall system, useful for some purposes, but not for all purposes, many old cars don't have it, but almost all the new ones do, other than a few stripped-down exceptions. Thank you Rexx. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for the word "integral" to be changed, if contentious. Perhaps "key", "inherent", "everyday", "usual", "regular", "commonly used", "frequently encuntered" ... In any case, they are most certainly not an anamoly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Please clarify as to what you mean by "integral". I do not believe Wikipedia would cease to function if all infoboxes were absent. Bramble claw x 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would cease to function for some users, for example DBPedia (and thus its many users, and theirs...) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it integral. Wikipedia itself would not cease to function. The information would still be there, perfectly accessible. Bramble claw x 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Obviously, a belief that infoboxes are a good thing, or a very good thing, or indeed almost the whole point of Wikipedia, is not a matter suitable for sanctions. However the conduct resulting from pursuing this belief may be. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal does not address such behaviour. Note "per se". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit like saying cruise control is an integral part of the engine management on my car? The car functions without it but it makes driving so much easier that it's a desirable feature (of course there will always be some die-hard traditionalists who eschew such progress and think cruise control is the spawn of the devil). --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My car has no cruise control. I have never used, nor even know how to use, cruise control. I drive just fine. Bramble claw x 18:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you do. But just wait until you try cruise control :) --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Johnbod. Infoboxes are a good thing and I like them. They are not, however, integral. Reso lute 16:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox inclusion is subject to MOS and general editing guidelines, with respect shown to involved, active members

2) Infoboxes design and inclusion are both be governed by wikipedia's overall policies and guidelines, though the views of editors with expertise in the relevant area under discussion should be respected. Where there is dispute within a wikiproject, the debate should be conducted with respect and without personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The words "within a wikiproject" are superfluous. Note my comment about the expertise of "technical editors", etc, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WikiProjects have a major role to play Infobox content

3) Deference and weight should be given to individual wikiprojects when discussing Infobox design, primarily in the areas of what technical and unique information should be included. This deference is not a veto or carte blance to ignore general guidelines, however. @all: Several thoughts:

@Johnbod: Official WP policies and guidelines, so identified. Yes, "all of them," for lack of a better way to say it. (But that includes both WP:BB and WP:IAR as well as WP:MOS)
@Andy:I suppose in a way project guidelines ARE essays, but essays worthy of respect, as people often put hours of work and careful thought into them. So I cannot agree with "no weight" though on most other elements, I think Andy is actually on the right track here.
@Andy: Good point; I agree that people with expertise outside a project are of value, for example, I value the input of Andy on infoboxes, and Nikkimaria's review of photographs and references at FAC is often invaluable (see, I'll invite BOTH of you to comment on my next FAC (at least if I'm lead editor) whenever it occurs, how about that? ;-) )
@all: True, where the wikiproject itself has no consensus, the wikiproject, like wikipedia as a whole, is NOTDEMOCRACY, and the views of all sides need respect. (For example, just for the sake of argument, perhaps the Bach articles have infoboxes but the Rigoletto ones do not...)
@ all: But a wikiproject had limits and no outright veto. To take an unrelated example, while no wikiproject can say "we just don't follow WP:RS or WP:V", I think a wikiproject can say, "we prefer sfn refs or harv refs" - for example, I recently helped out a bit with Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, one of the few US Supreme Court case articles I've ever worked on (which, by the way, has a unique and very useful infobox), where there was a unique-to-wikipedia citation style required (the Bluebook standard for legal writing) and it would be absurd NOT to allow that local consensus to be acknowledged and followed. So, as always, there is room for WP:IAR. I hope I am making myself clear; there is style - where wikiprojects have some room for input (i.e. Bluebook citation format, for example) - and there is core structure (use of citations to reliable sources), where wikiprojects cannot veto the overall policies and guidelines of WP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my comments above; no weight should be given to projects. Weight should be given to editors' individual voices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What general guidelines would these be? Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Note that what some projects refer to as "project guidelines" are in fact "essays". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and deference should indeed be given to individual wikiprojects given the amount of volunteer hours and expertise each project delivers. Common sense indicates the input from the various involved projects be taken into account within the guidelines; especially when disputes arise...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the amount of volunteer hours and expertise contributed by editors who do not act under the auspices of a project? Why should some editors' opinions have more weight than others? What happens when projects disagree? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors expertise and volunteer hours matter however weight should be given to the involved projects. When involved projects disagree obviously consensus and discussion will ultimately determine the outcome...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the weight given to project members' individual comments not sufficient? What happens when, say, 20% of project members disagree with what is represented, in their name, as "project consensus"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more than one infobox used by any given WikiProject

4) Where there is need, or where there are irreconcilable differences within a project, different infoboxes may be created for different types of articles. However, consensus on design should be sought for an infobox used within the same "family" of articles.

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.

All active participants should be Trouted

1) Everyone who inserted or deleted an infobox, or who commented on infoboxes at the classical music wikiprojects should be smacked with a wet trout within 24 hours of this issue being decided for wasting so much bandwith on this issue. This includes me. Then let's take our trout, have a big barbeque with beer battered fish, drink the extra beer and sing Kumbayah.

@Brambleclawx: Well, mostly innocent "passersby" shouldn't be hit with trout shrapnel, but then you'd miss out on the beer and the barbeque also. Your call. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mmmmm, barbecue... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually share popcorn at parties ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Are you suggesting to Trout me, as a passerby who happens to offer my view when my watchlist is suddenly flooded by a massive discussion, and I feel that offering my opinion could help? Bramble claw x 01:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some fries with that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really mustn't suggest that Folantin should be smacked with a wet trout - he'll be complaining of threats of assault and battery. And I guess that being forced to sing Kumbayah will be "cruel and unusual punishment". --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admonish Smerus for bullying Gerda and Andy

2) Smerus ~~, Kleinzach and Folatin are~~ is strongly admonished for personal attacks and bullying of Gerda Arendt and Andy, and put on notice that future attacks may subject ~~them~~ to a 24 hour block.
@ Smerus ~~Kleinzach and Folantin:~~ This isn't about Andy here - or me. Or Gerda. It's about you ~~three.~~ Y'all (or at least some of y'all) have made your recommendations as to Gerda and Andy elsewhere and elsewhere is where you can discuss that bit. Me, you've accused of libel at WP:Opera, ~~apparently for saying that the three of you are bullies~~, though I don't think you meant it as a legal threat. However, I did view that accusation as an attempt to intimidate me and, basically, tell me to shut up. Just like I think you are trying to do with everyone else who firmly disagrees with you. But I'm not a party to this case, I'm just one of the "others." Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC) (Moved the comments by others placed here to the Comment by others section)[reply]

@Andy: OK, escalating blocks. I think that's WP policy anyway, isn't it? Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Folantin: Obviously, Kleinzach, when he shows up, deserves a chance to respond. Somewhere I saw him comment that he's been gone. Fair is fair. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]~~
@~~Folantin~~ per Smerus only: I didn't take the "libel" comment to ANI, Andy did. But the tone Smerus' "libel" comment is precisely why I listed Smerus above; as he had, on multiple occasions, used a similar tone with Gerda (though he did not use the word "libel" nor "bollocks" to Gerda as he later did to myself and Andy). Keep your facts straight. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Folantin: What part of "thug" is not a personal attack on your part? I don't start these disputes, but if you attack me or other good faith editors, which you did, you betcha I will defend myself and those who i think are being unfairly attacked. And yes, it's a hallmark of a bully to behave like a bully and start a fight, but then be unable to take what they dish out so freely, and go crying to mommy when they get a taste of their own medicine. By that standard, you, Smerus, and Kleinzach all acted like bullies to Gerda and Andy. They didn't start the nastiness; you did. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Folantin: Yes, I made a comment about how Smerus came across to me, quoted in full below (though the link to the full context on the talk page is more relevant, and frankly there was a discussion being played out across multiple talk pages at the time, if memory serves). But this is not about me; I'm not a party here. So if it helps, yeah, I did become a Mastodon there and should not have used a profane acronym like "S.O.B." because it was not helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus, sorry I guess I don't really think you are an S.O.B. But I do still think you came across as being mean and nasty to Gerda, which is still my opinion and I'm entitled to it. And @Folantin, it's why I am recommending an admonishment for bullying. I'm basically here because of how rotten everyone above was to Gerda and how she courageously faced all of you down virtually by herself. I really do think you guys were out of line. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and finally @Folantin, don't accuse Rexx of trolling; (do you hear yourself being very mean and nasty here? I do) he IS an admin, I think. And while I didn't read Smerus' comment as a threat of legal action, I did feel rather threatened by his tone in general, so RexxS was not out of line to bring attention to it; best to err on the side of caution as he did. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Notes to arbcom: Struck and withdrew comments at Folantin per truce, struck comments per Kleinzach until he is able to respond. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, but suggest changing "a 24 hour block" to "escalating blocks", for insurance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in any admonitions, trouts, blocks, bans. As a QAI contributor once said: "Wikis are not about “authoritah” they are about collaborations and merit." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

::This is from the editor who called Smerus "a nasty S.O.B." three weeks ago? Unsurprisingly, Montanabw is a member of WP:QAI, more a mutual support group than a normal WikiProject. Her assertions are also somewhat lacking in the slight matter of evidence. --Folantin (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, she did not. What she said was, in full "Smerus, I read that article, that's a different discussion about style and content. Here, you're just behaving like a rather nasty S.O.B. who is insisting that everyone else is far inferior to you. It's this sort of bullying and intimidation that discourages the people who actually try to improve the encyclopedia.". You may wish to contrast this with, for example, this abuse:"Mabbett's a notorious troll... with his obnoxious POV-pushing" by, er, you. There are further examples here and on the evidence page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::: That's OK then, Montanabw made no kind of personal attack there. I'd also note you don't give the context of my comment. My suspicion that "there's an infobox tag-team of about half a dozen users" has proved rather prophetic in the light of revelations about WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More smears and innuendo. Where is your evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::Further regarding the context of my comment. It was the discussion page to a Signpost interview with Project Opera in March. Andy Mabbett made the very first comment there, with an immediate attack on the project and bad faith assumptions: "...We thus have a small number of editors, operating as a team, to override wider community consensus. Their response to this being pointed out often comprises ad hominem attacks; and article talk page debates are often the subject of their partisan canvassing. Once again, he was deliberately trying to provoke conflict. --Folantin (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this point elsewhere on this page, quoting the four comments to which I responded. As there is a large volume of text involved, I shan't repeat it here, Please search for "deliberately trying to provoke conflict". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::I'd invite any neutral editor to look at the context of Montanabw's "nasty S.O.B." personal attack (Rigoletto) and see whether Smerus had deserved it in any way. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) {[od}}(MTBW moved stuff posted in the wrong place from proposal section to here, unchanged): ::Why are you addressing Kleinzach? He isn't here to defend himself. And stop trying to fuse three different users into one. Your allegation about Smerus and "libel" has just been rejected at ANI. I have had very little contact with you. The first time you came to my notice was when you accused another editor of being a "nasty S.OB." in an infobox discussion (in which I have never been involved). Though you are quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of "bullying", you come over as a thug yourself. --Folantin (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Folantin: What an unpleasant and mean thing to say to about a most helpful lady who is a well-respected editor. If you were my child, I'd have tanned your hide for that sort of comment. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling, Rex. You've already been advised not to do this sort of thing by an admin: "RexxS, you ought to know better than to try and use this silly non-incident for sanction-shopping against your opponent in those miserable old infobox wars. For shame. ". BTW here's the diff for Montanabw's "nasty S.O.B." comment above [34]. I'd invite any neutral editor to look at the context of that attack (Talk:Rigoletto) and see whether Smerus had deserved it in any way. --Folantin (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::@Montanabw: I'm simply going to repeat what I said above: I'd invite any neutral editor to look at the context of Montanabw's "nasty S.O.B." personal attack (Talk:Rigoletto) and see whether Smerus had deserved it in any way, unless disagreeing with Gerda over the infobox issue is now "incivility" or "bullying". Personally, I think referring to someone as a "nasty son of a bitch" in that context is pretty "thuggish" and Smerus was remarkably restrained in his reply to you. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we wonder why we have so few women editors in the toxic environment that you create. When one female editor defends the bona fides of another female editor, as Montanabw did over the attacks on Gerda, we have these misogynists ganging up to accuse her of libel and call her a thug. By all means let ArbCom decide if Montanabw did anything to deserve such treatment - or if Smerus and Folatin need to be stopped from spreading such poison and unpleasantness. You need to apologise and learn some courtesy in dealing with other Wikipedians - this is an exact reflection of the sort of behaviour that has made it impossible for us to even discuss the pros and cons of an infobox anywhere where these folks show up. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"we wonder why we have so few women editors". Try looking at Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and the contributions of Pigsonthewing and Br'er Rabbit. ~~What "attacks on Gerda"?~~ --Folantin (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Folantin, for striking some. Did you know (yes, you did, studying QAI) that I - a female editor - was against infoboxes (as redundant) and was "converted" by a remark of Br'er Rabbit in said discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::::: Also, in comparison with one editor here, who has threatened physical assault, I don't suppose Montanabw has behaved that "thuggishly". --Folantin (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Admonish Nikkimaria for conduct unbecoming to an admin

2) Nikkimaria is admonished for wikistalking Gerda's edits and Andy's edits, and also for racing ahead to be "first to the courthouse" by editing articles within the Wikiproject that were not yet subject to the infobox drama. Nikki should apologize to Gerda and Andy.

@Andy:Added you. Sorry for the omission. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) @Nikki: There's the letter of an agreement and the sprit of the thing. I'm just saying that you were following one and not the other, and it was rather petty of you. Nothing more, really. Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

She stalked me also; see my evidence. That's particularly inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Repetition should attract escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say "also". I asked her to follow my edits, for language corrections. See below, we work it out, her latest revert summary was much improved, I don't need an apology. However, some of the articles where she reverted Andy (mentioned on AN/I) were reverted a second time, something to think about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to think about indeed: why were those disputes re-ignited later, without discussion on article talk, when the party involved knew they were disputed? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Also, why is editing articles not subject to infobox drama a bad thing? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Adding or removing infoboxes on classical music articles is subject to a 1RR limit

4) All articles tagged by WP:Classical music, WP:Opera and all affiliated articles within the scope of these projects shall be subject to a 1RR restriction within any 7-day period when a dispute arises over adding or removing an infobox.

@Andy: Good point, but this is sort of the crux of the issue and I want to put some sort of solution out there for discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A good idea in principle, but fruitless when editors tag-team. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Gerda and Nikki

~~1) Gerda and Nikki are hereby given their own sandbox to work out their differences; when the rest of us stay out of it, they usually reach an agreement between themselves.~~

~~@Gerda: It works when it's just you two, it sometimes gets ugly when others (particularly the three editors I mentioned above) get involved.~~

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
We don't need a sandbox, we work things out in discussion on an article talk page, open to thoughts from others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think a sandbox would help, do agree with keeping things that "won't help" out. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by others:~~

Struck and withdrawn as both parties agree this is not needed. Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean start for Pigsonthewing

2) Andy (Pigsonthewing) has shown remarkable restraint during these proceedings and is hereby given a clean start and he shall only be evaluated for his actions and edits from this point forward. Any concerns shall be brought first to a neutral arbiter acceptable to Andy and to the main parties (below) who are complaining against him. This arbiter will attempt to resolve any dispute with Andy prior to going to any dramaboard or seeking sanctions. @Folantin: And you are not supporting Smerus and the old guard at WP:Opera across the board? Please. Glass houses. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's an idea to think about, regardless who had it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Why apply this to only that particular editor? Usually a clean start is contingent upon the individual moving forward away from old disputes. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

~~:: This is WP:QAI looking after their own again.--Folantin (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I really can't agree with this, Montana. --Folantin (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was that whistling noise? It was Folantin's AGF, flying out of the window. regardless, I think you will find that the Arbs make decisions here, not Montanabw. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out that Montanabw's proposals have an evident bias. --Folantin (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day is not for another eight months. Reso lute 16:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus Kleinzachand other members of Classical Music wikiprojects

3) Smerus, ~~Kleinzach, Folantin~~ and any others added to this list in this section by the parties are hereby ordered to work out any disputes over infobox inclusion with the above-stated neutral arbiter in a private sandbox rather than across multiple articles. Disputes within an article shall be linked to said sandbox where an agreement can be reached.

@ all: I think my point here is proved perfectly by the discussion below. (getting popcorn...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments struck as to Folantin per truce. Montanabw^(talk) 22: 35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have been mentioned below and make a statement in response to that, not the proposal. In my tables, I list only infoboxes that were reverted or changed. Typically my additions are not questioned. I am not at all interested in spreading disputes, I am interested in spreading facts. I still don't see why Sparrow Mass should have no infobox, while Schubert's masses and Bruckner's symphonies all have one (not all by me, the Bruckner works since 2007, well before my time here). I could easily add infoboxes to all Wagner stage works, but I won't until we resolve Götterdämmerung. I could easily add infoboxes to all Mozart compositions, but I won't until Sparrow Mass gets resolved. I keep adding infoboxes to the Bach cantatas, always the ones for the upcoming Sunday, typically three, such as BWV 179 (always checked by Nikkimaria). I keep adding infoboxes to operas without conflict, such as Octavia. What was it that you "watched"? I hope for resolve, yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suggest including all members of the nominated projects, plus a few other individuals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

::Unlike Montanabw and her WP:QAI friends, I haven't been involved in recent infobox disputes "across multiple articles." However, one user has been spreading infobox disputes to as many articles as possible: Gerda Arendt. I've been watching it all from the sidelines with increasing frustration. The only reason I've taken part in this ArbCom is that we might finally resolve this centrally. --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, here is an example of your "non involvement": "Mabbett's a notorious troll... with his obnoxious POV-pushing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you love that diff. It's not from an article, but from a Signpost interview with Project Opera back in March. Unsurprisingly, you turned up there lobbing the usual accusations around (so much for AGF). I haven't gone seeking you out but your name turns up on the pages on my watchlist with depressing regularity. Usually, I just bite my tongue and decline to get involved. --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] I didn't claim it was from an article, so that's another straw man you've set up and vanquished. The pointI made in my original post there (that responses by members of the classical music projects "often comprise ad hominem attacks") were soon proved correct, not least by yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding the context of my comment. It was the discussion page to a Signpost interview with Project Opera in March. Andy Mabbett made the very first comment there, with an immediate attack on the project and bad faith assumptions: "...We thus have a small number of editors, operating as a team, to override wider community consensus. Their response to this being pointed out often comprises ad hominem attacks; and article talk page debates are often the subject of their partisan canvassing. Once again, he was deliberately trying to provoke conflict. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"deliberately trying to provoke conflict" Who was doing that? My comment was in response to these answers in the Signpost article:

Smerus: Has been? Still is from time to time, but most agitation on this issue comes not from project members but from editors outside the project,(often those who have a drum to beat - see also WP Opera). The project has expressed itself clearly on its attitude to infoboxes, and I think concentrates on its informational mission.

Toccata quarta: As Smerus said, most of the infobox noise comes from outside the project. Some of the treatment we have received over that issue is highly unpleasant.

Kleinzach: Sadly many contributing editors were driven away by the attempt to discipline what was regarded by some wider community editors as an "uppity" project that had the temerity to have a view on the effectiveness of a Wikipedia-wide publishing device. The project still hasn't recovered the vitality it had before. Judging by the discussions in the archives, activity In 2012 was down to only one-sixth of what it had been in 2009. So the project is now only a shadow of what it once was. Incidentally, we should clarify that the issue was specifically about biographical infoboxes, not infoboxes in general. Boxes for quantitative data have never been any kind of problem.

Opus33: I'm hoping that, sooner or later, the problems with infoboxes will be taken up by other editorial communities as well (for example, editors covering history or literature) and we'll eventually see a retreat of infoboxes across the whole WP.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] "Decline to get involved"? = "Why is Andy Mabbett taking part in this conversation?" (Wikiprohect Opera, 4 April, vain attempt to extend a TFA article ban to a project talk page. "I think a moratorium on this kind of discussion would be in order" - another attempt to stifle debate. Sarcastic response to Gerda over a minor, easily fixed error in infobox content (25 July 2013). "Looks like the Techno-Titanic is ploughing full steam ahead towards the iceberg of reality" (2 March 2013). "techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders" (14 August 2012). "Worthless, reductionist techno-clutter" (22 March 2013). "This is just Wiki-lawyering by Mabbett" (4 April 2013; another futile attempt to extend the TFA article ban). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a massive haul, is it? Most of those are from project pages. Is there some reason why I shouldn't comment on the pages of WikiProject Opera? And why shouldn't I investigate what your TFA ban actually means? (Not much, in practice). More out of context quotation: "Looks like the Techno-Titanic is ploughing full steam ahead towards the iceberg of reality. I might not stick around to enjoy the crash." The error wasn't a minor one; you'd know that if you knew anything about Bruckner. Of course, infoboxers expect everyone else to deal with the Garbage in, garbage out problems they create. --Folantin (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a massive haul, because I stopped collecting examples once I had enough to disprove your claim of "watching from the sidelines" and to show your involvement - and the tenor of it - in "disputes over infobox inclusion" (to quote from the specific proposal under discussion). There were plenty more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've found me involved in precisely one article infobox dispute there. There are many, many others I could have got involved in but didn't because of your presence. --Folantin (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few infobox disputes on classical music subjects from 2012-13 where you're present and I'm not: Talk:Georg Solti, Talk:Sparrow Mass,Talk:George Frideric Handel, Talk:Terry Riley, Talk:Harry Partch, Talk:Cosima Wagner, Talk:Samuel Barber, Talk:Marian Anderson, Talk:Richard Wagner, Talk:The Rite of Spring, Talk:Rigoletto, Talk:Don Carlos, Talk:Joseph (opera), Talk:Carmen,Talk:Die Feen. --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout and beer all around

4) The list of those trouted shall be kept as a permanent record in this decision and those who are so trouted shall be asked to assume good faith toward all other trout recipients. Wiki-beer must be exchanged in a beer summit between all involved parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Nikkimaria

Proposed principles

Purpose

1) Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written collaboratively by volunteers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per WP:5P and WP:!. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Bramble claw x 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already in the pillars and every page. No disagreement, but kind of redundant and obvious. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 17:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

2a) 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.

2b) The purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from MOS:INFOBOX. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to the omission of " Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields" and of reference to "Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats." (also from MOS:INFOBOX). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suppport both points. Reso lute 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2a is already in the MOS is it not? Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2b: oppose the second sentence as this is part of what started this whole dramafest. "the less information it contains" is just opening a new can of worms. (We all agree that infobox bloat exists, but conversely would we want, for example Infobox officeholder, to omit things like offices held?) The first sentence is, I think, already in MOS. Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy makes good points that a broader statement would be useful. Support " Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields." Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

3a) Wikipedia articles are written according to a consensus model. Where editors disagree about details of article content or presentation, they should discuss the issues civilly on the talk page in an effort to reach consensus.

3b) If an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page rather than being restored, to prevent edit-warring.

3c) Practices such as canvassing, off-wiki discussion, tag-teaming, and incivility are detrimental to the consensus-forming process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per WP:CON. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable. I go by that voluntarily. The problem is: how do we determine consensus? I foresee many cases that will end no consensus, that means no progress from the present state, right? I would like to see a consensus with more weight of arguments than number of "noses". Do we really have to present FA The Rite of Spring as if it was a painting? It's almost misleading. I would prefer to present at a glance key facts and a view to a stage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the addition of "stalking" to the list of issues in 3C. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

All redundant to what is already in WP guidelines. WP:BRD, for example. But if adopted, I agree "stalking other editors' contributions" should be included. I would also add Technical evasion of 3RR while clearly attempting to bypass WP:BRD to 3c above. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership and stewardship

4a) Any article may be edited by anyone.

4b) Editors of a particular article have an interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may discuss, amend, or revert others' edits; this does not necessarily constitute ownership.

4c) Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect.

4d) Where disagreement persists after the reversion of a change, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from WP:OWN. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good. I hope I never user "own" without quotation marks ;) (Or did I?) But what happens in the case when there is no principal author to be asked? See Talk:Götterdämmerung#Infobox, I see people behaving as if they had "authority". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4b "Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership - indeed. But claiming privileges due to being that person is ownership.

4c;4d Validly pointing out instances of ownership is legitimate. The proposed principle would leave no apparent remedy in such cases. I can't see what this would achieve, other than giving "owners" a free pass. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, already in WP guidelines. But no real objections. I'd agree. There is a distinction between Stewardship and quality control (good) and "ownership" (bad). I particularly agree with 4c and 4d is a good reminder. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles

5) Featured Articles have undergone significant work to make them meet a high standard. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:OAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are so any weasel words in the quoited text that it is practically useless. Whether adding an infobox is what is meant by "significant change" is debatable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Add: "Raising an issue at talk is perfectly acceptable." Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some proposals are outside of the traditional scope of ArbCom. Some proposals are meant to be interchangeable while others are complementary.

Conduct

1) All editors (both parties and not) are reminded to adhere to Wikipedia's conduct policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BOXVAR

2) Establish a rule for infoboxes similar to WP:CITEVAR already established for citations: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established [use of box] merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using [a type of infobox or no infobox], you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was set up to deal with a style choice where policies/guidelines were not definitive, and is a possibility for dealing with the infobox situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. (As you know, I oppose Citevar also. Many articles (not yours, of course) have sloppy references. Why not improve them?) Many articles have no infobox because just nobody cared when they were written. Why not improve them without asking permission? And whom would you ask? - What do you think of hidden code by which an author who doesn't wish an infobox could say so? Similar to the present and debatable "please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section" that you find in classical composers. (Not Verdi, btw.) The default should be that an article is open for progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yet anther wide-ranging attempt to mandate "talk don't edit" and deference to article owners, contrary to WP:BOLD and the Wikipedia ethos. See also comments on similar proposals, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support The article is still "open for progress", but the one potentially contentious area can be addressed before action is taken. Having the discussion first does not mean that the status quo will remain at the end, just that the addition/removal must be discussed first. It's a concept we have already with WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The inapplicability of comparisons with policies such as WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. was debunked early on, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer a diff for that, please? A text search for either WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN doesn't seem to show where is was discussed on this page. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Cold Turkey's comments on ENGVAR in #Volunteers should not have work imposed on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the section, but I don't see any consensus to the inapplicability of comparisons. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "potentially contentious". After seeing Schubert's masses (all well received) and Bruckner's masses (infoboxes since 2007), how would I foresee an edit war on Mozart's Sparrow Mass? - When I know an infobox is contentious, I use the talk page approach (Carmen, Siegfried (opera)), but to do it on every article is tedious, and we get back to the consensus problem. Much easier to at least try and see if it sticks. Most do! We are here because of a very limited special section of Wikipedia, with a few people who just don't like infoboxes and say openly that they will not accept certain arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I need to define "potentially contentious". it is an are that is contentious in some circumstances and yet not in others, simply that: indeed, you have just said yourself that you know when an infobox is contentious. I have seen someone who (justifiably in my opinion) removed an infobox damned as a vandal before (I've tried to find the diff, but I can't seem to find it), Would you prefer people to start stripping out infoboxes where they didn't think they were appropriate on the basis of "trying it out to see if it sticks"? I think the furore would be significant if we started along that track: discussion would be a much better way of dealing with this. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood me. Repeating: looking at the Schubert masses and Bruckner symphonies with established infoboxes, I did NOT assume that a Mozart Mass would be contentious. For some diffs on reverts from nothing at all to "No thanks, Gerda, this infrobox is absolutely horrendous and ugly" see my table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-building

3) Where an article has an established infobox and the removal of same is reverted, the infobox should be left in the article pending consensus on talk to remove; where an article has had no box and the addition of one is disputed, there should be no box pending consensus on talk to add one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as alternate to 2 and another way of minimizing edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated wording, but the real problem is the "consensus", see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence in this case is almost wholly about the prevention of the addition of new infoboxes. This proposal goes beyond mandating BRD. Note also that "established" (or the period in which an article has had no box) is not defined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Main Page

4) Infoboxes should not be added or removed when an article is or is about to be on the Main Page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Main Page time is often high-stress and may involve frequent editing/reverting - not an environment that's conducive to reasoned discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean DYK also? (I never found it stressful, just asking.) - Otherwise I agree. Improvements of articles nominated for FA would be much better during that process. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only would this give special status to TFA candidates (see comments above as to why we don't do this), but would affect DYKs, which are by definition new or newly expanded (and which work would thereby be hindered), in the news, anniversary events and more. Note that "about to be" is not defined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content policies 2

5) Where a particular infobox parameter does not or cannot reasonably adhere to content policies, it should be excluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean excluded from the template or not filled in a specific box? Anyway, makes sense, but hardly needs extra policy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reasonable intent, but too vaguely worded as to be useful. Also surely out of scope for Arbcom? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Too many bloated monstrosities around crammed with too much fluff and nonsense. Sadly infoboxes are magnets for drive-by edits ('Notable works: fields are prone to people chucking in their favourite film (for example), while influences and influenced by fields are often little more than POV pits. I think most infobox parameters could easily be removed with nothing but beneficial results. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Influenced" and the other are no longer in {{infobox person}}, did you know? I talk about operas, the infobox is short and simple, and I don't see any content that doesn't adhere to policy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the intent, but this is asking for a ruling on content. Reso lute 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

6) All infoboxes should ideally adhere to the guidelines set out by MOS:INFOBOX and other aspects of the Manual of Style.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should be obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague; too easily gamed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Presentation

7) Where an infobox is used, efforts should be made to mitigate potential problems in presentation. These efforts may include but are not limited to the use of templates like {{start date}} or {{plainlist}}, the avoidance of unexplained and unfamiliar technical abbreviations, and allowance of large images above and outside the box.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange mix. All better infobox templates accommodate a flexible pic size. Technical abbreviations will should not be avoided in scientific infoboxes. Templates {{start date}}, {{plainlist}} and others should be used! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"made too" is inappropriate wording. Unclear what is meant by "mitigate potential problems in presentation" or how the named sub-templates relate to this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Confusing. Not sure what problem this addresses. Do you mean infoboxes should be constructed according to the infobox MOS? Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles 2

8) The addition or removal of infoboxes from Featured Articles should be discussed on talk first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from WP:OAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense if the author who took it there is still around. What if not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments on similar proposals above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mass action

9) Editors may not add or remove more than three infoboxes per day.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Partly per Brambleclawx, meant to promote discussion and care while avoiding editor fatigue. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is good, but would it work? Be specific. You probably mean contented infoboxed, and sometimes I would not guess they could be contented. Not practical to control also. As stated under Brambleclawx's proposal, I don't add more Mozart until Sparrow Mass is resolved, not only because of common sense, also because what I can take is limited. But I will keep adding more in areas where I see no problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose utterly unwarranted restriction on editing. I sometimes create more than three articles in a day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

per this perhaps this could be tweaked to account for existing articles, rather than ones created by editors? - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a restriction on creativity, and for what? - The day before Kafka was TFA, I created infoboxes for as many of his works as I could (Nikkimaria counted how many, I didn't), and believe that was a good thing to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this one as completely unworkable. What if, for example, consensus was reached and all relevant editors decided to remove infoboxes from all 50 state articles or all 44 President articles? (would never happen, but for the sake of argument, work with me here) It would take weeks for the wikignome to do this, three at a time. Or what if a totally new and improved infobox template was created in some way that couldn't be transcluded over the top of an old one? Or, Gerda's example of Mozart; what happens when consensus is reached and there are articles in both states, which have to be reconciled for consistency? Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

10) All editors are urged to assume good faith of others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really try, not because of policy but because I believe that every editor is a human being. (Sometimes it's hard.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Evidence by Folantin

Cosima Wagner

Folantin claims that Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1 #Infobox is evidence of Andy's behaviour. On the contrary, it is evidence of the way in which good-faith additions of infoboxes are treated. On 26 December 2012, Andy added an infobox. This was rolled back with the default edit summary normally reserved for vandalism and marked as a minor edit! The degree of contempt shown for a good-faith edit is astonishing, but seemingly quite acceptable by some.

It's worth noting that the revert restored the following hidden comment:  and that is one of the clearest pieces of evidence of WP:OWN by Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers that I've ever seen. Again this seems to be perfectly acceptable to some, despite the consensus that WikiProjects have no special rights to make up rules - and Cosima Wagner wasn't even a composer. That comment is still in the article to this day.

At this point, I would have been pretty annoyed, but Andy simply started discussion on the talk page in a very polite manner: "I recently added an infobox to this article. My edit has just been reverted, for no given reason. The infobox should be restored." Is that the sort of behaviour we should be discouraging or encouraging? Which editor was behaving well despite provocation, and which editor was doing the provoking?

Reading on in that discussion, which remained civil, you see Andy explaining why the advantages that an infobox would bring to the article. You also see no attempt by anyone to explain what disadvantages it would bring. Instead he is stonewalled by an insistence that the article was reviewed for Featured Article without an infobox and so the opinions of the reviewers should be sought before adding an infobox. I find this appeal to presumed expertise absolutely anathema to the way we should be editing Wikipedia. No wonder Andy eventually gets frustrated. It is elitism, pure and simple, to assume that a particular group of editors should have a bigger say in editing an article than others. If they can't make a sensible argument why an infobox damages a particular article, then we shouldn't be deferring to them as experts.

This is the crux of this dispute. There are some of us who want to discuss the case for and against infoboxes on articles where they are contested. All of us are willing to respect genuine consensus, but we are continually frustrated by ownership and appeal to expertise, rather than a genuine willingness to civilly debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The article still has no infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I hadn't noticed that this was yet another occasion when Pigsonthewing added an infobox almost immediately after it had been Today's Featured Article. It was featured on the main page on 24 December 2012. Mabbett added the box on December 26 (clearly taking Christmas off) [35]. That's his only contribution to the article itself. However, he is by far the largest contributor to the talk page, with 35 edits [36], all of them made between 26 December and 1 January.

The conversation starts gently enough, with the chief content contributor Brian Boulton gently suggesting Mabbett’s infobox is inadequate and should be discussed first. However, Pigsonthewing soon resorts to his usual intransigent rhetoric [37] "The suggestion that the infobox added nothing much’ is baseless, and is clearly disproved by the explanation I gave above." There follows a long dispute in which Pigsonthewing fails to get his way. He eventually leaves, effectively dismissing an opponent as a Luddite [38].

"It is elitism, pure and simple, to assume that a particular group of editors should have a bigger say in editing an article than others." Ah, experts are scum. Clearly, users who have brought an article up to FA standard can't be trusted to decide on the important matter of the page's infobox. Let's leave it to Andy, the guy whose only contribution to the page itself is a box.

"You also see no attempt by anyone to explain what disadvantages it would bring." You must have been reading a different page from me. See the two comments by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for example [39] [40]. The fact that Mabbett wouldn't accept them doesn't make them invalid. --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You have made absolutely clear your disdain for the ordinary editor and your desire to grant all judgements on an article to a group of self-appointed experts. That's not Wikipedia, that's elitism. Experts can tell you where the best sources are and can make cogent arguments about a subject - and I respect those abilities. I'm quite content to give their opinion extra weight in a debate. But I'm not about to abdicate my right to edit and debate just because somebody worked hard on an article.

FPAS argues "it draws undue attention to unimportant trivia and is otherwise redundant to the lead sentence". If you think that being redundant to the lead is a valid argument against infoboxes, you're not equipped to evaluate these issues. No wonder your evidence is so far off the mark. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Pigsonthewing represents the "ordinary editor" now, does he? OK. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you manage to draw these conclusions from nowhere? No, I'm the ordinary editor and I'm not about to see you railroad me out of editing where I feel I can improve an article, even when the owners don't like it. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one drawing conclusions from nowhere here? OK.--Folantin (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refuted FPAS' arguments, with logic, and evidence. What I got in return was: "As for the machine-readability, I refuse to accept any argument on that basis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The article still has no infobox." Not for want of trying. --Folantin (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Have there been further attempts to add an infobox? Or are you saying that there is something wrong with any attempt to add an infobox? The infobox was removed with no good reason supplied (remove infobox and rewrite caption; wasn't even linked to the correct publisher and enough is enough). Is that how you want editing to be conducted on Wikipedia? --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"wasn't even linked to the correct publisher" - The wording in the article, then as now, was "was published by Harper's Magazine Press in 1974". The link used in the infobox was Harper's Magazine Press. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rex claims: "Reading on in that discussion, which remained civil". Doesn't look that way to me. As noted above, it began to go downhill with Pigsonthewing's comment "The suggestion that the infobox added nothing much’ is baseless, and is clearly disproved by the explanation I gave above.". Some other examples:

Brian Boulton: I am hoping this discussion will not turn into the kind of sniping and counter-accusation that has disfigured other discussions on the suitability or otherwise of infoboxes...
Pigsonthewing's response: I hope that your comment about "sniping and counter-accusation" isn't a response to me validly refuting false assertions...
Later on: Pigsonthewing to Tim Riley (who, admittedly, has inadvertently made an error): [41] "While I am prepared to assume your ignorance regarding the latter, for now, if you further repeat such falsehoods, I shall question your good faith and honesty.
Later on: Pigsonthewing to Future Perfect: "I refuse to accept any argument on that basis." Your dismissal of the 21st century is noted. "I can't think of any automated process that..." As is your lack of imagination. "--Folantin (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil in my comments there. Tim only admitted his misleading error after I called him out in it. The point to which your latter quote is a reply was "As for the machine-readability, I refuse to accept any argument on that basis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate went downhill when Brian Boulton, an otherwise very thoughtful editor, made the logical error of assuming that the lack of previous discussion about an infobox equated to a consensus against one - in the very first response to Andy's request for reasons why his addition of an infobox was reverted without reason. Being told that he had to discuss first before editing as a reason for the infobox being removed won't have helped much either. Whatever happened to WP:BRD? No wonder editors who want to make good-faith edits that they believe will improve the encyclopedia get frustrated. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it was very provocative of Brian to reject Pigsonthewing's Boxing Day gift.--Folantin (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be funny? because you're not making a good job of it and I'd be grateful if you stopped trying to put words into my mouth. I never suggested Brian was being provocative, but I am asserting that he made a logical error that derailed the discussion at the first hurdle. Andy wants to discuss why an infobox would improve the article; and Brian is saying there's a consensus against it, so Andy has to wait until the FAC reviewers have commented. Tell me - do you actually agree that a lack of previous discussion about an infobox equates to a consensus against one? Let's be clear what you're saying here. --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing2

The next piece of evidence from Folantin refers to the evidence he presented at an RfARb July 2007 - that's over six years ago! We understand that Folatin dislikes Andy, but there needs to be a limit on the number of times he can be allowed to prosecute with the same ancient evidence. --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ah, I see where this is going. It's all about me and my "personal agenda". The fact that many, many other people have had the same problems with Pigsonthewing is pure coincidence. The "ancient evidence" is cited because what was true in 2007 is still true in 2013 ("Leopards not changing their spots"), i.e. it's still relevant.

I've been involved in a handful of infobox discussions which have featured Pigsonthewing since he came back from his ban. I've also commented in favour of sanctions against him on a couple of occasions. But mostly I try to avoid him. This is very difficult if you edit classical music articles. I could have got involved in the debates at Talk:Cosima Wagner, Talk:Richard Wagner, Talk:Don Carlos, Talk:Rigoletto, Talk:The Rite of Spring etc, but the prospect of another long, wearisome session with Pigsonthewing there put me off. I presume this is part of the plan: wear down opposing editors so they won't even get involved in discussions in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these many, many other people then? I see at most a handful. This is your personal agenda and you're slinging mud in the hope it sticks. If you repeat a meme often enough, you hope folks will believe it. I have a much greater faith in ArbCom to see through your unsupported hyperbole. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is your personal agenda". You keep saying that but it's funny how two editors I barely know called for sanctions against Pigsonthewing on this page before I did (AFAIK). There's a reason his name comes up time and time again here and in the Evidence. --Folantin (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Where are these many, many other people then?" Some are watching from the sidelines, overwhelmed by the byzantine nature of these proceedings, fearful of losing valuable time and hair to sophistry and non sequiturs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Folantin added to his 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) comment after RexxS replied to it. His allegation there is again unevidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? If you're implying I amended my comment in response to Rex's reply then the answer is no.--Folantin (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker's Creek

Pejoratively described as a "particular nasty more recent example" is worth study. Andy added an infobox to Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - a book and it's notable that infoboxes are very common on books.

The edit was made on September 18 2012, a day after the article had been TFA. It was reverted with the edit summary "rm infobox as completely unnecessary; all pertinent information can be located in the lead section" - a nonsense reason for reversion, since by definition the infobox merely summarises the key points which are naturally in the lead. If that argument were taken seriously, we'd have no infoboxes anywhere in Wikipedia as they all share that feature.

Andy next went to the talk page and politely started the discussion by explaining some reasons why the infobox improved the article and asking for it to be restored.

What followed is a collection of all the least plausible arguments against having an infobox imaginable: "Last time I checked, infoboxes were not mandatory for book articles, nor are they located in the FA criteria"; "All pertinent information can be located in the lead section"; "you are attempting to make a non-mandatory change to a Featured Article"; "Could these not be added to the lead or any other pertinent section?"; "It collects both broad facts and specialized info that only takes away from what a Featured Article represents"; "Until infoboxes are mandatory, this article simply does not need one"; "Oppose infobox. I'm quite frankly too tired at the moment to put forward a strong argument"; "The infobox adds very little in my view" and so on.

To be fair, there were a couple of sensible and debatable reasons: "its inherent ability to denigrate into cruft"; and "blank fields invite other users to step in and add more and more specialized, trivial details that draw the eye and bog the article down". Sadly they were lost in a sea of ownership, appeal to expertise, and plain illogic. Nevertheless Andy remained polite and patiently explained why he felt the infobox would improve the article and why he felt the objections failed to show any disadvantage for the article. This isn't any evidence at all of sanctionable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Among the information removed with the infobox, not in the lede, and described as "not pertinent"(!), was its ISBN. The article still has no infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was about an infobox for a book, nothing contentious. I was fond of the article which I had reviewed for DYK and watched growing. - It was this discussion which convinced me that infoboxes are useful, the arguments for an infobox made much more sense to me then those of resistence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"The edit was made on September 18 2012, a day after the article had been TFA." Yep, the typical Pigsonthewing technique again. Pigsonthewing edits to article: 6 (all infobox-related, September 18-19); Pigonsthewing talk page edits: 24 (September 18-22). What I'm seeing there is a primary contributor who brought the article to FA status being mobbed by a group of infobox pushers. --Folantin (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the following exchange from that page, which doesn't really square with Rex's claim "Nevertheless Andy remained polite":

Pigsonthewing: Unfortunately, Truthkeeper [sic] has just removed the infobox, citing a bogus reason for doing so.

Truthkeeper: Andy Mabbett, I've never had any interaction with you until very recently. Twice in the past week or so you've called my logic bogus and now you're making fun of my user name. Please stop.

Pigsonthewing: The use of "[sic]" has nothing to do with fun-making. I didn't say your logic was bogus; I said that the reason you gave was.

Yllosubmarine: You put the [sic] after her username, not her argument, which seemed to imply that you thought it ("Truthkeeper") faulty in some way. It wasn't very funny.

Pigsonthewing: I wasn't joking. --Folantin (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impolite to allude to the irony of demonstrably bogus statements being posted by someone calling themselves Truthkeeper (since renamed; if anyone's looking for diffs). Arbcom may wish to note though, that editor's false and impolite allegations "you've called my logic bogus" and "you're making fun of my user name" which you have evidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you're not an "other" - please stick to your section. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's well worth reading the whole "debate", which is relatievely short as these things go. Those doing so can make up their own minds as to whether "Andy remained polite". Andy, if you reread you will see the book has 82 ISBNs altogether, as a classic like that obviously would. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is worth reading the whole debate. Is it really uncivil to describe a totally inaccurate reason for removal of an infobox as "bogus"? Because I'm certain that "remove infobox and rewrite caption; wasn't even linked to the correct publisher and enough is enough" is a bogus reason, particularly when the infobox contained | publisher = Harper's Magazine Press - and that is accurate, as anyone who reads the article can see. I hope folks will read the debate so they can also make up their minds whether it's a "particular nasty more recent example" as Folantin claims and whether it actually represents behaviour that should attract such strong sanctions as are suggested. Folantin is clamouring for having Andy "banned from discussing infoboxes on any Wikipedia page" - a useful tactic to remove the opposition in any content debate is to get them sanctioned on the back of weak and ancient evidence. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by Schrocat

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SchroCat's evidence is titled "Ownership by Infobox Project". However, he provides no evidence of ownership by the project, its members collectively or individually; nor by any other pro-infobox individual. The claim that the project "attempts to force inclusion [of infoboxes] on all articles" is also unevidenced.

He talks of "their narrow interpretation, that 'all articles of certain types include infoboxes'", but that quote is lifted out-of-context from "I would like to see a requirement that all articles of certain types include infoboxes. For example, I think that all biography articles should have an infobox, but some people resist even that", representing a single editor's view in a talk page discussion about what approach to take. His quote of "I personally support infoboxes on everything" is part of a full sentence, by Rschen7754, which reads, "While I personally support infoboxes on everything, that is a decision the greater community must make". Is Schrocat proposing that Rschen7754 be sanctioned? Do we sanction editors merely for expressing opinions when solicited for them?

He states "There are only c.1.5 million infoboxes present on the 4,295,025 articles on Wikipedia – or a little over a third". This figure represents (and links to a count of) only transclusions of {{Infobox}} template, which is not used by all infoboxes. Even allowing for his acknowledgement elsewhere that that figure should be ~1.7 million, he misrepresents the true value of more than 2,339,000 by much more than 500,000 (half a million) and, at the time of writing, as neither acknowledged nor remedied this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence by various

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Some editors have referred to my block log. Block logs are notoriously crude and errors in them are rarely corrected. In reverse order:

31 December 2012 - erroneous, for a supposed edit war, 27 hours after making my first and only edit to Hans-Joachim Hessler in five days. He subsequently apologised to me off-wiki, confirming this via the summary of a null edit, in evidence.
22 March 2012 - Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me for supposed BLP concerns, undoing his contentious block with the summary "clear emerging consensus for topic ban". In fact ANI levied no sanctions for my editing, which was within policy.
25 January 2009 JzG blocked for 3RR, then undid this after just twelve minutes, admitting he had miscounted.

That means that the last valid block (again that's disputable, but I won't labour the point here) was five years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence by Victoriaearle

Comment by Arbitrators:

Andy, I agree with Brambleclawx. Kindly don't accuse others of lying; that's a personal attack and may lead to sanctions.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 23:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant evidence has been withdrawn.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

As it has been reinstated, I've unhatted this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Victoriaearle asserts that, following the Pilgrim at Tinker Creek discussion in September 2012, the "primary editor", User:Yllosubmarine, "became discouraged and left the project" and that we thus "lost a prolific female content editor". As can be seen by examining the edit logs, Yllosubmarine was editing as recently as two or three of weeks ago; as she continued to do throughout October and November 2012. The evidence appears to be blatant falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle has now deleted that 'evidence'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria has reinstated her statement, albeit with no amendments to address the issues I raise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Andy, it is this kind of tone which often upsets everyone in a discussion. Try to assume good faith, and avoid potentially inflammatory remarks like asserting "blatant falsehood"; it is entirely possible for people to make mistakes. Maybe just stick to more neutral wording like "the evidence appears to be incorrect". And no, I'm not saying you're the only one. Bramble claw x 23:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, never mind that someone's just appeared to lie in their evidence to Arbcom, coincidentally painting me in a bad light as they did so; but lambast me for pointing it out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm liar. I didn't do due diligence and check that she came back. But the truth is she did leave for quite a long time. And the truth is, (make fun all you want of my former user name) the bullying here is intolerable. I hope the arbs take a good long look at that. Victoria (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now, immediately after this exchange, she has asked to be blocked, & removed her name from her current FA nomination - [42]. Another cross on the fuselage; well done Andy! Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another example of the kind of snide, abusive responses we get in infobox related discussions. She is taking a break for "a few days", apparently due to health issues (having been in the same position recently, with treatment ongoing, I hope she's soon better). John neglects to mention that she also vandalised Early Netherlandish painting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Victoria is not only editing again, but has also reinstated her evidence, perhaps John would like to retract that comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - she only came back to do stuff on her evidence, and to blame this case for her going. She now has a retired sign up at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victoriaearle]. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"didn't do due diligence and check"? - You were chatting with her in April. "the truth is she did leave for quite a long time"? - She never left. Your two diffs ([43], [44]) show nothing of the kind. Her last post to the Pilgrim's Creek debate was on 21 September, She edited elsewhere on 24, 25, 26 & 27 September. She edited about 28 times in October. She edited ten times in November. She edited throughout December, January, February and March (removing an infobox with the summary "infobox isn't necessary or mandatory" in the process), April, May, June (infobox removed with summary "infobox is useful how?") and July. Some "mistake"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: