Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purposes of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mission

5) Wikipedia's mission is to built an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such as metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ownership

6) Wikipedia articles are developed by the Wikipedia community at large. Any editor may make good faith edits to any article, and no editor should seek to prevent other editors from good-faith editing.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Walled gardens

7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, where on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Use of infoboxes

1) The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus of dispute

2) There is no general rule on infoboxes, meaning there are regularly debates regarding the use of infoboxes on articles. The debates are overwhelmed by a number of editors, who have been listed as parties on this case.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pigsonthewing

3) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history of editing articles with the focus on adding or modifying infoboxes, and has been previously banned from editing TFAs.[1] as well as sanctioned in Arbitration cases, being banned for one year twice, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions

4) Pigsonthewing's contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and enflame the situation.[2][3][4] He also selectively chooses what discussions he considers consensus[5]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Nikkimaria

4) Nikkimaria has repeatedly edit warred to remove infoboxes without helpful edit summaries.[6][7][8][9], on two occassions the edit war led to her being blocked.[10] She has frequently sniped at Andy and pro-infobox editors in discussions.[11]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Gerda Arendt

5) Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[12] and without prior discussion.[13]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Pigsonthewing

1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1.2) For tendentious editing, edit warring, disruption, and a previous history of sanctions, Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Nikkimaria

2.1) For edit warring with Pigsonthewing, Nikkimaria is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2.2) For edit warring with Pigsonthewing, Nikkimaria is desysopped. She may only regain her administrator permissions through a successful RFA.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2.3) Nikkimaria is indefinitely restricted from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Gerda restricted

1.1) Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from removing or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments: