Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop

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

Case clerks: Amortias (Talk) & Mdann52 (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

I would be particularly interested to see evidence related to edit-warring over infoboxes, if that is happening. I've seen a couple diffs here and there that suggest it may be a regular part of these disputes, but evidence showing a pattern (or demonstrating that no pattern exists) would be very relevant to addressing behavior here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doesn't seem to relate to the case at hand. This is primarily about civility problems, and secondarily about on-WP "activism" about infoboxes. It has nothing to do with externally motivated propagandizing or outside conflicts. The principle outlined is correct, but off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Definitely pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pertinent and appropriate to add; we don't need a sequel to WP:ARBINFOBOX, only an addressing of civility/battleground problems. It's up to the community to either have a flat rule about infoboxes, or (more likely) to develop criteria for their inclusion. And if neither ever happen, that's just too bad. There are innumerable things about which Wikipedia doesn't have rules. Where they are controversial, we have lots of ArbCom cases that set behavioral limits, rather than making policy the community won't make. Infoboxes are just going to have to be one of those, and the way it always goes is discretionary sanctions that permit admins to quickly remove from the topic those individuals who temperamentally cannot participate in them without being disruptive. The fact that these topics are usually content (Armenia, electronic cigarettes, etc.) is irrelevant. We've had DS applied to internal meta-topics before; see, e.g., WP:ARBATC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This or something like it has to be included or this is all a waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misses the mark. This isn't really about "A and B can't get along with B and C", it's about "A and B are consistently hostile and uncollaborative (except with each other), and have been for years".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Personal feuds don't exist. We have the solid small group of editors who go for no infobox, and the many who find an infobox the normal thing to have. The solid small group is big enough to make any consensus impossible unless it goes their way. The typical phrase "consensus for no infobox" they claim actually reads "no consensus". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain I'd say the "solid group" was big enough, but they're certainly vocal enough and persistent enough that discussions get bludgeoned into no consensus (regardless of what the arguments for or against that specific infobox are). Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Editors who violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be blocked for periods of time, which may increase in the event of repeat offenses. Blocks are intended to be preventive and not punitive. However, in extreme cases, it may be decided that particular editors should be left blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This doesn't add anything; it's just re-statement of standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated behaviour

Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Net negatives and containment of damage

A few editors, while intending to contribute positively to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, have a net negative effect, doing more harm than good, typically because of combativeness. In such cases, it may be necessary to consider whether the damage done by these editors can be contained by topic-bans or similar restrictions, or whether it is necessary to ban them from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is true, but I don't think anyone's making an argument that any party here is a net negative to the entire project, just a net negative to a particular meta-topical focus, infoboxes; and habitually disruptive, infoboxes aside, when it comes to another meta-topical focus: FAs (and may not be a net negative in that one, just periodically intolerant and intolerable before subsiding back into productivity).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe any editors I am familiar with have a net negative effect which seems to me to be an extreme characterization. I'd say the opposite- that the editors I am familiar with even if uncivil are always a net positive, hugely positive given the work they do. This is the dilemma. Very good editors who disagree some times lacking in civility which is a subset of the positive work they do.I have done only a little work in this area but this is my opinion and experience.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC))

I simply hate the net-whatever-calculation. We are all volunteers trying to do our best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No matter the intentions, there are some editors for whom the extra work they generate and/or the other editors they drive away, mean that their positive contributions do not add enough to the encyclopaedia. In those cases it is necessary to restrict them in some way for the benefit of the project, and that should be the minimum necessary. In this case, the editors concerned are disruptive to only parts of the project, so topic bans or similar restrcitions are the answer rather than an outright block. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• I only think this is necessary if the committee breaks with precedent and attempts to establish some kind of policy regarding infoboxes. Even a site-ban of Cassianto wouldn't be draconian given the long-term history of this editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  I wouldn't like to see that result, though. Despite having received a lot of verbal abuse from him, and seen him dish it out to numerous others, I think this is a curable problem, a matter of changing a habit. Topic bans are generally more effective. And if they prove unworkable they get converted into longer-term blocks/bans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can't agree with this one. It's a wedge into due process that could split it apart.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• The principle is correct, but I don't see it as relevant to this case as I can't think of a reason a draconian sanction would be useful. The problem isn't that the community is fundamentally unable to come up with a needed policy regarding infoboxes, but that the behaviour of a small number of editors is actively preventing the community moving forward towards either a policy or some other resolution that doesn't require a policy (both paths seem equally possible at this point). Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Flight before judgment

If an editor takes deliberate action that renders them incapable of participating in an ArbCom case, that action may be held against them, and, in any case, their self-inflicted inability to present a defense is not a mitigating circumstance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Appreciate others disagree, but may as well (again) express a personal view: Failure to participate is neither a negative or mitigation. This is a volunteer encyclopaedia; we can't force anyone to take part in a discussion if they prefer not to. We shouldn't attach any significance to someone's absence from a case - the editor may be distracted by real life; they may be refusing to take part because they're too stressed, too angry or too uncaring, or maybe they merely have nothing useful to say. Good luck to them whatever their circumstances: it seems reasonable to respect their choice and let the evidence and their edit history speak for itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This isn't a court of law, and trying to impose a penalty on a productive volunteer who spends his time, effort and money on improving the encyclopaedia seems to be sending entirely the wrong message. - SchroCat (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with this finding, and note that the closing of this ANI was influenced by self-requested block by one of the parties in this case, and this ANI by the "retirement" of two of the parties in this case. Agree that the self-requested block currently in force for Cassianto is consistent with his previous self-block and "retirement" and that this should be taken into consideration and not result in evading of sanctions. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply to User:Euryalus: We can't force editors to do anything. But when they deliberately refuse to participate in proceedings in which their ability to edit Wikipedia is subject to termination, to the point of requesting lengthy blocks after initiation of ANI and arbcom proceedings, we are free to draw a negative inference. In my view to do otherwise is to put our heads in the sand. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral. I don't like the wording, but Coretheapple is correct. Yet so are SchroCat and Euryalus, on a different level. I've just abandoned attempts to get "justice" myself, for the real life + stress and anger + ended up not caring complex of reasons. The one block I've ever had I didn't bother appealing until it was almost over anyway, despite knowing I had a good appeal (and it was in fact retroactively vacated as a bad block). However, Cassianto has a long-term pattern of WP:SANCTIONGAMING through the WP:HIGHMAINT tactic of "quitting Wikipedia" then returning after the scrutiny has subsided. That can't be ignored. But do we need an ArbCom statement to this effect? I don't see why we do. Not every common-sense matter has to have a legalistic ArbCom codification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be worth including something along these lines, but nothing more than a principle that editors whose conduct is found wanting may be sanctioned even if they choose not to participate in the discussions leading to the finding (just using much better wording than that). Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I posted on the Workshop talk page a pointer to a similar thing at ANI a while back.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: This situation (or a variation of) has occured in the past, Salvio's abstain comments in the Kafziel case may be some good food for thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dax Bane (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

This case is the most recent in a long series of disputes over whether articles should have infoboxes. The committee has attempted in the past to address these disputes, with little apparent success. The committee has previously noted that these disputes are sometimes resolved as they should be, by collaborative discussion and by civil dispute resolution processes, but that these processes have sometimes broken down, and have been demoralizing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I know this is what you mean, but for clarity the proposal might say the locus is editor conduct in arguing about infoboxes. The case isn't part of the long series of disputes over whether an article should actually have an infobox - that's a different long series of disputes within which Arbcom plays no useful role. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't agree with this FoF at all. It's just coincidence that Cassianto and SchroCat most often fly off the handle at other editors when it's about infoboxes. They also do it about other MoS matters like decorative boxes around quotations (the only discrete topic in which I've actually been subjected to abuse behavior by them!), and about editorial control at FAs and FACs, and against RfA candidates who've ever irritated either them, and various other matters. Basically, if either of them think you've stepped on their toes, you're in for a world of hurt from both of them. The locus of this dispute is two editors' habit of tagteaming to pursue protracted hostility against other editors who don't agree with them. It's pure roll of the dice that this isn't more often about ayurveda or South American wars or dubstep than about infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with "a long series of disputes over whether articles should have infoboxes". The last case could simply have been about {{infobox opera}} which was new at the time, and unwanted by some, - which brought up things from the past. That was 2013. I don't know earlier, but can conclude that it's too long ago to matter today. This case could be restricted to the (few) articles which had an infobox, and then were improved by editors who don't like one, and who remove it on the grounds that they did so much for the article in question, and agree with each other on the matter - which they call consensus. - Other disputes about infoboxes don't exist in real life, or do you know any which happened recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes

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 by appropriate WikiProjects or at each individual article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We already know this; it's what WP:ARBINFOBOX says [apart from the "by appropriate WikiProjects" part, which is flat-out wrong, as addressed elsewhere on this page; search for "Hell no"]. And I was just told by an Arb on the talk page of the Evidence page that ArbCom's decided this case is behavioral and that infoboxes are basically out of scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have different suggested wording on infoboxes----see my proposal below. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not actually what WP:ARBINFOBOX says: in particular the phrase "by appropriate WikiProjects" does not appear there, which invites stubborn attempts to own articles in defiance of conventions worked out at projects, or for that matter anywhere else. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto (Finding of fact by Robert McClenon)

Cassianto has been blocked 16 times. While some of these blocks have been reversed, the pattern is that the ArbCom finds that Cassianto is a combative editor who engages in personal attacks. The fact that 2 of the blocks were self-requested indicates that this is an editor who, while recognizing that his temper is problematic, is still an editor whose temper is problematic.

Cassianto’s failure to provide a defense due to a self-requested block will not be seen as a mitigating circumstance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See comment above concerning previous self-requested block and "retirement" during ANI by that person and another party to this case. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems correct to me, even if the last, stand-alone sentence is redundant with something above and maybe just extraneous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Remedies

Consensus on infoboxes (1)

WikiProjects may establish a local consensus that a particular type of infobox is standard for articles in a particular subject area within the scope of the WikiProject. In such a case, an article that has no infobox or an infobox that is contrary to local consensus may be changed to be consistent with local consensus. Once a consensus has been established, a Request for Comments may be used either to change the local consensus or to make an exception to the local consensus. Editing against an established local consensus, other than the use of RFCs, shall be considered disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems like establishing policy by fiat, which ArbCom cannot do. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We can nonetheless recommend it. Possibly as an exceptional measure to reduce what is otherwise going to continue indefinitely, we can request the community to hold a binding referendum. on whether the rules should be a/uniform on WP, uniform obn all bios c/each project decides / or article by article. Our role, after all, is to prevent continuing disruption. I don;t see any other way of accomplishing it. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion., But agree with the posters below that this isn't viable for most wikiprojects, and is outside the Committee's scope to impose. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Hell no, per WP:WIKIPROJECT: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. (emphasis mine) Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hell no per Mr rnddude/ BU Rob13. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hell no per all three above, and a slap to the OP for making a proposal stupid enough to provoke me into commenting on this trainwreck case. WikiProjects—most of which consist of only one or two people and don't even include most of the editors active in their subject area—have no authority to write policy, nor should they ever; in the unlikely event that any form of this proposal is accepted I have no intention of following it, will unblock anyone (on either side) who's blocked for violating it until I'm hauled off to Arbcom for desysopping, and encourage any other admin to do the same. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Actually, this doesn't seem crazy, although Arbcom may not be the appropriate people to set this up. Some wikiprojects do serve as a fairly effective forum for the most active editors in an area; others certainly don't. The current situation, where some editors feel entitled to ignore anything but a consensus individually established for each article, and only accept that after a good deal of wikilawyering and irritable discussion, is not healthy. I notice this is a one-way rachet, as drafted: projects can establish a local consensus to have an infobox, but apparently not to not have one. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Propose something else, then, or just leave the consensus at leaving the status quo alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether this is a good or bad idea (hint: it's terrible) it literally cannot work: WikiProject A says that all articles within its scope should have infoboxes, WikiProject B says no articles within its scope should have infoboxes, Article C is within the scope of both projects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• This should be an RfC, not an ARBCOM decision. However, don't start an RfC yet, this won't get consensus as-written. The current proposal is unworkable as per Thryduulf. Large projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) would have to be excluded, there'd have to be some way of assessing "priority" so WP:CRIC doesn't mandate an infobox on Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. The governance system necessary to establish such a rule will not find consensus with the largely anarchistic WP:NOTBURO editing crowd. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• No that's not the purpose of a Wikiproject. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hell no. Wikiprojects were once arguably useful, but today they serve primarily as WP:OWN mechanisms for a tiny handful of editors, with very few exceptions (and even those have issues). On top of that, they are by far the no. 1 source of "your rules do not apply to our topic because we're magically different" special pleading and outright rebellion against site-wide policies and guidelines. If you can find a knock-down-drag-out dispute raging for years on Wikipedia, it will almost always have a wikiproject behind it. More to the point here: a) this case isn't really about infoboxes, and b) the entire point of WP:ARBINFOBOX is that wikiprojects trying to make up such rules was the very source of original problem. There are virtually no topics that fall only within the scope of a single wikiproject, so it's guaranteed to cause conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• The source of the problem, in the end, is that the guideline/policy-making bodies here have (excepting the MOS) always tended to devalue consistency below all other principles. Projects, by their nature, have always tended to seek consistency. Back when I did lighthouses there were a number of fights because someone decided that their pet article on an American lighthouse had to be called "X Lighthouse" despite the USCG's unrelenting consistency in calling them all "Lights", and argument was always WP:COMMONNAME. That's also what the fight over infoboxes inevitably comes down to: someone trying to own their pet article, and that's what it came down to in this specific case. When it came down to trying to fit together the conflicting infoboxes of Lighthouses and the NRHP project, people did value consistency and it was not the least bit hard to work something out. In other cases, maybe not so: but the ownership problem is the natural result of the refusal of the community to push consistency as a value. And that's a major failing. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on infoboxes (2)

When there is no local consensus established by an appropriate WikiProject for a particular article, the status quo shall be preserved, and the addition or deletion of an infobox is deprecated. The use of a Request for Comments is strongly encouraged as the means to resolve a content dispute over an infobox. Disruptive editing due to conflicts over whether to include an infobox shall be addressed with sanctions by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If the first principle on consensus on infoboxes is defeated, then this becomes standard for everything, and the addition or deletion of infoboxes is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not ArbCom's job to make up an infobox policy when the community doesn't want one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a mess. One reading would prevent the addition of an infobox to any article without an explicit consensus by one or more wikiprojects, even when there is no question that adding an infobox would be uncontroversial (see Kazungula Bridge as just one example of an infobox being added as part of the natural development of an article). Using an RFC to resolve content disputes is fairly standard (but not always the most appropriate method), but by giving weight to the views of WikiProjects you're undermining the ability of an RFC to achieve anything - it's also probably outside arbcom's remit to impose something like that even if it were a good idea. The intent of the last sentence is achievable by the Committee authorising discretionary sanctions, but "conflicts over whether to include an infobox" is not a good phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As before: "whether to include" is no problem, - "whether to remove" is. I hope I said it often enough now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on infoboxes (1a)

The status quo on the presence or absence of an infobox in an article shall be considered to be the consensus after the article is stable. The addition or deletion of an infobox is deprecated. The use of a Request for Comments as the means to resolve any content dispute over the presence or absence of an infobox is strongly encouraged. Disruptive editing due to conflicts over whether to include an infobox shall be addressed with sanctions by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No, it's not ArbCom's job to make up an infobox policy when the community doesn't want one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to SMcCadnlish's comments, who gets to define "stable"? Kazungula Bridge was created without an infobox from creation in July 2015 and was then stable with no significant content edits until January 2018 when I added an infobox as part of an update and expansion. I didn't seek explicit consensus for adding an infobox because infoboxes on bridge articles are literally never controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a fallacy at work here that adding an infobox and removing one are equivalent, but they are not. Adding one is presumptively valid per WP:EDITING policy; it's our "job" to add (relevant, sourced, neutral, non-OR) content and features to articles, and if we didn't then WP would consist of nothing but stubs. Removing content and features generally requires either a WP:POLICY-violation (of the kinds already mentioned: WP:NOT, WP:V / WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or something situationally relevant like WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE), or a strong consensus to do so for some reason (which is almost always going to come down to one of the policy-based reasons or a combination of them anyway, absent a weird WP:IAR scenario). Ergo, a long-stable infobox has way more gravitas than a long-stable absence of one, unless there's a previous consensus record strongly against the idea (and it's not a WP:FALSECONSENSUS, e.g. of two wanna-OWNers screaming obscenities at everyone). I think this is why WP has a obvious trend toward including more and more infoboxes, with their absence on well-developed articles (in categories for which there's an appropriate i-box) unusual. It's not so much that there's an explicit consensus to include them everywhere, but that – as long as the feature exists – it's a natural part of article evolution absent unusual circumstances.

I realize this may be mistaken for "pro-infobox advocacy", but it's really just an exercise in observation of how WP operates, functionally speaking. I've seen some total shite infoboxes in my time, and have removed some that weren't really reparable. I've also resisted, mildly, the addition of them to categories without a custom one where they don't seem particularly helpful (e.g. Category:Pool players wouldn't be well-served by {{Infobox person}}, because almost all people in that category are notable specifically for sports-statistical reasons; the category would need a pool equivalent of {{Infobox snooker player}}).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The absence of an infobox can just mean that editors so far were too lazy to make one. If one is added, it can simply be removed and discussed, - and that's what happens. No need to make it complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not really a "laziness" matter. Some infoboxes are complicated, and if the editors working on the page all coincidentally don't like infoboxes, they have no incentive to spend their volunteer time on one just to please other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Or it can mean that whoever created it simply didn't "know" to create one, or any number of other reasons. We don't need to create another reason to fight over this. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec, reply to SMC) No infobox has to be complicated. See Beethoven (repeating: installed by a current arb as the community consensus, quote from the close about infoboxes: "besides the fact that they're not important enough to get worked up over". If you have time, read the closing remarks, especially if you are an admin who has to do one). At a glance: where he was born/baptised when, where he died when, what he did that we have an article about him, - that's all. I really, really don't know how that information - which is nowhere else together in the article after we stopped having persondata - causes so much distress and makes people want to leave Wikipedia. Latest Dr. Blofeld, today, who once remarked that fear of having to argue for no infobox kept him from improving Audrey Hepburn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Standard discretionary sanctions shall apply to discussions about the addition or removal of an infobox and to edits adding or removing an infobox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems sensible. I think this is well within scope, even though we are not considering the content issue of infoboxes. This would directly target problematic behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As background, this ARCA from 2016 is worth skimming; that was the most recent (IIRC) serious consideration of DS for infoboxes or discussions about them. I had a couple of concerns, or at least unfinished trains of thought on the subject: 1) That's a pretty broad scope, and most discussions within that scope are really not components of "the infobox dispute" as played out in this case. 2) It's not really clear what a "good" discussion about an infobox should look like, because the partisans have deployed all of their arguments over and over again at this point, and I'm still unclear on the answers to the questions I posed in that ARCA about what regular participants in these conversations would consider convincing evidence that would lead them to change their mind on whether an infobox should or shouldn't be used on a particular article. 3) I'm concerned that displacing these arguments to AE would just result in ongoing efforts to pick off individual participants in these discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me also. To address Opabinia regalis's very good points, 1) What do you think if we narrow the scope to discussion about infobox in general in "discussions about the addition or removal of an infobox and to edits adding or removing an infobox"? 2) I think there are enough examples to suggest that "good" discussion about an infobox is when the discussion is focused specifically on the discussed article; rather than the merits/non-merits of infobox in general 3) At the moment, I agree. But if it turns out there is consensus to impose some kind of restrictions over particularly problematic editors in this area, I am hoping that these participants would not appear at AE very often; if they do, then regretfully I suppose there is nothing else to be done. Alex Shih (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced on this, but agree with TonyBallioni that it deserves an up or down vote in the PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If we need this, we need this.

This doesn't apply to content disputes over the content of the infobox (unless the article is about a war zone such as the Balkans or American politics).

Bad idea as long as there are admins like User:Coffee who as I have already quoted on the evidence page, does not enforce the policy that infobox use " is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" but actually stated in an infobox discussion that In 2017, I honestly can't believe this is even still debatable[1]. No, an admin should not given the power to enforce "You are blocked for debating infobox use when There simply does not appear to be good cause to keep infoboxes off of Wikipedia articles, anymore than the Table of Contents" (same diff).Smeat75 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The committee should at least vote on DS for this case. Not sure what the scope should be or if it necessarily should pass, but I think there is enough discussion about creating them on the case request page to address the question in a proposed decision. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Strongly support this. It will hose cold water on this years-running hotbed of dispute, and provide a quick remedy when things get out of hand again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think authorising discretionary sanctions would be a good idea. I worry though that "discussions about infoboxes in general" will be wikilawyered to exclude or evade sanctions for disruptive comments about infoboxes in general which occur in discussions that are intended to be about something else (e.g. a specific infobox). I'm not sure how to fix this, but possibly a broader authorisation with the explicit intent that any actual restrictions are more narrowly focused. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good catch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto (remedy proposed by Robert McClenon)

Cassianto is banned from the English Wikipedia for at least six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose. A topic ban from infoboxes and a final civility warning in general would be more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A ban like this would certainly be justified, but I think a topic ban or two should be tried first. If he breaches the topic ban(s) and/or doesn't reign in his incivility then a ban should automatically follow though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:power~enwiki

Proposed findings of fact

Repetitive discussions

1) The current consensus regarding infoboxes relies on the good-faith of all editors to avoid starting unnecessary and repetitive infobox discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well yes, though this is probably more a Principle than a Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, yes, but who defines what "starting" and "unnecessary" mean? Example: when a long-standing infobox for Cary Grant was removed, I started a discussion. Without the removal, nothing would have happened. I'd say the removal was unnecessary, but once it happened, I chose discussion, not ready to ignore it, nor to edit-war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Gerda. Discussion is not the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Who defines what is repetitive? When a new user comes around, and in good faith, starts a discussion asking someone to explain an unexpected thing, we should not treat them as though they should have known... --Jayron32 11:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lack of consensus

2) Discussions regarding the inclusion of infoboxes often end without any clear consensus. This is particularly prominent on biographies of people whose primary notability is related to entertainment or the arts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So what? ArbCom findings of fact need to relate to a remedy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that findings of fact must relate to a remedy in all cases - e.g. it can be useful to record necessary factual background (see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#No single name for this topic) and/or things that happened which would have required a remedy if they didn't (e.g. one editor in a three-sided edit war being indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet meaning that remedies are only required for the other two). However I don't think this is relevant enough as it stands - if it were to identify a reason for this (e.g. the behaviour of particular editors, the actions of a wikiproject, etc) then it could be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yarp. That's what I was trying to get at, while phrasing it poorly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 20 February 2018 (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.

Cassianto topic-banned

1) Cassianto is indefinitely topic-banned from discussing infoboxes. This includes a prohibition on adding or removing infoboxes from any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this is absolutely necessary if the committee does not feel that his immense block record, absence of participation in this case and recidivism warrant an indefinite block. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, although the behavior by Cassianto is in my opinion so blatant as to warrant a ban rather than a restriction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Strongly concur with this, but a general civility final warning is also needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is required as a minimum, but it alone will not solve all the issues around either this editor or around infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions on infobox RfCs

2) Only users who are extended-confirmed or are a primary contributor to an article may start an RfC on the inclusion or removal of an infobox in an article. Any editor in good standing may speedily close a discussion created in violation of this guideline. When sock-puppetry is reasonably suspected in an infobox discussion, the RfC should occur on a sub-page of the talk page, and extended-confirmed-protection should be applied for the duration of the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Can you show examples where a new editor or IP started an infobox RfC? The only example in your evidence is Cary Grant, which was exceptional in that it was plastered all over AN for a good period of time. New editors (unsurprisingly) don't start RfCs on infoboxes- it's normally a good faith "hey, why doesn't this article have an infobox". Jayron32 wrote a great mini-essay on why they are entitled to that's worth a read. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Jcc. A single instance of a maybe-sockpuppet starting an RfC isn't evidentiary of a problem. And an RfC is a discussion, that gets widely advertised, so starting an RfC isn't a problem to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with JCC and SMcCandlish - and do read Jayron32's essay JCClinks to if you haven't already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a bad idea. We can handle intentionally vexatious and disruptive RFCs on a case-by-case basis, but this restriction is onerous for the reasons noted above. --Jayron32 11:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on infobox discussions

3) When a discussion on whether to include an infobox in an article has no consensus, discussion closers are instructed to give additional weight to the opinions of the editors who have made the most significant contributions to that article. If there is still no consensus, the default should be to include an infobox on the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We might validly discuss mechanisms for improving dispute resolution, but agree with power~enwiki that this is more suitable as an RfC than an Arbcom outcome, though it's certainly worth discussing further. Also agree with Schrocat's view on the last sentence - regardless of any other action, the Committee cannot impose a default outcome on this kind of content discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There is no reason to have a "default" of inclusion, any more than a default of exclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This may be more reasonably an RfC than an ARBCOM decision. The fundamental problem is that when the usual suspects are involved in a discussion, there will never be a consensus. I feel that a process that expects and encourages a lack of consensus is anathema to the principles of Wikipedia. This gives some guidelines that make it more likely that some consensus will be obtained, rather than relying on a largely-arbitrary status quo. The Page History tool can aid closers in determining who the most active contributors are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The motivation is that (I have not presented evidence for this though if necessary I feel I can) a majority of articles of this type include infoboxes, and, with a lack of consensus, the argument from consistency should prevail. power~enwiki (π, ν)

Hell no. Blatant violation of WP:OWN policy and the WP:VESTED principle, and WP:EDITING policy, and WP:MERCILESS, and WP:CONLEVEL, and .... If ArbCom declared something like this, there would be a revolt. Innumerable editors would quit on the spot, and I'd be first among them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As worded, definitely no - the first infoboxes case disregarding WP:OWN is part of the reason we're here today, doubling down on that will just make things worse. The idea of some mechanism to move forward from no consensus results is not without merit however. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Per SMC, this enshrines in ArbCom decision, a direct violation of WP:OWN. Bad idea. --Jayron32 11:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Jcc

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civility, a pillar of Wikipedia and a binding policy applies to all editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, I mean, the last time I checked it didn't have "you don't have to follow this if you write an FA or two" on it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agreed (including with the FA bit), but the civility point proposed further up the page is more instructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Status quo

2) Long standing infoboxes should not be removed without consensus to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A long-standing absence of an IB should also require a consensus to add, under the same logic. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Re Gerda, As I think I've said before, nothing in an article is a "given", and everything, from title, text, images and infobox is something that needs to be considered. Very little is actually "forced" onto an article (ENGVAR choice on some topics is one, for example). Sometimes things that have been in the article for a while need to be removed (to get Walt Disney to FA I reduced the size – cutting out things that others had built.

Isn't Requiem (Duruflé) an example of incivility from adding an IB? The three connected threads on the talk page are not a model of civility. – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Applicable policies and essays: WP:STATUSQUO, WP:SILENCE, the last ArbCom case, but really, it's more that the community at large seems to think the removal of long standing infoboxes is the bold edit in the BRD cycle- as seen in the diffs in the evidence I provided. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS is also applicable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Re SchroCat (above): I can't see the "same logic". To remove something that others built and wanted seems a different thing - at least to me - than building something. So far theory, but practically: I didn't see any civility problems recently where infoboxes were added, only where they were removed. Did I miss any? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal causes far more drama than addition, and they are not comparable in other ways. It's a normal part of article development to add features over time, while their removal is uncommon (it mostly happens when the material in question fails to comply with a policy, which is why material most often gets cut from an FAC, and when it's a focus/relevance problem, material is more often moved to where it's more relevant not simply axed). That said, it is liable to be controversial to add an infobox to a well-developed article that doesn't have one, though less controversial than removing one. We already have WP:BRD for this. The fact that most non-stub articles (in categories for which an appropriate infobox exists) have an infobox is a prima facie demonstration that there is more consensus for infoboxes than against them. But this case is not really about infoboxes, so we should not be having ArbCom issue pronouncements about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly an infobox should not be added or removed against an active consensus on the talk page, I don't think anyone will disagree with that, however in the absence of an explicit consensus either way the addition of an infobox to an article that doesn't have one is only even potentially controversial in limited circumstances (when it's already well developed and either one of the the primary authors has a strong opinion against infoboxes or it is about a few topics, particularly those related to opera or classical music), in some topic areas the addition of an accurate infobox is pretty much never controversial (examples include, species, bridges, rail transport, sports teams and sportspeople, politicians and political parties, settlements, languages, popular music (including biographies of bands and musicians), etc) . In contrast the removal of an infobox is potentially controversial in pretty much all cases (as distinguished from the explained removal of individual fields), regardless of topic, authors or talk page discussions. I don't know how this can be expressed as a principle/FoF but something does need to be said if discretionary sanctions are authorised and/or if Cassianto, Schrocat, and a few others are not completely topic banned. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Battleground behaviour

3) Replying to every single opposing comment in a discussion, or waging an ideological battle is inappropriate, presents a bad image and drives away helpful contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See the Stanley Kubrick RfC, which is linked to in my evidence, as an example of Cassianto badgering every single opposing editor, going to ANI three times and going into (temporary) retirement as the prime example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And if there is only one comment? Or just two or three? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Jesus, I didn't sign up for this. I'm not a wiki-lawyer, that's not where my specialisms lie. If you want someone who can work out ways to weasel out of an i-ban on a technicality, debate over the meaning of a legal threat or work out if someone's been adequately warned or not before a general sanctions ban, that's not me. What I'm trying to get here is the general idea- there's no way in a million years this is suitably "ArbCom style" worded, like Robert McClenon's suggestions above are- but the spirit behind this is clearly that "incivility/bludgeoning discussions is a bad thing". jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Going round in circles

4) Sanctions may have to be imposed on editors who simply don't abide by policies time and time again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm trying to refer to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here, and Cassianto's extensive block log. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur, but would work this into a longer point; there are liable to be several combined about Cassianto's behavior pattern.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Cassianto (finding of fact by Jcc)

1) Cassianto has degraded the quality of discussions about infoboxes, systematically removed longstanding infoboxes from articles and editwarred to keep his changes in place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Main evidence: his block log and the 19 ANI discussions. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Unquestionably accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur with the first two points (and at least the first also applies to SchroCat), though I have not tracked either of their edits closely enough to confirm an editwarring pattern personally, just the get-around-editwarring-by-tagteaming one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

New editors

2) It should not be considered surprising that new editors question why no infobox exists on a certain article, given the proliferation of them around Wikipedia. They should be treated with respect, and be told of the existing consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

...and definitely not get "YOU'RE A SOCK" screamed at them. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I found where I got the idea of this from- and it's worth a read. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep; this could be combined with the above-raised point about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 20 February 2018 (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.

Cassianto restricted

1) Cassianto is restricted from making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He is also restricted from removing infoboxes from articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gerda has said that a similar restriction, but in the opposite vein, has worked well for her. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the evidence that you have provided points more to a topic ban from infoboxes entirely or an indefinite block. Coretheapple (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I'm not sure what more a topic ban would do, but yeah, I'd support one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I think something more draconian is necessary, and I submit that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The block log speaks for itself, as does this case, as does his non-participation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Failing an infobox T-ban, this is a bare minimum, plus a final-warning civility restriction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer a topic ban from all infobox discussions, but if that doesn't pass then this is good as a backstop. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto is subject to a civility restriction

2) Cassianto is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. (taken from the TRM case)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see evidence that Cassianto has engaged in the activities that would be prohibited here, and so I don't see much value in this specific prohibition. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcc: Those sound like straight-up personal attacks, not reflections on general competence. I won't comment on what led to the TRM prohibition, as I'd rather not get into a TRM-related squabble here, but the behavior was very different than blatant personal attacks. I'm not saying no remedy is needed, by any means, but I don't know that this remedy is needed. I think there are better ways to address that behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcc: “Not a good wikilawyer” is almost certainly a good thing. I agree with your sentiment, surely, and value your input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Rob here. No one should have to be a good wikilawyer. Your input is valued and appreciated, and you can always reword your proposal to address the issue. :-) Katie^talk 01:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per the TRM case. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the evidence that you presented, combined with his immense block record, speaks to an indefinite block of this editor, not a civility restriction and the other steps you suggest. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Over at the evidence page, I've listed diffs of Cassianto calling someone "an insufferable little prick", "the Fuhrer" of infoboxes and questioned whether someone else was "drunk or on drugs". If that doesn't qualifies as questioning a fellow editor's "general competence", then I don't know what does. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the points. I think it was a mistake posting here. As I just wrote above, I'm not a wiki-lawyer, that's not where my specialisms lie, and I'll go insane if I continue to debate over wording here. The spirit of this (more important than my definitely not legalese wording) is "Cassianto should be stopped from making personal attacks". I took the wording from TRM because I felt it applied here too, but if there are consequential differences that I haven't noticed, well I guess that's why you're the Arb and I'm not ;) jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection of disputes

3) Adminstrators are encouraged to fully protect articles where an infobox dispute is taking place, to prevent an edit war. The importance of locking to the right version is considered particularly important to understand what a "no consensus" result should default to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a bit ironic; the whole point of the page you link is to explain administrators should not take a side in content disputes by selecting a "right" version and poke fun at those who insist they've got the "wrong" version. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem, as always, is determining the right version. Editors have argued all sorts of things about what version is the "right version" for infoboxes, including that not having an infobox is always the right version, barring a discussion that concludes otherwise. If we were to emphasize a correct version, we'd have to say what that version is, and I'd be against the Committee taking any such stand on content matters. That's a job for the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The other problem is that full-protecting an article to stop an infobox edit-war also prevents editing the whole rest of the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This already happens, but not frequently enough- and the wrong version can also be protected, meaning that a scenario can occur where someone removes an infobox from an article that has had one for 10+ years, an admin locks to the wrong version, the discussion results in no consensus, and the article ends up with no infobox. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe any kind of protection will cause the article to "end up" in any particular way, unless you assume the admin will fullprotect it indefinitely (they won't). A suggestion to protect to the right version is unlikely to ever get any traction — the whole protection policy would have to be reconsidered first. And, from the way you piped your link, you seem to be aware that the the right version ultimately redirects to m:The Wrong Version, which is, ahem, a joke. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that was intentional. I disagree though with your first sentence- over at the evidence page, I've outlined why the right or wrong version does play a part in deciding how no consensus discussions are enacted. Cassianto certainly seems to put a lot of emphasis on it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No--What Bish said.That would need a change in protection policy and is just unworkable.IMO, it shall be the responsibility of the closer of the discussion to gauge the long-standing-version,in case of a NC.At worst, we will have the wrong-version for around 30 days and it won't damn affect anything.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for the unnecessarily strong tone of your comment, and by the way, if you're going to be insulting, "it won't change a damn thing" is the expression you're looking for. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've removed the piped link, yes it was intentional- to point out that whilst I know this would go against the humorous essay, I thought (and still think) that it is important. As I've pointed out, Cassianto thinks so too, so perhaps we agree here. I've removed the link since it seems to cause too much confusion. If no one else agrees with me, then that's fine. I'm not an arb, and this is a workshop, not the final decision.jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Even aside from the "right version" issues, i-box disputes generally don't turn into protracted editwars, just protracted flamewars, generally at the instigation of two particular individuals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary. If things degenerate this much the protection policy already allows this and I'm not aware of any evidence either that this is a common problem or that when it does occur admins are not protecting the article (and even if this were the case it would only need a reminder). Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Thryduulf. I'll also echo Rob's comment re: the Right Version®. Anytime there is an edit war where full protection is needed, it typically means that it's clear edit warring is occuring, but so much is going on, it is too difficult to determine who to block or which version is stable without getting involved in the content questions (it is possible, but it is a lot of work). This remedy would unintentionally make it harder for admins to deal with this than the protection policy already allows. 1RR for infoboxes might be a decent alternative, but if the committee is considering that, it probably makes more sense to go with discretionary sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest DS is actually far better, since it allows admins to shut a disruptor down, while 1RR allows them to wander from page to page making the same types of provocative edits over and over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally agreed, I went ahead and proposed 1RR as a middle ground, below, as some arbs have expressed skepticism on DS, but I don't think it would be necessary if DS were authorized. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by ThePlatypusofDoom

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.

