Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Moxy

Current word length: 452; diff count: 1.

Its about editor behavior and conflicting project advice

The main concern is editor behavior and a few projects not understanding procedure. Editors involved need to understand that the damage begin cause by.... (edit wars despite ongoing conversations,- editors being bitten and attacked, loss of old editors because of bullying, and mass addition of hidden notes in articles after infobox deletion without talks, that is telling our editors they now need permission before editing an article despite there never being a talk about the matter in the first place is confusing our new editors to no end)..... all the previous is more disruptive then any infobox being there or not will ever be. Behavior by all involved - both sides need to be amended ASAP - this may require a restriction on infoboxes themselves if parties involved cant come to a understanding. There would also be a need to bring related project guidelines up to speed with our polices and guidelines on editing. The hiding of important content is also a concern for accessibility - as seen at Montacute House the map and primary reference identification number is hidden from view - again personal preferences is not following our basic policies/guidelines on what to do. The banning of one editor will not help despite the assumption by many - the rules people believe they follow need to be clear and consistent -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Procedure is clear on the matters

• WP:Advice pages - An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}.

If a group of editors (a Wikiproject) is not willing to go through the proposal process for the guidelines then wish to implement they should expect there advice page to be questioned and lack authority - thus it should be no surprise that it is being ignored because it contradicts site wide policy.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles - The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

To be clear again - neither required nor prohibited for any article - no project has the right to dictated what can and cant be there - if as a whole the project community has decided this is simply not possible for this situation (WikiProjects do not own articles).

• Wikipedia:Editing policy - "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia" and Wikipedia:Be bold - "Just do it" The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia.

The core of our growth is based on the freedom for all to edit at will and then discus any problems that an edit may have caused. - To tell editors they need permission to edit a segment of articles by a Wiki project is simply outrageous (WP:OWN).

• MOS:COLLAPSE - Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions.

I am sure most would agree the primary identification number(s) and maps showing location should not be hidden from our readers as at Little Moreton Hall - (What is accessibility you ask?). Fighting to exemplify the expectation(s) rather them the simple ideal is not helpfully as seen at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility dos and don'ts#Quotations - we are trying to make things better not make more exceptions (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility) -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Brambleclawx

Current word length: 250; diff count: 18.

It's rooted in different interpretations/views of infoboxes

At the basic level, this conflict appears to be between a core group of editors who have opposing views of infoboxes: those for say they are useful because they are machine-readable and they summarize facts. Those against say information to be included is often uncertain in these subject areas, and the information that is not equivocal adds little/is redundant. Along with this are conflicting interpretations of some key policies like WP:OWN and WP:BOLD [1], and disputes over consensus at past discussions. Those involved are having difficulty reaching an agreement, but in this aspect, I would not single out any specific editor to be especially problematic. It would, however, be helpful if Arbitrators could consider the arguments for and against and propose some sort of compromise with extremely clear wording so as to avoid different interpretations extending this conflict.

Key editors on both sides have been rather belligerent

Discussions have not been very constructive because discussions tend to degenerate into personal attacks and squabbling. Of those named above, I would tend to say User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) has been the most belligerent [2] [3]. Of course, that is not to say all others have been perfectly civil either, but Mr. Mabbett seems to be the one most often accusing others of ad hominem, strawmen, and "smear" tactics. As noted above, these arguments often fall to arguments over OWNing [4] [5], as well as mass action by single users [6] [7]. From my personal feeling, the atmosphere of these discussions tend to drive other editors away; this appears to be the case even with other editors. Brambleclawx 01:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjones23

Current word length: 188; diff count: 4.

TFA topic ban and infobox discussions

I have never been involved adding evidence in an ArbCom case before, but here goes:

On July 25, 2012, Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbett) added an infobox to Georg Solti, a well known orchestral and operatic conductor, as it was a TFA at the time. This sparked a lengthly and contentious discussion on the article's talk page. On August 6, Tim riley (talk · contribs), one of the main contributors of the article and a well-respected editor, called out Mabbett on his own behavior and he retired 4 days later, only to return to active editing in November. After Tim's retirement, a seven-day discussion at ANI resulted in a topic ban on Mabbett for the FA of the day. Another contentious discussion occurred on the Cosima Wagner talk page back in December 2012. More recently, another contentious infobox proposal was made at the Johann Sebastian Bach talk page in March, this time by Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by WhatamIdoing

Current word length: 457; diff count: 0.

Nature of WikiProjects

This statement is more background information than "evidence". Having been through multiple rounds of this, one of the recurring themes is a misunderstanding of the nature of WP:WikiProjects. The definition is this: "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." WikiProjects are people, not subject areas or pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. These groups are often valuable, knowledgeable editors and can be a source of excellent advice. They can also occasionally develop issues that affect the rest of the community.

The main reasons that WP:Advice pages rejects the notion that WikiProjects get to decide "rules" for articles within their scope are these:

• One group of editors never gets to tell the whole community what to do, especially for articles written by someone other than their own members. Most articles on Wikipedia are written by non-members but fall under the scope of at least one WikiProject.
• Many articles fall under the scope of many WikiProjects, and these WikiProjects can and do have very different recommendations. For example, WPCHEM and WPPHARM and WPMED are all interested in nearly all articles about drugs. WPCHEM and WPPHARM provide contradictory advice about which infobox to use in these articles.
• The scope of a WikiProject is, per long-standing community guideline, whatever the members say it is, no matter how silly that seems to anyone else. For example, WPMED is free to declare that Cancer is outside its scope or that Website is within it. WikiProjects can also be created at will, for any scope and without obtaining permission in advance. If we were to allow WikiProjects to decide rules for articles within their scope, then any group of two or more people could decide that any article was "within their scope" and therefore subject to their rules. The pro-infobox folks could trivially create "WikiProject Classical Composers #2" and declare that their advice was co-equal to the anti-infobox views of the first project.

Ownership

One of the main complaints in the music area is <!-- hidden comments --> demanding that editors respect the (dis)infobox POV of one particular group of editors, merely because the one group of editors has decided that they're interested in the article's subject. Some of the hidden comments say things like After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. Text similar to this appears in a substantial number of composer-related articles. This editor behavior needs to be addressed directly. A significant example of the debate can be read at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 8#Routine_use_of_infoboxes_for_biographical_articles.

Outside of the music area, the issue of collapsing content has been a source of significant friction recently, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7#Collapsed_or_hidden_infoboxes, and should also be addressed directly. The recommendation to collapse infobox content conflicts with MOS:COLLAPSE for reasons of WP:ACCESSibility. Reconciling this conflicting advice is important.

Evidence presented by Smerus

Current word length: 403; diff count: 1.

Generic

I understand discussions here are about behaviour, rather than content. Therefore I first invite everyone to read this article - it is not long, it is highly germane to this discussion and more relevant than restating any number of [[WP:RULES]].

We will recognize in some Wikipedia behaviour the phenomena described in the article. There are attempts by both sides at 'scent-marking' and 'visual marking' - e.g. hidden texts, unadverted placing of infoboxes -, there are regular bouts of 'ritualised agresssion' - with much growling and occasional screaming -, and there seems to be imo the strategy, on the part of some infoboxers, to create a 'war of attrition'. Interestingly, WP rules are often invoked by both sides in exactly the partisan mode they are supposed to counter: e.g. WP:OWN is taken to mean 'You can't own this article, but I can', and WP:BOLD is taken to mean 'If you don't like it, it must be right'. In the heat of such discussions I do not deny that I have sometimes overstepped the mark, in effect encouraging reciprocity. I don't defend any of this; and if this arb case can remove all or any of these factors, not only from the classical music part of WP but or other infected areas, it will perform a great service.

--Smerus (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This arb is not about whether infoboxes are 'right' or 'wrong' ; policy is clear, they are neither, and optional. There is no evidence base to indicate whether they serve a useful or desired function. That is why they are optional. Many infobox arguments are characterised by the frequent absence of understanding the difference between facts and opinion - as evidenced, for example, here. For my part, I don't like infoboxes (and will save my arguments on that for elsewhere) but I respect them when editors who have created articles choose to use them. But I am not going to argue further here on that topic. The arb discussion is about editor behaviour.

The Wagner affair

Gerda says 'about a million readers in July 2013 did not complain about the infobox in Franz Kafka'; I'm glad that page was therefore spared unpleasantness at a time when it was frontpaged. During May 2013 Richard Wagner had about 200,000 readers; none of them demanded an infobox, except User:Gerda Arendt, who parked a gruesome example on the talkpage a week before frontpaging - although she had unsuccesfully advocated an infobox in discussions when the article was up for GA, and then FA, consideration, and in the discussion re front page nomination; and although she was perfectly aware that I, as the main (but not only) editor involved was thoroughly against having such a box for the article. Gerda has claimed that she was acting on suggestions by User:Nikkimaria and User:Newyorkbrad; if this indeed true, they should examine their consciences. :-}.

What transpired is illustrative of many recent infobox discussions. Following my admittedly peevish response, I was then shat upon with an unwarranted personal attack from the proinfobox User:RexxS; NB. I had never previously accused anyone on WP of 'bad faith', nor had I any previous disputes with RexxS. When I invited an explanation of his behaviour, RexxS was supported by User:Pigsonthewing, bizarrely denying the use of words which were there for all to see. RexxS then launched a further agressive ad hominem attack on me, having the chutzpah to end 'let's get back to discussing this infobox', a topic which he had so far not raised. PotW meanwhile launched a ridiculous attack claiming that notifying relevant projects was 'canvassing'. And this was just on the first day or two. This dragged on until it occupied a vast space. By 20th May the discussion had petered out, with the general tenor against Gerda's box; anyone with a pronounced deathwish can read the whole thing.

On 22nd May (when the article was frontpaged) Gerda redeemed herself superbly by placing on the talk-page a tributary box of Wagner DYKs. So that visitors could appreciate this excellent contribution, I manually archived the talk page up to this tribute. NB: the talk page had always been manually archived, and was at an appropriate length for this operation to be carried out. PotW immediately started warring again, unilaterally unarchiving the page, instituting an automatic archive and generally snarling and issuing 'warnings'.

NB

• At this time PotW was (and I believe still is) banned from interfering with front-page featured articles. He has made the excuse that this ban did not explicitly extend to talk-pages. This is a weaselly evasion of the clear spirit of the ruling.
• I promptly referred PotW's behaviour on the Wagner page to an administrator, and, having no response from him, to AN/I. I was frankly extremely disappointed by the AN/I, which seemed to treat PotW as a vor v zakone. I do not understand why, despite his acknowledged industry as an editor, his consistent and recidivist anti-social behaviour, and the consequent encouragement of members of his entourage to behave similarly, is tolerated.
• The bizarre symbiosis, whereby Gerda initiates a controversial infobox incident, and is then followed by PotW aggressively invading the territory (sometimes with posse members) that Gerda has opened up, is now being repeated elsewhere. (see here and here).
• Unlike Gerda, who is both knowledgeable and industrious in the field, PotW and his posse members do not offer constructive content edit or comment to any articles on classical music. They pick on the topic as a bully picks on an otherwise inoffensive oik who has the temerity to disagree with him. Their agenda is not the quality of the article or of Wikipedia but a closed-mind no-hostages campaign which does not comprehend, or wilfully ignores, the difference between an encyclopaedia and a database. Personal and inflammatory attack is their default mode.

Recommendations

• At the very least ban PotW from participating in infobox discussions, and in addition apply to him any other appropriate sanctions. Issue, at least, warnings to RexxS, and anyone else you like, to mind their manners.
• No placing of infoboxes in an established article (not even by Gerda) before it has been discussed and reasonable consensus reached. The creation of a template design which some people may like is not a license to apply it without discussion.
• Discussions on infoboxes should be on an article-by-article basis and debate their usefulness or otherwise in the article context. Evidence-based comments to be preferred to opinions of taste or 'metadata' arguments. In the absence of Mabbett and co., such discussions will I am sure be constructive and courteous, but -
• Censure strongly any discussion tactics (infoboxes or elsewhere) which are designed solely to raise the temperature of debate.
• 'Hidden texts' at the top of articles deprecating infoboxes should be removed; but -
• The views of creators and maintainers of articles (and of projects relating to them) should not be summarily dismissed as WP:OWN; they may actually know something of the topics on which they speak.--Smerus (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ritchie333

Current word length: 418; diff count: 10.

Problems from previous arbitration requests are still evident

I have watched debates about infoboxes occur with depressing regularity on WP:ANI (example), and, as usual, Andy Mabbett is involved in the heart of it. This in turn has antagonised fellow editors to the point where they are actively motivated to bear-bait him (example). I agree that he's not the only culprit in the case, as presented by evidence up-thread, but I think he has kept the argument going the longest and seems, in my view, to be the least aware of the harm he has caused to the encyclopedia. I actually think Andy makes a lot of good edits and does a lot of work for this place, but his apparent love of filibustering to keep an argument going, sometimes for years, really depresses me.

I would invite people to look at a previous arbitration case in the summer of 2007 here. Not all the evidence is relevant to today, but the evidence about disruptive behaviour in classical music articles is, and I find it astonishly relevant that, six years after Andy was admonished for causing trouble with articles of this nature, here we are again, six years later with exactly the same problem. The phrase "a leopard cannot change its spots" springs to mind. Because Andy has had two appearances at ArbCom, and a number of topic bans, one would assume he is more aware of the requirement to lead by good example and adopt a more tactful and conciliatory tone. However, a quick search of his contributions reveals continuing attempts to attack or bait users, instead of having empathy towards their viewpoints. Examples:

• ""lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively" Get the beam out of your own eye, Kleinzach."
• "Why would anyone with any sense denounce an editor for saying that other editors should be listened to?"
• "I have never suggested that any editors not be listened to. On the contrary. And unlike some posting on this page."
• "a fundamental underestimation,if not a total misunderstanding, of the issues at stake; and the former is a further straw man."
• "As for your your baseless ad homnem, shove it"
• "I find coordinates useful in infoboxes. It's a pity that Brian seems only to have considered his own personal preferences, and not the circumstances of others."
• "That's not a clarification, it's a distortion; and a lie."
• "Which part of "If you believe that "the existing example needs to be junked", then feel free to apply the latter." would you like someone to explain to you?"

Infoboxes are not mandatory

To add a further data point to Giano's comment, I consciously decided not to add an infobox to M11 link road protest (now a GA), deciding a pictorial site map would serve the reader better. Also, when GA reviewing British rhythm and blues, I suggested the article might sit better with an infobox. Sabrebd, the nominator, disagreed. Since infobox presence is not part of the GA criteria, I passed the review anyway.

Evidence presented by Folantin

Current word length: 427; diff count: 16.

Andy Mabbett is (still) a belligerent, intransigent editor

Nothing has changed since Pigsonthewing1 and 2. To get a flavour of Mabbett's approach, I’d recommend reading Talk:Cosima Wagner [8] in full. Individual diffs can’t do this justice.

Andy Mabbett, WP:OWNERSHIP and Featured Articles (yet again)

Andy Mabbett has long had a parasitic relationship with Featured Articles. His technique is to turn up at a Featured Article, add a feature (such as an infobox), and when this is removed or challenged by the primary editors (i.e. the ones who put most of the hard work in), to accuse them of violating WP:OWN. This was mentioned in the last RFAR (Pigsonthewing2) [9].

A particular nasty more recent example of Mabbett (and his metadata tag team, including the now perma-banned User:Br'er Rabbit) turning up at a Featured Article and trying to force the insertion of an infobox can be seen at length at Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.

Some other examples of the "WP:OWNERSHIP accusation technique":

[10], [11], [12] [13]

This response by a primary contributor is particularly telling: [14]

Andy Mabbett received a community ban as a result of this behaviour

Eventually, people decided they had had enough of this and in August 2012, Andy received an ANI community ban [15]: "User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day."

Unfortunately, it did not stop his disruptiveness. A few weeks later, he added an infobox to Pilgrim at Tinker Creek [16] the day after it had been TFA. I've already linked the long, unpleasant talk page debate above. Most recently, he sparked off another long, wearisome discussion on The Rite of Spring the day after it had been TFA, trying to force the inclusion of an infobox against the wishes of the major contributors [17], and making no fewer than 65 talk page comments there [18]. This behaviour is clearly gaming the system.

It’s (still) all about metadata

Andy Mabbett is on a mission to change Wikipedia from a prose encyclopaedia to machine-readable database. Others clearly share that goal as the same handful of metadata enthusiasts turn up time and time again on talk page infobox discussions.

Back in 2007, Andy Mabbett clearly stated he wanted infoboxes to save him the effort of entering metadata twice:

"being naturally lazy, I believe strongly in both not reinventing the wheel, and not doing work (i.e. entering data) twice." [19]

This is still the case: [20]. Also: [21], [22], [23], [24]. [25] etc. etc. "Machine readability cannot be more efficiently handled by prose". [26]

People who get in the way of Mabbett's noble quest (and his reluctance to enter data twice) are Luddites and must be bludgeoned into submission.

Conclusion

Two year-long bans as well as other sanctions have failed to stop this behaviour. It's time for a more effective and lasting solution.

Evidence presented by Gerda Arendt

Current word length: 81; diff count: 0.

Infoboxes are an accessibility tool

My statements are on the case page. Not everybody has read them. I am new to this: do I have to repeat it all here? I repeat:

Andy did not breach his topic ban

Andy did not breach a topic ban, quote "The ban is unhelpful as it's unclear and it allows pretty rubbish interpretations, but as it stands, Andy has violated no part of the topic ban as it stands". AN clarification: he is not banned from any talk page, quote: "clarified, move along". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent evidence vs. myth

• It is evident that readers are helped when they can see at a glance a topic's time in history and location in geography, as an infobox can supply, for example BWV 10.
• It is evident that an infobox should summarize key facts of the article, for example Carmen. It is a myth that it can summarize "the article".
• It is evident that an infobox emits metadata.
• It is evident that an infobox written by a user new to an article mirrors how the article is understood, as a good feedback.
• It is evident that the removal of an infobox excludes comments from readers, who will typically not search in the history of an article.
• It is evident that there is no ban for infoboxes on talk pages. Or is it?
• It is evident that about a million readers in July 2013 did not complain about the infobox in Franz Kafka.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Peter cohen

For the information of the committee, I was the person who initiated the ANI thread referred to both in Sjones23's and Folantin's evidence which resulted in Andy Mabbett being banned from FA of the day and articles scheduled for it and I have been present in some of the drama threads concerning him, however, I do not hold strong views about at which end the Infobox egg should be smashed. I can't recall ever inserting one into an article but articles that I created have acquired them and I have made no attempt to remove them.

WP:IAR trumps WP:OWN and WP:Advice pages

People have referred to some bits of policy and guidelines in the above. However the key thing is that people make pragmatic decisions that are most likely to result in a high quality and reliable encyclopedia. I can think of a couple of times where I have come across biography articles where the infobox and the lede contain different dates of birth. Infoboxes create a maintenance overhead and when someone inserts one, they should be pretty damn sure that there are people willing to spend time maintaining that infobox. Unfortunately, Andy Mabbett rarely has any interest in maintaining the infoboxes himself. He imposes the overhead on the people who watch, and normally have helped create, the article in question. If those people don't like infoboxes and aren't willing to maintain them, then there is no use crying WP:OWN. If the volunteers who created the article aren't willing to maintain the infobox, then the pragmatism of WP:IAR says, well there had better not be one in the article. When I was more involved in the various classical music projects there was an attempt to recruit editors interested in this area of content to the projects. This means that when the advice pages were produced they represented a good faith attempt to reflect the consensus of editors who regularly contribute to that area of content. the argument that WP:Advice pages says that they mean nothing therefore falls to the same IAR pragmatism as the WP:OWN does.

Now, if there were half a dozen Gerdas around, there would then be a sufficient number of energetic editors around the classical music area willing to maintain the infoboxes and I would say go ahead and include them. But it has to be half a dozen Gerdas and not half a dozen Andy Mabbetts to address the issue of whether the infoboxes will be watched and kept up to date.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Quiddity

Other editors are covering behaviour. I'm interested in fixing the infobox problems, themselves.

Legitimate problems

There are legitimate objective and subjective problems with infoboxes. I'll list them all(?) below, along with possible solutions.

A: The wikicode

1. It is intimidating to newcomers, at the top of the edit-source-box.
   • This is partially solved, for the editors who use VisualEditor.
2. It often gets added en-masse, using the empty "Full example" from the documentation page. ([27])
   • Add recommendations to WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, to prevent this.
   • Strongly related to B.1.

B: The individual fields - (This is the hardest part)

1. The empty fields tend to get filled, often with imperfect/inaccurate/imbalanced/subjective/irrelevant data - Eg. ISBN for a book published before ISBNs ([28])
   • Add <!-- hidden comments --> into the template fields, that should not be filled, in individual articles.
   • Add <!-- hidden comments --> into more of the template-documentation examples, when a field is likely to be problematic.
   • Add Templatedata descriptions that warn against using troublesome parameters, or that suggest preliminary talkpage discussion.
2. The field names in a generally applicable infobox (as opposed to a very narrow-focused infobox) are often not ideal for individual nuances ([29])
   • More work on making infoboxes adaptable. Stronger warnings against pushing square pegs into round holes.
   • Many of the Comments by SPhilbrick are relevant to this, and warrant discussion.

C: The image

1. The infobox image is usually restricted to a width of 200px, which precludes the use of large beautiful thumbnails in the lede of articles. ([30] versus [31])
   • See below.

D: The overall aesthetic

1. Many of the background colors are bright, garish, and eyecatching.
   • These can be altered on a per-template, and per-article basis. Encourage this, and provide more aesthetically minimal examples.
   • The WMF design group previously discussed creating a proposed overhaul of the aesthetic component. Ideally they (and we) would make something that is more minimal than what we have now.

Arguments that are Not valid objections

Z: Redundancy

1. Infoboxes are intended, like the article-lede, to provide a redundant synopsis. They sometimes contain unique content, but not usually.

Actions that are Not solutions

ZZ: Hidden / collapsible

1. The "collapsible" code, that originated in navboxes, has been spreading. It is frequently mis-used to bury a dispute, hiding something rather than discussing whether it belongs in the article or not. It spread to Infobox Writer's "Influences/Influenced" section ([32]). It spread to data-tables in articles ([33], [34], [35]). It briefly spread to Image galleries (Draw Mohammed Day, Gangrene) and still occasionally crops up ([36]). It has now spread to entire infoboxes ([37],[38],[39]...).
   • Anecdote: I've never witnessed a friend/colleague click a [Show] button without prompting; and I have pointed them out to numerous people, all of whom were surprised. Hidden sections are hostile to readers.
   • Change the wording at MOS:COLLAPSE, to prevent misuse. Length issues should be handled by WP:SPLIT, not hiding things from viewers. Content disputes should not resort to this.

