Initiated by John Carter (talk) at 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified here

Requesting clarification if the existing i-ban prohibits taking the other party involved to ANI for input of the broader community in the event of further obvious stalking which by avoiding explicit mention of me does not necessarily explicitly violate the i-ban, but is clearly of a STALKing nature, and, if it does, amendment to permit it, with of course reasonable consequences to me as the possible filer should the request there be found to be poorly based or otherwise improper. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire case were about me casting aspersions, it is unthinkable that Ignocrates would have been subjected to an i-ban as well, although that was specifically included in the remedies. I believe there are reasonable questions raised by comments here regarding the basic honesty of involved individuals, which may well be worth considering. But, to clarify, does the ruling rule out taking obvious stalking as per WP:STALK, which might fall short of being completely clearly an "interaction ban," to ANI? This request was prompted by the existing WP:AE filed regarding this matter, and that, to date, I have felt that I would not be able to do so. Can such requests be made? Also, just for clarification, I understand that if such requests can be made in general, any requests made which are clearly found baseless or poorly justified would still reasoanbly qualify as a violation of the interaction ban. Also, I suppose, if ANI requests are permitted, are there specific limitations to what can and cannot be said in such requests? John Carter (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the poorly worded statement above based on non-existent evidence even means, so I can't respond to it. This entire case is about John Carter casting aspersions. It's why the Ebionites 3 arbitration case was filed; it's why he was stripped of his tools; it's why we have this I-ban. Despite the restriction, he has used every available opportunity to continue this aggressive behavior at ARCA, AE, and on the talk pages of other editors. He can't seem to stop himself from doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter seems to misremember that I requested a two-way interaction ban. That was the point of filing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both those folks were blocked JC, I as a result of AE request by Ignocrates. NE Ent 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Note/clarify: it was not my intent to offer any opinion here, simply to notify the committee that the parties may not currently post here (unless the committee directs some action to enable that). NE Ent 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• In my view wikihounding/wikistalking someone you have an interaction ban with is a violation of that interaction ban. As such if a party to a topic ban has evidence that the other party is hounding/stalking them, they should present that evidence at AE. If you have queries about whether something is or is not covered by an arbitration remedy, ask the arbitration committee on this page (or by email if it is sensitive). A discussion at ANI of the sort that was proposed here would be a breech of the interaction ban in my view.
  The purpose of an interaction ban is to separate people who cannot interact with each other productively and civilly - it means do not interact with the other person, do not follow them around the project, do not comment on what they have to say, stop thinking about them - if you can't do that while working in the same area as them then go and find different corners of this project to edit. Use Special:Random and find a stub to expand for example, improve the encyclopaedia while expanding your own horizons away from the other party and the topic(s) that got you ibanned. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions in particular)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

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

My first request for clarification concerns the AC procedures - standard provision for appeals and modifications. In particular, the section entitled "Modification by administrators" in the following situation:

1A) An administrator X blocks an user for a period of time after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). After the block has expired, administrator Y imposes another block of the same or a longer duration for the same complaint (and where there are no further breaches). Administrator Y did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here, for imposing the further block. Can the committee please confirm in those circumstances whether administrator Y's further block would be considered a modification of administrator X's block, and that such an action is unauthorised?

My second request for clarification concerns the AE sanction handling case (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions) in the following situation:

2A) An administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y unilaterally imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block. If there is a division in opinion at AE regarding the appropriateness and duration of a block, has the committee indicated to its admins that they can unilaterally impose a block anyway? Does principle 3.1.2 only apply to discretionary sanctions? Or does that principle apply to requested enforcement of case remedies too?

I have listed 1A and 2A above only, as I may have a follow up under each. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's worth noting that the situation described in 2A just played out in a recently closed AE request (it's still there but hatted). I assume that part was unmentioned in the hopes of avoiding a dramastorm, so I won't name it directly. That said, I consider it valuable context that arbs should be aware of and review. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this has been asked already, I was about to. I think the answers so far to 1A are pretty reasonable and uncontroversial. I'm more interested in Arbs' answers to 2A. Normally, an admin can take unilateral AE action without waiting for a discussion, and then the normal AE rules apply to reverse that action: unlike a normal admin action, consensus would be required to overturn the AE action. However, when a discussion is already underway, and there is no consensus on the blocking (or a preliminary consensus not to block), it seems unfair to unilaterally make the decision to block, and then insist on a new discussion to overturn it. If it really is acceptable to do that, could not an admin with an opposing viewpoint decide to "officially warn" someone, or block them for 1 second, and then close the AE request, preventing any further blocking without a brand new discussion? (I'm not advocating that, of course, just pointing out that it kind of follows from the answers to 1A). AE enforcement is meant to streamline things, but in the scenario described above, it's being used instead as a trump card. It shouldn't be. If there is an ongoing discussion at AE with differing viewpoints on blocking among the uninvolved admins, an admin shouldn't wade in and block before a consensus develops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of "do it first so the other admin will be wheel-warring" has been discussed before, without any solid answers. Zugzwang is a rough equivalent. Why not recognize that valid issue raised by Floq above - and issue a sua sponte dictum that blocks should generally require the initial input of (say) three admins in order to have standing against a simple reversal by another admin? Thus reducing the value of "first move wins." Collect (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the IP has alluded to it, I'm going to make it explicit. This is another damn "hypothetical situation" thread that's actually not at all hypothetical, and like it or not the Arb's responses are going to be read in that context. Yep, it's another damn Malleus/Eric Corbett thread: link to discussion, closure.

Unlike most threads involving Eric Corbett, it was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, after a reasonable discussion, and resulted in a reasonable final decision that wasn't followed by a firestorm or wheel warring. The ArbCom should be very cautious in how it approaches the question in 2A, in that the question seems to be exploring ways that an ArbCom decision to impose discretionary sanctions can be nullified by a single admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the admins who opined against a block in the "hypothetical" scenario. I disagree with the block for reasons I've stated elsewhere (mainly that it is based on an overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit), but at the end of the day AE cannot afford to become deadlocked like ANI whenever a big name is involved. The solution? More objective, level-headed admins at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who made the block discussed in the second question, I'm offering the following comments:

• This looks like an appeal in the guise of a clarification request, and an attempt to circumvent the Committee's rule that appeals are heard only if they are made by the user who is the subject of the sanction. Because that user has chosen, in this instance, not to appeal the block, and the user asking the question is not in any way affected by this situation, there is in my view nothing that needs – in the sense of an actual controversy awaiting resolution – to be clarified.
• On the merits, I'm of the view that any discussion among admins or others about an enforcement request does not prevent any admin from taking, or not taking, any enforcement action they deem appropriate.

• First, the rules about enforcement actions (as well as discretionary sanctions, which are not at issue here) do not envision or require any form of discussion among whoever. The only exception is the case mentioned in the question but not at issue here because no discretionary sanctions are concerned: "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE". Even this does not require admins to follow or look for consensus, but only advises them to listen to the opinions of other admins (which they may then choose to disregard). As far as I know this was an intentional decision by the arbitrators who drafted these rules. Any discussion that does occur is merely an aid for coming to the right conclusion, but it is not envisioned by any rule to be a consensus-forming process. Discussion and consensus become relevant only at a later stage – in an appeal, either to the community or to administrators.
• Second, as has been mentioned above, requiring admins not to act in the absence of a consensus to act would have two effects that would severely impair the effective enforcement of the decisions made by this Committee. First, sanctioned users who have many friends, as seems to be case here, can block enforcement just by having enough people show up that any consensus becomes unfeasible to establish and timely action impossible to take, as is regularly the case on community noticeboards. Second, this would in effect compel admins who are interested in arbitration enforcement to take action as soon as possible without waiting for discussion, which would likely impair the quality and acceptance of enforcement actions, and by extension the effectiveness of this Committee's decisions. I would prefer that not to be the case, because I think that the discussions among the admins who regularly work at AE are often very helpful.  Sandstein  08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Regarding 1A, the key part of your scenario are the words "After the block has expired". Once the block has expired any further blocking, for any cause, is a new action. I suspect that in most circumstances this second blocking would be very ill-advised and possibly a bad block. There exists the possibility that the second administrator is in possession of new/additional information (which may or may not be publicly shareable) that justifies the action, so I am not going to say it will always be a bad block. Your question 2A requires more thought before answering. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Concerning 1A, I tend to agree with my learned colleague. As a general rule, I'd say that once an administrator has imposed a discretionary sanction on an editor, said sanction should not be modified in pejus (i.e. should not be made harsher) in the absence of a. the imposing administrator's consent, b. a consensus of uninvolved editors or administrators, b. arbcom's authorisation or d. supervenient circumstances justifying the increase. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is perhaps the least hypothetical hypothetical I've seen in a while. Blocking after a prior block has expired strikes me as double jeopardy in the absence of either a fresh violation, or a consensus of uninvolved editors that the editor actually needs a harsher block (the situation that comes to mind readily is a community request for an indefinite block/community ban.) But in most cases, if the block "fixed" the issue and there are no new violations, blocks are not punishment, and the discretion of the first administrator likely should be respected. Courcelles 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Placing a fresh block for conduct that has already been dealt with - at least on the face of it and absent a rationale from the second admin - seems to me to be gaming the prohibition on modifying another administrator's blocks. On the second question, what distinguishes administrative actions is use of the tools or making an action explicitly reserved for administrators. A refusal to act cannot therefore be an administrative action as no administrative action has taken place. As a hypothetical if a bunch of people are hurling abuse at each other and furiously edit-warring, and - for whatever reason - an administrator explicitly refuses to act in respect of any of them, are each of them immunised against blocking? The common sense answer has to be "Certainly not".  Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Pigsonthewing

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes
• Add "for articles" to the end of the remedy.

I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial.

There was an AE request filed which requested enforcement against Pigsonthewing requesting and discussing deletion of infoboxes at WP:TfD. The consensus among admins was there was an implication that the restriction applies to articles only however as this is not clear in the provision there would continue to be misunderstanding and possibly further AE requests closed without action being possible. So this request (as an uninvolved admin carrying out the close of the request) is for a motion with the following wording:

Remedy 1.1 of the Infoboxes arbitration case is amended to read:

@AGK: The original remedy has been interpreted as discussing the removal of an infobox template, as they are used in articles the interpretation as far as enforcement goes was the remedy applied to articles. If that is incorrect then enforcing admins have interpreted it outside it's intention so it needs to be clarified. Something like adding "in all namespaces, including {all discussions/requests for deletion} at WP:Templates for discussion and similar discussions at other venues" to the end of the remedy.

@Courcelles: I'd suggest dropping "to improve their functionality" as leaving it would require admins to decide whether an edit improved it or not (unless that was the attention). Other than that it sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Callanecc's proposal. Here we see Pigsonthewing going in denial about an unresolved issue regarding infoboxes, removing the link to where the discussion of that issue was taking place: unnecessary & unhelpful – if it is qualified as "unhelpful" to try resolve an actual infoboxes issue the resulting impression remains that many months after the conclusion of the Infoboxes case at least some infoboxes proponents prefer to go largely in denial about the issues at hand.

If anything, an amendment to the Infoboxes case should imho further restrict PotW's actions regarding infoboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces" [1] is the one I like best. Failing a compromise on that, I suppose "...discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace..." [2] would do best. Courcelles' rewrite attempts appear to be going nowhere: they add complexity, and thus confusion, so, no more than fertilizer to future distraction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this edit by PotW seems to attract controversy – indeed it would have been better to talk to involved parties first, before cluttering many main namespace pages with a rather technical in-crowd notice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis: "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." - We are not discussing here your bold change to a project page of a project of which you are not even a member, claiming that it is a "disadvantage" of infoboxes that a certain program extracting a PDF fails to render the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, who said that "Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging". This is true, and this is good for the project. Look for example at {{infobox hymn}} (specialised, old-fashioned, with camel-case parameter names and no room for an image), nominated to be merged to the more general flexible {{infobox musical composition}}. It seems desirable to have only few, well maintained infobox templates, - I use {{infobox person}} for all people. Thank you, Andy, for the unrewarded cleanup work in the field. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: You say: "What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things." I say: It is not, the dispute is if the restriction is worded precisely enough and nothing else. (Not if it's a good restriction, and not in which way Andy goes about things). In the example above, he didn't talk first to users - and how would you find out which editors use infobox hymn? Seems kind of not practical, on top of being unrelated to the question here. I was pleased about his initiative to merge, - I would have been to lazy to try it myself.

See also "honourable mention", and enjoy a happy and peaceful 2015! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: the phrase "testing his boundaries" was used related to an edit which was brought to arbitration enforcement: formatting a malformed infobox. Instead of a simple "thank you" for helping a new user who wanted an infobox but didn't know how to code it, the edit received attention on three noticeboards. I asked the candidates for arbitration about it, they said "no foul, play on". I add "playful" to my wishes for 2015 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched's question: no, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You made the effort of adding a statement, generally addressing experts "who are not willing to follow community norms". Please name one specific incidence as an example of what you mean. I rather see certain projects not willing to follow community norms, at least back then in 2013. However, the ice seems to be breaking. Compare the discussions in the archive of Rigoletto talk and what you see today. I joined project opera again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: You demand evidence of disruption now? No evidence of disruption was provided in the arb case, to my knowledge. I like the phrase "the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started" by Seraphimblade, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review means looking back. Can we please look forward instead?

@Doncram: thank you for demonstrating what editors who want to simplify templates have to face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floq: perhaps we agree more than you think ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bach's cantata for today translates to "My God, how long, ah, how long?" - his titles are so useful, this one could refer to the length of some contribution as to the waiting for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was, or reasonably seems to be, the intention of the original wording, then the amendment should be made without cavil. And I would say that it clearly is the substantive intention. Any desire to extend the sanction should be the subject of a different process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

Note I'm commenting here as an involved editor, not as an incoming arbitrator

I fully support this, as this matches how the restriction has been interpreted on multiple occasions at AE. Indeed, I would go further and explicitly add a second sentence "Pigsonthewing may nominate and discuss infobox templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." to fully avoid any ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Please can you give some evidence of Andy testing the boundaries? There have been several cases where people have tried to get Andy in trouble, but on every occasion the community as agreed that Andy has done nothing wrong and has not breached the restriction, which does not prohibit him discussing the changing of infoboxes that are on articles by consensus of other people. Gordian knot solutions are only suitable as a last resort when nothing else can work, but in this case there is a very simple amendment that can be made to achieve the same ends with no disruption going forward. It is completely inappropriate to penalise an editor when they are following the restrictions because other people are confused by it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: The interpreation that this applies only to article space has been the one made by the community every time it has been asked, and has been upheld every time its been before the committee. Doing nothing now only guarantees more disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I think your proposal is a good start, but I'd word it as:

"Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox. He is explicitly allowed to:

• Edit infobox templates
• Change the type of infobox used on an article
• Add, remove or change the information displayed in an infobox
• Nominate and discuss specific infobox templates at templates for discussion or other appropriate venue (including template talk and wikiproject talk pages)."

This incorporates your response to Rich Farmbrough and Callanecc's proposed change. It also explicitly permits nominating infobox templates at TfD for any reason (to avoid any wikilawyering about whether nominating something for e.g. deletion is nominating it for "discussion"), participating in discussions other than at TfD (e.g. he can discus a template on it's talk page and partipate in a WikiProject's discussion of an infobox relevant to their project. I've included the word "specific" to make it clear this isn't permission to discuss the merits or otherwise of infoboxes as a concept) changing the type of infobox (per previous clarification requests, and which not all participants in this discussion are apparently aware of) and changing the information in an infobox that already exists (I'm not aware this has been controversial yet, but given the nature of this topic it's better to be explicit and prevent that). The bullets are just my preference for long lists of simple items over short lists of more complex ones. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should make it explicit that the topic ban remains unchanged in this proposal, the bullets are simply clarifications to the scope (which have been proven required) not exceptions to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Please can you provide some evidence of disruption at TfD actually caused by Andy rather than other people disrupting TfD's Andy has opened? If a discussion is closed as "no, because X needs to be done first" it is not disruptive to nominate the same template again when X has been done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: That motion is very good, although it leaves things ambiguous about whether he may participate in other discussions about infoboxes at TfD, and whether he may discuss templates at venues other than TfD (e.g. template talk pages). Sadly the history this dispute has shown that people will use these ambiguities to wikilawyer and harass Andy. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Delta Quad and Euryalus: This motion does not change the scope of the restriction at all, it simply clarifies that it applies to article space only. The second part exists only to prevent the disruption caused by other editors using ambiguities to harass Andy, and there is plenty of evidence presented that this is necessary. As HJ Mitchell notes, evidence has been presented of other people using Andy's discussions to cause disruption but none presented that actually shows Andy being disruptive at TfD or elsewhere. Perhaps this could be clarified by changing the start of the second sentence to "For the avoidance of doubt, this restriction does not apply to any editing outside the article or article talk namespace and explicitly does not prohibit:..." Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Whatever the merits or otherwise of those deletions, they are entirely irrelevant to Andy's restrictions regarding infoboxes. There has never been any restriction on his nomination articles for deletion, for any reason, nor does it bear any relation to the rest of this discussion (which is about nominating infobox templates at TfD). That you even bring it up here is evidence of how much the current wording is not fit for purpose Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Andy is allowed to convert one type of infobox to another, and to edit infoboxes on articles by, in the first case, explicit decision of last year's arbcom, and in the second case by AE admins repeatedly declining to sanction him for this. He is not allowed to discuss whether an article should or should not have an infobox, and he may not change the status of an article from one to the other. Whether he is allowed to discuss the content of an infobox is not something that I can recall having been clarified (the usual recommendation in such cases is that if you are not sure if an edit breaches a topic ban do not make it), which is another example of this remedy causing as many problems as it solves. No restrictions at all were placed on Andy's activities at AfD and so he may nominate any article for deletion he wishes just like any other unrestricted editor on the project, whether he can discuss it if he has been accused of what you are accusing him of is again undefined as far as I am aware. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGK although personally I agree with you -- as discussed on the linked AE thread -- this is clarification and amendment. Given the requesters have a good faith question about the scope of the sanction, a comment indicating your interpretation would be helpful. NE Ent 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Andy is a personal friend of mine IRL so, although I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, I don't claim to be 'uninvolved'.)

This is silly. The locus of the dispute was around the addition of infoboxes to articles. The dispute was between Andy et al and members of the classical music project over whether or not articles in that project's scope should have infoboxes, and all other infobox-related disruption that led to the original arbitration case was spillover from the resulting interpersonal disputes. Essentially the project members adamantly refused to entertain the idea of infoboxes on their articles, Andy attempted to force the issue (resulting in edit wars and other disruption), the project members were very rude to Andy, Andy was equally charming in return and the whole thing deteriorated to a point where nothing could be achieved. The ban on adding/discussing infoboxes on articles was a proportionate (if grossly one-sided) remedy. Andy's participation at TfD was never part of the original dispute and his contributions regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes was never problematic. Indeed, the only disruption related to his participation at TfD has been the repeated misinterpretation (or indeed malinterpretation) of the remedy and its use as a stick to beat Andy for otherwise unproblematic edits.

The consensus at AE has at least twice been that Andy's participation at TfD is not within the scope of the remedy, so making this amendment would merely codify what is already practice and prevent further misguided enforcement requests—given the precedent, it is vanishingly unlikely that another AE thread would conclude that Andy's participation at TfD was a violation of the remedy, especially as that participation is not disruptive in and of itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: With Callan's caveat (removing "to improve their functionality", because it's better for all concerned not to leave things open to interpretation), I wholeheartedly endorse your proposed wording. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rschen7754: Are you honestly trying to tell us that re-opening a discussion that reaches no consensus three years later (almost to the day!) is disruptive editing? Or is it just disruptive if the nominator is called Andy Mabbett? Or if the template is one that you're interested in? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Salvio giuliano: Based on...? I see no evidence presented that Andy's TfD nominations are disruptive, and only a small amount of evidence of other people causing disruption on Andy's nominations. It is disingenuous to suggest that TfD nominations are covered by the remedy as written, as Andy's participation at TfD was never the locus of the original case; indeed it was never even discussed in the case. You are making sweeping assertions without citing any evidence; editors who do that at AE or in arbitration cases get sanctioned. Are you of the opinion that arbitrators should be held to a different standard? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a part-observer/part-participant in the recent infobox controversies involving Eurovision related articles, an area in which I am active.

I presently accept, as does Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) who raised the issue with him, that the remedy concerned does not cover his participation in TfDs. However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not, as doing so often only causes further trouble. Recent events have only re-enforced this viewpoint in my eyes, as the behaviour of Andy at the TfDs and in related discussions was problematic and managed to cause a lot of completely avoidable infobox drama – one thing the remedy was supposed to put a stop to. I criticised him as an involved editor for some of his remarks (1, 2, 3), and he was admonished by an uninvolved administrator for a separate remark (4); an admonishment that Andy appears to have rejected (5). I'm not saying that all other editors in these discussions behaved perfectly, but this discussion is not about them.

As it stands, I will not support any amendment that endorses or otherwise encourages Andy to continue to edit in this area, but I will accept the proposed amendment as a simple clarification of the existing restrictions as they are currently interpreted. However, if the proposed amendment goes through and this behaviour from Andy continues, I believe it is only a matter of time before the Arbitration Committee will be asked to review this remedy again. CT Cooper · talk 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I disagree, the remedy is not clear at all. A person could reasonably interpret "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" as covering TfDs as such discussion do often result in the addition or removal of infoboxes. Arbitrators seem to be giving us a variety of different answers here on what the restriction is intended to cover, which in my view is evidence in itself that the remedy doesn't work as currently worded. CT Cooper · talk 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Many of the TfD nominations were justified; that is not in dispute as far as I'm concerned. What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things.

