User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2014

For 2013, see User:Gerda Arendt/Vote ACE 2013

In 2014, let's keep it simple. In my Wikipedia life, I was involved in one case, called Infoboxes (which was not about infoboxes, as I learned in a process that showed me how vulnerable I am). At times, Clarification and Enforcement were tried.

Question for the candidates: How would you have responded in this case:

Request concerning Pigsonthewing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing_and_infoboxes : "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes"

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18 July 2014 - editor adds an infobox template

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was asked to self-revert and declined to do so.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153#Pigsonthewing if you want to study what some future colleagues said.

Answers

Candidate	Answers	Date	Precious	No	Experience
Calidum	common sense says fixing a malformed infobox isn't the same as adding one	17 Nov	common sense	11-20	arb cand
Courcelles 3	I see the changing of a free-form infobox, one that was already there, to one that uses an infobox template. This is not a violation of the remedy (or in any way disruptive whatsoever).	18 Nov			arb
DeltaQuad 5	Ultimately, he was helping a new editor improve an article and it's not technically worded into the restriction, so I would take no action, and say there is no violation.	19 Nov			admin
DGG 2	... or the sanction is meaningless. 4th	18 Nov	keep articles	453	admin
Dougweller 1	The template exists for convenience and consistency. So no violation.	21-23 Nov	watchful eyes	484	admin
Dusti	Something that we should all be happy to see.	15 Nov	love and commitment to the community	11-24
Euryalus 7	no harm, no foul	18 Nov	endeavour	04-29	admin
Geni	abstain, 2nd				admin
Guerillero 8	... it does not break the ban of "adding" an infobox, 2nd	20 Nov	Toil, tools, tradition and trust	01-28	admin
Hahc21 (withdrawn 7 Dec)	what Andy did was modify the already existing infobox to use the appropriate template	18 Nov	Latin American performer	01-09	admin, clerk
Kraxler	case dismissed	16 Nov			arb cand
Ks0stm	"The previous editor wanted there to be an infobox, ... Potw helped him finish the job.".	20 Nov			arb cand
Salvio giuliano 4	No foul, play on.	19 Nov	unblock decision	76	arb
Stanistani	Decline	17 Nov	"What will Wikipedia leave behind in the end?"	01-05
Technical 13	There was no restriction in place preventing him from repairing a malformed infobox.	10 Nov	technical progressive brilliant kind	11-21
Thryduulf 9	No case to answer	18 Nov	thinking of options	576	admin
Wbm1058	So this leads to unnecessary drama when another editor files a complaint after the sanctioned editor makes a valid and helpful edit.	17 Nov	bot help	11-19
Yunshui 6	The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better	17 Nov	harmonious acting	501	admin

Yunshui matches my own evaluation best. My favourite response in the actual proceedings was by Floquenbeam who was an arb then, repeated by Salvio giuliano: no foul, play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Results