Revision as of 02:09, 28 August 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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

Support:

1. Minor copyedits; please revert if undesired. Please note that although I'm voting first, I did not draft the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 08:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Provisional support, pending clarification below. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Confirming support. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. To Carcharoth, I read this as "if we can include things that help reusers, without detriment, we should". Courcelles 01:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Per Courcelles, but I also read his 'we should' as "I would like all articles to be at featured-level quality" – nice if we can make it happen, not the end of the world if we can't. Ultimately, this is broadly true and I think we're staying pretty firmly in our scope in describing how we think policy is right now. NW (Talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Courcelles, that was exactly the intention of the of the sentence. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Editorial process

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Reverting of anything other than obvious vandalism or harm should be considered very carefully as reverting can often be perceived as an act of aggression which then provokes a negative response. Consideration, politeness and discussion go a long way to assisting everyone to build this encyclopaedia appropriately. SilkTork 08:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Users should also be aware when they are crossing the line from escalating a dispute to helping to de-escalate it. The failure over the years to move to discussions "involving the wider community" is part of the reason things have got worse and not been resolved. See my comments on the PD talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

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

Support:

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

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

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 08:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Though not sure all this has been going on here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. This is all correct, it does not mean every type of bad behaviour has been happening in this matter. Courcelles 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

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

Support:

1. Somewhat duplicative of 2 (with which it could be consolidated), but harmlessly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 08:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. NW (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mission

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Again, there's a bit of duplication in the principles but nothing we can't live with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Though continuing community input should always be sought. If there have not been more recent requests for comment, these should take place. The discussions around this case have thrown up enough material for several such RfCs. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. This doesn't speak to whether or not it should be included, just that it aligns with the goals, where it is not detrimental to the content. The community can make editorial judgements about whether or not that is sufficient for inclusion. (More in comments) Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

1. I'm still on the fence on this one. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Ownership

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. This is an important principle. Should a link to WP:OWN be added? Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. If edits are disruptive, and the editor is aware that they are disruptive, then it is no longer in good faith. This is an important principle as it stands. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disruptive edits made in good faith are still disruptive and need to be stopped. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Salvio and my own comments below. SilkTork 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. One can easily be totally convinced they are doing the right thing, and yet making a disruptive mess. Courcelles 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Per Courcelles. NW (Talk) 15:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Levels of consensus

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Slight copy-edit and amended title as suggested below. SilkTork 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Salvio 13:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. This makes sense. Though a link to WP:CONSENSUS is needed, to show the current state of policies and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
6. NW (Talk) 15:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. With title change, support. There are further nuances here; for example, does "local consensus" mean "per article" or "per topic area," etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
9. T. Canens (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10.  Roger Davies 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

I think that would be helpful, yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. 2nd choice, prefer 1.1,  Roger Davies 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Cannot support this as written. Too vague and needs links and more detail. Apologies for not spotting this earlier when the proposed decision was at the drafting stage. I do agree that something along these lines is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. F2.1 F1.1 seems to explain the dispute a little better. AGK 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Perfer 2.1 1.1 T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Locus of dispute

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

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

Support:

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

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

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

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

2. This seems to cover all the bases. AGK 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Broadly agree Courcelles 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
7. 1st choice,  Roger Davies 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
8. NW (Talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

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

Abstain:

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

Comments:

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

Use of infoboxes

2) The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Copyedited for clarity by adding "by site policies or guidelines". Please revert if undesired. We may want to provide some guidance by identifying some of the factors that weigh for or against including an infobox in a given instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Yes, per WP:INFOBOXUSE. SilkTork 09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I can support this, though I can also support a more detailed/nuanced version (see comments below). Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
7. I would also support a more lengthy version if you would like to write it Carcharoth. NW (Talk) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Broadly agree. AGK 12:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
9. though I would support a more nuanced version. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10. T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
11.  Roger Davies 23:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Pigsonthewing

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Nikkimaria

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Gerda Arendt

6) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion.

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Superfluous. Salvio 13:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I can see how a case could be made for a finding against Gerda, but I don't think this finding is detailed enough. For example, can we really fault Gerda for adding an infobox to A Crossbreed without prior discussion? I think not. Could one of the drafters write a more detailed finding of fact? AGK 12:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per AGK, though I don't think a more detailed finding is needed. The fault (if any) seems to be more a frustration that others won't discuss things fully and trying to get people to discuss things when they maybe don't really want to. It can feel like being stonewalled, but sometimes it is just people wanting to do things other than discuss these issues. People have different amounts of time they are willing to spend on such discussions, and that needs to be respected as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Not as is, no. NW (Talk) 03:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Smerus

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Salvio 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Inadequate. Salvio 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Depends if this is an alternative or addition to 1.2. If alternative, I must oppose as inadequate. Courcelles 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Copyedited. I meant to say adding not editing. SilkTork 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing banned

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

Support:

1. Andy has displayed an impressive battleground mentality and was already banned twice before; those bans failed to change his behaviour, so I think any lesser remedy would be inadequate. Salvio 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Andy is or has been the subject of two previous arbitration cases. Blocked then topic banned for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012 Blocked for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012. Then topic banned in 2012. Blocked for edit warring in 2012. And a central actor in a projectspace dispute of particular intensity. I do not think we can reasonably expect another narrow sanction to be effective in the case of this editor, which is unfortunate because of his long history as a community member. AGK 12:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Clarified that topic ban was separate from BLP issues. AGK 10:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   Andy points out on the talk page that the 2012 blocks were effectively withdrawn by the blocking administrator, so they are inadmissible as evidence. However, I still see evidence of long-term combative behaviour that (per below) could not realistically be solved using another topic ban. Therefore, regrettably my vote stands. AGK 09:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

3. The basic issue; battleground mentality, does do back to 2006. Topic-banning him from yet another battleground cannot fix the problems, and two prior years of banning have not fixed them either, so, I see no other options. Courcelles 23:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Weakly opposing this for now. It is clear that most anyone with the long history Pigsonthewing has would likely be banned for the trouble, but I'm hopeful that forcing him away entirely from the infobox issue would alleviate the cause of conflict for this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't think the conduct so far rises to the level where a site ban is warranted, and from what I have seen he has changed since the previous cases. If there was another case in the future involving Andy, then I could be convinced that this is needed, but not now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Andy may have been banned in the past, but looking at his actions at the time - he has significantly improved. 5 years (since his ban ended) is a long time. Given that evidence shows that his problematic behaviour is limited to infoboxes, I do not believe this is required. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
4. I think Andy still has a lot to offer the project. I think that a ban might be merited but is not fully necessary and that another remedy in addition to 1.3 is necessary to resolve the situation the project has had with Andy. NW (Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Nikkimaria

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
3. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
4. AGK 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Salvio 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I think a finding is enough. Might support a reminder rather than an admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

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

Comments:

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. I've yet to form a conclusion on the findings or other remedies, but I know I won't be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per NYB. NW (Talk) 03:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per NYB. Salvio 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Per my comments on the finding. Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I initially supported this in my head, but comments from Nikkimaria have given me confidence that this is excessive. Worm(talk) 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
7. AGK 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

1. Offering as a replacement for 2.3, and a variation for the other parties per comments her and on-list regarding alternatives. Copyedits welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. AGK 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

Comments:

Gerda restricted

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. Salvio 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Too strong. Would consider a more nuanced alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Per my comments on the relevant finding. Overall, I think a 'parties reminded' clause is needed here. And (after a period of some quiet) a way for people to discuss these issues in a calm manner at a central venue, building on some of the proposals made in the workshop, without tensions rising again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
5. For same reason as my vote below. AGK 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Per my comments above, I think the parties reminded remedy is sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Probably not required, though I'm on the cusp of supporting. AGK 09:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Smerus

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

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK 10:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Disproportionate. Salvio 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Seems a bit too much. NW (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. Proposed, since Smerus has on occasion let his temper flare. AGK 10:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Appropriate here. NW (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Salvio 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Editors reminded

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Personally, I'd prefer this remedy to read "all editors are reminded" instead of "all parties". Others agree? Salvio 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

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

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

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

The last edit to this page was on 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) by User:Carcharoth.

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

Notes

1. Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.

Vote

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

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

Support

Oppose

Comments