Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

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.

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). 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 require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the 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. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Though I agree with Euryalus below that clarifying the last sentence would be good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. On balance, after taking time to decide, I would prefer the whole statement. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Because of the second sentence. That's not part of the purpose of Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with the first sentence. The second sentence has context issues, given the nature of this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I support the first sentence (which I helped write, long ago), but don't see the second as helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

First sentence is fine as a general statement. If there's a chance, I'd be keen on clarifying what we're aiming at with the second one. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't even blip on my mental radar till I read the comments, but now that I've read them I definitely think the second sentence needs reworking. Being free for reuse isn't just a "best-effort basis" kind of thing; it's fundamental to the project and baked into its copyright terms. I'm tempted to suggest dropping the second sentence, but maybe someone has a better idea - I'm not sure that reuse is specifically part of the conflict here, so much as the type of reuse supported by structured data as compared to prose text. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial process[edit]

2) Wikipedia 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. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. A catchall principle, which does not imply any individual has violated it in entirety Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption[edit]

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus can change[edit]

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. How long one should wait before challenging a previously agreed consensus, and whether consensus should be developed globally or locally, are sometimes deep issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. There's a thriving Wikipedia cottage industry in repeatedly throwing the same mud at the same wall in the hopes that this time it will stick. But just because it's common doesn't mean that's how you're supposed to do it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Although I'm not terribly happy with the "does not allow" language, I think this could be clearerDoug Weller talk 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mission[edit]

6) Wikipedia'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.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Mkdw ^talk 22:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this is neutral. If we alternatively saw it according to Euryalus's interpretation, then his oppose is a policy statement settling the infobox dispute as definitively in favor of consideration article by article. To the extent Infoboxes 1 said that, the existence of the continuing disputes shows the community did not accept it. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

5. I agree that this is neutral. The argument is made both ways in discussions about infoboxes (that they help or hinder) so I don't see that we're intentionally supporting one side over another. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. As I suggested above, my understanding of the argument relating infoboxes to reuse is that some take a skeptical view of reuse that specifically focuses on structured data. There are legitimate philosophical differences about this - for example, you might wonder about the value of volunteer efforts to curate data whose most prominent reuser is a for-profit entity (Google). But none of that contradicts this statement of principle, and I agree with Callanecc on the practical side. My only hesitation on this one is that it seems to be leaning in the direction of "this was a case about infoboxes", not "this was a case about behavior in discussions about infoboxes" (as indicated in the locus statement below). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. True as Wikipedia-wide statement, but in the context of this PD it could be perceived as a policy endorsement of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (final sentence) over WP:INFOBOXUSE (first sentence). -- Euryalus (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Euryalus. This isn't essential and will be misinterpreted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Euryalus and Rob. This isn't necessary and fits in oddly with a case about behavior, as NYB is suggesting below. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. As there seems to be some vali question about what position this favors, it would be better to omit it. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Following up on my comment below, I don't see this as helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I had not considered this aspect until brought up by Euryalus. I think it is expressly important to remind ourselves that we do not decide on matters of content and therefore, we should be extra care to not put in principles that could be used in such a way. Mkdw ^talk 15:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per Euryalus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

As with the second sentence of #1 (which this partly duplicates), I'd welcome a little more explanation as to how this relates to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This case is the most recent in a long series of disputes about infoboxes. The committee has attempted in the past to address these disputes, recommending community discussion which did not occur. 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.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mkdw ^talk 23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Shih (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Without comment on whether discussion should have occurred on infoboxes generally. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. As a minor quibble, there has been lots of community discussion of infoboxes, but not the specific type of discussion that we previously suggested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak support. Don't agree with the second sentence (the community de facto chose not to have the discussion we recommended last time, and that's a valid choice too). But overall, FoF is fine as far as it goes. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Infoboxes[edit]

2) 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 existence of the feature is accepted by the community in general, but no single interpretation of how to use it is widely accepted.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is a good statement of the status quo. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tweaking the wording as suggested below is fine with me, but with or without doing so, this is an accurate description. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I like the new wording, it is a better summary of the status quo. Alex Shih (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. With changes. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. With changes. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. In general terms I can agree with the revised text. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

In the last sentence, does it mean the existence of infobox is well-accepted, or does it mean, the inclusion of infoboxes in articles is well-accepted? Not that it is a very big distinction, but one implies recognition that it's a legitimate feature, the other implies recognition and support for inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mkdw. Everyone accepts infoboxes exist, but not everyone accepts that any specific article should have one. Also, not sure we should provide the list of reaosns why an infobox may or may not be included. I appreciate it's meant to be indicative, but in practice the actual arguments for infobox inclusion or otherwise are based on whatever is put forward in individual talkpage discussions. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkdw and Euryalus, we should make the distinction, and also note the optional nature. Would it help to expand the last sentence with something along the lines of ", but not relevant in every subject particularly in liberal arts field when they repeat information already available in the lede section." (from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration report)? Alex Shih (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the opinion of the author of that text. I don't think we have any evidence one way or another, or any mandate to decide, whether there are particular topic areas more or less well-suited to using infoboxes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should just cut the last sentence and avoid making any comment on whether infoboxes should or shouldn't be in an article (or are or are not expected to be in an article). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the feature is accepted in general, but no single interpretation of how to use it is widely accepted. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like that wording. Can we use that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting revised wording before voting. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone ahead and tweaked the last sentence since nobody commented one way or the other. Pinging the arbs who have already voted just in case: KrakatoaKatie, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis. Anybody else is free to revert it if the old version was better, or if we're agreed the last sentence should just be removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox discussions have been difficult[edit]

3) Discussions regarding the addition of an infobox to an article are often lengthy and do not necessarily reach consensus.[1] [2] Many of the points raised can be applied to multiple articles, or even across all articles, making the discussions repetitive.[3] This in turn has led to frustration and poor behaviour from some editors, making it difficult to reach consensus.

