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

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Breadth of issues related to infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Robert McClenon (talk)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Establish an EN-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:

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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)

Agree with Keithbob, especially "Assume Good Faith" regarding the addition of an infobox. - However, at present one editor even removed a reverted infobox from the talk page, as you will know from my evidence, for an opera (Don Carlos), not even a contentious topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

Support and Oppose: Support the idea that infoboxes are often controversial, oppose the idea that they cannot be added boldly. The problem isn't infoboxes, it's fighting over infoboxes (and their content) which is the problem. I'd propose that a one contentious edit per week (not per day) rule ought to apply, but ArbCom cannot do that arbitrarily. They can however impose discretionary sanctions on the creation and use of infoboxes and that's what ought to be done here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)

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

Like Gerda said here, sometimes consensus for every single article is problematic. WP:BRD applies and is the better policy, I think. Montanabw 23:03, 7 August 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" "systematically". An infobox addition may or may not be an improvement. Improvement is in the eyes of the beholder. Users should be allowed to add them in individual instances in good faith as they would any other article changes intended to improve. If others disagree, then discussion is the next step. This is standard operating procedure on WP per WP:BRD. This is spelled out at 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevance of the speediness of my responses is that you chose to bring it into the conversation ("I had to wait some time... to get a simple straight answer"), despite the fact that these delays were wholly due to me having to wait for your clarification. Another imaginary conversation could have had you clarifying what you were asking, the first time I asked you to; but instead you choose to resort to abuse ("Avoid, evade, smear, dodge"). You claim to have merely overlooked the half-million plus infoboxes deficient in your evidence, but when I pointed out your misrepresentation, above, your response was "Balls to your accusations of disinformation and misrepresentation"; not an acknowledgement that your evidence is false. I take it that your stated intent to not engage further means that you acknowledge my point above, which you again do not address: You have yet to substantiate your allegation of me "Fudging the figures". You cannot do so.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Agree This is not in conflict with the mantra that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. However, when an article passes either the GA or FA hurdle, the process of making further changes should become a little more difficult. Not impossible, as we do not have an FA that cannot be improved, but I see nothing wrong with making the process somewhat different than for a stub that is begging for improvement. I'll also add strong agreement to a special case of this concept: It is extremely rude to add (or remove) an infobox from an article that is about to be named a TFA. While a newbie might not fully appreciate the effort needed to get an article to an FA level, and the resulting pride at seeing one's efforts showcased on one of the world's most trafficked websites, I am unable to comprehend the mindset of a regular who thinks this is a fine time to make a substantive change.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Oppose: I view Andy's infoboxes as helpful additions to articles where I have not yet added one. I find he does not "demand," he simply presents a compelling case and I usually see the wisdom of his comments. Where I have had minor disagreements, I have found him willing to drop the stick and move on. Montanabw 19:45, 6 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)

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

Absolutely not! what if the article was TFA in 2004? What if the entire FAC never raised or discussed the infobox question at all? All FA articles need to have major changes, such as Infoboxes, discussed at talk. I was, frankly, appalled that the mere discussion of an infobox at the Wagner article raised a mob with pitchforks wanting to sanction Gerda for even mentioning the idea. That sort of thing is precisely the type of bullying and intimidation that WP needs to avoid, not sanction! Montanabw 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree Despite my strong comments above, this is too much. I think editors should approach edits to GA and FA, and especially TFA differently than they do other articles, but if editors abuse this, they should be addressed individually, not by crafting some semi-arbitrary rule to be used as a stick when it may not apply. Stronger disagreement on the prohibition against discussion on talk pages. Non-starter.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:04, 7 August 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)

We have well-established guidelines on what remedies are available if someone is topic-banned. We don't need to craft an individual one for this specific situation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:06, 7 August 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)

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

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

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

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

As with so many of these issues relating to the improbability of normal discussion reaching a consensus you and Rexx are kindly providing volumes of evidence daily on this page. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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:

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

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)

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

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

Montanabw admonished for incivility and increasing talk page friction

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Struck my comments above per reciprocity and truce with Folantin. Withdrawn Montanabw 22

35, 7 August 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

• This isn't really germane to the issue. As the MOS itself neither supports nor opposes the use of infoboxes, a project consensus to not use one is not creating a rule. Likewise, disagreeing with a project consensus does not automatically invalidate it. Resolute 17:09, 7 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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

This has been repeatedly questioned: why does it have to be extracted from the infobox? Brambleclawx 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 2 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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Support, I said so above, but this wording is better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 2 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)

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

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

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

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

Reversions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

Derailing discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

RexxS writes:

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

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

So, in summary, it offers no advantages.

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do so in the sentence right after the one you quoted. Brambleclawx 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ownership

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The behaviour of a member of WikiProject Composers mentioned above is clear, recent example, but the problem has been on-going for a long time. The HTML comments referred to in the analysis of evidence below ("<!-- please do not add an infobox, per ]-->") breach the communities expectations for Wikiprojects, as referenced in my proposed principles 5 and 7 above. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community consensus is "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Challenges to the attempt by WikiProject Composers to subvert that consensus are not the problem; the problem is the behaviour exhibited by members of that project to stifle good-faith additions to their articles. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed remedies

None

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by Andy Mabbett

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

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

Proposed principles

Template

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Number of Infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Size of Infobox Images

1) Primary images in infoboxes can be resized.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infoboxes and FAs

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

2) User:Moxy was harassed by infobox opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I understand the arbitrators have been looking onto this. I leave it to them to decide who was responsible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 7 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.

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:Quiddity

Proposed findings of fact

There are objective and subjective problems with some infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Good-faith additions can sometimes be problematic

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Agreed. Brambleclawx 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infoboxes are intended to be mostly redundant

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aesthetics and accessibility need to be examined

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

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

Update MOS:INFOBOX

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss primary image

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Discuss overall aesthetics of infoboxes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Caution against using Collapse

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposals by Gerda Arendt

Proposed principles

AGF in a new infobox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Infobox as feedback

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

Try and improve an infobox before reverting

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Absolutely not. It's Bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, fillibuster. Resolute 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Reach consensus

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Brambleclawx

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Editors should be civil

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Infoboxes provide at-a-glance information to readers

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

130,000+ instantiations of Infobox person CAN be wrong

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

The standards that underlie infoboxes are unsuitable for historical data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Bad faith and civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Arguments in infobox discussions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Square bracket amendments have been used to clarify. As for the second point, Nikkimaria has responded. Brambleclawx 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

Convenience and logic are separate. I'm just suggesting it's possible. Brambleclawx 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed remedies

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

All named parties encouraged to assume good faith and act civilly

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Pigsonthewing topic-banned from TFA talk+TFA grace period

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Could you explain why you feel this way about said proposal? Brambleclawx 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

I'm not entirely sure, but haven't you accused others of breaking BRD yourself? Brambleclawx 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

Encourage a compromise

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A project is a group of people. Brambleclawx 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposed enforcement

BRD/Mass action

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposed topic-ban of Pigsonthewing

2) To be enforced via the standard escalating blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"No one is allowed to discuss Pigsonthewing"? That might work... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcasm. This is just to link to the above proposed TFA ban changes. Brambleclawx 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Struck as related remedy is struck. Brambleclawx 01:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Smerus

Proposed principles

Topic of arb discussion

1) This arb case is not about whther infoboxes are right or wrong, or whether they should or could be redesigned, or about metadata, or about any other matter than the behaviour of editors when discussing some or all of these topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The case is , in fact, very ill-defined. Nonetheless, it is not for one party to rule out issues raised by other parties, which are clearly of concern to the wider community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

1. Style

1) Certain editors adopt a style in discussions of infobox placements and related discussions which are unacceptably browbeating, bullying, dismissive or threatening - these include User:Pigsonthewing, User:PumpkinSky, User:RexxS and User:Montanabw. It is notable that they have generally toned down the style of their comments whilst this arb case is proceeding, so they are probably well aware of what they have done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The proposed finding is sound, but the names are wrong, and not supported by evidence, We should instead name the editors whose "unacceptably browbeating, bullying, dismissive or threatening" behaviour has been evidenced. Not least, Smerus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You've not entirely had the nicest of tones either, as Andy notes. However, I would agree there is evidence of such a tone by users you have named. On the other hand, you certainly need to provide diffs for the last sentence, because as far as I'm aware, no such evidence has been submitted. Brambleclawx 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Where are the diffs on the Evidence page that show me as "unacceptably browbeating, bullying, dismissive or threatening"? WP:NPA applies on ArbCom pages as it does everywhere else. Either substantiate your accusation regarding me or strike it. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Absence of consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Once this issue became contentious, Gerda has immediately assumed good faith. For several weeks at minimum, I have seen Gerda either placing the infobox question at talk for the anti-infobox cabal to create a drahmahzone discussion, or she has placed infoboxes on quiet articles where it doesn't appear their has been much activity, except perhaps her own work to improve a given article. But in at least one case, even putting the mention of the dreaded word