`  ::::Back to the other topic: I am not at all passionate about infoboxes, I simply believe that readers are helped by a minimum information about an article's topic and its time and location. How, in the ``free encyclopedia that anyone can edit``, a few people (arbitration committee) tell one editor how not to write his articles is beyond my understanding. I am quite passionate about people, and fairness. We lost too many already and keep losing.     :::::I absolutely agree in theory - about why infoboxes are useful and about Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia - bearing in mind that it's driven by a combination of guidelines and is managed by consensus. I see from the information about the long-standing controversy about use of infoboxes, editing/reverting content, that there was no clear side that was right or wrong  and the arbitrator suggested that the parties try to work at getting along. As long as the long-standing dynamics stay the same, the situation will not likely get better. Is it possible to, rather than being frustrated about edits/changes to really try and hear where their coming from and work to address their concerns? The one thing I am continuing to learn here is that consensus is a powerful underlying mechanism for making decisions. I, too, have had differences of opinions with others about whether or not to use citation templates, infoboxes, removal of uncited content, etc. - so I understand the frustration. I also know that trying to hard to push something through can be a waste of energy, create an unhelpful dynamic, and keep you me from having fun writing articles. I get that it's important for you to stand up for your opinions, it just may be with a bit of patience, trying to understand the other people's point of view, and giving the issue a rest for a bit might result in a renewed energy and approach.  `