@RexxS: In the case of Eurovision template there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates, but they weren't gong anywhere fast, so the effect of Andy's actions was a lot of unnecessary drama and the templates being panic merged in a poor fashion, which later had to be fixed by outside parties. I cannot speak about the details of other cases, but it is not true that Andy is the only person on the project which merges templates. As for this remedy being unrelated, well it clearly isn't that unrelated – the remedy was about infoboxes; this discussion is about infoboxes. Claims that they are unrelated hinge entirely on the current interpretation of the remedy, which given arbitrators' comments so far, may still be up for debate after all. CT Cooper · talk 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: No, the remedy is not clear that relates only to articles which is why this amendment has been proposed, and the merging/deletion of infoboxes inherently involves articles anyway. Actually, he has been admonished by an uninvolved admin at least once for incivility, which was name-calling, as was clearly indicated in my original statement. I took the courtesy of reading all prior statements before making my own, and I would appreciate it if other editors did the same. CT Cooper · talk 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Thank you for your input. If I had my way, this particular case would have never ended-up in front of ArbCom. On the Eurovision templates, I did attempt to informally mediate the situation by pointing out errors in the actions of both sides and noting that there was actually agreement that some templates needed to be merged; it was tragically only drama over how it was done that was getting in the way. Unfortunately however, the issue spiralled out of control very quickly, and so here we are. If the proposed amendment goes through or no further action is taken by ArbCom, I would welcome an uninvolved administrator to come in and mediate should Andy choose to continue to be involved in Eurovision templates. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: In my statement I have clearly stated that I accept the motion as proposed; said motion is not "trying to remove just Andy from template discussions". Yes other editors have not behaved well at times, that is undeniable, but Andy is the one that got himself subject to ArbCom sanctions and so this discussion is about him and him alone – I know some people are unhappy about that, but that is the reality of the situation. Actions against other editors are for another venue such as WP:ANI.

I have already presented clear evidence (I am the only person here to have actually presented diffs), which clearly shows problematic behaviour from Andy. My area of contact with Andy is limited to Eurovision templates, and there maybe kernels of truth that Andy has been unjustly criticised elsewhere, which is why I have no quarrel with some statements supportive of Andy, even if they present things from a different perspective from my own. What I take exception to it people appearing to turn-up to engage in cheer-leading and to simplistically declare that anyone who dares have a grievance against Andy is somehow on an template ownership driven witch-hunt, without taking the time to review what the grievances against Andy actually are, let alone reviewing the full facts of the matter before commenting.

I could present more evidence or elaborate in much more detail on why Andy's behaviour was at times unacceptable, but my main motive here is not to get Andy "punished" or further restricted. What I'm interested in ensuring that the sanctions are properly defined and that Andy refrains from further problematic behaviour so this doesn't need to come in front of ArbCom again. On the latter, I view coming to ArbCom as an absolute last resort and I've stated clearly that I'm open to options which are far more favourable to Andy. TfD discussions inherently involve adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and the remedy covered discussions on such matters, so yes they are related, though whether they are covered by the sanction or not is a matter for ArbCom to decide. I hope they do so soon. In the meantime, I will present more evidence if and when ArbCom requests it; I don't answer to anyone else on that subject. CT Cooper · talk 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: A think a complete re-wording is a good idea, and something along those lines is acceptable to me. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, there needs to be a change of behaviour from Andy for this to be a workable resolution. CT Cooper · talk 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I think I was clear that I'm happy to accept the current interpretation (in fact, I said so in the second sentence of my statement), with my support for the motion being motivated by a desire to help set the current interpretation in stone. Any comments from me which stated the interpretation was up for debate again were in a response to some arbitrators appearing to want to review this, though I will let them speak for themselves on that. It remains my view that people should respond to restrictions by finding completely new areas to edit, rather than editing around them, though I accept that nobody is obliged to follow this advice and I have not at any point actively pushed for the current interpretation of the remedy to be altered. If in the future I reach the conclusion that stronger sanctions are needed, I will ask for new sanctions at an appropriate venue, not for re-interpretations of existing ones.

The merging of templates sometimes does involve removing existing templates from articles – such as when merging multiple templates together into a new one, as was carried out with Eurovision templates recently, but I won't quibble over such technicalities and a completely revised wording should resolve this. I agree that merging little used templates is generally a good thing, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that such activities are in themselves a problem. What is the problem is the way Andy sometimes goes about doing this, as highlighted in my evidence. Does that justify new sanctions at this point? Probably not, but if the problematic behaviour continues, that situation might change. Certainly I think lifting all the sanctions is out of the question at this point, at least until Andy proves he is ready for it. CT Cooper · talk 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I disagree, as rightly or wrongly, it was ultimately Andy's behaviour that led to this coming back to ArbCom, starting with an enforcement request, which has now been followed by this request for clarification and amendment. Myself and other editors at WikiProject Eurovision didn't even know Andy was under an ArbCom restriction to start with, and it could have easily stayed that way. I'm afraid I'm not following the rest of your points, though I've been familiar with Andy's highly positive contributions in various areas for a good while, which if I'm honest, is one reason I was as actually quite shocked to find out that he did have such a long history with ArbCom. A happy New Year to you too! CT Cooper · talk 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: When quoting my comments, please give proper attribution and proper context. That is my view based on experience with similar situations to this one, but I have also made clear that I have given my support to clarifying the current sanctions, rather than to expanding them. CT Cooper · talk 11:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really does need to be greater clarification regarding this, since much of the problem involves Andy's participation at TfDs, especially when he nominates and then sometimes re-nominates the same templates without attempting to involve himself in discussion with end users or maintainers of the template. Quite often we see "Redundant to....." as the rationale, when in fact this is not the case. An example is {{Infobox Ireland station}} which, along with {{Infobox NI station}}, Andy nominated last year. The result of the discussion was that Infobox Ireland station was kept and Infobox NI station was merged into it. Not satisfied with the result, as has happened before, Andy has now re-nominated Infobox Ireland station today. Forcing the community to go through the same process over and over until he achieves the desired result can be seen to be disruptive, and this is what forces people to file AE Requests, especially since deletion of an infobox can be interpreted as removing it from an article, even if it is replaced by another. If the restriction placed on Andy is only applicable to articles, then this needs to be set in stone. If this isn't done, then more AE Requests are likely to be filed as Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: - Yes, reducing the number of templates can be beneficial but that's not always the case. For example, Andy has now nominated {{Infobox Rome episode}} for deletion (again). In the process, and regardless of the outcome of the TfD, he has removed code from the template that now opens the way for somebody to justifiably create two additional templates regardless of the TfD outcome. Andy has a narrow focus when it comes to templates and doesn't always look at the big picture. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: - The wording is an improvement, but I don't think it is enough. One of the things that I've been complaining about for some time is that Andy almost never (99.9% of the time) seems to engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging. The restriction would seem to encourage him not to engage in discussion which, to me at least, seems counterproductive. An example is the nomination for {{Infobox Australian road}}, which was specifically kept after extended discussion, including an RfC attended by members of the Highways and Australian Roads projects. If Andy had discussed this first, the TfD might not have happened. I feel Andy's restriction should require that he engage in discussion before nominating infoboxes. At the very least it should encourage such discussion but, as it stands, it encourages him to nominate and sort it out at TfD, which can be a combative venue, and Andy seems to be taking advantage of this based on his recent nominations. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Does replacing one infobox with another in an article qualify as "Andy testing the boundaries". There has been no consensus for this change. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I really don't appreciate your accusations of mud-slinging. It's been said here that Andy's restriction extends only to article space and here we have two edits in article space where he has effectively added an infobox. The restriction does not make it clear that changing is not part of the restriction. The change he made doesn't make sense when all of the related articles use a different infobox and his change removed content from display. He made that change specifically as a test. He could have easily created the example in his user space or at Template:Infobox Rome episode/testcases where there is a side by side comparison.

You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? No, it's simply common courtesy to discuss use of a template with the end users first. Andy avoids that at all costs. He doesn't have to "search around for all the people", it's usually just a matter of going to the template's talk page to identify the end user project and opening a discussion on the project's talk page. Andy is so inconsiderate that he won't even leave a simple note, leaving others to do it for him.[3] He refuses to even add |type=infobox to TfD notices because the option is not available in Twinkle,[4] which regularly upsets other users.[5] Andy selectively forgets that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and it's that attitude that has resulted in an extremely long block log and sanctions. His negative interactions with so many editors necessitates making the wording of those sanctions very clear because not everyone can find the long discussions that lead to those sanctions. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and Rschen7754: Rschen7754's posts haven't really explained the extent of the issue with {{Infobox Australian road}}. The timeline of the discussions is as follows:

• 22 August 2010 - start of a lengthy discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian road about converting Australian articles to use {{Infobox road}}
• 13 September 2010 - TfD after the nominator failed to achieve his aims at Template talk:Infobox Australian road. TfD was withdrawn by nom after significant opposition and ongoing discussion on template's talk page. Nomination at this time was polarising given the ongoing discussion that was not complete.
• 31 December 2011 - Nominated at TfD by Pigsonthewing. Lengthy discussion and significant opposition to the merge resulted in TfD being closed as "no consensus".
• May 2013 - RfC proposal that Infobox Australian road be merged with Infobox road. At the beginning of the proposal there was some merit in the proposal but significant improvements to the infobox resulted in the RfC, which was attended by members of both the Highways and Australian roads projects (with a visit from Pigsonthewing), being abandoned quite amicably. Discussion on this even extended to IRC.
• May 2013 - present - ongoing improvements to infobox

Andy is well of the history of this infobox, and the differences of opinions, and still chose to take it to TfD instead of starting a discussion with the two projects, whose relationship has been more or less harmonious until now. His actions in this case are disruptive. Ironically, while Rschen7754 and I are on opposite sides regarding merging, we seem to agree regarding his attitude, which extends to other templates, as evidenced by the various discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: "he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise" - He's also damaged templates and his expertise has also caused detriment to the project. He tends to think from a coder's point of view, making arbitrary decisions about what templates should or should not contain, without considering the effect on end users who have to use the templates. As a recent example, he recently made a change to {{Infobox Rome episode}}, which he's nominated for merging, and that change opens the way for two more templates to be quite legitimately created, regardless of whether or not the template is merged. His nominations are not always consistent with best practice. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is well-known for his technical abilities, especially related to templates such as infoboxes. It is therefore not unexpected that he should be regularly involved with clean-up of the vast proliferation of templates that perform near-identical functions. This request was sparked off by Andy asking that {{Infobox Ireland disused station}} (used 314 times) and {{Infobox Ireland station}} (used 187 times) be merged into {{Infobox station}} (used 16,002 times) as it is easier to maintain and use one template than three. In this case the generic template can specify the country and could have the date when the station stopped being used. It is perfectly reasonable to have these sort of debates and that is the purpose of TfD. Look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 #Template:Infobox Ireland station and see if you think asking for a debate is unreasonable.

What is unacceptable here is some editors' attempts to stifle debate by using an unrelated ArbCom decision to remove an "opponent" from nominating templates that they OWN. Andy does nominate a lot of templates for merge and deletion, but that's is not disruptive, per se - for heaven's sake there are thousands of templates that are only used in a handful of articles where a more generic and widely-used template is already available. Andy is one of the few people who is willing to spend time rationalising this sort of proliferation and - inconvenient as it may be to the OWNers - he performs a valuable job in this field. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: You accept that other editors have caused problems yet you are trying to remove just Andy from template discussions. So what if "there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates"? you can't be the sole arbiter of who participates in those discussions and Andy is not only entitled to do so, but is a useful catalyst in moving forward such discussions. If templates were merged in a poor fashion, the answer is to FIXIT, not blame the person who pointed out the problem. As Humphrey Appleby would say 'to be bold' is one of those irregular verbs: "I edit boldly; you edit problematically; he/she edits disruptively". As for unrelated - yes TfD is utterly unrelated to adding or removing infoxes from articles. If you want to make a case for sanctions concerning TfD, then file a case; you'll need diffs, of course, not this sort of "guilt by mud-slinging" that some have been engaged in here.

@ArbCom: Here's yet another confirming instance that your faulty decision last year has done nothing but paint a target on some of the participants: you sanction someone for one thing and it's open season on them every time they get into a disagreement with other editors. Isn't it time you realised you screwed up by taking sides in a content dispute? or do you intend to repeat the same mistakes again and again? --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CT Cooper: Andy's track record at TfD shows that he is concerned with merging little-used templates into more generic ones. In most cases this is a good thing. The effect of a successful merge is normally that one template becomes a redirect to the other. This clearly does not result in the removal or addition of a template to any article. It was never an issue at the Infobox RfArb case that there was a problem with Andy replacing one infobox with another - and we've even had this argument at Clarification and it was clearly agreed that this was not part of his restriction. So no, asking for a template to be merged into another really, really doesn't have any relationship to the sanctions imposed on Andy and I worry that you're asking for an already answered question to be re-litigated.

@Courcelles: Yes, it would require a lot more wordsmithing because "prohibited from ... discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added [to] or removed from ... [a] group of articles" would include project pages (is that your intention?) as well as directly contradicting "allowed ... to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion. since the former is one of the things that people discuss at TfD. Even though Andy has never, to my knowledge, suggested at TfD that a template should be removed (he is always looking to merge them into more common ones), your wording would prevent him from taking part in debating one of his nominations as soon as someone suggested deleting the template. I seriously hope that wasn't your intention, either. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: No. Replacing one infobox with another is definitely not part of Andy's restrictions and that question has already been asked and answered in the negative as part of a previous Clarification Request. We already know it's not testing any boundaries and your suggestion amounts to mud-slinging at Andy in the hope that some of it sticks. Do your homework before trying to extend sanctions by the back-door. Replacing {{Infobox Rome episode}} by {{Infobox television episode}} is an utterly sensible improvement to an article - do you advocate a template for each and every television series in existence? He doesn't need your permission before editing; and suggesting that editors have to seek consensus before making an uncontroversial edit is just the usual trick of OWNers who don't want outsiders messing with their precious articles. "Engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging" over my dead body: you just want to put obstacles in the way of any editor who dares to edit your articles. You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? ridiculous. You also need to understand what is meant by "Templates for Discussion": it's the place where templates are discussed. You want to have that discussion on the pages of a WikiProject, rather than on the pages where we are meant to discuss templates. TfD is the correct venue because it brings together members of Wikiprojects and other editors who may have a different view to have the discussion. That's healthy, and requiring a pre-discussion on the pages of what may be a moribund Wikiproject is not a sensible option. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom decision was clear that it related to articles. Andy is doing helpful wikignoming with his TfDs and this is simply a witchhunt. His efforts are beneficial to the project as he largely is finding long-abandoned templates or those with few transclusions. He defends his actions and is remaining remarkably civil in his responses (which are at times a bit pointed, but he's yet to resort to name-calling; something that cannot be said about other editors who oppose him). There is an OWNership problem here and a serious lack of goodwill. This needs to be closed with a clarification that only articles are subject to this sanction, and frankly, given Andy's use to the project (I asked him to repair infobox horseracing personality not long ago), I think it is time his restrictions are lifted altogether. If the project wants to avoid drama, then avoid setting people up as scapegoats. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the people crying "off with his head" to be quite troubling. Per WP:BAIT, I think Andy has been remarkably civil. And per WP:BOOMERANG, I strongly suggest that people in glass houses of ownership and rude, incivil behavior (Francis and DePiep, for example) should not be throwing stones! Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: and others: I am very troubled that a legitimate content contributor with actual expertise in the area is being considered for a ban in that very area of expertise. This is a misguided attempt to boomerang on what the original filing party @Callanecc: wanted to accomplish, which was to clarify the parameters of the restriction. I have found Andy very helpful and quite willing to be collaborative and cooperative in genuine attempts to improve content. Andy is an individual who has been given awards for his work by WMF by none other than Jimbo, Andy is an individual who is a wikipedian in residence in his home country, with a wealth of knowledge to contribute to the project. It just seems beyond the pale that a small herd of disgruntled individuals who want to preserve their WP:OWN little Balkanized domain are trying to run him off for things like suggesting at TfD that we don't really need separate infoboxes for each of the hundreds of mass transit systems throughout the world where one will do. In the face of people calling him incompetent, trolling his every TfD to !vote oppose with the same ill-will-biased personal attacks every time, I am really quite impressed that he has consistently replied with fair arguments, a modicum of basic civility, and just the slightest touch of snark. He hasn't even called anyone a "c--t". (Which recently has - appropriately - been deemed a forgivable misstep once the totality of the circumstances were considered) These bullies can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ::perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) As I've recused from the issue, I'm moving my comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Andy for a few years, and neatly cooperated on a couple of projects without making a big hooha; however I only know of this request due to preparing my own amendment for a different matter. CT Cooper above raises a reasonable point of distance, however if there is a problem with working collegiately then this does not need Arbcom's authority to resolve, the conventional civility and dispute resolution procedures are sufficient.

Speaking as an editor "haunted" and occasionally gibed by a past Arbcom case, I can well believe the views expressed here that the prior case involving Andy may be used inappropriately. This does not benefit the encyclopedia in the long run, and as Arbcom has often stated, normal collegiate resolution processes with any action within the capability of administrators should be preferred and exhausted before resorting to the supreme device of the Arbcom stick. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: "everything related to infoboxes" would be unhelpful as Andy would have to worry that any edit to an article with an infobox could end up being a block discussion. I expect the committee is wise enough based on the history of past problem cases, to stick to well defined and constrained motions to avoid the unintended consequence of driving editors off Wikipedia altogether, with phrases such as "widely construed" being used literally as a form of Russell's paradox by overly keen wikilawyers. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the editors who were restricted well over a year ago here have more than followed their sanctions. Andy has avoided the article end of adding and removing infoboxes, and has still remained dedicated to improving the project through his technical skills. It appears to me that even though Arbcom (of that day) did not place the all so common "broadly construed" to its remedy, the bulk of disruption comes from those looking for a thread with which to create a noose. While the continual drag ya back to AE/ARCA is entertaining from a soap opera point of view, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is: Remove the restrictions, and you remove the drama mongers out looking for a lynching party. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Many if not most arb cases contain a clause stating that after a certain amount of time (often 12 months/1 year) editors are able to appeal their restrictions. I wasn't able to find that provision in the infobox case, can someone tell me why that is? The facts are plain that it was those who favored the inclusion of an infobox who were sanctioned, those who opposed them were "reminded and/or admonished" - and that's fine, evidence/findings etc. I get that. I know that as a 3rd party that I can't request the lifting of restrictions - but I am wondering ... just how long does the committee intend to impose restrictions on those who favor having infoboxes in articles? Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG. With respect sir, I am somewhat confused. Per your comment "What I personally would do is simple: I have definite opinions on the subject of infoboxes, that they are useless if not uniform, and I would have recused from the entire case." which you made here, I must ask if you are now un-recusing with regard to this topic? — Ched :  ?  14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration refers to articles. If wording needs to be explicit for those confused by the arbitration wording that seems fine. However, this should not be an opportunity nor is this the appropriate place to rewrite the arbitration and expand restrictions, and is it not a place to implement further restrictions based on opinion as for example, here, "However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not." This was a simple request; perhaps it is best on multiple levels to keep it that way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm commenting as an editor, not an arb. I consider myself recused on this issue

As a general statement, perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about. I'm therefore not sure that expertise with infoboxes is relevant to this request.

As a specific comment, I agree the wording could ideally be more precise, but I don't see how to do this without causing other ambiguities, so perhaps the existing general statement is best. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This following this is why the motion is not a good idea. --Rschen7754 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: The funny thing is, I do think the templates should be merged and would share Andy's opinion, but his renomination only served to further polarize the matter and upset people. He shouldn't have been the one to do it, just like I will never bring that template to TFD either, except because of the past drama regarding him and infoboxes, it's even worse. --Rschen7754 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In statements above there is a call or two for other examples of Pigsonthewing's pushing the boundaries of sanctions. Here's one: Pigsonthewing pursuing an article deletion campaign during 2014 at least on articles using custom infoboxes (i.e. using generic {{infobox}} applied to a custom situation) or using lesser-used other infoboxes, working from a worklist of articles having such infoboxes. I don't know whether or not it amounts to Pigsonthewing's having directly violated the sanction terms, or not. But it was pushing the boundaries around templates and in my opinion it caused widespread damage in Wikipedia.

I noted during 2014 that Pigsonthewing pursued a campaign to delete numerous articles by AFDs, in which he nominated mostly older articles in various topic areas, but was obstinate in not explaining what was his motivation and what was the commonality, when asked directly by editors in good faith concerned about the damage being done. AFDs by their nature are negative experiences to the article developers. In my view this campaign was damaging to a swath of Wikipedia editors and to content development in seemingly random areas; one specific consequence was that an editor User:ScottHW developing content about community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, was treated badly and I believe was turned off from contributing. PigsontheWing would not explain the reasons why he nominated specific articles for deletion, would not respond to reasonable questions about whether he performed wp:BEFORE or not, and would not comment about what he was going to further nominate for AFD. He was (I recall, and can look for diffs) derisive about the view by me and others that he was working from a list of summer camps, for example. He would not explain his true motivation, and in this was withholding and difficult for other editors. This prevented me and others from developing an alternative campaign that would be less damaging to wikipedia fabric (like I have advocated and/or been involved in developing in other AFD areas). I also previously and at later times experienced Pigsonthewing as unnecessarily withholding and difficult, e.g. at a later time he complicated a situation by being unwilling to simply clarify to me that he was not an administrator). Within a set of AFDs about summer camps, anyhow, I specifically linked to the others, which were:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Pathfinder (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sitka Fine Arts Camp
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Modin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Rockmont for Boys

What they had in common, which I was not aware of, besides their topics, was that they were developed in an era when editors used user-created custom infoboxes, and the articles still all had them, and they were all listed in PigsontheWing's worklist.

Note of disclosure: PigsontheWing objected to my linking of the summer camp AFDs together in some of the AFDs, by calling my linking to be violation of wp:canvassing guideline (which it was not) and also by asserting that in my referring to the fact that one of the camps was NRHP-listed I had violated a restriction on my own editing (which it might have been, though I had not believed it to be when I mentioned it, and as a consequence I responded to his objection by deleting and/or striking comments that he objected to). This proceeded mostly at User talk:Doncram#NRHP & Recent canvassing. Also I was not during any of this time aware of sanctions on PigsontheWing about userboxes or of any of the arbitration or past history. I had had some previous negative interaction with PigsontheWing about use of "start" templates in conjunction with an NRHP infobox, however. And I thought he was an administrator and hence generally deemed to be highly trusted by the community. My belief that he was an adminstrator was a factor in May 2014 in interaction that led to me opening an edit warring proceeding, whose result was that he and I were both blocked (some info at User talk:Doncram#May 2014. In that incident it was an obstacle that he did not promptly disclose that he was not an administrator. Another obstacle was that he made obfuscating assertions about the location of a discussion (some info at User talk:Doncram#location of discussion issue). I am not sure but I believe that he and I have not much or at all interacted since then. About my posting here, late in this proceeding: I have watchlisted here and have occasionally noticed this proceeding going on, and just happened now to browse it further and then to see more connections.

Around then PigsontheWing prodded and succeeded in eliminating numerous older articles having custom infoboxes or lesser-used infoboxes. In cases when the original article creator was around and noticed and removed the prod, or when others removed the prod, AFDs were started.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Asian Federation of Accountants, July 19 2014 AFDd by Pigsonthewing (one of those with terse nomination "No evidence of notability")
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BETT, prodded by Pigsonthewing, prod removed by me, then AFDd by Pigsonthewing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Farm Community Garden, had been prodded by PigsontheWing, AFD opened by another, PigsontheWing voted delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden, whose custom infobox was changed to park infobox in this first edit at the article by PigsontheWing, before Pigsonthewing prodded it and then opened AFD.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, a follow-on that did not itself involve an infobox, but which extended damage in my view (as it further over-ruled the local editor from developing content where they preferred)
• A series of Isle of Man articles in November 2014, which I believe were on Pigsonthewing's worklist, but anyhow which I believe were targeted for using a little-used template, {{Infobox Isle of Man TT course}}: Crosby Cross-roads, Windy Corner, Glenlough and others.

The scope of Pigsonthewings 2014 infobox-related article deletion campaign includes most of the 48 articles that AFDSTATS shows Pigsonthewing himself nominated for deletion, from August 17, 2013 to December 2014. (Of 48, 21 of those were deleted; 21 were kept by Keep or by No consensus; others were redirected)

But the scope further includes:

• Numerous more prodded by Pigsonthewing and then deleted without AFD, in 2014 (I recall seeing a good number of these in Pigsonthewing's contributions, in progress. These could be found in Pigsonthewing's edit history and reviewed for whether infoboxes were involved by administrators, but not by me)
• Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then AFDd by Pigsonthewing then deleted, in 2014, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Beech (politician), where also i cannot see the original article to determine if it had a custom or lesser-used infobox.
• Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then deleted after an AFD opened by someone else, in 2014 (so not included in Pigsonthewing's AFD nomionations)
• Whatever Pigsonthewing did in 2013 and before, including, e.g. about lesser-used {{Infobox University of Notre Dame residence hall}}, Pigsonthewing's May 3, 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

In the prods and AFD nominations of this campaign, editors might disagree about whether Pigsonthewing had adequate justification to seek deletion on stated grounds they were under-referenced, depending on their perspective about the importance of wp:BEFORE. Pigsonthewing's prod or AFD nominations were terse, often merely asserting "No evidence of notability". Among them were numerous articles, however, were in fact on quite notable topics, as documented in some of the AFDs, where notability could/should have been ascertained by performing wp:BEFORE. Within and around the AFDs, Pigsonthewing lashed out (as at me) and expressed himself strongly and that was damaging I believe.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealed his motivation and worklist throughout the article deletion campaign. I am not aware of Pigsonthewing ever disclosing his motivation or his working from a worklist of articles having custom or less-used infoboxes. He refused to answer questions getting at his list. I figured out later that he was working from a worklist on infoboxes, I think when I noticed in his contributions during fall 2014 that he edited at the worklist itself, which was in User or Wikipedia space. Later still, I looked for the list again, and was not able to find it. I presume that PigsontheWing eventually arranged for the worklist to be deleted. (Update: The worklist is/was User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox ) That was still before I was aware of Pigsonthewing having any template-related sanctions.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealment was damaging to Wikipedia in that it prevented reasonable questioning of his motivation in the prods and AFDs, which would have been legitimate to question in each one, and which could have led editors to explore article merits more and to change the outcome in at least some cases. Or to allow editors to consider clarification or review of Pigsonthewing's sanction. And it prevented the possibility of other editors reviewing his edits, or working collaboratively to contain the damage to editors and to content, e.g. by having an RFC about custom infoboxes, e.g. by collectively reviewing the worklist and seeking alternatives to deletion such as combining standalone articles into new list-articles , or, e.g. by simply by changing the custom or lesser-used infobox usage to a different Pigsonthewing-approved alternative infobox, where such was available, so that Pigsonthewing would no longer target them.

--doncram 20:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Not "irrelevant" at all. After being banned in late 2013 with "1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", Pigsonthewing engaged in a campaign to remove infoboxes he didn't like from mainspace by a selective campaign to remove entire articles. And he concealed it and was disruptive and caused damage to editors (including me and the Nebraska editor who has not edited since.) This does seem to me to be in violation of the intent of the ban, and it went under the radar, and it should not be condoned. And in one edit i linked above, he arguably removed one type of infobox, and added a different type of infobox, which is arguably two violations of the ban. In that case and others he also PRODed or opened AFDs or voted "Delete" and otherwise discussed the removal of infoboxes (his apparent real intent), though couching it as removing the entire articles.

To the arbitrators: I suggest the original ban should be modified to clearly ban this related behavior. It would be reasonable to clarify/extend the ban, perhaps: "Also with respect to articles containing infoboxes, Pigsonthewing is banned from initiating PRODs, from initiating AFDs, and from discussing the removal of such articles." From my review of Pigsonthewing's AFD nominations history, the majority of that is about articles having infoboxes he did not like. Perhaps the clarification could be limited to articles having infoboxes of the type that Pigsonthewing seems to dislike, but not sure how that could be worded. I don't think I or anyone is irreplaceable, and I am not aware why it would be especially important to preserve Pigsonthewing's voice in unrelated AFDs that could be a side impact. --doncram 20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found Pigsonthewing's worklist of articles having custom infoboxes as of April 2, 2014, and Twinkle PROD log showing its use, often rapid-fire. Redlinks show effects on articles in scattered areas. Of summer camp ones, I note this one for which Google news search quickly shows me the topic is Wikipedia-notable and it should not have been deleted. One PRODed and AFD-targeted summer camp article eventually stricken from worklist after another editor applied infobox organization. One struck from worklist after Pigsonthewing changed custom infobox to infobox park, which lost info, may not have been a good fit, but alternatives to deletion push existed. Overall, the pursuit of article deletions with concealment of Pigsonthewing's motivation foisted distruption in scattered areas, removed valid content and/or turned off content editors, and prevented rational discussion. While Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes highlighted effects of infobox campaigns upon great writers' content contributors to feature-worthy articles, this deletion campaign hit scattered others, with same theme of a technical focus by one editor foisted upon content-focused others.

How about narrower clarification that Pigsonthewing to be banned from deletion activity on articles having "direct calls" to infobox template? --doncram 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In immediate response, Pigsonthewing just returned to the worklist ("Thanks for the reminder!"), also requests an update to the worklist from User:John of Reading. and proceeds. E.g. in several edits just termed "CE" makes substantial reduction of infobox while converting its type. And P's edit effectively removes an infobox from an article, by stripping it down to a ridiculous one-item box. wp:POINTY, and isn't this essentially a violation of the clear ban that Pigsonthewing should not remove infoboxes from articles? --doncram 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to understand why Pigsonthewing uses opaque edit summaries of "CE" and why he won't respond to reasonable questions in AFDs and otherwise, about his actions and goals. Because while he is banned from discussing the removals or additions of infoboxes. And he is banned from adding infoboxes, he apparently feels nonetheless he can remove infoboxes (was this intended?) and he perhaps he can "convert" one type of infobox to another type (was this intended?), even if doing so reduces information. Seems to me that "converting", is effectively removing one kind of infobox and adding another infobox. And he just cannot explain what he is doing? So, for example when an editor inquires just now on his Talk page, is he technically in compliance by not answering, or by being cryptic, e.g.

removing the question with "you thought wrong", in answer to inquiry whether he "had been asked not to edit or add infoboxes"]. So he is allowed to edit with deliberately uninformative edit summaries like "CE", and he is required NOT to explain what he is doing, as he follows a worklist bringing him to encounter diverse editors on diverse topics???

I don't get it. Could the arbitrators please clarify whether Pigsonthewing is allowed to edit and remove infoboxes in articles? And is he allowed a loophole of being allowed to "convert" infoboxes, i.e. removing one infobox and adding another type of infobox? Even if the replacement loses some information? Or strips it so information in the new infobox is a fraction of the info in the original? And further that he is prohibited from discussing these actions? Or is he allowed to discuss "editing" but not address questions about adding or removing? Even in an AFD where his motivation is apparently the removal of the infobox, from a worklist? It seems to me like he should not be allowed to do what he cannot discuss. He's not an administrator, but all experienced editors should be willing to explain their actions. If they can't explain they should not be undertaking the actions. --doncram 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think.

So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE and WP:ACCAORWHATEVERTHESHORTCUTISFORTHISPAGE don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either. So the proposed motion seems like a pretty simple solution, and I'm surprised it is not passing. It is not granting him an "exception", it is "clarifying" the previous remedy.

It seems odd to consider expanding the remedy wider than it was before when there's no real evidence that Andy's participation at TFD has been a problem. However, if you want to get evidence about his TFD behavior first, I suppose I won't argue with that. But then I'd suggest narrowing the wording of the scope of the review (and the scope of evidence you want) more than it is now, to narrowly focus on TFD. And keep in mind that if no serious problems are found, you're not deciding whether to relax a remedy, you're deciding whether to tighten it.

p.s. I was pointed to this discussion by a participant in it, but it's not canvassing since she and I don't really agree on the infobox case as a whole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding the word "articles": This should be simple, adding one word to eliminate the drama of people who disagree with Andy trying to play "gotcha" over his legitimate area of expertise. The infobox case involved decisions involving articles, where the question of including or not including infoboxes is wholly different from the technical aspects of infobox templates. Basically, the IDONTLIKEIT crowd who resists Andy's good faith attempts to clean up the mess that the template areas is in needs to realize that Andy disagreeing with them is not a crime and this clarification would help immensely to ratchet down the mob drama that seems to follow Andy everywhere. I vehemently oppose any attempt to increase Andy's restrictions, he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first proposal below, would it also include any articles specifically created by Andy with an infobox in it from the beginning? I don't know how often it might happen that Andy creates new articles, but it would seem to be covered by the proposed sanction, depending on how one defines "adding". John Carter (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse obviously. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of restrictions is to reduce disruption. It doesn't much matter whether the disruption is on articles or talk pages, or wherever. If his contributions in non-article space have not been disruptive, there may be benefit in formalising a narrower scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My recollection was that we crafted the remedy to stop the infobox wars. Those were mainly around adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and that's where Andy needed to be taken away from. I personally supported allowing him to stay in policy debates on the topic, though that didn't pass. I'd certanly support such a change. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As Roger says, arbcom restrictions are meant to stop drama, not breathe new life into it. Considering Andy's recent attempts at testing the boundaries of his restriction and the community's uncertainty as to where exactly these boundaries lie, I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The restriction is fine as written. Decline. AGK [•] 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restriction is not fine as written, as evidenced by the fact that it's the second time in less than two months that we have been requested to clarify its scope. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is evidence that people are struggling to grasp the restriction, not that it warrants amendment. It is unreasonable to agree that a sentence as simple as the one in question is ambiguous.

      @NE Ent: My advice is to discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace; I don't see where this has come from or why it was arrived at. As I said, the restriction is fine as written. Any confusion about it is difficult to sympathise with in this case, given the remedy's clarity. AGK [•] 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In case this is still active on 1 January, I'll note here for the record that I am recused as an arbitrator for this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What about something like "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added or removed from either a specific article or group of articles. He is explicitly allowed to edit infobox templates to improve their functionality, and to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion." Needs some wordsmithing, but I've never liked the wording of the initial restriction, and while I don't think Andy has gamed it, the wording has still led to drama. Some more explicit language would be good, even though it leaves the line of what Andy may and may not do the same. (I think enough time has passed to allow an exception for putting infoboxes in articles he has recently created himself, but that might be beyond the scope of this request.) Courcelles 23:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @RexxS: Perhaps "participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox". The locus of dispute here was binary, whether an article should or should not have an infobox; not whether it should use "template:infobox foo" or "template:infobox bar". Courcelles 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me --Guerillero | My Talk 17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Courcelles' suggestion, though I think Callanecc has a good point that "to improve their functionality" should be dropped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also recused from this request. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Essentially I agree with Salvio. I consider some of the renominations at TfD disruptive, and think that both nominating and discussing template related infoboxes there should be included in the ban. I'd like to find some language permitting technical changes, but I can't see how to make it unambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I had earlier stated I would recuse from this case. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend more toward agreeing with Courcelles and WTT. I don't see how any of these nominations were deliberately disruptive (the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started), and the original restrictions clearly indicate a restriction on whether or not an article should have an infobox, not maintenance tasks on infoboxes. I would have to see more evidence of disruption on Andy's part in the areas of maintaining infoboxes before I would be willing to consider expanding the restriction, and I don't see justification for that here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Thryduulf: Maybe scope of the restriction is the wrong wording...but regardless, if we pass the motion as is, no administrator at ANI is going to feel like they can restrict him in the areas we explicitly allow. As I stated, we can achieve the same by saying that it only applies to the article and talk spaces, without explicitly allowing. I'm also not fully on board that he's been completely cooperative in areas outside the ban, as some diffs here appear different. There is simply not enough information here to see whether explicitly allowing those is healthy for the community. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 15 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 Abstaining; a majority is 7.

Support

1. This seems to have totally stalled out, so proposed as a motion to stimulate new discussion. The goal here is to neither widen or narrow the restrictions, but to reduce drama by clearing out some grey area, along lines of how the AE admins have been enforcing the existing remedy. Copyedit as necessary. Courcelles 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Thryduulf: Good point, I've made some changes based on your feedback. (WHich I think I can do, seeing as how I'm the only vote at the moment.) If any arbs prefer the older version, feel free to revert. Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. it works --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. No, Andy needs to be topic banned from everything related to infoboxes, not granted exceptions which make it easier for him to act disruptively all over again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pigsonthewing is a valued contributor across many areas, but has what many see as an uncollaborative approach when dealing with infoboxes. Remedy 1.1 has been interpreted as applying only to the space in which the original dispute occurred (articles), but various editors above have suggested the same uncollaborative approach still exists at TfD's. The remedy is silent about where it applies: as it was based on user conduct, it should be applied where that conduct occurs. I note there is disagreement about whether Pigsonthewing is being uncollaborative at TfD, but the above evidence section shows the point is at least arguable. I don't therefore support a formal narrowing of the restriction via the second sentence of the above motion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. I also can't work with the second half of this motion. We don't have enough evidence (or this might not even the proper venue) presented to determine whether Pigsonthewing is constructively editing or not to what we are explicitly allowing by the proposed motion. It then prevents people from taking it to ANI or other appropriate venues to get restrictions if they are needed. It just brings it right back to ARCA which is why were here in the first place. I could see a motion restricting it to the article and talk spaces without exceptions, as that doesn't change the scope of the restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   We have two options. We can reword the topic ban in line with what evidence we have. It is obvious that the status quo is going to cause us future issues. The other option is to open a quick review of the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review where we get evidence for a week and then post a PD the next. This review would have to be very narrow in scope or it would get bogged down quickly. I would support opening a review if a group of arbs don't have enough evidence to work off of here. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Guerillero. This has been sitting here for weeks with no prospect of proceeding on the current evidence. Rather than trying to interpret the previous decision, let's consider this extremely specific issue as a narrowly written case. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per below. LFaraone 22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Enacted - S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 13 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 abstaining; a majority is 6.

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

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]

Abstain

---