Cassianto (remedy proposed by ThePlatypusofDoom)

2) Cassianto is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This hasn't been proposed yet, and is a somewhat common remedy for ArbCom cases, so I decided to suggest it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Amounts to the same thing as the site-ban proposed above. A T-ban and a final civility warning would be more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this. A next negative to the project. I think that given his immense block record and practice of inviting blocks (like the one currently in place) a final civility warning would be fruitless. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I like to try to keep editors who are productive in some areas by shunting them away from those where they are not. I also was subjected to Cassianto's (and SchroCat's) incivility for comparatively short bursts, so my sense of whether either is a net positive might be skewed; I'm essentially taking it on faith that their FA work – when not clouded by OWN behavior while accusing others of same – is more gain than the trouble they've caused. (Disclaimer: I say that as someone skeptical that FA itself entirely qualifies; I've said for years that it's of far more benefit to the project and its readers to spend a day improving 5 poor Stub, Start, or C-class articles, or 2 B-class ones, than to devote that time to polishing the chrome on something that's already a GA or A-class. So, I'm assuming more good faith here about Cassianto's and SchroCat's productivity and effect on the project than might at first be apparent.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by SMcCandlish

I'll focus on the behavioral problems, and involve infoboxes only to the extent they seem to be a nexus of troubles with/for these editors, if not really the locus. Some "Finding of fact" stuff might need to be added as well, with regard to SchroCat, but it can just be copy-pasted from Cassianto-related proposals above; the behavior is identical in kind and just differs by degree.

Cassianto warned

[In addition to either the infobox topic-ban, or the two-comments and no-deletions infobox restriction, proposed for Cassianto by others above:]

Given the editor's extensive civility-related block log, and pattern of leaving Wikipedia for extended periods when under scrutiny, Cassianto is given a final warning to adhere to WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Assume good faith policies. Any uninvolved administrator may issue an indefinite block for a further breach of one or more of these policies.

[Or make it an escalating series of 6 months, 1 year, indef. I don't care, as long as it works. The part marked as struck is optional, and isn't relevant if escalation is used.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree something like this is needed, my preference is for short series escalating blocks (e.g. 6 months, 12 months, indef) over straight indef and over a long escalation (more than 3 steps before reaching indef). Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll defer to your administrative judgement on that; I honestly have paid very little attention to escalation process here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat warned

Schrocat is warned to adhere to WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Assume good faith policies. Any uninvolved administrator may issue a 1-month block for a further breach of one or more of these policies, and subsequent blocks for similar breaches will escalate to 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and indefinite.

[Or use some other block pattern; I won't niggle about the specifics.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would rather have a two-way IBAN with mcandlish, given this is an excuse for him to continue long-running stalking. -SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Last I looked, ArbCom actually requires accusations like that to come with diffs, or they're sanctionable in and of themselves. The fact that SchroCat has no compunctions against throwing WP:ASPERSIONS with zero evidence, even in the one place you really, really, really should not even think of doing that, is a strong indication why CIVIL/NPA/AGF sanctions with regard to this editor are required. I've addressed the rest of this on the Workshop talk page (with diffs).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on the evidence this is needed, and my comments above re Cassianto apply here too. Any interaction ban (and I don't have an opinion about its merits at this point) should be in addition to this not a replacement of it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat restricted

SchroCat is restricted to making no more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He is also restricted from removing infoboxes from articles. A breach of either provision will convert the first restriction to a 6-month topic ban from discussion of infoboxes, and further breaches may result in escalating topic bans of one year, and indefinite.

[If Cassianto gets a similar restriction (instead of a topic ban or an indef) then it should also include this escalation clause. Something similar could also be used, with "restricted from adding infoboxes to non-stub articles", if anyone is found to be similarly disruptive from the "pro-infobox" side of things. Also, my wording has better grammar; "restricted from making more than two" is awkward.]

[I also would not oppose an immediate infobox topic-ban for SchroCat, but I don't think it's strictly necessary at this juncture.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would prefer parity in the topic ban restrictions of Cassianto and SchroCat, with a full topic ban for both being my 1st preference and something like this as 2nd preference for both. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Works for me; I was just trying to address something of a degree of difference in egregiousness of the behavior. I think it's also weird that a remedy that's worked for historical issues raised about Gerda Arendt hasn't been tried with others (especially since she's said she doesn't find it onerous at all, and is glad it keeps her out of lengthy disputes).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I invented it. (Mind the date.) I even believe that everybody should stick to that, as a courtsy to others who may want to say something. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

["I would reply, but I've already posted on this one twice", he thinks to himself.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a full topic ban from infoboxes makes more sense, in addition to a civility restriction. Their "stalking" comment above is not encouraging. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

All parties reminded

Editors should not attempt to bait anyone subjected to an infobox comment limit or topic ban into violating such a restriction, e.g. by asking them infobox-related questions, or making comments about, or pinging, such an editor to such a discussion, nor pursue the topic with them in user talk. Having done so may be seen as mitigating should the restriction be breached, and may subject the baiter to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.

[Cross-reference the AE case where this came up, if you like. I don't feel strongly about this one, but it would be even-handed and will apply as much to Cassianto and SchroCat as to Gerda Arendt under such restrictions. Both of the former have claimed to be baited and we know for a fact that AE concluded Gerda was, so just dump some ice water on all of it.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this could be much simpler - you don't need to spell out all the ways that baiting can happen (to avoid problems with both wikilawyers and WP:BEANS)

Anyone baiting, or attempting to bait, an editor subject to a restriction related to infoboxes to breach their restriction may be sanctioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. The nature and length of such a sanction shall be what the target of the baiting would have received had they not been baited.

This needs wordsmithing, and I'd really like this as a general policy for anyone baiting anybody to breach any restriction but that would be beyond Arbcom's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be "Anyone baiting, or attempting to bait, an editor, after being warned of this restriction...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary for a general policy but for something specific to infoboxes then you are right that it can't be assumed everyone will know about it. I don't think a formal warning is required for everybody though, just knowledge that the restriction exists - e.g. parties to this case should be assumed to know of it, as should anyone who has commented on an AE thread related to the provision (i.e. if Alice brings Bob to AE for trying to bait them then Alice can reasonably be assumed to know about it when Carol brings her to AE over the matter, however Dave whose not had any interactions with the case previously probably can't be so assumed). I'm intentionally trying to avoid the word "awareness" to avoid getting in to the bureaucracy of how that is applied regarding discretionary sanctions as I don't think that's required here (discussion of its necessity, form, etc for AE is not relevant here). Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This one was kind of a brain-dump, and I'm happy to have it re-molded to say what it really should, especially if it'll address both the questionable but harmless-to-address baiting concerns of one side and AE-proven baiting tactics of the other. I do agree with avoiding another WP:AC/DS-style "awareness" mess; that whole system needs an overhaul at least, if not a scrapping.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some add-on wording

If something like This includes a prohibition on adding or removing infoboxes from any article" is included in a restriction on any party (a good first draft with the right general idea), I suggest it read This includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox, or removing verifiable information from multiple parameters of an infobox, at any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is just to address the WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYER potentials. "If I can't remove this infobox, I'll just reduce it to nothing but the image and caption parameters" is an explicit gotcha! technique I've seen employed multiple times in these chest-beating contests. So is making the infobox collapsed by default (which is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem, breaks the infobox on mobile, and is against MOS:DONTHIDE). There's no system-gaming potential I'm aware of in [correctly] filling in multiple parameters, nor in removing pointless empty parameters. (I also fixed some semantic issues in the original wording.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, I think something like this is both necessary and workable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal by TonyBallioni

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.

1RR

1) No editor may revert the addition or removal of an infobox on an article more than one time in a 24 hour period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems reasonable as a fall-back, in that it would slow down editwarring and all but force some discussion, but it won't address the general issue, which is mostly not editwarring-related (and often a matter of there being plenty of discussion but in an unconstructive direction – incivility, and/or rehash of general i-box fandom versus hatred).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mainly as an alternative to Jcc's full protection remedy, and an alternative if the committee doesn't want to go for full discretionary sanctions. I think it's something worth voting on as a middle ground in between some of the proposals, but I can see advantages to other remedies (if discretionary sanctions are authorized, I do not think that this would be necessary.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the Cary Grant example, and you will see that it won't work. If editor A did his one, there are still editors B to F doing their share, within minutes, all in good faith. 24 hours is also almost nothing, editor A could easily wait a day. - You might propose something along the lines: the addition or removal of an infobox may be reverted only once, anything else should be discussed for a week. That would resolve edit-warring, but still not solve the discussion style problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be reasonable, Gerda. As I said, I view this proposal more as a fallback/middle ground in case other options don't work, but I also think that PD's should have fallback proposals . Hope all is well with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal by Coretheapple

Principles

Infoboxes

Infoboxes are a common element of Wikipedia articles, especially long ones, whose purpose is to provide readers with a capsule description of an article. They are a normal part of the article-building process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Maybe something like:

An infobox, providing readers with a capsule description of the subject, is frequently an element of a Wikipedia article. Expectation of an infobox at a given article varies from high to low, depending on subject area, level of article development and detail, and the utility or relevance of the infobox content. The feature is well-accepted by the community in general, but can be neither required nor forbidden on a topical, authorial, or assessment-level basis.

I think this is more fair, accurate, and problem-solving. Micro-stubs, certain categories, and subjects that don't lend themselves to "factoid" summary often have no infobox, and even get unhelpful ones removed (not just by "infobox warriors"); yet some topics virtually always have one by convention, no matter what state the article is in (mostly when the box provides special features, as in the case of {{Taxobox}}).
The actual problems to deal with:

1. "You must/cannot put an infobox on Category/WikiProject:FOO articles."
2. "Me and JennyJoe, who wrote this article, love/hate infoboxes, and you are new to this page, so @#$* your infobox ideas."
3. "The FAC regulars these days would rather see infoboxes removed/added (hint hint, if you want your FA icon)." Or, at other end of spectrum, "Stub articles must never/always have infoboxes because they're too undeveloped for it / badly need padding."

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is rough wording, and perhaps others have a better idea. But I think that it's important that this decision be quite clear on the subject of this case. Unlike Arbcom cases relating to substantive issues, we're dealing here with a design element that some editors passionately care about in a negative sense. We're not talking about people pushing their POV, or something related to the text of an article, but rather something that I think most Wikipedians would consider routine, but which has been a subject of an amazing and unnecessary amount of drama. What gets lost in this situation, I think, is the precise character of what's at issue, which is an aid to readers that is present in the vast majority of long articles, especially biographies. To be so neutral as to fail to state that is, in my opinion, a mistake. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply to SMcCandlish: yes I think that's well put. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's comment above does summarise things well. The only thing I'd say that the other time articles get infoboxes when very undedeveloped is when the topic does lend itself to "factoid" summary - such as things with easily comparable measurable dimensions - bridges, locomotives, video game characters, etc. - the same sorts of things that lend themselves to Top Trumps cards. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also reply to the above 1-3:

1. I know of only one project, WP:COMPOSERS, that arrived in 2010 at the recommendation of no biographical infobox, but on the other hand there's {{infobox classical composer}} with 178 inclusions, which doesn't include Bach, Handel, Beethoven and others who have {{infobox person}}.
2. Not the typical case I see, rather: Me and Jenny/Joe do the world the favour to improve this article, therefore we earn the privilege to follow our dislike for infoboxes and remove what you (who were not able to write a proper article) added.
3. FAC seems to have been in the hands of an elite circle, but I don't see that now. Infoboxes are rarely a topic in reviews. (DYK that everybody can review FAC, not only invited guests?) When I write a review for an article whose author doesn't like an infobox (in 2018 Mendelssohn and Osbert Lancaster, - the others that I reviewed had an infobox) I mention the topic softly (the former) or not at all (the latter). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: