Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page Review clerk: Sphilbrick (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk)

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

Case opened on 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Statement by party 1[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Statement by Ched[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

As the person who originally requested Arbcom to look at the 2013 infobox case, I reserve the right to make a statement somewhere. (if this isn't the place, please move or let me know where to move it to.) My perspective: At the time there was a lot of adding and removing of infoboxes from articles, at times to the point of violation of WP:EW. This was disruptive, and I wanted it to stop. I was hoping for an even across the board fair solution to all. In the end, 2 pro-infobox people were sanctioned, and a couple anti-infoxbox folks were "reminded" to be nice. In my view: The anti-infobox folks provided evidence of their articles having infoboxes added to pages against their will with links to individuals who were trying to do so. The pro-infobox evidence seemed to focus on why it was good to have these boxes. Now since arbcom members often don't have time or inclination to go reading through history and links, I shouldn't have been surprised by the outcome. I'll take my responsibility for the PD; live and learn.

Now: Nyttend has already started to lay out quite a good case here that Andy hasn't done anything wrong. I would even go so far as to say that there's a case for WP:HOUNDING going on here. (I'll save the bulk of links for some "evidence" post). Andy has been a loyal and dedicated editor since 2003 with 140,000 edits. He has exceptional talents with templates, boxes, and attention to detail. He has been and continues to be a Wikipedian in residence to multiple educational and historical institutions. In an age where we struggle with editor retention, he continues to bring in and encourage new editors. If Andy has been short at times due to the constant harassment, I think it's entirely understandable given the efforts of others to use the previous case as a weapon in attempts to chase him off. If you want to fairly find a motion here, then I suggest you consider the ability to sanction those who bring frivolous complaints to drama boards again and again.

The 2013 case has long outlived its past-due date. Usually 12 months is considered "time served" on wiki. If you want to do the right thing - consider lifting all the current restrictions. I'm not saying it will eliminate all drama and discussions; we all know that grudges here tend to last a lifetime. But I suspect this constant "look what Andy did" might be removed from Arbs task list. — Ched :  ?  21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

I think we did Andy an injustice, and I think we should correct it. Andy is a tireless and dedicated Wikipedian, in the true sense. He is an ambassador for Wikipedia and while he is certainly infuriatingly persistent, he is also usually persistent in a good cause: the reader experience. I don't think Andy should be permitted to edit-war templates, but neither do I think that he should be forbidden form mentioning them because in the end a decently consistent user experience is a benefit to the project - his approach could use some work but not to the point of this rather severe and wide-ranging restriction. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter <8/1/2/0>[edit]

Support

1. First choice --Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yep, though the question is probably too open-ended,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. (edit conflict) Given my statement above, it's the only appropriate way to address the concerns I and Euryalus raised since I feel there was insufficient chance to post diffs on this topic above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. A focussed review would be worthwhile here. LFaraone 22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm not a fan of this approach, but I don't think it's getting resolved any other way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Okay, in the absence of any other way to get momentum in moving this forward, fine. Courcelles 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't think it is necessary to spend 4 more weeks on this; the evidence is already up there, the existing remedy is sloppy, and the manner in which the AE admins have decided to enforce it works. This proposal is a time-sink for all involved, whose end result will be either something at least somewhat similar to what I've already proposed, or a unnecessary dramatic tightening of the restrictions in place. The latter seems to be more the history of Reviews and cases opened under ArbCom initiative, I don't think anyone is voting FOR that, mind, but it seems to happen. So, oppose as a massive time-sink for this request that is already way too long in the tooth. Courcelles 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. I need to recuse from this , as for other infobox cases. DGG ( talk ) 10:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• • None

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Infoboxes case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among editors.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Communication[edit]

4) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of their position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate their concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness, attention to detail, or focus on the topic being discussed can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates for Discussion[edit]

7) Templates for Discussion is a Wikipedia process for determining and executing the community's decisions to keep, delete, or merge a template. If an editor is dissatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in a TFD discussion, the close may be brought to deletion review. As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate a template at TFD after a reasonable period of time has passed.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarity of sanctions[edit]

8) When there is a dispute about the scope or interpretation of an Arbitration Committee remedy, clarification should be sought at the clarification and amendment page. The Committee strives to write sanctions that are as clear and unambiguous as possible, but it is nearly impossible to create remedies that cover all possible situations in perpetuity. The Committee expects administrators considering enforcing remedies to use common sense in such situations; however, when the wording of a sanction is ambiguous and good-faith editors cannot agree on the correct or common-sense interpretation, the Committee should replace the wording of the remedy with clearer language.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Original sanction on Pigsonthewing[edit]

1) In the 2013 Infoboxes case, Remedy 1.1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

2005 Arbitration sanction[edit]

2) In the 2005 Pigsonthewing case, Remedy 1 was passed that read "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of current remedy[edit]

3) The current remedy has been the subject of four discussions about its scope and clarity. (March 2014 AE, July 2014 AE, July 2014 ARCA request, December 2014 AE, January 2015 AE)

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: Block log since Infoboxes case[edit]

4) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice since the close of the Infoboxes case. On 27 May 2014, he was blocked for "edit warring"; the block was lifted two hours and thirty minutes later. On 8 December 2014, he was blocked for "Vandalism and breach of topic ban"; the block was lifted three hours and twenty minutes later. Pigsonthewing's block log

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing's discussion style (II)[edit]

5.1) In the original Infoboxes case, a finding of fact was passed: "Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation. He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus." While Pigsonthewing's conduct has improved since the 2013 case, some of this behavior is still present. ([1], [2])

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing restricted (I)[edit]

1.1) Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.

Passed 6 to 1 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Superseded by motion, 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing; discussion[edit]

2.1) Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.

Passed 7 to 1 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Superseded by motion, 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing; article creation[edit]

3) Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.

Passed 7 to 1 at 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Superseded by motion, 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Motions (April 2016)[edit]

Passed 10 to 1 with 3 abstensions by motion at 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Passed 7 to 4 with 3 abstensions by motion at 05:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.