Evidence presented by Giano

The danger here is thinking that this case is about whether to include an infobox or not; it isn’t. Infoboxes are not mandatory and the present system of leaving the decision to the primary content editors to decide by discussion works perfectly well. However, in my experience, it ceases to work when Andy Mabbit suddenly wanders in off the street ad demands the inclusion. In my view, infoboxes have their use on scientific pages, but when a building has evolved in ten styles, by seven architects for fourteen patrons over eight hundred years, they invariably become over simplified or misleading.

I have found Mabbitt to be intransigent and disruptive on the subject. I don’t like infoboxes on pages concerned with the arts, but long ago, through debate and without fuss [40], I found a perfectly reasonable compromise – the collapsed box; this lived happily for many years at Montacute House; that is until Mabbitt discovered it [41] and [42]. Interestingly,, the reason that Mabbitt discovered it was because the same collapsed infobox was being suggested [43] for an FA on which I had collaborated/advised Little Moreton Hall. Mabbitt caused needless argument and trouble trying to force his will on others there too [44]. The argument became fragmented, but a gist of it can be found here [45].

One only has to read the other diffs provided on this page to see that Mabbitt is a recurring problem; if he is banned from the subject, there won’t be a problem. Most editors are quite capable of finding a reasonable compromise all by themselves. The decision to include an infobox should be left to the primary editors who are responsible for maintaining the page.

Incidentally, the collapsed infobox (so hated by Andy Mabbit and his disciples) is now successfully used at Montacute House (a GA), Little Moreton Hall (a FA), Sunbeam Tiger (another FA) and assorted others [46]; where they serve their purpose admirably and are obviously acceptable to many.

When Mabbitt is unsuccessful in establishing an infobox, the page (or rather its primary editors) then become a target for his sidekicks' overzealous and erroneous interpretation of MOS (see [47]. I can quite see why less determined and forthright editors than mysleld decide that it's easier to leave the project that contend with this petty, vindictive behviour.

To sum up: let the writers decide what is best for a page; not Andy Mabbitt and a few sidekicks - because if he's permitted to continue, there won't be any writing editors.  Giano  15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eusebeus

Andy Mabbett needs to be sanctioned

As a member of the CM project and someone who has contributed on occasion over the last (is it now five?) years to this debate, I simply want to offer my complete and unambiguous support to the points raised by Folantin above. The debate about infoboxes on classical music pages has become repeatedly distracted by the unhelpful, often disruptive manner of engagement of Mabbett and he needs to be banned permanently. This behaviour is the real question here, not the use of infoboxes, which I think has been more than settled for classical music articles in terms of a clear project consensus that has been reiterated on numerous occasions. (If Gerda and others wish to make the use of infoboxes obligatory as a matter of policy, then I am sure no-one would object to following the practice. But as long as it is not in any way required for all articles, the continuing occasional discussions at CM are a fine way for interested editors collected together by the project to express itself on this matter.) I am confident that many other long time contributors to articles under the CM project umbrella would also provide strong ascent to Folantin's points. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mscuthbert

Extend (indefinite?) bans on Andy at least on adding or discussing Infoboxes

I can't agree more with Eusebeus and Folantin -- the arguments that Andy Mabbett starts when a user disagrees with him on infoboxes on articles are so disruptive to article creators and expanders that some, like me, have given up writing composer articles to avoid facing the conflict. His manner of attacking those who disagree greatly distracts from the developing of articles (see the Rite of Spring references above for what happened to improve the article only after the whole infobox fiasco was resolved (properly, in my opinion).) There is now a place for gathering machine-readable data about articles, Wikidata. The attempts to turn the prose Wikipedia into another version of that project only prevent WP from going forward. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Johnbod

General utility and limitations of Infoboxes

This case is not about the general question of infoboxes I hope. But some assertions have been made above which compel me to add to the picture. I am not against infoxes in appropriate places at all, and just as I support the ability of WikiProjects to enforce their use as standard, I support their ability to reject their use. They work well in types of articles where the information is standard, uncomplicated in terms of definitions and certain as data. They work badly where these factors do not apply. They also drastically restrict the image size, and often take up a lot of space. It is for all these reasons that the Visual arts project generally dislikes them, as reflected in WP:VAMOS. In art articles, whether biographies or those on objects or styles, space for the very important illustrations is extremely short, and decently sized images essential. Infoboxes can greatly cut down the available space. In addition, many of the fields in art infoboxes are treacherous for a user without good subject knowledge, and often inaccurately or misleadingly filled out. For artist biographies, "Movement", "influences" and "Important works" are especial traps, but there are others. In all historical biographies going further back than a century or two the basic fields of "Nationality" and the states attached to places of birth, death etc can be notorious traps. But people insist on filling them out. Some may remember the brief row after David Cameron corrected Gordon Brown in Prime Minister's Question Time on the birth-date of Titian (which is unknown), which Wikipedia got dragged into after aides began editing the article to prove their boss right. Before the row the article had correctly explained that the date was uncertain, but this would not do for the infobox, so one of the candidates was entered. This is typical of the way infoboxes handle complicated and uncertain information. I really can't see how the information in our infoboxes for many areas can be of use to WikiData when it is such poor quality. Infoboxes are fine for things like taxa, sportspeople, films and so on, but don't work well over much of the humanities, especially for pre-modern articles. Any move to make their use the default should be strongly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Voceditenore

Responses to "Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?" (Signpost 10 July) and this recent RfC indicate that antipathy to infoboxes (and/or cramming more and more machine-readable "data" into them) is far more widespread than classical music editors. WikiProjects Theatre and Visual Arts aren't too keen either, albeit with more subtlety:

• "None of the project's FA-class articles have an infobox. Infoboxes have been considered repetitive and unnecessary in those articles."
• "There may be a conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis."

Irrespective of hidden comments, active opposition from many classical music editors will continue, as it has in visual arts and literature, especially from editors who write and maintain FAs. The recent conflicts leading to this case come from what these editors perceive (rightly or wrongly) as a relentless push by Andy (quite aggressively) and lately Gerda (always politely) which targets the last opposition to infoboxes—classical music and Featured articles, e.g.

• 11 February Andy uncollapses the infobox (a long-standing compromise) at Little Moreton Hall (FA). Read the ensuing "discussion" in full to get a flavour of how he operates. Unsuccessful, he starts another discussion at Manual of Style/Infoboxes 6 March. Unsuccessful, he lists the collapsing template for deletion 13 March. Still no luck...
• 21 March Gerda proposes infobox at Bach. Andy arrives. Discussion degenerates into sniping and accusations on both sides. An editor suggests using common sense about BOLD when the editor knows full well it will cause controversy and friction [48]. Similarly [49], Nevertheless...
• 25 March, Gerda proposes infobox on Handel. Inevitable "discussion". No consensus for infobox. Nevertheless...
• 3 April at WikiProject Opera, Gerda proposes infobox on Carmen (3 days before its TFA). Andy arrives. Discussion degenerates [50] [51]. The editor who brought it to FA (not a project member) expressed dismay at the timing. Andy plows on anyway [52]. The editor requests TFA to defer its appearance. Nevertheless...
• 16 May Gerda proposes an infobox be kept permanently on the Wagner talk page (a week before its TFA). Discussion degenerates. Andy arrives [53], [54]. No consensus. Nevertheless...
• 30 May Andy proposes infobox on The Rite of Spring (the minute its 24 hours as TFA ended). Discussion degenerates [55], [56]. No consensus. Nevertheless...
• 19 June Gerda adds infobox to L'incoronazione di Poppea (FA). Inevitably... [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

Andy at the WikiData discussion list:

"Of course, there will always be some Luddites who see Wikipedia as a prose encyclopedia rather than the database of encyclopedic content which it really is ;-)"

Don't let the emoticon fool you. He means it. No Wikipedia, the free machine-readable database if there are Featured Articles without infoboxes. This is so antithetical to many arts editors' perspective that some leave altogether. Others push back hard at this agenda, becoming fearful of even the smallest compromise, sometimes belligerently. Everybody loses.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.