Revision as of 13:35, 13 July 2013

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Infoboxes

Initiated by Ched (talk) 7:23, 12 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ched (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• WP:WikiProject Composers
• WP:WikiProject Infoboxes
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• WP:Infoboxes
• WP:Composers

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive802#Persistent edit stalking
• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox I will pull some diffs from this page for the committee to review. I abandoned the page when I realized that the situation was bigger than I was able to handle on my own. (Ched)

Statement by Ched

I don't really know how to do this, and I don't know who to name as parties to the case. Still, I think at least some of the committee members are aware of the issues involved with the infobox situations. There are multiple RfC discussion to link to, and many threads available should the committee be willing to look at a case. In particular I would ask that the committee view the thoughts of the people active in the classical music area as a beginning point. I understand that it is not within the committees remit to determine content, but rather to resolve disruption. Said disruption can easily be demonstrated in an evidence stage. I ask the committee to assist me in determining the scope and parties of this case. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• disclaimer: I like infoboxes, so I do have a "side" that I favor. I will try to dig up some RfC diffs so that the Arbs can see that the community has tried to deal with this (and failed). — Ched :  ?  17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am going to list some diffs that Sjones dug up:
• To answer your question, the Classical Music and Composers project feel that the infoboxes there are "counter-productive" to be used in articles without discussing it first on the talk page. To quote the Composers WikiProject's stance on biographical infoboxes, "We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.)" There were numerous discussions about these matters at these projects. The infobox debates date way back to 2007. The following differences is a set of discussions on the use of the infoboxes from some of the WikiProjects in question: , , , , (scroll down) , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• further: I have spoken via email with former Arb member User talk:Iridescent who has advised me as to possible "parties" to this case. Some of those people I do consider "wiki friends", but if Iri does not object - then I will name them. I am also in frequent contact with former Arb User:Rlevse (now PumpkinSky), who I consider a VERY close friend. I've now asked the committee to look at this, and I am fully willing to answer any and all questions put to me. At this point I will allow the process to move forward. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• reference: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatch
• I replied to Giano here
• at everyone: It should be noted that English is not the first language of Gerda. Gerda is from Germany, and I think it is important to note that "English" is not her native language, — Ched :  ?  23:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

This is long overdue. --Rschen7754 08:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@MastCell: I don't agree with that, having been a party to the road naming disputes long ago: it's the belief that "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm going to raise hell until I get my way" on the part of at least one side; it can be both sides, but it only takes one side to create an intractable dispute. --Rschen7754 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute: Exactly. --Rschen7754 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

While I'm aware of what this dispute is about and who it is between, though only in the most basic terms, most editors here will not. Far more context (or at least links? Something?) is needed. Nothing against you, Ched. :-) Ed  08:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from PumpkinSky

As this is Ched's first RFAR filing, I ask that arbcom allow him sufficient time to put the RFAR together.PumpkinSky talk 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am with Mastcell in that this and so many other wiki squabbles aren't about what they seem, they are about disliking others, power, and wikipolitics. I also agree with Bbb223--why on earth are the music projects special? Why are they unsuitable for music projects? What makes them so different? I also agree with Brian in the SP essay, infoboxes shouldn't be so long as to overtake the body of the article, but long enough to be useful. And where else do you see navboxes (not infoboxes) in the upper right? PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Wehwalt

This has gone on too long. I don't like the way you've dealt with content contributors, but this is causing the project to bleed. Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@NYbrad: I think ArbCom could formulate rules of behavior, which if violated could bring sanctions. I would not support direct pro/con on infoboxes in the subject matter areas as beyond your remit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Orlady (noninvolved)

This is about the long-standing battles at WikiProject Classical music (also WikiProject Opera) on the topic of whether infoboxes should be permitted to be included in biographical articles about composers and musicians. This recent ANI discussion is indicative of the nature and magnitude of the dispute: . I cannot elucidate the dispute because I have not followed the battles, but it appears that the parties are unable to resolve it on their own, and I am sure that the ongoing disruption discourages some other prospective contributors from working on classical music and opera articles. I can testify that I learned that it would be best to stay away from the whole topic back in 2007 (six years ago) when my innocent efforts to maintain the infobox in an article about a singer were reverted for violating the rules of the Opera project (never mind that the singer also worked in musical theatre and film). --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Alanscottwalker

As I recall, the policy on infoboxes says its up to individual article consensus, and the policy on projects is that they can create and promote consensus on such individual article format matters. So, good luck, but it does not look like there is a sweet spot for you in current policy re this, so this case needs conduct diffs, and conduct policy breaches, and prior steps re conduct, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and it also needs parties involved in the above other things it needs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lord Sjones23: In the discussion linked by EdChem below, you mention strategic mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, as playing a part in this? What is meant by that? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Gerda Arendt (possibly involved)

On top of what Orlady described above, the latest development (which possibly made uninvolved Ched post) goes even further than biographies of classical music composers and performers. Project opera developed an infobox for operas, {{infobox opera}}, added to the MOS on 18 June. It complies with the Signpost article's request for brevity. However, almost every effort to actually use it is met with removal and time-consuming discussions, instead of showing it to our readers and let them participate in discussion and improvement. I was involved in creating the template and in inserting it. For an example, read talk (and history of article and talk) of Don Carlos. For more examples, look at the list of open discussions. I actually don't know what ArbCom could do to stop this, in the interest of our readers. I made several attempts to seek agreement, last here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute: you mentioned names, including mine. I have great respect for Nikkimaria, we found an agreement during the last AN/I exchange, she respects my wish for an infobox in "my" articles, I respect her wish for no infobox in "her" articles, we created The Company of Heaven together (no infobox). I have great respect for Andy, he helped me with {{infobox Bach composition}}, and we create articles together, did you know (with infobox)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: I see the present "project specialties" in conflict with site consistency; restrictions seem to serve the interests of the writers more than the readers. Readers expect to see an infobox in the upper right corner. For most composers, they see only a picture (there are exceptions), for most operas, they see a sidebar navbox, which in cases of prolific composers such as Richard Wagner duplicates information that is also in the footer navbox, information which is the same for all his operas, nothing about the specific work. - Composer: I believe that an infobox doesn't "damage" an article (the term has been used). For composers with a wealth of information in a footer navbox, it could simply supply dates and locations of birth and death, to provide a quick information about historic and geographic context, - suggested for George Frideric Handel. Opera: compare Carmen as it is to Carmen as it can be. In short: I would like to see restrictions go that prevent to consistently inform the readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Smerus: I have high respect for you as an editor, author of FA Richard Wagner, and I thank you for a GA review of my BWV 103 (with an infobox). I have to correct some of your descriptions of my actions.

• "Ms. Arendt makes, without consultation, edits ..." - 1) everybody here can call me Gerda. 2) It reads as if I made those edits to articles. Composers: I did not add an infobox to a "controversial" composer. Opera: I didn't think infoboxes supported by the project would be considered "controversial".
• "... then feigns hurt innocence and surprise in her responses ..." - 1) I was honestly (!) surprised by some responses, I must say, and ask those who have no idea to actually read one or two of those "discussions" and not go by a summary. 2) "innocence" implies that there is a guilt, - sorry, I don't feel "guilty" of suggesting an infobox on an article's talk.

I don't want to waste everybody's time by going into more detail, there would be much more. Andy is just back from hospital and can't respond as he would wish to do. If you allow me also a summary: I found his contributions in the discussions factual and to the point. He did not breach a topic ban. AN clarification: he is not banned from any talk page. He is not employed as Wikipedians in Residence. What else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@EdChem thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Giano: the experience you describe, what date is it? I came late to the discussions, and - repeating - the contributions of Andy (whose surname is Mabbett) seemed much less "heated" than those of others, - please look yourself. Also repeating: even without him, you would still have to deal with me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Laser brain

Like previous arbitration cases involving Manual of Style issues, this issue suffers from the wrong kind of attention from many editors. I've observed that infoboxes appear in and disappear from articles seemingly as a matter of personal preference and not as a matter of editorial judgement about the needs of our readers. The reason this is becoming an arbitration case is not because it's that difficult to determine whether an infobox would be beneficial to the reader on some given page. We don't need arbitration for that—it should be a matter of common sense and editorial judgement. We're here because some editors have behaved badly with regard to infoboxes. Those editors have expended energy on infoboxes because they feel passionate about them or have strong personal preferences about their presence or absence. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do on Misplaced Pages per se. However, the behavior of editors who fall into these categories should be examined:

• Editors who have broken the WP:BRD cycle with infoboxes on any article.
• Editors who have added or removed infoboxes against consensus.
• Editors with a history of skirmishing with other editors about infoboxes.
• Editors who have expressed non-editorial reasons for adding or removing infoboxes, especially when editors with opposing views are named.

Again, this is not an editorial or content problem, it is a problem with disruptive behavior. The AN/I thread Orlady linked is a fantastic primer. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent

(disclaimer: I haven't followed this in detail and have no intention of reading all the pages of past discussions)

The division into "pro and anti infobox" camps is a strawman argument. The dispute is between a very small clique of hardliners on one hand who believe that every article should have a visible infobox regardless of whether an appropriate box exists, and another very small clique who believe that infoboxes oversimplify information and thus should be omitted from certain complex topics. The waters are muddied by small number of very vocal "Misplaced Pages is a database!" boosters of machine-readable data, who insist infoboxes are necessary on every article for metadata purposes. (FWIW, I find this utterly spurious—the data would be just as machine-readable if it were invisible to readers.)

This is not a content dispute; it's a user conduct issue. I'm sure nobody who was on Arbcom at the time of the Great Endash War has any desire for a rerun, and normally something like this would never make it to Arbcom without an RFC. However, at least one of the key actors in this dispute has a long, long history of disregarding any discussion that doesn't give their position a 100% endorsement and of outright bullying of anyone making comments with which they disagree, while at least four others (from both sides of the dispute) have a record for "well, it's not technically forbidden" weaselling to excuse deliberately provocative adding/removing of boxes, of blatant edit-warring, and of foul-tempered flareups towards anyone who disagrees with them. Given how much bad feeling has been caused by this, it's better for Arbcom to lance the boil now, and not to be afraid to ban people who think they're indispensable if they're not willing to admit that other peoples' opinions might have validity. Let the parties make their cases, pick a policy (it doesn't really matter all that much what it is), and make it clear that anyone breaching it will face nasty blocks or bans. – iridescent 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Toccata quarta

User:Ched has given links that provide enough context for just about anyone to understand the history of this topic. Here is my take on this thread:

In order for this discussion to be productive, it should focus on the topic of the authority of WikiProjects. As far as I know, infoboxes are neither mandatory nor forbidden on Misplaced Pages. Thus, the chief issue that should be discussed here is: "How far should the authority of WikiProjects go? Can they disregard infobox guidelines, or even the ], because their first hand experience with many articles of a similar kind led them to the conclusion that those articles, by their very nature, need to be organised differently than most other articles on Misplaced Pages? And if yes, then what to do with articles that are of interest to multiple WikiProjects?"

That's my perspective. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23: Well, my idea was to discuss the possibility of changing the WikiProject-authority guidelines/policies. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not-particularly-helpful observation by MastCell

I used to wonder how otherwise sane, talented, dedicated people—some of our best—could fight to the death over picayune issues like infoboxes, en-dashes, alt-text, capitalization, date formats, and road-naming conventions. But finally I had an epiphany. These editors aren't fighting about infoboxes. These editors are fighting because they don't like each other. But because of our ideas about "civility" and "comment on content, not the contributor", these personal animosities play out indirectly, in the form of sequential proxy wars over abstruse quasi-content issues. The implications are obvious. A solution which focuses narrowly on infoboxes won't address the underlying problem, just as the Korean Armistice didn't end the Cold War. These animosities will find another outlet.

Our community-specific definition of "civility" encourages people to nurture grievances under the cover of superficial pseudo-politeness. In any case, editors who are invested and passionate enough to fight to the death over infoboxes are just as capable of finding some other equally meaningless cause to fight for. Wikipedians are really, really bad at letting anything go, ever. That's probably a result of natural selection; content disputes on Misplaced Pages are generally won through tenacity, not through reason, common sense, or policy guidance. Over the years, we've selected for the ability to stake out a position and never budge no matter what.

The issues in this case illustrate the central sicknesses in the Misplaced Pages community: long-standing personal grievances play out in the form of a proxy war over a content issue; there's a pathological inability to ever concede an inch, no matter how insignificant the concession in the grand scheme of things; and the total failure of perspective and forest/tree discrimination. Seriously (leaping onto soapbox), if I could harness 1/100th of the outrage that people invest in infoboxes or en-dashes, and use it instead to help deal with Real Problems (e.g. the dangerous medical misinformation which floods this site every day), I think Misplaced Pages and the reading public would be the better for it. But what fun would that be? MastCell  19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Mark Arsten

I think it might be best if this request was handled in the same way as this past one. In that case, Arbcom enacted a moratorium on changes and a 1RR restriction, and instructed the community to open a structured discussion on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Bbb23

"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." (WP:PROJ) Of course, I don't know what binding effect the WikiProject page has on the community, but assuming the statement is correct, there should be no need to clarify the authority (Toccata quarta) of Wikiprojects. Moreover, my understanding is that ArbCom generally enforces rather than creates policy, so I'm not sure how that would be in the scope of ArbCom's powers.

The projects may have no special rights in theory, but in practice, particularly with the bigger projects, that's not really so. My anecdotal experience is that if the projects take a position, it creates a presumption that other editors then have to rebut. That is problematic at best.

I don't know the statistics, but infoboxes are very common at Misplaced Pages, whether you like them or not. I generally only remove infoboxes if there's so little information in them as to not be, uh, informational. So, at bottom, why are classical composers, classical performers, and operas special? And I speak as an avowed, closenarrow-minded snob who almost never listens to any music other than classical and opera. But speaking as a Wikipedian, I still don't see why these articles should be treated differently. Someone above (I'm not going to hunt it down) said something about the articles being more complex. I don't see why an opera article is that much more complex than an article about a musical comedy. Nor do I see why an article about an opera singer is that much more complex than an article about a popular singer. And we won't even talk about cross-over.

Unfortunately, I have little to say in response to Newyorkbrad's request that we focus on solutions. Much harder than everything else. Mark's suggestion above me might be one way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Giano

What is the purpose of this proposed case? What is the ideal end goal that Ched would like to see? By Ched, I mean Ched, not every passer-by and commentator here?  Giano  21:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply . But I want to know what is your ideal solution; what do you want Abcom to do, say and decree. In my view the worst of the problems are caused by the arrogant intransigence of one single editor,Andy Mabbitt. Every time I have been involved in a heated infobox debate his inability to compromise has been the root cause. Myself and other editors have bent over backwards to compromise, but he won't move a millimeter. It's my opinion that there is a little point having a case while he is still editing, unless Arbcom rule that he can run the info-box show which would cause great loss of valuable editors. So be careful what you wish for.  Giano  13:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by (partly involved) Montanabw

I see the following issues here: 1) The question of if or when wikiproject consensus can override general guidelines or if general guidelines must always trump wikiproject consensus (particularly if general guidelines themselves are also in a state of flux) 2) When is "consensus" achieved, who achieves it and when it is "set" to not change versus when it can legitimately be changed. 3) An old and probably outdated "consensus" on a wikiproject that is being clung to by the oldtimers in defiance of all logic and reason. 4) Vicious personal attacks by the oldtimers on anyone challenging that "consensus" even when the challenge is made by a new person with no prior history in the project, who is acting in sincere good faith. (And, to be fair, some newer folks probably also not behaving ideally) 5) Some longstanding grudges and personality conflicts, which IMHO simply will be all-but-impossible to address. 6) What infoboxes are "for" anyway... which may also be a question beyond the scope of this particular RfC. To that end, I think the focus on #2 is where most of the heat is. Sending this back to the project will just generate another round of the same. This probably needs to go to the larger community and probably focus on whether this can be resolved by looking at items #1 and #2 to see if they can resolve the problem of #3. #4 is unsolvable here, though the individual parties may benefit from examination elsewhere. #5 also unsolvable here, though probably needs to be looked at elsewhere (I note it as a topic in the most recent Signpost, in fact). Montanabw 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

Pretty much what Laser Brain said. The root of this issue is not whether or not infoboxes should be universal or whether certain classes of articles can do without them. This issue is about the behaviour of editors during such discussions. To that end, per the ANI thread linked somewhere above, Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), Gerda Arendt and Nikkimaria should probably be parties to this case at the very least. Probably more, but I have not followed the composer infobox dispute closely. In terms of looking at behaviour of these parties specifically, I will not say much at this point due to personal bias. I have a very high level of respect for Nikkimaria, no interaction with Gerda and I have never had a good experience with Andy. I will state, however, that my disputes with Andy have always revolved around infoboxes, and invariably centred around his attempts to force his personal viewpoints into practise, regardless of whether he has consensus support. Resolute 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Gerda - I am happy you have worked well with both of the others. I do wish to clarify that I did not suggest adding you as a party because I am convinced that you have done anything untoward, but merely because the ANI revolved around the interactions of the three of you. It seemed a good place to start to help Ched and the arbs lend focus to this potential case. Resolute 23:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by bemused EdChem

I noticed Ched's original posting and found this recent discussion at the Wagner talk page. An infobox was posted to the talk page after a suggestion from Brad. Smerus (talk · contribs) was the first to respond, commenting inter alia that "It is just one editor's idea, and not a very good one, imo, as it will encourage some smartass to put the ugly column you have created on the main page." That gave me the impression that maybe infobox discussions aren't models of collegial development of consensus about an editorial decision, an impression reinforced by the rest of the thread. It moves first through a debate on ad hominen comments to a debate on local / global consensus and the adequacy of content. Relevant topics don't get discussed long before the discussion devolves again: "visually ugly duplicate of the lead" (Toccata quarta (talk · contribs)), "redundant, awkward, confusing, uninformative" (Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs)) and "Trojan Horse" (Kleinzach (talk · contribs)). Accusations of canvassing and violations of talk page guidelines are then followed by bickering. This is one brief battle in a wider war, it seems, and it appears to me that there is plenty of poor behaviour for ArbCom to consider from a variety of pages (see this ANI "discussion" for a larger battle). A full case evidence page will, I suspect, allow clarification of which editors might need reminders and / or warnings, etc, and whether some stricter rules for getting collegisl discussions on infoboxes. ArbCom shouldn't (and I'm sure won't) rule on inclusion / exclusion of infoboxes but it can ban editors from discussions or restrict them to single on-topic posts without reflections on other editors on pain of blocks. It can establish RfC(s) if issues like WikiProject authority or local v. global consensus on Infoboxes seem in need of broader discussion from fresh eyes. It can empower admins to more forcefully keep infobox discussions on topic, and to ban editors from discussions where they aren't willing to collaborate but only dispute. It can sanction if excessive ad hominen accusations are common from individuals identified from the evidence page, or other consistent misbehaviour is shown. if needs be, it can remove the persistent editors who add only heat to discussions and try to make room for fresher editors with lesss baggage and fewer entrenched positions. My suggestion to ArbCom is to take the case and try to get to the source of these disputes, and failing that, to at least end this pointless series of fights. EdChem (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kleinzach

In June, I discovered Ched's draft userspace RfC - Infobox and wrote to him as follows:

Excuse me gatecrashing. I recently discovered this draft Rfc and I have many concerns, not least that it specifically targets classical music editors. It seems to have been framed from the 'metapedian' point of view that community harmony, structural uniformity etc. are of overriding importance rather than the competing 'exopedian' view that we are trying to publish correct information and serve the reader. For example. the introductory section, 'Scope', doesn't even mention the encyclopedia.

Participants in the drafting also seem to be largely from the 'metapedian' camp. AFAIK none of the editors with reservations about the application of infoboxes, who have participated in previous debates and Rfcs, were invited to take part or found the draft. Nor are any of the 'moderates' — the people who are broadly pro metadata but who recognise publishing issues — involved. So it seems more of a referendum, crafted to achieve a particular result, than a genuine Rfc. I think it would cause even more fighting, rather than lead to improved consensus. I hope it can be dropped.

WikiProject Composers is now on its last legs. There are only about a dozen active editors left from what was a dynamic, high quality project around 2007-2008. Launching an Rfc targeting classical music will present editors with the choice of participating in yet another gargantuan time sink or looking for the exit. If they are rational, they'll opt for the latter. Once again, I think it would be better not to proceed with this. It's simply the wrong approach. Thank you and regards. Kleinzach 23:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially my view of this Arbcom initiative as well.

For the record, I am placing here a list of box-related debates involving music that have occurred over the past six months or so. (This list does not include similar discussions about the visual arts, architecture etc.) I hope uninvolved editors can read, or at least scan, some of the discussions in order to understand the issues. IMO they are significant and may well affect the future style, authority and accuracy of the encyclopaedia, as well as the continued involvement of many hitherto productive editors.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

• Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes Report by Jusdafax, 2 April 2013
• Persistent edit stalking Report by Andy Mabbett, 5 June 2013 against Nikkimaria.

User pages

• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox and User talk:Ched/RfC - Infobox Rfc plan started by Ched, 5 April 2013

Classical Music Project

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Orchestra_infobox:_proposal new box proposed by Kleinzach, 16 March 2013 (see also Template talk:Infobox orchestra)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Abbreviations_in_infoboxes by Kleinzach, 23 April 2013

Composition articles

• Talk:Sparrow Mass Infobox discussion started by RexxS, 30 March 2013.
• Talk:The Rite of Spring Infobox discussion started by Andy Mabbett, 30 May 2013.
• Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 Infobox discussion started by Nikkimaria 27 May

Composer articles

• Talk:Robert_Stoepel#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 27 February 2013
• Talk:Enrique_Granados#Infobox_on_this_article: discussion started by Kleinzach, 4 March 2013
• Talk:Peter_Planyavsky#Infobox discussion started by Gerda Arendt, 5 March 2013
• Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 21 March 2013
• Talk:George_Frideric_Handel#Mini-infobox infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 25 March 2013
• Talk:Richard_Wagner/Archive_13#No_infobox ‘no infobox’ proposal by Gerda Arendt, 16 May 2013

Opera articles

• Talk:Joseph_(opera)#Infobox discussion started by Kleinzach, 23 June 2013
• Talk:Don Carlos#Restoration_of_composer_navbox discussion started by Robert.Allen, 7 July 2013
• Talk:Rigoletto#Restoration_of_composer_navbox discussion started by Kleinzach, 7 July 2013

MOS

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_7#Collapsed_or_hidden_infoboxes protest against collapsing infoboxes started by Andy Mabbett, 6 March 2013

Templates for deletion (TFD)

• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15#Template:Collapsed_infobox_section_begin now closed as keep. nomination by Andy Mabbett 15 March 2013
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_Bruckner_symphony proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_musical_work proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013

Kleinzach 02:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Quiddity

I've been following, and trying to occasionally provide a mediating/diplomatic/centrist influence on this dispute for many years. I have a large text file full of relevant guidelines, a few examples, and various attempts to explain the complexities, that I will attempt to condense and format appropriately.

Misplaced Pages's growth is based on a mix of archetypes (of the psychological kind, and of the wiki-philosophy kind), and balancing those different personalities/perspectives/motivations is crucial to our success.

I urge Arbcom to take the case, and to consider as possible remedies/suggestions:

• Recommend some specific changes to the documentation of infobox templates and wikiproject guidelines/styleguides/recommended-practices (Eg. reinforce that not all empty fields need to be added, and not all existing fields need to be filled in if there are disputes.)
• A formal request for acknowledgement from certain editors that some of the subjective and objective views of their opponents are valid (I'll elaborate in Evidence)
• A motion that certain arguments related to removing infoboxes are not valid (Eg. That infoboxes are redundant. Because clearly they are, and are intended to be so.)
• Editing-restrictions for certain editors and topic areas (Eg. Pigsonthewing is currently banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day (Afaik. This might have changed since then.))

I do not believe blocks or bans would be at all helpful, as all editors involved are regularly beneficial contributors in most other regards. –Quiddity (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: Re: "where else do you see navboxes (not infoboxes) in the upper right?" - There are currently 44,674 transclusions of {{Sidebar}}, about 4–6000(?) of which are not in mainspace. Some are below infoboxes, some are in articles that don't use or need infoboxes. (See further details. I agree it is confusing, and they often overlap with footer navboxes. C'est la vie.) –Quiddity (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Moxy

Simply need this to be fixed and thus the stooping of editors being bitten all over. Not sure what is being asked here - but the main problem is editor behavior - not our policies around infoboxes, Wikiprojects or ownership of articles . Not sure that anyone would think the isolation of editors and subsequent conflicts is a good idea. The editors involved need to see the bigger picture - that is the building and retention of editors over a style preference for a segment of articles. Editors involved need to be welcoming and attentive to editors who write and expand the articles they believe they own. It is at the point that people go out of there way to make sure some project(s) never learn about new articles (meaning not adding project talk page banner to relevant articles on purpose). As illustrated above by all the links provided by Kleinzach not even the project members agree on a position resulting in the loss of may editors that felt bullied by a small portion of project members. I am also sure that many are aware of the two editors that felt they had to change identities to get away from the stigma of being associated with these projects. 207 words - -Moxy (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Johnuniq

Please apply WP:IAR and use a motion to stop the infobox wars for at least six months. The editors involved are expert at being civil while relentlessly pushing their view, and resolving the matter by counting the number of times each editor has used less-than-optimum techniques would not assist the encyclopedia. I have watched this dispute with dismay for at least a year and it is obvious that the participants cannot make any progress without demolishing the other side. Please see my thoughts (addressed to one of the named parties) at my talk (permalink).