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with the statement, though I'm not sure the first two links quite demonstrate the statement, as the statement refers to an article, while the links are more general. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Changed "users" to "editors." Agree with WTT that this true as a general statement, though probably needs more diffs for the record. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Shih (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. There is an inherent tension between the current policy on infoboxes, which is that where there is disagreement on whether or not to include one it gets resolved on an article-by-article basis, and the desire to avoid repeating the same talking points over and over in multiple discussions. Some of the pros and cons of including an infobox on a given article may be specific to that article, while others are more global in nature, so it's unclear how to avoid the duplication.Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mkdw ^talk 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. I agree with WTT's comment, though - more specific examples would be helpful here. (Especially, we need examples that predate this case request!) There are numerous instances of 'difficult' discussions on specific articles/topics that are much more representative than those two recent RfCs, both of which give the impression of... exasperation? Ritchie gave several examples in his evidence section. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto[edit]

4) Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of edit warring to remove infoboxes from articles. He often exhibits battleground behavior on talk pages in discussions about the addition or deletion of an infobox, and has frequently been uncivil in their interactions with other editors. These conflicts have resulted in repeated ANI threads and blocks for personal attacks and incivility. ([4],[5],[6], [7], block log)

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Euryalus (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'd prefer it without "long" but I'm not too concerned either way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cassianto is a strong content contributor and I value his contributions, and he is entitled to express his negative opinions about the value of infoboxes, but unfortunately he often does not put his best foot forward in doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. I would also prefer it without "long". Mkdw ^talk 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. Alex Shih (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat[edit]

5) SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has historically exhibited battleground behavior around the addition of infoboxes. [8], [9], [10]

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Euryalus (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Better with the wording change. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm not interested in including finding of facts related to conduct two years ago. Conduct that long ago is relevant when establishing a pattern. It's not relevant if the behavior has ceased. The only diff presented by SMcCandlish that post-dates August 2016 is this. That's not great, but it doesn't alone justify a finding of fact. (Although it also shouldn't be repeated, SchroCat.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. SchroCat seems to have consciously stepped back from infobox debates for the past 18 months. I would prefer to focus on present and prospective aspects of the disputes rather than historical ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   This finding seems particularly unnecessary given that no arbitrators are supporting any remedies against SchroCat at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Per above. Alex Shih (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB. Mkdw ^talk 06:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ditto. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The evidence here is from more than a year ago and while I see why this has been included I don't think bringing up stale conduct (that is, not being used to demonstrate a pattern) is worthwhile. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Here for now, I may revisit this. The cited diffs are old, yes, but there's certainly more recent examples of battlegrounding in similar discussions (see e.g. Talk:Cary Grant). On the other hand, in the absence of the old stuff, the new stuff wouldn't stack up to a finding. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

SchroCat has a valid point on the talk page that the diffs are all from 2016. Personally, I was persuaded by SMcandlish's evidence that there was a problem, but it may be that an interaction ban is a better solution. I'll have another look at this finding. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing the word "repeatedly" to "historically" -- Euryalus (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Changed. I agree that's better and more appropriate. Katie^talk 22:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting behavior[edit]

6) Multiple editors, including IPs, have engaged in baiting and goading behavior surrounding the addition of infoboxes. ([11], [12], [13], Oversighted content)

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Finding could probably do with a few more diffs for the sake of posterity, but true as a general statement. Possibly paraphraseable as "Frustrated by endless infobox disputes, editors on both sides have sometimes made the issue needlessly personal." -- Euryalus (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Shih (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. General support, though I don't agree with every statement or diff in the linked evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mkdw ^talk 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. But I think the second diff isn't a strong example, it looks like a joke that fell flat, not taunting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. per NYB, general support. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Not a fan of the first diff. Who are we claiming to have goaded someone else? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto did not participate[edit]

7) Cassianto did not participate in this arbitration case, and requested a block shortly after the case was requested. (statement, block log)

Support:

1. Katie^talk 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. This wasn't about Cassianto, but he was a central figure. I will always support noting limitations on our information, especially when those limitations are caused by one of the parties. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am going to support this for the purposes of consistency across cases. I raised concerns about the purpose of including these types of findings if there is additional inferred meaning behind them. By including it sometimes but not other times, despite it being factually accurate, it now implies there is further intent and I worry it becomes a type of passive admonishment. Mkdw ^talk 19:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with Rob and Mkdw. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. as above Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Given FoF 4, referring to Cassianto, we need this as information. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't believe this case was about Cassianto, and as much as I was disappointed that he chose not to participate, I'm not happy about having a finding that he did not - it implies that it's a factor in decisions, which to me it isn't. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. True as a statement of fact, but doesn't need a Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unlike the Joefromrandb case where I did support such a finding, this case isn't focused on Cassianto so this isn't needed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Alex Shih (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not necessary. In any event, I wish Cassianto had participated, but frankly we all have a pretty good idea of what he would have said. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. If we're not naming the other parties who didn't participate we shouldn't single one out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

If we're going to include a finding of fact about one party not participating in the case shouldn't we also have one for the other parties who didn't participate. Maybe a FoF just stating that some parties to the case didn't participate would be better? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike the inconsistency here. It feels like it is passing judgement and punishing a previous case party for non-participation, but not doing so here. It brings to question whether there are actually FoFs or admonishments that belong in #Proposed remedies. Mkdw ^talk 19:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: We're missing your vote on this one as the tie-breaker. Mkdw ^talk 04:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

8) During the case request stage, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) sent talk page messages to several editors who have had conflicts with Cassianto (talk · contribs). [14] [15] [16] These messages violated the guideline on canvassing due to their non-neutral content and choice of targets.

Support:

1. We need a finding of fact addressing the behavior of the filer when filing this case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. "You've been a victim of" pushes it far over the line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. as emphasised by PMC above--I regard the content as more serious than the selectivity in this instance. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alex Shih (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Katie^talk 21:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It is not entirely clear to me how our anti-canvassing guidelines should be applied in the context of arbitration. Certainly I can agree that Volvlogia's notifications, which referred to a specific editor's "toxic behavior" and to editors who have "been a victim of" that behavior, were non-neutral and inflammatory. On the other hand, our decision-making benefits when editors who have relevant information about a proposed case provide statements and evidence. Most editors rightly do not have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case watchlisted, and they aren't going to know that there is a request pending on which they may have relevant information unless somebody informs them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I've added clarification above to state the issue is both the content and choice of targets. The content bit is obvious. As for targets, it can't be considered permissible to notify only those who you believe will agree with you. Notifying everyone who edited a past ANI thread or participated in a discussion that turned contentious may be acceptable. Notifying everyone who has ever had a conflict with an editor heavily biases our proceedings. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Infobox probation (I)[edit]

1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation to any user as a discretionary sanction. That user will be indefinitely restricted from: adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox; or making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. This restriction does not apply when they create a new article; convert an article from a redirect; or are constructively adding or removing 50% of the article prose in the same edit or series of edits as the change to the infobox. They may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Support:

1. I'm sure it can be tweaked and I'm not excessively attached to the 50% number (I initially suggested 25%), but this is definitely the best outcome I see for the case, a defined probation which can be applied to any user who causes such issues in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It's more difficult to game 50% than 25%, so I increased it. If there's another option, anyone, feel free to tweak. :-) Katie^talk 22:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Moved to oppose; see my votes below. Katie^talk 22:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Incivility in infobox discussions frequently derives from follow up responses, in which the one comment restriction would likely be effective in preventing escalation. As for ownership concerns, I agree this remedy is inadequate by itself; it is necessary to distinguish between ownership and stewardship, one of the major concerns from many of the disputes. Therefore, I think exemption from the restriction should still include one comment restriction. I do believe editorial judgement of major contributors to the specific article should be respected, as long as they are presented in a specific and fair manner. What I find problematic are drive-by inflammatory comments about "Infobox in general" from editors with no contribution history to the article, making demands without addressing the editorial concerns from the opposing view. I hope the enforcement of this remedy combined with discretionary sanctions would limit this practice. Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. One of the big problems with infobox disputes is that there is a strong sense of ownership on articles. There's this idea that having authored the content on the page gives you the right to determine whether or not there should be an infobox. This is simply not true; see WP:OWN. I can't support remedies that allow one to add/remove infoboxes only if they've contributed a large amount of content, as this perpetuates this damaging idea of article ownership. If we cut that out, I'd support the idea of infobox probation (though I prefer discretionary sanctions). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. the detailed provisions here will lead to further wikilawering and ingenious evasion. And to the extent that this is a Discretion Sanction, it will result in an strong first-mover advantage which will embitter the debate further. Considering the sharp difference in views between admins, the use of any version of Discretionary Sanctions will tend to cause second-order debates about the sanctions, and a further hardening of positions. Discretion Sanctions are fair only in situations where almost all admins would take the same view of an issue. The added complications here make it even more erratic. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Largely per the comments below from DGG re WP:OWN and OR re gaming. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am in favour of Infobox probation (II). Mkdw ^talk 19:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. In favour of below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. In favor of the second proposal. Katie^talk 22:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. In favor of 1.1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

This is an attempt to curtail the long and winding discussions that seem to go in circles. Note that this is different from the proposed restrictions to Cassianto and SchroCat in that users on infobox probation may discuss the wider issues of infoboxes without limitations. Katie^talk 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have two concerns about the remedy as written:

• I'm concerned about gaming and wikilawyering around "verifiable information" and would prefer the remedy refer instead to 'information cited to a source in the article'. "Verifiable information" is too board as it would include anything which could be verified. Consider a date of birth is in an infobox but is not supported with a citation, a Editor A, who is under probation, removes it "per BLP" but Editor B reports Editor A to WP:AE with a link to a news article which states the date of birth. Editor A has breached the probation and can be blocked.
• My second issue is that I'd prefer the exception for contributing content to the article only allow the editor to edit the infobox rather than adding/deleting/collapsing it per Rob's concern.

Thoughts? Pinings arbs who have voted on it @DGG, BU Rob13, Alex Shih, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, KrakatoaKatie, and Worm That Turned:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tweak to "sourced" vs. "verifiable" is good and we should do it. Not sure about the second change, though - if someone on probation expands a paragraph-long stub to a decent length, they should be able to add an infobox if they want. Most articles that are specific bones of contention (Cary Grant and Homer as the perpetual examples) are fairly long already, so it would be pretty difficult for someone to expand them by 50% just to get the infobox added. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing sourced to verifiable as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a fairly significant change, both in the specific context of infoboxes, and more generally as a new mechanism that might inevitably be extrapolated to other types of disputes. I see pros and cons, and would welcome some additional community input (on the talkpage) before we decide whether to go forward with it, as well as regarding the specifics if we do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this:

We are entering into a line of reasoning which is wrong in principle: how much is it necessary to do in order to own an article? That nobody has preferred status in editing an article, including the person who originally writes it, has been one of the fundamental principles of WP from the beginning. The only thing close to it which exists is the MOS principle that if the spelling etc is not nationally-specific for the topic, it follows the style of whoever starts it. (This is supposed to apply to references also, though it is almost universally ignored there.) Even this is in my opinion a dangerous exception to "anyone can edit" but it at least is a fairly simple rule. Imagine what would happen if we had a rule that if you revised an article enough you could change from British to American spelling.

The question above of how much change is needed is an example of the sort of thing which will be in question at every infobox edit. There will first be a debate when the change is made, and then there will be another when a DS or probation is applied, and then again at each step. My guess is 15 months to Infoboxes 3.

I can see many ways to game it, most of them harmful. While it is beneficial to expand a stub, it is not beneficial to add extensive trivia. (We will now have disputes is what I added trivia or useful content, so I had a right to add or remove the infobox. To use an example above, whole books have been written on Cary Grant, and hundreds of books on Homer--the potential for expansion into unreadability is unlimited. Homer is now only 26 paragraphs, because of extensive breakout articles, some much longer than the main one. The field where I personally have seen these debates most is classical music. I can imagine a lot of expansion of discographies, and then an increased number of debates over whether they should be a separate article. I can imagine debates about how much of the childhood detail is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think diverting the discourse of Infobox into specific content discussions could be a good general direction to take. Too many Infobox disputes disintegrates into discussions completely irrelevant of the original subject. I can certainly see the potential for gaming the restrictions of this remedy, but I can also see the positive potentials of encouraging editors to engage on specific content details related to the subject. For instance, if editor A can convince editor B more discographies should be included in the article through productive edit suggestions, then editor A will have a much more convincing argument for including a Infobox (if there is consensus to include more discographies, then the reader might find it easier to have a Infobox with a parameter to highlight some of the selected works that would otherwise be too awkward to be written as prose in the lede section). TL;DR: In a nutshell, I think this remedy would encourage content specific discussions, which can totally be a positive aspect, and discourage discussions about Infobox in general, which is almost always damaging to the conversation. Alex Shih (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think there's some borrowing trouble going on here. A central point of the bad-behavior-in-infobox-discussions problem is that the participants are typically acting the way they are because they are proud of their work and have strong feelings about its (perceived) integrity. I have trouble imagining people so invested in the high quality of their work reacting to this provision by engaging in silly fluff and text-padding tricks. I wouldn't be surprised to see vociferous complaining about the application of these sanctions, but that happens with all DS and admins involved in that area know that. I'm not so concerned about the "ownership" angle - it stands to reason that someone who's done recent research on a subject and become familiar with the source material is well placed to populate the infobox (or not). The issue of "verifiable information" is a potential problem, though, and I think Callanecc's suggested change is a good starting position. (There will always be edge cases with sources cited later in a paragraph, or citations accidentally deleted, etc. But again, the participants in these disputes are always emphasizing that they're really just concerned about not misleading the reader, so they certainly won't want to undermine that goal by playing silly games.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, DGG, Euryalus, I guess if we eliminate the exemption entirely, would it address the concerns in regards to ownership and fairness? Thinking out loud, I am imagining that such modified Infobox probation could still work as step 1 (that applies to every participant), and if disruption continues somehow, DS would work as step 2 (no DS should be applied prior to probation). Alex Shih (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say no DS before probation; it depends on what happens. We have a continuum of sanctions for a reason. Sometimes, it makes sense to jump to a more severe restriction or conceive of something less severe in order to handle a particular disruptive case. Yes, removing the exception would address my ownership concerns, at which point I would re-think this. I likely would support. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as with Rob, I think this will address the ownership issues. I do not understand both the need for prohibition and the need for DS. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox probation (II)[edit]

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction per remedy 2. That user will be indefinitely restricted from:

• adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes;
• restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or
• making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For clarity, an editor under probation is permitted to edit an already existing infobox, but should be cautious of giving the appearance that they are attempting to game their probation as this may lead to more severe discretionary sanctions.

They may, if they wish, add an infobox in the same edit or series of edits when they:

• create a new article; or
• convert an article from a redirect.

The user under probation may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. To be clear, remedy 2 would also allow admins to do this, since this is a permissible sanction under standard discretionary sanctions. I originally was going to push for us to consolidate, but maybe it makes sense to keep these separate so we can consider rolling back DS at a later date without getting rid of this. As a side note, Callanecc, I changed some language to reflect that this would be an arbitration enforcement action, not a discretionary sanction. This preserves the remedy even if we later revoke DS in this topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @BU Rob13: I can see what you're thinking but I actually think this creates more problems then it solves so I've changed it back and specifically referenced the DS remedy. As an example, with an AE action (rather than DS) there is no requirement for an editor to be warned/notified before being placed on probation, whereas an editor need to be "aware" before a discretionary sanction can be applied. I'd much prefer that we say it needs to be used as a discretionary sanction so that the procedures around DS apply. If we later revoke discretionary sanctions and keep probation, we can reword this remedy to work by itself at that point. It'd need a reasonable amount of effort which I'm not sure is worth it at this point in time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @Callanecc: Then why are we even putting this in as a remedy unto itself? Discretionary sanctions already allow wide leeway to admins to come up with creative sanctions when the situation warrants. Saying they're allowed to place this sanction as a DS is misleading, because it implies they wouldn't be able to in the absence of this remedy, which is false. Should we reword this as an encouragement to use this sanction when warranted over other possible sanctions? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm happy with this version of the probation, either 1 or 1.1, with no significant preference. Worm^TT(talk) 16:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 15:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 15:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per my comments below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. With some reluctance, per Opabinia regalis' comment below. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Since the Committee has worked hard to find the best concept and wording here, I won't oppose the consensus language, but I still have the reservations I've discussed below. I also think the name we are giving the sanction may be confusing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I opposed the infobox probation concept in the "workshop" phase just below, for these reasons:

If "infobox probation" is adopted without discretionary sanctions, then whichever alternative version of the probation restrictions is adopted, we would have a single, predetermined set of restrictions available for admins to impose. Inevitably, if multiple editors are placed on infobox probation (although I'd like to hope it wouldn't be necessary), the restrictions will be greater than needed for some editors and perhaps less than needed for others. While I understand the concerns about excessive administrator discretion associated with the discretionary-sanctions alternative, I'm yet to be convinced that this structure doesn't err in the other direction.

On the other hand, if "infobox probation" is adopted in addition to discretionary sanctions, then it doesn't really add anything new; it would effectively be simply one specific set of restrictions that an admin could impose on a given editor. But because this set would come preconfigured and be expressly mentioned in the decision, it would probably become the default set of restrictions, even though they might not prove well-suited to particular problems that might arise

Everyone else seems to be onboard with the "infobox probation" concept, so I don't want to just oppose again without considering that, but I'd welcome any comments on these concerns. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not that excited about how complicated and nitpicky they've become, I actually think the pre-configured restrictions are a feature, not a bug in this case. No one can (reasonably) argue about unfair treatment due to the exact details of their sanction, and as we've seen in trying to develop the package deal, it's actually not that straightforward to design a workable restriction. Having AE repeatedly go through this same "oh, but what if So-and-so created an article with an infobox in 2007 but then removed it in 2012 and then the article got merged with a different article by So-and-so that had no infobox, and the merge happened on Friday the 13th that was also a full moon, can they add one again or is that a revert?" would be painful. IMO allowing for more discretion and variation makes sense when you're applying DS to a broad area with many sub-disputes involving different people (i.e. American politics). This conflict, for all its persistence, has always been an inside-baseball thing that really involves maybe a dozen people at any given time. More may stop by the "should article X have an infobox" RfCs, but the recurring conflicts seem much more restricted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard discretionary sanctions[edit]

2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.

Support:

1. I don't think this a terrible thing to add, though I hope the infobox probation will be the main one used. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice behind infobox probation, though I wouldn't be opposed to both remedies. Katie^talk 22:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to infobox probation if that doesn't pass, but I don't think both are needed. Weak support, and agree with Euryalus that we should review it in six months to see if it helped. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. I do not think this needs to be mutually exclusive with placing Cassianto on infobox probation, and we can encourage the use of infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. I'd rather give admins all the tools to handle these disputes, not just a one-size-fits-all tool. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. With the usual reluctance about further extending the DS regime - one day soon we'll find every article is under one form of DS or another. If we do extend this here, suggest we review it in about six months to see if it has actually worked. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. I support having both Infobox probations and discretionary sanctions in place, as these two remedies are capable of complementing each other. Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second choice, prefer 2A to provide additional guidance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The use of Discretionary Sanctions in this field will result in an extremely strong first-mover advantage which will embitter the debate further. Considering the sharp difference in views between admins, the use of Discretionary Sanctions will tend to cause second-order debates about the sanctions, and a further hardening of positions. Discretion Sanctions are fair only in situations where almost all admins would take the same view of an issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I pretty much agree with DGG that this seems unlikely to do much good. The most probable result is taking arguments that are currently playing out on talk pages and moving them to the more highly charged and higher-stakes environment of AE. Worse, this is much too broad - there are many, many, many discussions about infoboxes occurring all over the wiki, and inevitably some of those will be contentious, but most of them are contentious in ways that are entirely disconnected from the disputes at the core of this case. Matters that pertain to "the infobox dispute" in this case are most reliably identified by the participants, not by the fact of a dispute about infoboxes. The last time infoboxes came up in arbitration before this case was an ARCA in 2016, where I said I didn't think DS was a good idea. The first time I looked through this decision I said (below) that my instinct was to oppose the idea. My last post on this topic on the mailing list said I didn't think DS was a good idea. Maybe I am stubborn, and I'll acknowledge that others who've been much more active as this case has progressed are apparently convinced, but I still think this is a bad idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I have been going back and forth on this one quite a bit. I am not sure if probation and discretionary sanctions should be introduced together. I would rather have us intervene in the least impactful way and revisit the issue if probation proves ineffective. Yes it will mean another case, and yes the community is exhausted in debating this issue, but I also worry an overkill in sanctions could end up just as damaging. Mkdw ^talk 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Holding off on voting for a bit per my comment on #1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See alternative workshopping proposal, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will wait to see how the probation concept shapes up, but my instinct is to oppose this. It's come up before as a suggestion and typically we've declined to implement it because the scope is too broad. "The infobox dispute" as conceived in this case (and related dispute resolution) is actually a very narrow issue, involving a fairly small and well-defined group of people. "Discussions about infoboxes" happen all the time, sometimes even contentiously, without any reference to or engagement with this particular recurring "infobox discussion". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions (discussion alternate)[edit]

2A) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with regard to disputes concerning the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox from an article and related discussions. These sanctions should be applied cautiously and not lightly but are available when an editor has, after this case is decided, repeatedly displayed poor behavior in infobox-related discussions.

Under these discretionary sanctions, an uninvolved administrator may (for example) restrict the sanctioned editor from reverting the addition or removal of an infobox from articles, may restrict the editor from adding or removing infoboxes, or may reasonably limit the number of comments the editor may make (per day or in total) in any given infobox-related discussion. (A restriction on adding infoboxes will not apply where the sanctioned editor has created or substantially expanded the article in question, unless expressly specified.) In extreme cases and where lesser sanctions have not resolved the problem, an editor may be barred from infobox discussions completely. These sanctions may be for a specified time period or, if warranted, indefinite.

An uninvolved administrator may also apply similar restrictions regarding reverts of inclusion or removal of an infobox in a given article and related talkpage discussion (i.e., imposing restrictions on a per-page basis rather than a per-editor basis) where warranted. Such sanctions apply only to the infobox-related issues and not the article as a whole.

After six months from the date of this decision, any editor may make a request on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for a review of the effectiveness of this remedy and whether any changes to it should be made.

Support:

1. Proposed, after carefully considering everything proposed and written thus far, by way of brainstorming another alternative. I think the problem we are having with defining the terms of "infobox probation" above is that it is difficult to figure out in advance what level of restrictions might be needed for different editors who might display different types of problematic behavior. The problem with simply imposing "standard discretionary sanctions" is that it is not clear how they might apply in this context and they might sweep too broadly. So this is my attempt to allow a bit more flexibility by authorizing DS rather than a predetermined set of probation terms but still to provide some guidance to admins. The words "after this case is decided" are included to draw a line under the past and give everyone a fresh start once they know the new rules. The option of imposing DS on a per-page basis, though I don't feel strongly about it, is suggested for consideration so that admins can deal with individual discussions that are getting out of control. I would appreciate comments about this proposal (from non-arbs on the talkpage) as this is just workshopping and there is no pride of authorship at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think this would work well, if DS is applied on per-page basis and probation is applied per-editor basis, then there is more reason for both of these remedies to co-exist. Alex Shih (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. This gives us page-level DS, which probation does not, and I believe we may need both. Good idea, Brad. Katie^talk 21:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. At least in principle. Page-level sanctions are preferable in this context to user-level sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This is just standard discretionary sanctions with a lot of explanatory text. I think the text obfuscates more than it clarifies, as it gives the impression we are doing something different than standard discretionary sanctions. For instance, any editor may always bring an existing remedy to ARCA, so why are we spelling that out here? The same general thought applies to almost all of the additional text from my point of view. I support DS, including the use of the probation restriction being applied as a discretionary sanction, but we don't need anything special beyond enabling DS to do that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I went back and forth on this, and it actually wound up changing my mind about DS in this area in general (I altered my vote above accordingly), which I now think could be useful if used sparingly. What I don't like about this version is that it makes probation granular and subjective. I understand the intention, but in my opinion that will wind up creating more drama than it prevents. Inevitably people will compare their sanction to that of others' and complain that they're unbalanced (whether or not they actually are) and try to appeal on that basis. I think it's simpler to just have infobox probation as a cut-and-dry restriction: you cause disruption, you get the same probation anyone else does, end of story. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Rob and OR on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have to agree with Rob and OR as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree that this doesn't add much beyond standard DS, and so I can't justify adding support. I'm not strongly against it and could be persuaded if someone could explain the benefit of this over standard DS and ARCA if things go wrong. Worm^TT(talk) 16:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. What Worm says. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sorry for the late vote, I forgot I'd only commented and not actually voted on this. I prefer the probation to either DS variant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Please see my comments at #Standard discretionary sanctions. Mkdw ^talk 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Clerk note – fixed capitalization on ARCA link. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, I shouldn't talk, but I think this is too much explanatory text. I may have missed something, but as far as I can tell, Rob is right that this boils down to standard DS with some instructions on how to use it. The instructions would probably produce better results than the "standard" DS instructions if followed consistently, but having custom instructions for DS of such broad potential applicability seems like a recipe for confusion. That said, the more I think about it the more I think the opposite of Rob's conclusion that we should just use standard DS. The recurring problems here primarily track with the users participating, not with the pages on which the discussions are occurring. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto and infoboxes (I)[edit]

3) Cassianto is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes. This includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox, or removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox, at any article he has not created or converted from a redirect. Cassianto is permitted to comment on his choice to include or exclude an infobox in articles he has created or converted if another editor wishes to include one. He is limited to one comment and must restrict himself to commenting on his own reasoning and not the behavior or motives of other editors.

Support:

1. Second choice if Remedy 4 does not pass. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also second choice to Remedy 4. Katie^talk 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice as well to Remedy 4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Again second choice to 4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice over 4 until the ownership issues in remedy 1 are resolved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Now second choice if 1.1 passes, first choice if 1.1 fails. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. Second choice depending on Remedy 4, and also depends on if we are going to remove the exemption from Remedy 1. Alex Shih (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   First choice. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Preference for 1.1 and 4. Mkdw ^talk 18:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7. Looks like probation is unlikely to pass. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my concerns about wording (e.g. verifiable) above. Plus, I prefer the other probation remedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Option 4 now that it seems 1.1 probation is more clearly defined. Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Probation" version is clearer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. A restriction seems warranted but this is more restrictive than necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Cassianto and infoboxes (II)[edit]

4) Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

Support:

1. First choice Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice over Remedy 3. Katie^talk 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice, depending on if we are going to remove the exemption from Remedy 1. Alex Shih (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice over remedy 3. I've also clarified that we aren't applying this as a discretionary sanction (which can be appealed at AE). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice if 1.1 passes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Now that probation is defined in 1.1. Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my oppose to remedy 1, until the issue of ownership is resolved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I oppose the concept of infobox probation altogether, for reasons already given above. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per oppose to proposed remedy #1. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not even clear what indefinite probation means and how it differs from something such as a final warning. Does this involving checking in with an overseeing body? Mkdw ^talk 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. A restriction seems warranted but this is more restrictive than necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm going to skip these for the time being, till the probation is a little more well-defined, but I prefer a well-constructed probation to the "prohibition" variations. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'm in the same basket as OR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is difficult to vote for this until the scope/exemption of probation has been clearly defined. Alex Shih (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, DGG, Euryalus, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, and Alex Shih: A ping for people now that the probation remedy is finalised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: We need an up-or-down vote on the final result of the probation remedy. My support of the workshopping version was conditional on this, as were many others, as we can't vote to support something before we know what we're supporting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I've proposed it above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat and infoboxes (I)[edit]

5) SchroCat is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes. This includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox, or removing verifiable information from one or more parameters of an infobox, at any article he has not created or converted from a redirect. SchroCat is permitted to comment on his choice to include or exclude an infobox in articles he has created or converted if another editor wishes to include one. He is limited to one comment and must restrict himself to commenting on his own reasoning and not the behavior or motives of other editors.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Based on a lack of recent diffs of problematic behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. If this is warranted, it would surely be imposed if/when necessary as an outcome of Remedies #1 or #2. The diffs to support this as a separate Remedy are too long ago. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. Alex Shih (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Based on lack of recent evidence of misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not seeing this as warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

SchroCat and infoboxes (II)[edit]

6) SchroCat is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Based on a lack of recent diffs of problematic behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. See comment on Proposed Remedy #5. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alex Shih (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. I cannot support the use of infoboxprobation, for reasons already given. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Based on lack of recent evidence of misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. See above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per my oppose comments on Remedy 4. Mkdw ^talk 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. On the basis of a relative lack of recent participation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

1RR imposed[edit]

7) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per 24 hours that adds, removes, collapses, or removes verifiable information from an infobox from any article.

Support:

1. Fairer alll aroundthan DS or infobox probation. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support if limited to adding/removing, and applied only to editors known to be aware of the rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm not sure that 1RR across all infoboxes is needed, but a combination of standard DS and infobox probation for problem cases should be sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm in agreement with WTT above. There's not a need, yet, for 1RR on infoboxes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good lord no. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unnecessary with the other remedies above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Infobox disputes often exist in the form of slow edit wars, so 1RR probably wouldn't help much. Alex Shih (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is way too easy to run afoul of without intending to. Given BLP applies to much of the standard infobox information, we'd also be opening ourselves up to having to decide when the BLP exception to 1RR applies. Not needed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Way too easy to accidentally breach, game (verifiable information) and has the potential to create very messy situations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Too broad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. No.Doug Weller talk 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Implementing something like this would need to be drawn to the attention of the wider community for comment. Mkdw ^talk 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Euryalus, could you expand on your reasoning? DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and sorry for the delay (am out of town for a bit). Infoboxes are a point of fiery contention in a very small number of article sets - this remedy extends the resolution of this specific case to a vastly greater field. Further, infoboxes in some other areas also contain significant amounts of technical data, which may be validly contestable, or fall victim to well-meaning error. To delay resolution of technical discussions or errors in these areas seems unneccessary as a remedy to problems with infobox disputes in what are essentially a subset of biographical and arts articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat and SMcCandlish interaction ban[edit]

8) SchroCat and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban (IBAN).

Support:

Oppose:

1. Based on the current findings of fact, certainly not. We have no findings even related to SMcCandlish, and for the most part, I believe he's presented reasonable evidence in this case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Euryalus (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. The evidence does not point to a need for an IBAN at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not necessary and not supported by a finding, and (per the talkpage) opposed by both parties. I do urge SchroCat and SMCandlish to treat each other with more courtesy if they happen to interact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected per talkpage comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I was waiting to see if a FoF to support this would be proposed, but as it hasn't been I'm opposing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alex Shih (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

We'll need a more tailored finding to match this. Worm^TT(talk) 20:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion recommended[edit]

9) The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.

Support:

1. Without doubt. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. No brainer. Katie^talk 22:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Absolutely. Given the amount of time which has been spent on this over the years it would seem that current policy/guidelines are insufficient, even if they are sufficient a community discussion to confirm them as still reflecting expected practice could be useful. This remedy doesn't suggest that a top down policy should be adapted or that whether or not an infobox should exist should be based on local consensus, it merely advises that a discussion would be a good step forward. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I was the arbitrator who proposed this in the 2013 case, and my comments at that time still ring true to me now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think it an expected part of the process to outline issues with policy. When a process breaks down and leads to severe problems, it should be pointed out. A recommendation is not an obligation. Mkdw ^talk 19:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think a general discussion is needed, and despite the wording here which seems to limit it to the assumption of going article - by - article, will inevitably and properly discuss the general question. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm generally opposed to ArbCom advising the community on matters of content, and in this case, I think we'd be doing just that by suggesting the current policies and guidelines are insufficient. The highlighted issue is editor conduct, not content policies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   As worded, it is making or confirming an earlier unjustified policy decision by arb com that the decision should be by individual article. The more such decisions, the more places for conflict. But if such is the result of a community decision, that's the only way to settle the question regardless of whether or not one likes the resulting policy. But I do not consider the mere suggestion of a discussion to be making policy, and if worded neutrally, I would support. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Despite my lack of complete satisfaction iwth the wording, I think it will bebeneficial. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Seems a bit unnecessary. If there's community frustration with the current wording of WP:INFOBOX, there's probably not much need for us to issue a reminder of the need to act. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Euryalus and my comment below. Even with the proposed addendum, without even more specific recommendations this merely feels like another non-binding ambiguous remedy that essentially deflects the ball back to the community. Alex Shih (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Should we be specific about these discussions? In other words, should we spell out the RFCs that we feel need to take place, or is this wording acceptable? Katie^talk 22:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should be more specific than last time if same wording for the remedy are being used. I understand it may be interpreted as out of scope, but I am not fond of using the same wording when it has proven to be not that much helpful (as this was back in 2013, and the inevitable community wide discussion suggested by the same remedy never really seen to have taken place). Alex Shih (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a copyedit to include the words I've just added (currently in italics to make clear what is new), per the comments above, and by RexxS on the talkpage. Any objections? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though to be honest I don't really see much practical difference one way or the other. I don't expect anyone will take our word for what exactly should be discussed :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded[edit]

10) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

Support:

1. And I will consider a more specific baiting remedy. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Dave, and I'd appreciate suggestions on another remedy that addresses the baiting. Katie^talk 22:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agreed that we need something that addresses baiting of users. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with above. Or can we just add something along the lines of "inciting incivility should be treated the same as being uncivil"? Alex Shih (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I like Alex's idea, and it's worth noting that baiting is already listed as incivil conduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Don't see this remedy as having much effect, but is still worth saying. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Euryalus. Mkdw ^talk 19:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Euryalus. (I do agree with Alex that baiting/goading/taunting/deliberately annoying people known to be volatile in the hopes that you'll get to see a temper tantrum is uncivil.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per NYB's comment on Remedy 1, the general question can sometimes not be avoided: for example, whether it should follow the format of other similar articles. Showing similarities and differences is often the best way to make a case. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The comments by RexxS on the talkpage are giving me some pause. Should we modify the remedy at all to address them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I think so, I have great respect for the points raised by RexxS, although I am unsure at the moment how the tweaking can be done. My original thought about this remedy is that many of the editors identified as "against Infobox" are not actually against Infobox, but against Infobox that basically repeat the information already in lede/putting undue weight on certain specific information. So any discussion about "Infobox in general" are essentially useless. Arguments like "at-a-glance readability" or "reuse of the metadata by third parties" are perfectly reasonable in my opinion, but they should be expressed in a manner specific to the article (For example, On my 13 inch screen and normal font size, the Infobox complements the lede as the lede is four paragraphs long, and the Infobox I am proposing will perhaps repeat some information, but it will provide quick overview to the points raised in the lede and provides quick access to necessary information (examples) to this subject). No arguments should ever be presented in a manner that presumably overrides any other view. Ideally this remedy should really only serve as a principle to promote the kind of goodwill conversation that I have described; only when an editor repeatedly uses the same argument without answering the opposing view, then sanctions should be considered. Alex Shih (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alex's comment and interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volvlogia admonished[edit]

11) For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Support:

1. To prevent a repeat. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. I generally dislike "admonishments" but I can agree to this one as a kind of final warning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Katie^talk 17:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mkdw ^talk 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. I see that Volvlogia supports and accepts this. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 16:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Time has kind of passed for this remedy, and not convinced that admonishments add much value. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. In hindsight, Volvlogia should have been admonished from the beginning, and have their case request declined with no prejudice to allow re-filing by a different editor. Since this remedy is probably going to pass anyway, and I do see the purpose, I just want to reflect that an admonishment at this stage may be seen as simply a comfortable tap on our backs. Alex Shih (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I keep going back and forth on this, for both cases and ARCAs - if we accept a flawed/biased/poorly formulated presentation of a case, that risks giving the participants the feeling that the process was tainted from the beginning. But to dismiss a request that centers on a legitimate issue, especially after others have commented on it, specifically to ask someone else to re-file "correctly", just feels too bureaucratic. Not sure what the right balance is... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @Opabinia regalis: I think in this case it was not about re-filing correctly (in the sense of technicality), but Volvlogia was not really involved in much of the core issues surrounding the legitimate issue of this case, and canvassed inappropriately in which they have now apologized for. Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No reason a case filer needs to be involved in the core issues, though. Just aware enough of them to illustrate the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General[edit]

• We absolutely need to address the canvassing that preceded this case and include an admonishment to the filer about canvassing during attempts at dispute resolution. That behavior was not acceptable and cannot be allowed to repeat itself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @L235: As agreed by many arbs currently supporting the workshopping proposal, anything we workshop there needs a final approval vote. We should probably mark that remedy as not a "formal" proposal, if that makes sense, as we'll need a final "up or down" vote before anything is final. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite being listed as 'active', Ks0stm has not be around for quite some time. We should mark him as 'inactive' and re-tally the vote majority numbers. I believe that would effectively take us a to place where no further decisions could pass with the exception of FoF Cassianto did not participate, which I have pinged DGG as the outstanding vote. This case has been open for far too long. Mkdw ^talk 04:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

• I've gone ahead and corrected two minor typos per Special:Permalink/831411497#Spelling_errors_at_Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_in_infobox_discussions/Proposed_decision. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

These notes were last updated by Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC) by GoldenRing.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	9	2	1		·
2	Editorial process	13	0	0		·
3	Decorum	13	0	0		·
4	Good faith and disruption	13	0	0		·
5	Consensus can change	13	0	0		·
6	Mission	6	6	1		Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	13	0	0		·
2	Infoboxes	11	0	0		·
3	Infobox discussions have been difficult	13	0	0		·
4	Cassianto	13	0	0		·
5	SchroCat	5	6	2		Cannot pass
6	Baiting behavior	12	0	0		·
7	Cassianto did not participate	7	6	0		·
8	Canvassing	11	0	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Infobox probation (I)	3	9	0		Cannot pass
1.1	Infobox probation (II)	10	0	1		·
2	Standard discretionary sanctions	10	2	1		·
2A	Discretionary sanctions (discussion alternate)	5	7	1		Cannot pass
3	Cassianto and infoboxes (I)	7	5	0		·	Remedy 4 preferred
4	Cassianto and infoboxes (II)	9	3	0		·
5	SchroCat and infoboxes (I)	0	10	0		Cannot pass
6	SchroCat and infoboxes (II)	0	11	0		Cannot pass
7	1RR imposed	2	10	0		Cannot pass
8	SchroCat and SMcCandlish interaction ban	0	9	0		Cannot pass
9	Community discussion recommended	10	3	0		·
10	Editors reminded	12	1	0		·
11	Volvlogia admonished	10	1	2		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Clerk note: For Remedy 1.1, the following text seems to be passing:

1.1WS) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation to any user as a discretionary sanction. That user will be indefinitely restricted from:

• adding, deleting or collapsing infoboxes;
• restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or
• making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For clarity, an editor under probation is permitted to edit an already existing infobox, but should be cautious of giving the appearance that they are attempting to game their probation as this may lead to more severe discretionary sanctions.

They may, if they wish, add an infobox in the same edit or series of edits when they:

• create a new article; or
• convert an article from a redirect.

They may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.

Arbitrators: If this is not the text that is passing, please let the clerks know before making a motion to close. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks right to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. Mkdw ^talk 23:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rob₁₃^Talk (via mailing list)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Euryalus (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Alex Shih (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments