Revision as of 10:58, 2 August 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion re infobox discussions

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Also per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion by Gerda: Giuseppe Verdi in the workshop

Giuseppe Verdi
Portrait of the composer by Giovanni Boldini, 1886
Born	(1813-10-10)10 October 1813 Le Roncole, then part of the First French Empire
Died	27 January 1901(1901-01-27) (aged 87) Milan, then Kingdom of Italy
Notable work	operas, sacred music
Signature

2)

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

Scenario I: if I added this to the article:

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

Smerus might explain that it damages the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The locations are perfectly fine in my opinion. Brambleclawx 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Sjones23

Proposed principles

Decorum

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Struggle and standard of debate

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WikiProjects

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Pigsonthewing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Pigsonthewing ArbCom cases

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Infoboxes in road-related Featured Article Candidates

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Past tense, as he eventually did stop. --Rschen7754 21:56, 31 July 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 cautioned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Pigsonthewing banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Agreed: seems excessively extreme. Brambleclawx 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

What I fear is that he will take his attitude towards enforcing his preferences in some other way on articles. --Rschen7754 21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Sorry, that was a bit nonsensical - I'm concerned that if he's topic banned from adding infoboxes, he will begin adding metadata of some other form to articles, and we may be back here again in a few months, per the evidence I have submitted. --Rschen7754 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

As above. Hasn't this been done already? Brambleclawx 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing topic-banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because of the evidence that I have posted, I am skeptical that this will solve the issues. --Rschen7754 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Project participants advised

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Peter cohen

Proposed principles

Volunteers should not have work imposed on them

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Also per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Orlady

Proposed principles

Users do not own articles

1) No Misplaced Pages contributor owns an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

What are "visiting editors"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Topical Wikiprojects facilitate informed and focused discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikiprojects do not own content

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

I don't see reference to a template in this proposed finding, so David Fuchs' don't seem relevant here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

+1 --Rschen7754 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Breadth of issues related to infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Establish an EN-Misplaced Pages editorial board

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Infoboxes in general

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infoboxes and consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose. The presence or absence of an infobox should indeed be determined by consensus, but consensus is determined on Misplaced Pages primarily by making an edit and seeing if it sticks. See WP:CONACHIEVE. This proposal subverts the natural mechanism of editing on Misplaced Pages by attempting to force editors into seeking permission from the article owners before making an edit. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and disruptive editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Absolutely contrary to how Misplaced Pages works. This case is about a handful of dozens of infoboxes at most, not the vast number (well over 1.5 1.7 million) used throughput Misplaced Pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

What about new articles, or articles where the prospect of an infobox was not rejected before? --Rschen7754 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heading needed here?

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Tendentious Infobox Editing by Pigsonthewing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Pigsonthewing Topic-Banned from Infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Seems OK, with the addition of the words "widely construed" to avoid any weaseling. At the same time I'm not sure that the behavioral issues are that one sided. So far PWW/Andy has been banned from editing info boxes on FA of the day articles. I would be in favor of extending the ban to FA of the Day discussions but not sure I would extend it to all infoboxes on any article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Discretionary Sanctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposed enforcement

Escalating blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User: Folantin

Proposed principles

Quality articles do not require infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

RexxS has dealt with the issue of statistics; and for several of even the small sample listed, there is no relevant infobox available. Is it any wonder that there is perceived to be no-one "clamouring for the addition of an infobox" on TFA talk pages, when an editor adding one is hauled to AN/ANI for supposedly being disruptive, and then hauled there again more than once for having the temerity to politely suggest one on a talk page? Of course, such actions against one editor have a chilling effect on others. A cynical bystander might think that the point of such actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Gerda, allow me to translate: "There was no-one clamouring (sic; read: "asking") for an infobox until someone asked for one". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is a content ruling and is largely outside the scope of ArbCom. --Rschen7754 08:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Travelling circuses of metadata fans do not own content

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Pigsonthewing banned from adding infoboxes and banned from discussing infoboxes on any Misplaced Pages page

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Again, I am skeptical that this will address the problems. --Rschen7754 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposals by RexxS

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Misplaced Pages's mission

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus by editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Consensus by discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Ownership of articles

5) All Misplaced Pages content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Stewardship requires explanations

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Limitations of Wikiprojects

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Spirit of notifications

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Achieving our mission

2) There are 7 billion people on Earth and we have only 120,097 active editors on the English Misplaced Pages. We are going to need some help to reach every person on the planet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Prevalence of Infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value of infoboxes

4) Infoboxes have the following advantages:

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

and have the following disadvantages:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Adding infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Reversions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Evidence by Folantin

Cosima Wagner

Folantin claims that Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1 #Infobox is evidence of Andy's behaviour. On the contrary, it is evidence of the way in which good-faith additions of infoboxes are treated. On 26 December 2012, Andy added an infobox. This was rolled back with the default edit summary normally reserved for vandalism and marked as a minor edit! The degree of contempt shown for a good-faith edit is astonishing, but seemingly quite acceptable by some.

It's worth noting that the revert restored the following hidden comment: <!-- please do not add an infobox, per ]--> and that is one of the clearest pieces of evidence of WP:OWN by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers that I've ever seen. Again this seems to be perfectly acceptable to some, despite the consensus that WikiProjects have no special rights to make up rules - and Cosima Wagner wasn't even a composer. That comment is still in the article to this day.

At this point, I would have been pretty annoyed, but Andy simply started discussion on the talk page in a very polite manner: "I recently added an infobox to this article. My edit has just been reverted, for no given reason. The infobox should be restored." Is that the sort of behaviour we should be discouraging or encouraging? Which editor was behaving well despite provocation, and which editor was doing the provoking?

Reading on in that discussion, which remained civil, you see Andy explaining why the advantages that an infobox would bring to the article. You also see no attempt by anyone to explain what disadvantages it would bring. Instead he is stonewalled by an insistence that the article was reviewed for Featured Article without an infobox and so the opinions of the reviewers should be sought before adding an infobox. I find this appeal to presumed expertise absolutely anathema to the way we should be editing Misplaced Pages. No wonder Andy eventually gets frustrated. It is elitism, pure and simple, to assume that a particular group of editors should have a bigger say in editing an article than others. If they can't make a sensible argument why an infobox damages a particular article, then we shouldn't be deferring to them as experts.

This is the crux of this dispute. There are some of us who want to discuss the case for and against infoboxes on articles where they are contested. All of us are willing to respect genuine consensus, but we are continually frustrated by ownership and appeal to expertise, rather than a genuine willingness to civilly debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The article still has no infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I hadn't noticed that this was yet another occasion when Pigsonthewing added an infobox almost immediately after it had been Today's Featured Article. It was featured on the main page on 24 December 2012. Mabbett added the box on December 26 (clearly taking Christmas off) . That's his only contribution to the article itself. However, he is by far the largest contributor to the talk page, with 35 edits , all of them made between 26 December and 1 January.

The conversation starts gently enough, with the chief content contributor Brian Boulton gently suggesting Mabbett’s infobox is inadequate and should be discussed first. However, Pigsonthewing soon resorts to his usual intransigent rhetoric "The suggestion that the infobox added nothing much’ is baseless, and is clearly disproved by the explanation I gave above." There follows a long dispute in which Pigsonthewing fails to get his way. He eventually leaves, effectively dismissing an opponent as a Luddite .

"It is elitism, pure and simple, to assume that a particular group of editors should have a bigger say in editing an article than others." Ah, experts are scum. Clearly, users who have brought an article up to FA standard can't be trusted to decide on the important matter of the page's infobox. Let's leave it to Andy, the guy whose only contribution to the page itself is a box.

"You also see no attempt by anyone to explain what disadvantages it would bring." You must have been reading a different page from me. See the two comments by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for example . The fact that Mabbett wouldn't accept them doesn't make them invalid. --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You have made absolutely clear your disdain for the ordinary editor and your desire to grant all judgements on an article to a group of self-appointed experts. That's not Misplaced Pages, that's elitism. Experts can tell you where the best sources are and can make cogent arguments about a subject - and I respect those abilities. I'm quite content to give their opinion extra weight in a debate. But I'm not about to abdicate my right to edit and debate just because somebody worked hard on an article.

FPAS argues "it draws undue attention to unimportant trivia and is otherwise redundant to the lead sentence". If you think that being redundant to the lead is a valid argument against infoboxes, you're not equipped to evaluate these issues. No wonder your evidence is so far off the mark. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So Pigsonthewing represents the "ordinary editor" now, does he? OK. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you manage to draw these conclusions from nowhere? No, I'm the ordinary editor and I'm not about to see you railroad me out of editing where I feel I can improve an article, even when the owners don't like it. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one drawing conclusions from nowhere here? OK.--Folantin (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I refuted FPAS' arguments, with logic, and evidence. What I got in return was: "As for the machine-readability, I refuse to accept any argument on that basis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"The article still has no infobox." Not for want of trying. --Folantin (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Rex claims: "Reading on in that discussion, which remained civil". Doesn't look that way to me. As noted above, it began to go downhill with Pigsonthewing's comment "The suggestion that the infobox added nothing much’ is baseless, and is clearly disproved by the explanation I gave above.". Some other examples:

• Brian Boulton: I am hoping this discussion will not turn into the kind of sniping and counter-accusation that has disfigured other discussions on the suitability or otherwise of infoboxes...
• Pigsonthewing's response: I hope that your comment about "sniping and counter-accusation" isn't a response to me validly refuting false assertions...
• Later on: Pigsonthewing to Tim Riley (who, admittedly, has inadvertently made an error): "While I am prepared to assume your ignorance regarding the latter, for now, if you further repeat such falsehoods, I shall question your good faith and honesty.
• Later on: Pigsonthewing to Future Perfect: "I refuse to accept any argument on that basis." Your dismissal of the 21st century is noted. "I can't think of any automated process that..." As is your lack of imagination. "--Folantin (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing2

The next piece of evidence from Folantin refers to the evidence he presented at an RfARb July 2007 - that's over six years ago! We understand that Folatin dislikes Andy, but there needs to be a limit on the number of times he can be allowed to prosecute with the same ancient evidence. --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ah, I see where this is going. It's all about me and my "personal agenda". The fact that many, many other people have had the same problems with Pigsonthewing is pure coincidence. The "ancient evidence" is cited because what was true in 2007 is still true in 2013 ("Leopards not changing their spots"), i.e. it's still relevant.

I've been involved in a handful of infobox discussions which have featured Pigsonthewing since he came back from his ban. I've also commented in favour of sanctions against him on a couple of occasions. But mostly I try to avoid him. This is very difficult if you edit classical music articles. I could have got involved in the debates at Talk:Cosima Wagner, Talk:Richard Wagner, Talk:Don Carlos, Talk:Rigoletto, Talk:The Rite of Spring etc, but the prospect of another long, wearisome session with Pigsonthewing there put me off. I presume this is part of the plan: wear down opposing editors so they won't even get involved in discussions in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are these many, many other people then? I see at most a handful. This is your personal agenda and you're slinging mud in the hope it sticks. If you repeat a meme often enough, you hope folks will believe it. I have a much greater faith in ArbCom to see through your unsupported hyperbole. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"This is your personal agenda". You keep saying that but it's funny how two editors I barely know called for sanctions against Pigsonthewing on this page before I did (AFAIK). There's a reason his name comes up time and time again here and in the Evidence. --Folantin (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tinker's Creek

Pejoratively described as a "particular nasty more recent example" is worth study. Andy added an infobox to Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - a book and it's notable that infoboxes are very common on books.

The edit was made on September 18 2012, a day after the article had been TFA. It was reverted with the edit summary "rm infobox as completely unnecessary; all pertinent information can be located in the lead section" - a nonsense reason for reversion, since by definition the infobox merely summarises the key points which are naturally in the lead. If that argument were taken seriously, we'd have no infoboxes anywhere in Misplaced Pages as they all share that feature.

Andy next went to the talk page and politely started the discussion by explaining some reasons why the infobox improved the article and asking for it to be restored.

What followed is a collection of all the least plausible arguments against having an infobox imaginable: "Last time I checked, infoboxes were not mandatory for book articles, nor are they located in the FA criteria"; "All pertinent information can be located in the lead section"; "you are attempting to make a non-mandatory change to a Featured Article"; "Could these not be added to the lead or any other pertinent section?"; "It collects both broad facts and specialized info that only takes away from what a Featured Article represents"; "Until infoboxes are mandatory, this article simply does not need one"; "Oppose infobox. I'm quite frankly too tired at the moment to put forward a strong argument"; "The infobox adds very little in my view" and so on.

To be fair, there were a couple of sensible and debatable reasons: "its inherent ability to denigrate into cruft"; and "blank fields invite other users to step in and add more and more specialized, trivial details that draw the eye and bog the article down". Sadly they were lost in a sea of ownership, appeal to expertise, and plain illogic. Nevertheless Andy remained polite and patiently explained why he felt the infobox would improve the article and why he felt the objections failed to show any disadvantage for the article. This isn't any evidence at all of sanctionable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Among the information removed with the infobox, not in the lede, and described as "not pertinent"(!), was its ISBN. The article still has no infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This was about an infobox for a book, nothing contentious. I was fond of the article which I had reviewed for DYK and watched growing. - It was this discussion which convinced me that infoboxes are useful, the arguments for an infobox made much more sense to me then those of resistence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"The edit was made on September 18 2012, a day after the article had been TFA." Yep, the typical Pigsonthewing technique again. Pigsonthewing edits to article: 6 (all infobox-related, September 18-19); Pigonsthewing talk page edits: 24 (September 18-22). What I'm seeing there is a primary contributor who brought the article to FA status being mobbed by a group of infobox pushers. --Folantin (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note the following exchange from that page, which doesn't really square with Rex's claim "Nevertheless Andy remained polite":

Pigsonthewing: Unfortunately, Truthkeeper has just removed the infobox, citing a bogus reason for doing so.

Truthkeeper: Andy Mabbett, I've never had any interaction with you until very recently. Twice in the past week or so you've called my logic bogus and now you're making fun of my user name. Please stop.

Pigsonthewing: The use of "" has nothing to do with fun-making. I didn't say your logic was bogus; I said that the reason you gave was.

Yllosubmarine: You put the after her username, not her argument, which seemed to imply that you thought it ("Truthkeeper") faulty in some way. It wasn't very funny.

Pigsonthewing: I wasn't joking. --Folantin (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: