Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision

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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

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. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Support:

1. Minor copyedits; please revert if undesired. Please note that although I'm voting first, I did not draft the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Provisional support, pending clarification below. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Confirming support. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. To Carcharoth, I read this as "if we can include things that help reusers, without detriment, we should". Courcelles 01:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Per Courcelles, but I also read his 'we should' as "I would like all articles to be at featured-level quality" – nice if we can make it happen, not the end of the world if we can't. Ultimately, this is broadly true and I think we're staying pretty firmly in our scope in describing how we think policy is right now. NW (Talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Courcelles, that was exactly the intention of the of the sentence. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I get what this principle is saying, but the sense of the final phrase is not clear. I think what is meant is that the processes and mechanisms (such as microformats) that allow the re-use of the information should not be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Or is the principle saying that the actual re-use itself should not be detrimental? If this does need clarification, others may need to re-vote. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Reverting of anything other than obvious vandalism or harm should be considered very carefully as reverting can often be perceived as an act of aggression which then provokes a negative response. Consideration, politeness and discussion go a long way to assisting everyone to build this encyclopaedia appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Users should also be aware when they are crossing the line from escalating a dispute to helping to de-escalate it. The failure over the years to move to discussions "involving the wider community" is part of the reason things have got worse and not been resolved. See my comments on the PD talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Noting my agreement with Carcharoth's and Courcelles' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Though not sure all this has been going on here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. This is all correct, it does not mean every type of bad behaviour has been happening in this matter. Courcelles 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Somewhat duplicative of 2 (with which it could be consolidated), but harmlessly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mission

5) Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such as metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Again, there's a bit of duplication in the principles but nothing we can't live with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   I think the opposers' point is addressed through the realization if that if including metadata results in adding an infobox to an article that (for whatever reason) is otherwise undesirable, that could be viewed as "detrimental to our content." That being said, I'd be prepared to consider an alternate formulation of this that might be perceived less as "taking sides." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Though continuing community input should always be sought. If there have not been more recent requests for comment, these should take place. The discussions around this case have thrown up enough material for several such RfCs. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. This doesn't speak to whether or not it should be included, just that it aligns with the goals, where it is not detrimental to the content. The community can make editorial judgements about whether or not that is sufficient for inclusion. (More in comments) Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

5. AGK [•] 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The inclusion or exclusion of Metadata is a judgment of the community; this pronouncement is, IMO, beyond the powers of the Committee. Courcelles 01:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't think there is clear community consensus on the application of metadata, as such I feel it would be inappropriate for ArbCom to make a conclusion either for or against the use of metadata. My understanding is that a significant reason for the calling of this case is that there is dispute about how to place metadata in articles. Apparently, the current code writing of metadata means that it is best placed in unhidden infoboxes, but sometimes the use of such infoboxes in certain articles is felt to be inappropriate and can be contentious. Personally I can see that there needs to be community discussion on how metadata is used within articles. I suspect that metadata software that can be placed unobtrusively and independently in articles yet successfully emit useful and appropriate machine readable information would be accepted by the community. I suspect that if metadata software is dependent on placing an infobox in all articles, there will continue to be friction and debate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I think that to make this statement within our scope, "detrimental" would have to be able to be interpreted so widely as to make it useless. NW (Talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

I'm still on the fence on this one. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (Moving to oppose)

1. T. Canens (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not entirely sure that we yet have clear global consensus for metadata. Andy Mabbett on the evidence page linked to this 2010 RFC which I closed as there being no clear consensus to either embrace or disfavour microformats, though there was support for continuing to look into the matter. Has there been further explicit discussions on the matter to establish consensus and best practise? On the evidence page there are a number of concerns raised about the manner in which Andy has been both assuming consensus, and amending the MoS to give the impression of consensus. I would be wary of supporting this principle without evidence that use of metadata on Wikipedia has gained global support, and there are guidelines for its use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this principle asserts any global consensus for it, merely that metadata in and of itself is not expressly prohibited by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines unless you start associating it with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It's also completely separate from the infobox wars save for that metadata is considered a pro of having one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think saying "metadata ... is not expressly prohibited" is the same as saying "metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's soundbytes of what we are doing "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." says nothing that the access has to be within the confines of the encyclopedia. Indeed, that's exactly why the information is under creative commons, to encourage reuse and to keep the information free. It is wrong to believe the only way people would access the information is through the Wikipedia site. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ownership

6) Wikipedia articles are developed by the Wikipedia community at large. Any editor may make good faith edits to any article, and no editor should seek to prevent other editors from good-faith editing.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. This is an important principle. Should a link to WP:OWN be added? Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. If edits are disruptive, and the editor is aware that they are disruptive, then it is no longer in good faith. This is an important principle as it stands. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Proposed copyedit: add at end, "unless there is a specific and legitimate reason to do so." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disruptive edits made in good faith are still disruptive and need to be stopped. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Salvio and my own comments below. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. One can easily be totally convinced they are doing the right thing, and yet making a disruptive mess. Courcelles 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Per Courcelles. NW (Talk) 15:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

6. Per above: well-meaning disruption is still disruption. AGK [•] 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Some editors can make unhelpful good faith edits in a manner frequent enough to become a nuisance. In such circumstances it is appropriate to look into strategies to reduce the nuisance factor. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the opposers' point above, there is the point that while an attitude of article ownership is rightfully disparaged, the views of the editors most familiar with a topic or subject-matter should not be gratuitiously disregarded either. This ties into the question of global vs. local (per-article or per topic-area) consensus as discussed in the next principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Levels of consensus

7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Slight copy-edit and amended title as suggested below. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. This makes sense. Though a link to WP:CONSENSUS is needed, to show the current state of policies and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
6. NW (Talk) 15:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. With title change, support. There are further nuances here; for example, does "local consensus" mean "per article" or "per topic area," etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure the [original] header is a good match for the text here, and in the context of this case, the header may come off as more perjorative than is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Change it to a more innocuous "Levels of consensus" or "Local versus global consensus"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Noting this is now changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) There is no general rule on infoboxes, meaning there are regularly debates regarding the use of infoboxes on articles. The debates are overwhelmed by a number of editors, who have been listed as parties on this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   2nd choice, prefer 1.1,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Cannot support this as written. Too vague and needs links and more detail. Apologies for not spotting this earlier when the proposed decision was at the drafting stage. I do agree that something along these lines is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. F2.1 F1.1 seems to explain the dispute a little better. AGK [•] 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Perfer 2.1 1.1 T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
5. In favour of the one below. Courcelles 00:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposing 2.1 1.1 as alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1.1) This case arises from a series of disputes concerning whether and when Wikipedia articles should include infoboxes. Because there is no project-wide policy governing when infoboxes should be used, disagreements concerning their inclusion arise with some regularity. These disagreements are sometimes resolved as they should be, through collegial discussion and consensus, but too often the consensus-building process has broken down, in a fashion that has been extremely demoralizing to many editors. Reasons for such breakdowns include:

• It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).
• It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions, nor is it clear how the potential desirability in uniformity of formatting across articles of a common type should be weighed.
• A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions.

Support:

1. Proposed. I'm sure this needs editing, but I think it captures the crux of the case. (As a matter of formatting, it may be that this paragraph should come before principle finding #1.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

   I think it's good enough as it is. And did you mean to suggest it should come before finding #1? AGK [•] 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, fixed, thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

   Indeed, Locus findings are conventionally first in place. Maybe we could get away with renumbering F2 and F2.1 to F1 and F1.1, and then F1 to F2? AGK [•] 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

2. This seems to cover all the bases. AGK [•] 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Broadly agree Courcelles 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

   1st choice,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

7. NW (Talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Though not a policy, most people follow the guidance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. That guideline is project-wide, and regular deviance from it, or lack of clarity regarding it, is best discussed on the talkpage of that guide. To prolong disputes without resolving them in the appropriate venue is disruptive, and I wouldn't be comfortable supporting a finding that suggests such disruption is because of a lack of appropriate guidance. We are too far along this project for folks not to understand how to resolve disputes appropriately. Ie - don't continue to disrupt the project if there is some aspect you disagree with or are unclear about - go to the appropriate venue to resolve it (and WikiProjects, while useful for topic expertise and guidance, are probably not the most appropriate venue for matters that have a project wide impact). For disruption to have reached the level of an ArbCom case is disappointing, but we must look to those involved as being responsible for that, not the lack of guidance from the community. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   The guideline you point to provides very useful advice concerning what should go in an infobox if there is to be one, but it seems to be deliberately agnostic in addressing when infoboxes should be used at all, which is at the heart of this case. And to be clear, the proposed finding is meant to address what has sometimes been happening, not what should be happening. Needless to say, if everyone followed best practice in this area, it's less likely it would require an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not willing to oppose, but not willing to support either. Could support the paragraph before the bullet points, but I think the points raised in the bullet points go to far towards editorialising. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

SilkTork makes good points about how people (the 'editorial community' in general) should really at this stage of the project be able to do better at resolving disputes like this. Some people are good at resolving disputes like this and working together to facilitate a productive discussion. Others don't have the time or energy to step back and see the bigger picture. One thing that would be incredibly helpful, given the years of examples available, would be to compile a list of and links to past discussions that have been productive and useful, and hold those up as examples to follow when a current dispute has descended into interminable bickering or going round in circles with diminishing returns. If people could realise that productive and calm discussion can help in the long-term, and see that it has worked before (with careful planning and creative ideas), then they might be more willing to do that in cases like the one here, rather than lashing out or getting frustrated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes

2) The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Copyedited for clarity by adding "by site policies or guidelines". Please revert if undesired. We may want to provide some guidance by identifying some of the factors that weigh for or against including an infobox in a given instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Yes, per WP:INFOBOXUSE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I can support this, though I can also support a more detailed/nuanced version (see comments below). Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. I would also support a more lengthy version if you would like to write it Carcharoth. NW (Talk) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Broadly agree. AGK [•] 12:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
9. though I would support a more nuanced version. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

     Roger Davies ^talk 23:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I see that NYB added "by site policies or guidelines". It is worth noting that WP:INFOBOXUSE is (like the rest of the Manual of Style) a guideline, though a guideline that tends to have rather a lot of weight behind it. What would be really useful here is a finding emphasising the length of time that infoboxes have been in use, and how often there are disputes and how long ago some of the disputes started. FWIW, archive 1 starts in March 2006 and there are eight archives for the discussions there over the past 7 years. The proposal for a guideline on infoboxes dates from this initial version (also March 2006) by Kirill Lokshin. That is the history of the guideline - not sure how long ago the first infobox templates were in use (presumably for some time before the guideline was drafted and proposed). I believe the workshop page includes some attempt at statistics on how widespread the use of infoboxes is. Some of this information may be more useful for community discussions, not just this case. Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Responded via my comment on 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

3) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also known as Andy Mabbett) has had a long history of editing articles with the focus on adding or modifying infoboxes, and has been previously banned from editing the day's feature article (TFA) [1] as well as sanctioned in Arbitration cases; he was banned for one year in 2006 by amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and for an additional year in 2007 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Minor copyedits, including added the dates; please revert if undesired. See my comments on 4 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. This appears factually correct, though I don't think previous arbitration cases should factor into the decision too heavily. If this was a Pigsonthewing 3 case, I would agree, but there seems to be more going on here and from what I can see Andy Mabbett's (Pigsonthewing's) recent conduct is nothing like what got him banned back then. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. NW (Talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 12:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Factually correct, though it is worth noting that 5 years is a long time in Wikipedia. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

     Roger Davies ^talk 06:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• It is worth noting somewhere for the benefit of those reading the decision that are not familiar with the background, that Andy Mabbett is User:Pigsonthewing (and vice-versa of course). Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

When considering users in a case, all aspects of that user's impact on the project are best considered, so it is worth noting that Andy Mabbett does a lot of outreach work, and also has some knowledge and expertise in the area of metadata. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited by adding "(also known as Andy Mabbett)" per Carcharoth's comment above and a suggestion on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions

4) Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation.[2][3][4] He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus[5].

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. General support, though I may propose some minor tweaking. Pigsonthewing has so much to offer the project, and cares so much about it, that it is sad and frustrating he is unable to overcome the stridency and single-mindedness that have resulted in sanctions and reduced his effectiveness in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. (Copyedited – revert if you object.) AGK [•] 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Broadly correct, in my view, though I disagree with NYB's comments. I am hopeful that Andy Mabbett has (based on recent actions and comments) realised that he needs to take more care with his contributions to discussions. Based on some of the discussions on the PD talk page, I no longer think a more detailed finding is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
8. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
9. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
10. NW (Talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

     Roger Davies ^talk 06:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I took a look at the first six months of 2012, and found these talkpage discussions with Andy Mabbett about infoboxes, and note people's exasperation with him, which he doesn't take on board: Talk:Ontario_Highway_401#Coordinates, Talk:We_Can_Do_It!#Infobox, Talk:Marian_Anderson#Infobox, Talk:Samuel_Barber#Infobox, Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox. There is clearly a conflict with Andy Mabbett's desire to spread the use of metadata via userboxes, and the lack of guidance on the issue. And there is a serious problem with Andy Mabbett's reluctance to accept that there is no consensus on the use of metadata. I take on board what NYB is saying about the work that Mabbett does in promoting metadata on Wikipedia, and his outreach in that area. Though it would also be true to say that he appears to be driving the promotion of metadata on Wikipedia via his outreach in a manner that does not have consensus. It appears that he is on a mission to make metadata work on Wikipedia as he fully believes in it, but it might be worthwhile for him to spend more time on getting folks to buy into the value of metadata on Wikipedia before continuing to promote it on and off Wikipedia. I am not making any comment on the value of metadata, as I feel that is outside the remit of the Committee; but I would like to point out that the Wikipedia community and the Committee have previously expressed disquiet with any user adopting a Wikipedia:Fait accompli approach to pursuing their agenda, and Mabbett is falling foul of that. What is needed is for there to be a new discussion on metadata to see what consensus there is for its use, and how it could be best implemented if people wish to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Am holding off on supporting this finding, as what SilkTork writes above tallies with my overall impression. I'm not convinced that ArbCom should get into the business of saying things along the lines of what SilkTork said (and certainly Andy needs to be able to respond to that and to what I'm saying). I'm also not convinced that this sort of thing is that uncommon. There are numerous editors who have moved beyond Wikipedia being just a hobby or leisure pursuit, and for whom it is a vocation or even a career with contracts and/or employment opportunities (I'm referring here not to Andy, but more to other things mentioned on the Workshop page, such as some of the comments and user essays I saw related to Wikidata). This whole spectrum from hobbyist editing to something more than that is something that can create tension at times in a volunteer community, especially for those who edit in large volumes and at a persistent level (see what SilkTork said about 'Fait accompli'). What can (or even should) be done about such tensions, I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone who edits over a very wide range of discussions with an overall aim in mind needs to be able to handle the resulting tensions as well as demonstrating wide-ranging consensus. If you can't do both, you need to pull back. I would like to support a finding that brings this aspect of things out a bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reaffirm general support (there's just too much stridency), but I wouldn't mind inserting "often" or "sometimes" before "inflame." There are plenty of non-contentious infobox additions and edits along with the disputed ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

5) Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit warred to remove infoboxes without helpful edit summaries.[6][7][8][9] On two occasions the edit war led to her being blocked.[10] She has frequently sniped at Pigsonthewing and other editors she disagrees with in infobox-related discussions.[11]

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Agree with NYB, but as this is factually correct I am prepared to support. I don't think this rises to the level of a remedy, but I do think that a finding would be appropriate here. One thing I do object to is the use of the term 'pro-infobox editors'. We shouldn't be lumping people into two camps here, even if such camps do exist. We will be encouraging a battleground mentality if we do that. The (maybe rather naive and idealistic) aim is to get people to a stage where they can discuss things without feeling like they are in two opposing camps. Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. With a copyedit to remove "pro-infobox". NW (Talk) 15:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Per Carcharoth, this is factually correct, and good conduct elsewhere does not mitigate this user's previous contributions to the dispute. AGK [•] 12:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Broadly accurate; though of course not all infobox removals have been without useful edit summaries. Courcelles 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
7. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   Per Carcharoth, and agreeing with much of the thrust of NYB's comments below,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

9. One of the incidents that led to this case being called was the inappropriate wiki-stalking and harassment of Andy Mabbett, which was discussed at ANI. Being aware of that I was surprised that there was so little support for Nikkimaria's desysopping. However, I can see that if Committee members are purely going by the difs in this finding, there is little to support the desysopping, or indeed, the thrust of this finding. But if it is taken in context of the evidence as given when the case was accepted, then the gist of it is that Nikkimaria has gotten involved in the infobox dispute, personalized it, and appears to have decided to act directly against Mabbett and Gerda as though this were a battleground, rather than engage more appropriately, responsibly, and effectively as one would expect of an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I agree there has been unhelpful behavior, but not recently (that I'm aware of), and I can't support the finding because the edit summary point (see below) hasn't been cleared up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Much of this is true, but for some of these edits, though not all, I do see meaningful edit summaries. I also note that Nikkamaria's evidence submission strikes me as reflecting a thoughtful, sensible balancing of the relevant considerations in these discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the point about the edit summaries, as for many of the examples; and while the dialog in the last diff is not optimal, I'm not sure I'd characterize most of it as "sniping." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt

6) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[12] and without prior discussion.[13], including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   While Courcelles' point is well-taken, the thrust of this finding is that the editor has continued adding infoxboxes in circumstances where doing so is disruptive. To clarify this, I've added "including articles where she knew or should have knew that adding an infobox would be controversial" (lifted from NYB's suggestion below). Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

2. I think that last line is key (and well-supported). Gerda knew that there was opposition among the prominent Wikipedians who edit classical music articles to having an infobox but chose to fight the battles one at a time rather than working out a project-wide solution. Switching to support. NW (Talk) 04:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
5. With the copyedit, this is now a factual finding. It is not necessarily a fully adverse finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
6. This is factually correct, though Courcelles' point re: BRD is well taken. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
7. The first allegation and diff is simply wrong: I find nothing wrong with Gerda adding infoboxes to articles that had, in most cases, been inactive since months beforehand. However, the other conduct exhibited is undeniably subpar. AGK [•] 11:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
8. Getting involved in agitating for infoboxes on articles where it is known there would be an issue is pointy and disruptive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Gerda should have known to stop long ago. Instead they seem to be keeping right on while this case discusses their conduct. ANd it has not been good. Courcelles 22:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Superfluous. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see how a case could be made for a finding against Gerda, but I don't think this finding is detailed enough. For example, can we really fault Gerda for adding an infobox to A Crossbreed without prior discussion? I think not. Could one of the drafters write a more detailed finding of fact? AGK [•] 12:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Supporting. AGK [•] 11:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Per AGK, though I don't think a more detailed finding is needed. The fault (if any) seems to be more a frustration that others won't discuss things fully and trying to get people to discuss things when they maybe don't really want to. It can feel like being stonewalled, but sometimes it is just people wanting to do things other than discuss these issues. People have different amounts of time they are willing to spend on such discussions, and that needs to be respected as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

   T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   Not as is, no. NW (Talk) 03:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   Seems to make a vice out of the B in WP:BRD. Courcelles 15:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

   Per Courcelles,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Moved to Support

Abstain:

Comments:

Ordinarily, making a change (that isn't a revert) to an article doesn't require prior discussion. I take it the essence here is that Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to specific articles on which she knew or should have known they would be controversial, and should have discussed first in those instances? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Short answer yes. As has been noted all over this case, these infobox battles have been going on for years. All the parties involved know that it's contentious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's the thrust of the finding, I think it would be good to copyedit it or create a new version saying so. Otherwise this risks being taken out of context as a statement that advance discussion is required before adding an infobox to any article. Perhaps adding the words "including articles where she understood or should have understood that including an infobox would be controversial"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Holding off on voting on this one until I've had a chance to look closer at this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Smerus

7) Smerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has degraded the quality of infobox discussions.[14][15][16]

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
5. NW (Talk) 03:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
6. AGK [•] 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   I completely agree with David's succinct understatement,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

7. Smerus is an excellent contributor, but there's no denying that he's used some unnecessarily heated language here, to the point where it can justify (though not exactly mandate) a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
8. Per NYB, many of the contributors in this dispute are excellent editors outside the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I am concerned that Smerus (and Kleinzach) would get themselves involved in discussions regarding infoboxes on articles they hadn't previously edited. In the evidence available on the Evidence page I note that it would tend to be Kleinzach who would initiate a talkpage objection to the placement of an infobox, and then Smerus would join in. While the poor quality of the tone of discussions is unpleasant, I'm not convinced that Smerus' involvement is significantly bad enough to justify a finding. While it is inappropriate for either Smerus or Kleinzach to act as sheriff for the WikiProject Classical music, I'm not seeing the same level of battling as was shown by Nikkimaria. The quality of infobox discussions hasn't generally been good, and I don't think it is appropriate to say that Smerus in particular has made matters more difficult. As a piece of personal advice, I would say to Smerus (and Kleinzach), that while it is appropriate to discuss the use of an infobox in an individual article, taking a general stance one way or another and taking part in individual discussions in order to simply assert one's general preferred position is not appropriate, so it would be better to refrain from doing so. But I don't think that Smerus caused significant enough disruption to warrant a finding, nor behaved in a significantly poor enough manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Provisional support (see comments below). Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. On the understanding that this is not proposed as an alternative to R1.2, but in addition to it. If Andy is banned and does successfully appeal, I do believe separating him from the subject of infoboxes would be best. If he is not banned, then he needs to be separated from infoboxes anyway. AGK [•] 12:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
4. For the time being, Andy does need to take time away from infoboxes. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
5. In addition to 1.2, not as alternative. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Echoing Carcharoth's comments, and copyedited to add "or removal". I'm not satisfied with this; I think there might be a remedy that might be drafted to eliminate some of the problems while still allowing Andy's participation in the broader topic. For not, this one is acceptable. NW (Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

   Okay with this (and likely to support fine-tuning of it)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

   I am seeing this as running alongside the proposal to site-ban Andy Mabbett. I am uncomfortable with this as a blanket ban on discussing infoboxes, as I feel Mabbett would have useful and interesting points to make regarding the use of metadata within infoboxes in a site-wide discussion. However, as the site-ban is currently passing, I can support this, with a view that the terms of Mabbett's return to Wikipedia and how he becomes involved in infobox discussions can be agreed at the time of his appeal to return to Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

7. This is woefully inadequate, as Andy needs to be site banned, but, since the ban is not going to pass, this is the only way to limit the amount of disruption he'll cause. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Inadequate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Depends if this is an alternative or addition to 1.2. If alternative, I must oppose as inadequate. Courcelles 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

   This is unusual, but I'm adding the language from Gerda's remedy to allow POTW to start articles with infoboxes. Revert if you disagree. Courcelles 14:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

   I approve of this amendment (which is not to say that everyone else will). Minor copyedit (no reason to refer to this known-to-be-male editor as "he" and "they" within the same sentence). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

   I've removed the change. It is too easily gamed (lots of red links could suddenly become stubs with infoboxes) and endorses ownership. I suggest if Andy wants to add infoboxes to articles he creates, he files a request for clarification on the issue after the case closes. This would also allow him to clarify the points he has made on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

2. I would support barring Pigsonthewing from adding infoboxes where they can reasonably be anticipated to be contentious (or if need be, at all), from reverting them back in when they've been deleted, and from participating in talkpage discussion of their inclusion in individual articles. I would not bar him from policy discussions concerning the value of infoboxes (or metadata) more generally, and in particular, if he can remain civil and make only a limited number of comments, I think he would have some useful comments to make in the upcoming community discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose in favour of new proposal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I think it is true to say that Andy Mabbett's involvement in editing [adding] infoboxes should cease. However, if there is is to be a community discussion on the use of metadata on Wikipedia, then Andy Mabbett's expertise in this area would be valuable, and such discussion would almost certainly involve infoboxes. If Mabbett is not to be banned from the project, then consideration could be given to allowing him to take part in any community wide discussion on metadata that may involve infoboxes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyedited. I meant to say adding not editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Like SilkTork, I would want to see a more nuanced remedy here. Possibly even a narrower one. I too think that if this case is followed by more community discussions on infoboxes and metadata, then Andy should be free to participate in those. His input and knowledge would be valuable there. I disagree with SilkTork that Andy Mabbett's involvement in editing infoboxes should cease - the remedy here seems to have it right when it focuses on 'adding or discussing the addition of' (and obviously the removal of as well) infoboxes. This would, I believe, leave Andy free to contribute to maintaining infoboxes (making technical changes) and free to continue nominating infoboxes for merging or deletion at WP:TFD. What the remedy would do, I believe, is solely restrict him from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes to articles. If I have that right, then I would be prepared to support this remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing and infoboxes (2)

1.1b) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of specific infoboxes. He may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes.

Support:

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. I'd support this. Worm^TT(talk) 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, but propose to add, "provided he remains civil and conducts himself appropriately in such discussions; should he fail to do so, he may be restricted or banned from further participation in the discussion by any uninvolved administrator." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. I simply don't see Andy helping reach any sort of common ground on infoboxes; he needs to be separated from the issue, full-stop. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
3. With the same view as David. AGK [•] 12:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
4. NW (Talk) 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
6. If I thought 1.1 was inadequate, this clearly is. Courcelles 14:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments

• This was proposed without being given a proposal number, so I've tentatively given it the designation of Remedy 1.1b). AGK [•] 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of expanding this to allow Andy to edit infobox template pages. He's one of our few technical editors who is willing to do this. I've not seen any complaints regarding Andy's work on the templates themselves, just in his manner in arguments regarding their addition and removal. Would appreciate other arbitrators thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the wording of any of these restrictions as forbidding him from working on infoboxes in the template space. NW (Talk) 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NW. And I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that remedy 1.1 does not ban Andy from infobox discussions across all namespaces. My reading of it was that it remedy 1.1 only applied to article-specific disputes and additions and removals, and that Andy would be free to participate in any wider discussion that took place on the topic (but not, for instance, a discussion about a limited set of articles, just the top level really broad discussions about general guidelines and policies). Really, if this amendment fails, the original remedy should be amended to explicitly say "He may not participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes." I would oppose that, but that seems to be the intent here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned

1.2) For tendentious editing, edit warring, disruption, and a previous history of sanctions, Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. Andy has displayed an impressive battleground mentality and was already banned twice before; those bans failed to change his behaviour, so I think any lesser remedy would be inadequate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Andy is or has been the subject of two previous arbitration cases. Blocked for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012. Then topic banned in 2012. Blocked for edit warring in 2012. And a central actor in a projectspace dispute of particular intensity. I do not think we can reasonably expect another narrow sanction to be effective in the case of this editor, which is unfortunate because of his long history as a community member. AGK [•] 12:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Clarified that topic ban was separate from BLP issues. AGK [•] 10:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   I have given a lot of thought to this proposal, and have come to think that it is perhaps unnecessary. I would rather we go with a narrower restriction, on the understanding that Andy may be site banned in the event of further misconduct, and will accordingly oppose this proposal. AGK [•] 13:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

2. The basic issue; battleground mentality, does do back to 2006. Topic-banning him from yet another battleground cannot fix the problems, and two prior years of banning have not fixed them either, so, I see no other options. Courcelles 23:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

   T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

3. It is clear that in certain areas, such as Featured Articles and Classical Music Composers, the use of infoboxes is contentious and unresolved. We know that the best way to deal with such matters is to discuss them via RfCs, etc. I am aware that there have been several RfCs on infoboxes and related matters, and that despite this the areas of contention remain. When there are areas of contention, and a user is well aware of such contention, to continue to edit in such areas rather than continue to resolve the issues is disruptive per Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Though there have been issues with Andy Mabbett adding infoboxes to FAs that have just been listed on the main page, and to articles related to biographies of classical music composers, he added one to Cosima Wagner just after it has been on the main page, and when reverted his BRD response was to comment as though he has no understanding that this would be a contentious issue: Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1 (Dec 2012). That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas: [17] (March 2013) concerns me deeply. Yes, there are others involved as well, and their behaviour is also being examined, but for someone with a long and contentious history of doing this, who has come before ArbCom twice before, I think we have to say enough is enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. I've become convinced that Andy simply will not compromise on his opinion, and by comments on the PD talk that this is problematic beyond simply infoboxes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

   Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Weakly opposing this for now. It is clear that most anyone with the long history Pigsonthewing has would likely be banned for the trouble, but I'm hopeful that forcing him away entirely from the infobox issue would alleviate the cause of conflict for this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I don't think the conduct so far rises to the level where a site ban is warranted, and from what I have seen he has changed since the previous cases. If there was another case in the future involving Andy, then I could be convinced that this is needed, but not now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Andy may have been banned in the past, but looking at his actions at the time - he has significantly improved. 5 years (since his ban ended) is a long time. Given that evidence shows that his problematic behaviour is limited to infoboxes, I do not believe this is required. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I think Andy still has a lot to offer the project. I think that a ban might be merited but is not fully necessary and that another remedy in addition to 1.3 is necessary to resolve the situation the project has had with Andy. NW (Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. All of my colleagues' points on both sides of this vote have merit, but I don't see enough evidence of problematic behavior outside the infobox (or perhaps infobox-and-metadata) realm to warrant a site-ban. In casting this vote, I give credit to the editor's statement that he has worked to improve his behavior, but say to him that he still has more work to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Mostly with the same thinking as Newyorkbrad. AGK [•] 13:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

   Per T. Canens and NYB,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Indefinitely separating an long-term dedicated editor from this project should take more than the closest possible vote of a divided committee. For this reason alone, I'm striking my support. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I am inclined to support this as the problem has gone on for too long, and people are frustrated. On the one hand the prior ArbCom bans were a long time ago. On the other, Andy Mabbett has clearly not understood how he is frustrating others on this same issue. He is already on editing restrictions on any page or talkpage: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing. This is still in force: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. According to the log, he was "banned from making any infobox-related edits for a period of one month" in 2007. While the sanction banning him from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes is more narrowly focused than the existing sanction, and so worth considering, it might be more appropriate to issue a full site ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To support a site-ban, I would want to see evidence of relatively recent or ongoing poor behavior by Pigsonthewing outside the infobox realm. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

2.1) For edit warring with Pigsonthewing, Nikkimaria is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
4. AGK [•] 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

5. More is expected out of admins. Admins getting into edit wars is really not acceptable. Courcelles 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

   I can live with this and it's probably the best option. I've vaped the "strongly" as the amplifier is unnecessary for all practical purposes and it serves only to create a much greater gulf than actually exists between reminded and admonished. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think a finding is enough. Might support a reminder rather than an admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth, especially since the problematic behavior seems to have abated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I think a reminder is better than a strong admonishment. Ultimately not really meaningful. NW (Talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

2.2) For edit warring with Pigsonthewing, Nikkimaria is desysopped. She may only regain her administrator permissions through a successful RFA.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. We are voting to site-ban Mabbett for not following appropriate procedure for gaining consensus for using infoboxes. Given Nikkimaria's purposeful war against Mabbett and others - following them to articles in order to remove infoboxes that they have placed (Nikkimaria's wording: "the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case"[18]) it seems appropriate to support a desysop. Nikkimaria's approach to dealing with this matter falls below what is expected of any user, let alone an admin. We do not deliberately follow a user around and revert their edits because we disagree with them. We attempt to resolve the matter using dispute resolution, or ArbCom if needed. We expect an admin to assist in the dispute resolution process, not become a part of the dispute, and in so doing destablise the project. A desysop does not remove Nikkimaria from the project, nor from any editing area of the project - that would be too harsh, but it does seem appropriate - especially given that the tools can be (and I feel would be) given back at an RfA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. I've yet to form a conclusion on the findings or other remedies, but I know I won't be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   With the case nearing a conclusion and with my now having reviewed everything, reaffirming my view that this would be highly excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

2. Per NYB. NW (Talk) 03:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per NYB. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Per my comments on the finding. Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I initially supported this in my head, but comments from Nikkimaria have given me confidence that this is excessive. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   Nah,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

2.3) Nikkimaria is indefinitely restricted from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too strong. Would consider a more nuanced alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per NYB, something would be good, but this is too broad. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per NYB. See comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. AGK [•] 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
6. NW (Talk) 01:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Considering, but perhaps a 1RR might be a better fit; also, I'm not sure there's a reason to preclude Nikkimaria from discussing the usefulness or not of an infobox. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Need to take another look at the evidence here. Not sure the current findings would support this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Per Carcharoth, I need to look at this in more detail before I vote. Although I think some sort of remedy is required, I'm still undecided about whether a desysopping is warranted. AGK [•] 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a 1RR on all participants, rather than singling out Nikkimaria. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a 1RR restriction, but that may be best done later. I think several of the parties to this case are quite capable of changing their conduct without the need to pass formal remedies. I would like to see how things go after the case closes and wait to see if further remedies are needed. Possible a 'parties reminded' remedy is needed to emphasise that point. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

2.4) Nikkimaria is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Support:

1. Offering as a replacement for 2.3, and a variation for the other parties per comments her and on-list regarding alternatives. Copyedits welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. AGK [•] 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comments above, I think the parties reminded remedy is sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Disproportionate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I agree with Salvio with respect to Nikkimaria. NW (Talk) 01:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

4. Per my comment on the finding, I think Nikkimaria has already moderated her approach such that this is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Gerda Arendt

Gerda Arendt restricted (1)

3.1) Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.

Support:

1. As Gerda has herself noted, she's been adding far more infoboxes as of late than Pigsonthewing; it hasn't been very constructive, especially when adding ones unilaterally is clearly going to create a kerfluffle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Weak support, not that this will pass, but I do have sympathy with the view David expresses above,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Too strong. Would consider a more nuanced alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per my comments on the relevant finding. Overall, I think a 'parties reminded' clause is needed here. And (after a period of some quiet) a way for people to discuss these issues in a calm manner at a central venue, building on some of the proposals made in the workshop, without tensions rising again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
5. For same reason as my vote below. AGK [•] 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Overkill. Courcelles 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
8. I believe a finding is sufficient to make Gerda stop and think. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Prefer the second restriction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Per my comments on the finding, still looking into this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Per my comments on F6, I would like to see a more detailed finding before I support restricting Gerda. AGK [•] 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt restricted (2)

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

Support:

1. Offering as a replacement for the above, and a variation for the other parties per comments her and on-list regarding alternatives. Copyedits welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   Fair enough,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

   I've added "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" in response to a comment on my talk page from Gerda.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

2. T. Canens (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Moving to support, per changes to the finding of fact. AGK [•] 11:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
5. This allows views regarding templates to be raised in the appropriate venues, yet restricts those areas that have caused conflict. This appears to be a well worded and suitable remedy that benefits both Gerda Arendt and the project as a whole. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Ten days ago I thought this was overkill. Gerda's conduct since has convinced me otherwise, esp. with no other authority granted to somewhere like AE to topic-ban. Courcelles 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comments above, I think the parties reminded remedy is sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

   Probably not required, though I'm on the cusp of supporting. AGK [•] 09:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Supporting. AGK [•] 11:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

   Overkill, though I would support this general idea being a remedy that can be imposed at AE if disruption resumes after he case. Courcelles 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Agree with Courcelles; some sort of (general) Sword of Damocles-warning might be helpful here. NW (Talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
3. While this proposal is more proportionate than the others for this editor (indeed, I proposed the language for it, on the mailing list), I think the other remedies are sufficient, especially since Gerda has agreed to step away from aspects of this area for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

   Gerda's recent comments on the talk page suggest otherwise,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

4. I believe a finding is sufficient to make Gerda stop and think. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Gerda Arendt admonished

3.3) Gerda Arendt is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Support:

1. Proposed. NW (Talk) 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Gerda, originally I didn't think your conduct had been poor enough to warrant passing a remedy against you; however, during the course of this case, you have shown an increasing amount of WP:IDHT and, so, I have changed my mind: I now think that, at the very least, an admonishment is called for. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 06:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

5. Weak support. AGK [•] 11:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Editing Wikipedia can become heated, and diplomacy sometimes breaks down. This is understood. However, we should strive to put as much consideration into the way we construct our discussions as we do when constructing articles. Discussions matter. And the tone of our voice, and the reasoned quality of our arguments can achieve more profound change, much quicker, than passion and resentment. It's not quick and it's easy, but then neither is constructing quality articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I believe a finding is sufficient to make Gerda stop and think. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I may support this if nothing else passes but the conduct outlined in the "Wider than classical music" evidence is not only battleground but highly disruptive to mature articles with existing very broad acceptance. To my mind, an admonishment is reserved for borderline misconduct, which this is not definitely not.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Smerus

4.1) Smerus (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 10:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Courcelles 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

   Yep,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

5. I do think this is necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Seems a bit too much. NW (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Excessive at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

   Reemphasizing this view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

4.2) Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.

Support:

1. Proposed, since Smerus has on occasion let his temper flare. AGK [•] 10:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Appropriate here. NW (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
6. In addition to the above. Courcelles 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

   Yep (and this one definitely should be an admonishment),  Roger Davies ^talk 06:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

7. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
3. This isn't as disproportionate as 4.1, but it isn't essential either. The finding plus the general reminder make the point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Editors reminded

5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

Support:

1. Copyedits or additions welcome. There are certainly some parties who do not have levels of evidence that merit a finding but still contribute in a sometimes-negative fashion irt to this issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk)
2. Agreed that this is needed. Hopefully those who participated in this case without being formally named 'parties' and read this reminder will take it on board. And it could be usefully pointed to in future discussions that degenerate in the way you've described. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
4. General support; may suggest some tweaks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
6. AGK [•] 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
8. NW (Talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Courcelles 15:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

   Fair enough,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

10. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I have changed the number of this proposal from remedy 4 to remedy 5. AGK [•] 10:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer this remedy to read "all editors are reminded" instead of "all parties". Others agree? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree; change made. NW (Talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Community discussion recommended

6) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

Support:

1. Proposed (may need some tweaking). As has been noted above, there is currently a guideline that discusses what information an infobox should contain when it is included in a given article, but the guideline does not address whether or not an infobox should be included in the first place, beyond stating that inclusion is neither required nor prohibited. I believe it would be helpful, and might reduce the number of repetitious arguments on dozens of talkpages repeating the same points, for the guideline to incorporate a (necessarily non-exclusive) list of the types of factors that might weigh for or against including an infobox in a given case. (I'd be glad to post my own list of relevant factors if it would be helpful.) In addition, the guideline might include guidance for how disagreements about infobox use should be resolved and address the relationship between metadata and infoboxes. In making this proposal, I'm aware that not all the suggestions for community discussion that the Committee has made over the years have been followed up on; but some have, and have yielded helpful results, and I'm hopeful this could be one of those times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
2. If the community follows this recommendation, I think it would do more good than any number of arbitration cases could. AGK [•] 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Weakly support. I'm always a bit uncomfortable about recommendations on content issues, but since based on the discussion on the PD page there appears to be some sentiment that we should somehow be addressing this issue ourselves, I think it's good to be explicit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Agree with all above. There is a time when these statements from ArbCom are unnecessary, but with so many contributors in this case asking us to go beyond our remit, I think it is important to clarify where our role ends and where the Community's must continue. NW (Talk) 13:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Supporting the general principle here, though a lot of work is needed to pull together proposals made in this case and elsewhere into a suitable framework for further development and discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   I don't think I see what more work is needed. Could you explain how we would make a "framework for further development and discussion"? AGK [•] 10:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   We wouldn't (not as arbitrators anyway), but others would need to. See the recent comments by Quiddity on the PD talk page about the pitfalls of any such process and various approaches that are possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    Roger Davies ^talk 06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

7. People clearly feel strongly about this from a content point of view and that's something for the community to make a judgement on. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I am not in favour of the Committee using its position to make such formal recommendations which carry no weight anyway and so erode the Committee's unique position which is that it makes binding decisions regarding conduct. Any one of us on the Committee can start a community discussion without going down this awkward and artificial route; and if we want to do something effective let's do that instead - as fellow participants in this project, not as Committee members making pronouncements from on high. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

   We rarely make these recommendations, and when we do they have historically worked fairly well (cf. Muhammad images, Abortion, and others). AGK [•] 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

The last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	9	0	0		·
2	Editorial process	9	0	0		·
3	Decorum	9	0	0		·
4	Consensus	9	0	0		·
5	Mission	5	4	1		·
6	Ownership	4	6	0		Cannot pass
7	Levels of consensus	9	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	1	5	0		Cannot pass
1.1	Locus of dispute	7	1	2		·
2	Use of infoboxes	10	0	0		·
3	Pigsonthewing	10	0	0		·
4	Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions	10	0	0		·
5	Nikkimaria	9	0	1		·
6	Gerda Arendt	9	1	0		·
7	Smerus	8	2	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	Pigsonthewing and infoboxes	7	3	0		·
1.1b	Pigsonthewing and infoboxes (2)	3	6	0		Cannot pass
1.2	Pigsonthewing banned	4	5	1		Cannot pass
2.1	Nikkimaria admonished	6	3	1		·
2.2	Nikkimaria desysopped	2	7	0		Cannot pass
2.3	Nikkimaria restricted (1)	1	7	0		Cannot pass
2.4	Nikkimaria restricted (2)	3	4	1		2
3.1	Gerda Arendt restricted (1)	1	9	0		Cannot pass
3.2	Gerda Arendt restricted (2)	6	4	0		·
3.3	Gerda Arendt admonished	6	1	0		·
4.1	Smerus prohibited	5	5	0		Cannot pass
4.2	Smerus reminded	7	3	1		·
5	Editors reminded	10	0	0		·
6	Community discussion recommended	7	1	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Standard Enforcement	0	0	0		4

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Doesn't look like 1.1b will change anything, so moving back here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
4. NW (Talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

   Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC
7. Courcelles 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

If we are not banning Mabbett, then I feel we should look now at the wording of the infobox restriction. For Mabbett to remain a part of the community, but be forbidden from joining in the infobox discussion would be inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

While this gets sorted... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Would rather we hold for a short time, until R1.1b is resolved. AGK [•] 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Temporary oppose. We're close to finalizing, but there are a couple of points that I believe are still being discussed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Given that late changes in voting have (again) affected the outcome of the case, can the clerks please hold off on closing the case until the implementation notes have been updated and until 24 hours have elapsed with a stable outcome to the case. In this case, I make that 24 hours since Courcelles' edit at 22:23 9 September 2013‎. That should give time for arbitrators to review the latest implementation notes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)