Most Arbitration cases involve a dispute which at least in principle could be resolved by assessing behavior modulo policy. However, infoboxes are not mandatory, and this case involves good editors on both sides who have become extremely emotionally involved in the issue—a resolution that favors one side will drive away good editors on the losing side. Content builders who have agreed to develop composer articles without infoboxes should not be dismissed as collateral damage by an imposed "solution" because the health of the community is more important than ensuring articles have a uniform style with respect to the top-right-hand corner.

There are plenty of links on aggregation pages like User:Kleinzach/Debates or on article talk pages like this, but apart from brief flare ups, there are no smoking-gun links to show that any particular editor should be blocked or banned. This case needs arbitration to find a way to allow both sides to continue developing the encyclopedia, and short of Arbcom mandating the presence or absence of infoboxes, the only effective solution would be a motion to impose a truce. Of course that is not a permanent solution, but sometimes perfection is not achievable, and no RfC can lead to a satisfactory outcome after all the bitterness in this debate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• In view of the below comment from User:Smerus, I should explain that by "The editors involved are expert at being civil" I mean that the editors are expert at following the rules written at WP:CIVIL. I fully agree that one of the named participants in particular has a style which is worse than uncivil, and I wrote "I saw more than a disagreement—it was a knock-down fuck-you argument, all to enforce a non-existent policy that each article must have an infobox" in the exchange at my talk. Here is a diff showing when I added that statement with summary "my strongest statement ever at Misplaced Pages". Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Smerus (apparently involved)

I see that my name has been invoked by the bemused Edchem.

Over the past year or so in particular, a series of disputes has arisen concerning the adoption of infoboxes in articles relating to classical music. This appears to me to have been driven by two editors in particular; there has been, for example, no series of comments from Misplaced Pages users demanding that classical music articles must have infoboxes. The two editors concerned are Gerda Arendt and Andy Mabbett. Their styles are different. Ms. Arendt makes, without consultation, edits and changes which she knows (by now) will be provocative and annoying to some editors, and then feigns hurt innocence and surprise in her responses. She is frequently then supported in her efforts by Mr. Mabbett, whose style is distinctly more nasty and brutal (but alas not short). When User:Johnuniq writes that ‘The editors involved are expert at being civil’, he is clearly not reading Mr. Mabbett’s threads. Quite often a bunch of usual suspects, like Mr.Mabbett unknown as music article editors, follow him into these frays, adopting the same egregious style. The ‘arguments’ normally turn on the supposed necessity or inevitability of having infoboxes; dissenting opinions (e.g. those which query the actual value of an infobox) are ignored. This process is quite intimidating to editors who are not equipped to, or interested in, scoring points. Some, like me, sometimes admittedly foolishly, rise to the bait. But not all of us are, like Mr. Mabbett, actually employed as Wikipedians in Residence and can devote all hours of the day to pursuing our pet crusades.

To elaborate one recent example, already raised here by Edchem, Richard Wagner. A couple of days before this was featured on the front page of WP (22 May 2013), Ms. Arendt, who knew that the article was going to be thus featured, chose to park a vast ‘sample’ Wagner infobox on the talkpage of the article. (See here). This was not, as Edchem says, ‘after a suggestion by Brad’, but was entirely Ms. Arendt’s initiative. This was a provocative moment for undertaking such a contentious edit, which soon accumulated a deal of comment from editors, including Mr. Mabbett, much of it bilious on both sides (I do not except myself, who was feeling peeved, to say the least). Ms. Arendt then, quite charmingly (credit where credit is due!), on the morning of the bicentenary posted on the talk page a compendium of Wagner ‘Do You Knows’. I therefore archived the already extensive talkpage before this item (including the ‘infobox’ and discussion), to give Ms. Arendt’s more recent edit a decent airing to article visitors. Mr. Mabbett then unilaterally unarchived the talkpage and initiated an extensive squabble. His motivation seems inexplicable except in terms of a desire to agitate. By the way, at this time (and I believe still at the present) Mr. Mabbett was under a ban from interfering with FAs when they are to be front-paged. He has speciously (in my opinion) argued in his defence that the ban didn’t mention talk-pages.

Whilst there are issues of principle involved in this topic, I in fact believe that most discussions of infoboxes on pages could be dealt with on a case by case basis (or probably wouldn’t arise at all) if the few zealots who have provoked the issue into a major battlefield in the past could desist – or be asked to desist – or perhaps even made to desist.--Smerus (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Gerda: Mr. Mabbett has been until recently a Wikipedian in Residence (in Burnley, and before that, elsewhere). I of course wish him better as an individual, whilst continuing to deprecate his aggression on Misplaced Pages.--Smerus (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

I have some involvement because of edits to articles about baroque music. I am ambivalent about infoboxes, e.g. for Bach cantatas. Some of the negative characterizations of Gerda Arendt's editing seem incorrect. My own feeling is that, in music, infoboxes do not contain much valuable information (e.g. when compared with analogous abbreviated summaries in original sources). In specific articles, my limited experience has been that she has not insisted on the use of infoboxes and has responded positively and constructively to feedback. In some cases infoboxes had been added to articles which were not well written. I pointed that out with Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39. Gerda and friends significantly improved the article (and simplified the infobox which had previously dwarved the article itself). I am not at all sure about the all-purpose Mabbett-Arendt template for Bach compositions. As currently written, it would be of no use for Bach organ compositions or several other works published within Bach's lifetime.

Although disaffected editors claim every imaginable wikipedia article has already been written, that is far from true. There are no articles on Bach's celebrated trio sonatas for organ BWV 525–530 or Handel's Op. 3 concerti grossi or Op. 2 and Op. 5 trio sonatas, some of the few works published within his lifetime. That indicates that concentrating on infoboxes—and unnecessarily creating a divisive editing atmosphere—is somewhat missing the point. In mathematics, infoboxes are often useful in pointing to related topics. I think an infobox for Handel Operas could be quite good, as there are so many; but even better would be to improve the articles, sometimes little better than lists, using the books of Winton Dean (compare Rodelinda (opera) and Rinaldo (opera)).

MastCell correctly points out the petty nature of these MOS-type discussions compared with real problems of misinformation in medical articles. It is nevertheless pointless to have long discussions about infoboxes where there are serious quality problems with the content or when the content itself does not even exist. I have been surprised how tempers can flare on this topic. Possibly the arbitration committee could help. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion by Eusebeus to Arbcom

Per Giano's question, "what is the purpose of this proposed case?" the issue here, while triggered by something risibly trivial, may be worth considering. The question that perhaps should be reviewed by arbcom is whether individual projects can assert via centralised discussion and subsequent consensus a "best practices" standard over the articles under their umbrella. (It seems to me highly unlikely that arbcom would weigh in on whether every article must have an infobox...).
As it stands, editors at WP:CM (and daughter projects) have a series of established conventions (e.g. naming), one of which is that articles should not ordinarily have an infobox, and we have (rightly or wrongly) used this, almost always amicably, as a de facto consensus over the articles within the project scope.
Fighting it out piecemeal, as has happened recently, is irksome. Arbcom may wish, then, to intervene to determine the big picture question of what, if any, degree of consensus-driven sovereignty concentrates within a project and how far, if at all, that sovereignty extends. Eusebeus (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tangential opinion by uninvolved Modernist

It makes sense that productive and prolific editors in particular projects be able to interpret guidelines and determine what works or what does not work in regards to articles, infoboxes and other related matters within the purvey of that project. As best as I can figure - this longtime dispute should be dealt with...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Infoboxes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/3>-Infoboxes-2013-07-12T12:01:00.000Z">

• I haven't the slightest idea what this request is about; that said, Ched, since this is your first AR, you may ask a clerk for assistance to format it correctly. Salvio 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• From reading too many ANI threads, I know all too well what the request is about. Awaiting further statements before voting. It would be helpful if statements could address, at least in general terms, how ArbCom might help resolve this longstanding problem if we accept the case (which based on how long this has been going on, I am tentatively inclined to do). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • I've made a trivial edit to the casename ("Infobox" --> "Infoboxes"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements. What we need, and if the clerks and others can help construct this, it would be nice, is a list of the "actual" parties, as it can't be presumed that the notifications on the Wikiproject talk pages will reach all, or even most, of those involved. Courcelles 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">