Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case[edit]

Active:

  1. AGK
  2. Courcelles
  3. David Fuchs
  4. Newyorkbrad
  5. NuclearWarfare
  6. Salvio giuliano
  7. SilkTork
  8. Timotheus Canens
  9. Worm That Turned
  10. Carcharoth

Inactive:

  1. Roger Davies

Recused:

  1. Risker
  2. Kirill Lokshin

Giano's comment/evidence[edit]

I very much agree with Giano's comments. Both regarding Andy M's disruptive approach to participation on the project, and the larger policy question about infoboxes. The machine reading question seems most important for people wanting to automatically 'jack article info from the project for purposes that may or may not be compliant with the sites copywrite policies. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence length[edit]

I wish to make a final addition to my evidence to bring the total up to about 1220 words. Is that OK?--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerus, can I just ask what you plan to add? I imagine it will likely be fine; I just want to double check before approving it. NW (Talk) 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you want to see it? It's a brief preface, a detailed analysis of a particular incident, a summary of its implications and some possible remedies for the future. In draft at the moment but I can make it available if you wish. Guaranteed no snarling! May turn out less than 1200, certainly no more--Smerus (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I needed to hear. I'll grant you an extension to 1300 words, but see if you can get it below that if possible. NW (Talk) 18:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do my best to trim it below 1200.--Smerus (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ NW ... so any individual arb can "approve" what evidence is presented? I don't mean that to be as snarky as it sounds, and I do understand the limits and such. Still, as much as I respect that there are many words to be read in this case - I think it's best to be open to any and all thoughts here. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most circumstances, I will be happy to grant an evidence limit extension to anyone who feels they really need it so long as they make a good faith internal analysis to see whether they will be able to present the evidence without exceeding the usual limits. You'll notice that I hardly asked for any details before allowing Smerus to proceed; that was deliberate. (And if you are asking whether any Arb can approve evidence limit extensions as a procedural matter, the answer is yes; it appears that the Committee handles such matters by unanimous consent). NW (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I read it as a very uppity response. My fault for reading "tone" into text and all, ... I probably shouldn't have said anything. — Ched :  ?  20:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Ched and no offense taken; I'll try to be clearer in the future. NW (Talk) 20:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an increase on the limit, too, please. You'll see from what I've already written that I'm being concise and relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence length is one of my ongoing pet peeves here at ArbCom. Not just in this case but in others as well. It seems there are "rules" for word limits which are enforced by the clerks but any Arb, at the drop of the hat, can extend the limit to anyone who asks, and pretty much all requests are granted. This undermines the authority of the clerks, penalizes those who work hard to stay within the limit, and makes a further mockery of the self-contradictory guideline which says:
  • Don't go over the limit: By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions,
  • But you can if you ask: users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.
  • But your overages can be deleted without warning: Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.
I don't expect any resolution to this now, but this is something that in my opinion needs to be re-evaluated and clarified by ArbCom. I understand ArbCom wants evidence presenters to be concise as reading and evaluating a case is a massive, time consuming project. But the current system is dis-functional in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is at 1112 words already, with "more follows". As a) he is clearly a principal figure in the case, and b) Smerus of the other party has been allowed up to 1300 above, so should Andy. I don't see a general problem. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, would 1300 words be sufficient? If not, why not? NW (Talk) 12:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try, but 1500 seems more likely. There are a lot of points to refute... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How often does the "Word length/diff count" get updated? I'd like to know how long my evidence is, so that I can trim or add words. (I believe it is 500 on the dot, but if there's room to grow, I have more points that could be added...). Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not having had a response to my last post in this section, and with the deadline looming, I've just gone ahead (IAR!) and written what I felt I had to (I could say more!) being mindful that being as concise as possible is a courtesy to the arbs & clerks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission request: I'd like to add 83 more words to my evidence (giving additional reasons as to the harm of collapsible sections). I believe I'm currently at 500-exactly, but am not sure. Please and thank you. –Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your current evidence submissions: User:Hahc21, could you please increase Andy's word limit to 1500 and Quiddity's to 600? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. On it. — ΛΧΣ21 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Hahc21 is not an admin and cannot edit the bot's configuration page, I have done so in his stead. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte[edit]

Sorry, I don't know much about the Arbitration processes, but I thought I'd point out that there was a lengthy discussion about the infobox on this page. For what it's worth, my opinion about infoboxes in most of the bio and operetta articles that I work on extensively is that: (1) The box does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. (2) All of the important points that could be mentioned in an infobox, like birth/death dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly and more accurately in the article's WP:LEAD so the content in the box is redundant. (3) The box takes up valuable space near the top of the article. (4) It limits the size of the first photo and hampers the layout of the Lead. (5)Frequent errors and vandalism creep into infoboxes. (6) Starting the article with the infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the article and discourages new editors from editing the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article; instead of improving the article, they spend lots of time working on this cosmetic, repetitive feature and its extensive coding and formatting. With respect to the project that I work on the most WP:G&S, I am familiar with all of the 500+ articles within the scope of this project, and I have shepherded several of them to become FA articles, and more to become GA articles. Those of us who are active in the project try to use a consistent design with respect to our bio and opera articles. As far as I know, none of the Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles have infoboxes, so sticking an infobox in one article would destroy the consistency of design throughout the Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening, intimidating malicious emails.[edit]

I am extremely concerned by the allegations made in this thread here [1]. I think an Arb needs to step in and thoroughly investigate the matter; such emails, if they exist, are completely unacceptable.  Giano  20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to to see this edit [2]. Could someone from the Arbcom please put Moxy's mind at rest.  Giano  07:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy's evidence[edit]

I'm concerned to see that Moxy has deleted his evidence, apparently as a result of this off-wiki harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Pigsonthewing: Perhaps you, as someone he respects, can persuade Moxy to forward these emails to the Arbcom or even publish them in full on Wikipedia - these things really do need nipping in the bud. Moxy needs to feel the love and support of the community at what is clearly a very worrying time for him.  Giano  15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think publishing in full on Wikipedia is wise. But I do hope Moxy will be willing to forward them to ArbCom. Moxy - if you are reading this, I saw your last comments in your talk page history. The Arbs are identified by name to the Foundation, so I believe you can safely forward the emails to them. However, if you are still concerned, I might recommend forwarding to a Foundation employee, perhaps even its legal guru... I'm sorry, I forget who it is at this moment. I trust someone else will post their name/contact info for me. Resolute 16:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geoff Brigham (gbrigham(at)wikimedia.org) is the General Counsel. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, Resolute. I have asked Moxy again to please forward those e-mails to ArbCom or, alternatively, to Geoff. I do hope he does share them with us/him, because we need to investigate his allegations. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find this concerning too. Something needs to be done: if people are being threatened out of offering their views, we're losing fair representation of as wide a sample of the community as possible. I'd like to see this case consider everyone's points, without people being harassed out of providing their views. Brambleclawx 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the love and support of the community"? Hypocrite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lengths the fair and balanced RexxS is going to in trying to show what a polite editor you are, do you think name calling is helpful to anyone's cause here? - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation[edit]

For the past week, I've been looking at Arbitration Cases and Anis, RfA, and RfC and the like (going back at times to 2003) and I see the same names time after time again. Some activity clusters around 2007, some is more recent. But it seems like there are always about two dozen people who actively participate in this Wiki political arena. And most of them seem to hate each other.

It would be nice to see a greater variety of voices heard from, especially from newer users (say 1-3 years active). I realize that it can take years before editors even realize these areas of the Wikipedia website exist and only a few of them will care enough to participate.

I just find it odd to run across talk about Admin cabals on User Talk Pages when it's not just small subset of Admins who make most of the blocking decisions, it's a small, but very vocal, group of Editors who participate in discussions on article and category deletions, nominations for Admins, Arbitration Board issues and the like. They might not have Admin powers but just because there are so few people who take the time to come and Oppose or Support people or issues, they still wield a lot of power. It's amazing that, for example, 20 Support votes and 7 Oppose votes (or vice versa) can result in a decision that is stated to be consensus....out of the thousands of people who spend time editing the wiki. Kind of mind-blowing.

My point? I don't think I will get more involved, not because I don't care but it seems like it is an enormous time suck and just seems to lead users to epic levels of frustration and creates more enemies. Why do you all do it? I'm not sure but it seems like a lot of it is dependent on pure tenacity and unwillingness to let sleeping dogs lie.

Just an observation. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I know someone who lived in Switzerland, where they use direct democracy. He said they have exactly the same problems as countries with representative democracy, because the 'usual people' who actually bother to vote for anything, are those with extremely strong opinions (plus a scattering of those with an abundance of both education and time). My point being: education is the only way we're going to advance this mess called civilization.
2) The frustrating articles and events are fairly uncommon, they just create a lot of noise, and so seem more prominent. Mostly things tick along quite nicely, albeit quietly.
3) Yup, archetypes. Some people enjoy things that other people don't enjoy. Diversity is definitely better than homogeneity!
HTH. (I assume this whole thread should be moved somewhere else, but I wanted to reply before it was shifted) –Quiddity (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 69, while I share some of your perspective and value your contribution, this isn't the place for such a discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Project[edit]

I note that alleges "Ownership by Infobox Project", yet, unlike two of the classical music projects, that project is not listed as an involved party. No other editor listed as a member of that project seems to have been mentioned here, and, so far, none have provided evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox universtity[edit]

University of Illyria
Universiti von Illyria
Latin: Universitas Illyriensis
Motto
Melior a lepidus fossor quam a stultus lepor lepos
Motto in English
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit
Location12°20′42″N 98°45′54″W / 12.345°N 98.765°W / 12.345; -98.765
This university is completely fictional.

@Orlady:, your comments about required parameters in {{Infobox university}} seems to be based on a 5-year-old discussion. I have looked at the template code, and the parameters are optional. Others are welcome to verify.

Also, the project "to do" list suggests adding an infobox, but does not mandate it.

You may wish to amend your comments, as you see fit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that the template no longer requires date and city. I foolishly assumed that the template documentation that says they are "REQUIRED" was accurate. Regardless, as I noted on the evidence page, city is still de facto required: if it's omitted, the infobox lists a location like ", Illinois, USA". As for the advice to contributors, the "to do" list says "Create a page for each and every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it." You and I may recognize that as a suggestion, but my experience is that many contributors (especially newbies) interpret those types of statements as instructions on how to contribute to Wikipedia, and will be upset and angry if someone tells them that something they did when they were following instructions wasn't such a good idea. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that it's "de facto required"; see adjacent example, just added. The minor styling issue when the city but not the state or country is omitted are easily fixable; and I've made an {{Editprotected}} request to do so. I've also updated the documentation to reflect reality. I suggest further discussion of that belongs on its talk page, where I can see no recent attempt by you to address these issues. I don't see what the issue is when someone creates a page with an infobox on it. Please can you expand on that? Do you have an example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline[edit]

I wasn't aware that the deadline for adding evidence had been extended. What's the new one, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many infoboxes on articles?[edit]

As I said in my evidence:

Wikipedia has well over 1.7 million infoboxes using {{Infobox}} alone ([3]) and many others beside (N.B. very incomplete list)

The figure of 1.7 million was 1.5 million at the time of an earlier draft. Since that figure has been misrepresented, as being the total of all infoboxes, I'll expand on "many others beside".

Running total: over 2,356,000.

We can only know a minimum figure for the number of infoboxes; the true figure, which will always be higher, is less easy to count. Including all the other non-{{Infobox}} infoboxes (see search for "{| class="infobox " with uses under 1,000, the total is certainly over 2.5 million.

Note that there are pages which will never have an infobox, for example disambiguation pages (over 278,000 using {{Dmbox}}). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing the fact that lots and lots of articles have infoboxes. I fail to see the point of this, other than as an example of just how obsessed you can become. Resolute 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there nothing that won't be portrayed in a negative light on order to try to denigrate those of us working on infoboxes? Firstly, one infobox opponent has claimed in their evidence that there are "only" 1.5 million infoboxes. Secondly, I've been meaning to draw up an ordered list of the most used, non-{{Infobox}} infoboxes for some time, as part of my ongoing work on infobox standardisation and rationalisation; this has served that purpose. And in dong so, I've learned more about what infoboxes we have and how they work; and found some which are unused or redundant and which I've today nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you took my questioning of your specific, individual action and misconstrued it into some sort of attack on pro-infobox editors en masse. Resolute 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone I know once said, this is not a !vote ;-). Does this count include boxes on article talk pages? Any idea how many pages have more than one box on them (this is not uncommon on NRHP articles)? Both of these would reduce the actual number of pages with boxes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's voting? The figures are the number of template transclusions in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - since you seem to making an appeal to numbers, I was trying to make a joke (as evinced by my use of the ";-)" emoticon) referencing our conversation on !voting here.
More importantly, I still do not know if article space includes article talk pages (so if it does, The Rite of Spring article adds 0 to the total, but its talk page falsely adds 5 "infoboxes" to the total). My basic point is that the count is imprecise not only because there are uncounted boxes (making it higher) but incorrectly counted boxes (talk page perhaps, multiple boxes on a single page for sure) which make it lower than it seems. Next I would like to discuss the number of angels who can fit on my pin head ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not included. The figure quoted is, as I said, template transclusions, so there is no such miscounting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence deadline[edit]

I don't mind having my evidence deleted; I knew I posted late. But would like to point out that the following evidence was posted on or after August 1st: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. I had a valid reason, but as I said, I don't mind. I do, however, mind the way my evidence was treated when first posted (causing me to ask to be blocked; a block that lasted 72 hours, removed talk page access and only expired minutes before I re-added the evidence having secured permission by email) and that only my evidence was removed (with the exception of the evidence posted today). My suggestion to the arbiters, is because this is a messy case, becoming messier by the moment, to show as much impartiality as possible and to keep the case clean by being fair. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not happy with how your evidence was "treated", please feel free to respond on the Workshop page to the specific points where I've demonstrated it to be false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting removed evidence here[edit]

I am posting two users' recent evidence originally removed from the associated page here on the talk page diff. I will notify the editors who made these edits next. If they do not want their evidence here, they can remove it themselves. Otherwise, please leave it here for the Arbs to consider, if they will. I will put my thoughts on all this (opinion, not evidence) below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle diff

Evidence presented by Victoriaearle[edit]

FYI to the committee: I've had a username change from Truthkeeper88, to explain discrepancies in diffs.

The tenor of conversation has changed over three years[edit]

An example of an amicable and quick discussion about an infobox happened in June 2011, here on The Sun Also Rises (an FA), [35].

Then the tenor of the discussions changed with this less friendly discussion in February 2012 at Murasaki Shikibu (another FA) [36] with comments alleging "they and their friends" [37]; and this at Amazing Grace (an FA) [38] in August 2012. When the retired primary editor was mentioned, [39], the response was I don't care what a departed user said. Victoria (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors become discouraged[edit]

The day after TFA In September 2012, as soon as the protection template was removed, an infobox was added to Pilgrim at Tinker Creek [40], and resulted in what I consider to be a horrible discussion,[41] with allegations of "pure ownership" directed at the primary editor [42]. She became discouraged and left the project [43], [44]. In my view, no one should endure this kind of treatment on a volunteer writing project, and it continues during this case [45]. Keep in mind, too, we lost a prolific female content editor from the Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek episode. I'd suggest the arbitration committee try to determine how many editors have been lost during these disputes. Victoria (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what our readers expect?[edit]

We don't know what readers want or expect. When on Dec. 12, 2012 Brothers Grimm had a bit over 963,000 views [46], there was not a demand for an infobox. Victoria (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An FA without an infobox will attract a discussion[edit]

Frankly my feeling is the only way to avoid these discussions is keep articles away from FA and TFA. Our readers know how to find our content and being the primary contributor of an article without an infobox during TFA is simply not worth the energy. Rather than a courteous, "hey, you did a nice job, lots of research, worked on the prose, put hours of free labor into this, congrats, and could we consider an infobox" the MO is to add the infobox in the article, either during TFA or soon thereafter, and whether the person/s wrote the page wish one or not; it happened only yesterday (Aug. 2nd, 2013), [47], but that's a single in a long string of occurrences. Victoria (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 diff

Evidence presented by Smeat75[edit]

The problem is not really infoboxes as much as Pigsonthewing's fanatical agenda for "metadata"[edit]

Pigsonthewing is hugely disruptive all over the project and with an obsessive battleground mentality as much previous evidence has shown, but what I find even more disturbing is that he openly declares that one of the reasons he pushes his agenda for "metadata" is for the benefit of for-profit corporations : [48] "the [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already sued by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo. Infoboxes are also parsed by DBpedia. It is retrievable as JSON. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some editors object to the idea of being unpaid workers for Google, etc - [49] " I donate my time and skills to the general public, not to for-profit data re-users who might wish me to edit as they see fit rather than as I see fit. I doubt that many Wikipedia editors want to work for free for Google or any other outside entity."

and not only leave the project but advocate for others to do so also : [50] "I read with amusement that the project manager for Wikimedia's Wikidata will step down to work at... Google, which funded Wikidata development—which funded, in effect, a Wikimedia project that now harnesses free web workers to collect data about everything, for Google's benefit. A little coup for the company—I'm sure the PM's signing bonus reflects it. Do you still feel like a "volunteer"?"

I would also ask Pigsonthewing to answer Ruhrfisch's question above. Smeat75 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch thoughts[edit]

The pale blue dot photo of Earth shows all of us in one pixel - sometimes we can compress things too much

Here are my thoughts on this case, which are my opinions. They could be wrong, but seem right to me.

Wikipedia and Infoboxes[edit]

  1. Readers come to Wikipedia for content, so people who add or improve content (articles, images) are vital to the continuing success of the project.
  2. "Mechanics" (for want of a better word) keep the whole thing operating and prevent degradation (vandalism, copyvios, etc.) and are also vital, though not as visible to the general reader.
  3. There are a lot of less essential things. Some of them seem essential but ultimately just make life easier (like templates or bots). These could be done by hand in theory, but who would want to?
  4. I put Infoboxes in the non-essential category, as they do not add any new content. Infoboxes just repackage what is there, hopefully in a way that helps some readers, but sometimes in a way that harms the encyclopedia by introducing error or distortion.
  5. A Wikipedia article is a summary to begin with. We boil down many sources to a few (tens of) thousands of words at most. The lead is a summary of the article, boiling it all down to at most four paragraphs (per WP:LEAD). An infobox is a condensation of the lead, in theory - at what point is the loss from a summary of a summary of a summary too much? (See the pale blue dot image). In my experience all of the good things in an Infobox can usually be found in the first two or three sentences of the lead.
  6. Infoboxes are best at presenting brief items, so some things that are not in the Lead get added to infoboxes because they are short facts, not because they are important. So the box recently added to Duino Elegies has the German publisher (not in the Lead) and a link to the text on Wikisource. Why do English readers need the German publisher so prominently displayed? The problem with Wikisource is that it is a link to the German (original) poems - why do readers of the English Wikipedia need this link at the top of the article? The link at the bottom of the article makes it much clearer these are auf deutsch.
  7. I am not anti-infobox per se, but even where I use them, I wonder sometimes at what is in them. Articles on places almost always have the coordinates in the upper right corner, then the box usually repeats them an inch or two below that. Why?
  8. I think Brianboulton said much that is very sensible here: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

Wikiprojects and Infoboxes[edit]

  1. Wikiprojects are a way for people with similar interests to interact and communicate on their individual and common work.
  2. The core membership of many Wikiprojects may be stable for years, though members do join and leave and return.
  3. A Wikiproject may decide to recommend inclusion of an Infobox in its style guide - see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide
  4. Whether or not WikiProject Classical music has the "right" to decide / recommend against inclusion of an infobox (in a "wiki-legal" sense), the opinions of most of the members means that infoboxes will be opposed in articles on classical music composers and works, and that the consensus will often be not to include them. I see it as a de facto policy (they warn outsiders that infoboxes will be opposed) even if it is not "de jure" (there is no "wiki law" allowing them to make policy).
  5. Bringing an article to GA or FA requires weeks or months of work, and while no one WP:OWNs an article, for the encyclopedia to maintain and improve its quality over time, stewardship of articles is very useful.
  6. When a group of editors faces repeated attempts to change the articles it works on, from a group of "outsiders" who have had little or no input on getting the article to GA or FA, and despite repeated consensus against those proposed changes in similar articles, then the group of editors may very well grow cranky and not always act in the best manner.
  7. Compromise is impossible when presented with a binary choice - an article either has an infobox or it does not. Consensus is not impossible, thankfully.
  8. A collapsible infobox is as close to a compromise as I can imagine. I do not know why it is opposed when most navboxes are collapsible, as are (at least parts of) some infoboxes, like the partly collapsed {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} used in the FA 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix which was recently TFA. There are no complaints on its talk page from its time as TFA, and I did not see it mentioned here as a problem. If it is an accessibility issue, how is the link to expand different from other links? Or is it a problem if the article is supposed to be machine readable?

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

  1. While I do not doubt his expertise, I do worry about User:Pigsonthewing's motives. I also have to admire his persistence and longevity in a way. Here is someone who has twice been banned for a year by ArbCom and just comes back and keeps plugging away.
  2. I think it is often the case that our strengths and our weaknesses are related, and may even be two sides of the same coin. I think the same persistence which can be an admirable trait, can also become stubbornness to the point of being negative.
  3. Looking at the infobox kerfuffle on Talk:The Rite of Spring, Pigsonthewing continued his arguments long after it was clear that consensus was against adding an infobox, and at least to me seemed to say that the only compromise he could envision was what kind of infobox to include (not whether or not to have one in the first place) "...your presentation of this as a binary choice is an oversimplification, given that there are many different possible ways to include an infobox" diff
  4. Other evidence that Pigsonthewing takes the long term view can be seen in what I believe is his long term plan to delete {{Geobox}} by getting rid of each functionality in turn until nothing is left. (see my evidence)
  5. More evidence is his persistence in adding microformats despite no consensus in the RfC on them.
  6. Conjecture here, but I think Pigsonthewing takes a very long term view in his disputes over infoboxes. I think he does everything he can to be as obstinate and difficult as possible without getting blocked for it. I think his hope is that editors who oppose him will quit or lose interest or do something stupid through frustration and get blocked. This is my opinion, but it seems consistent with the facts.
  7. Conjecture again, but I also would not be surprised if he has a COI and if his relations with Google and the BBC and others include payment. I do not know why he does what he does, but again it seems at least possible that he is trying to get rid of non-standard templates like Geobox because they are not as easily machine readable. Perhaps collapsed infoboxes have similar issues. He is definitely trying to insert microformat code everywhere he can and often shows a near obsession with making Wikipedia machine-readable. As I pointed out in my evidence, he refuses to answer my questions on this possible COI - if he does not have a COI, why not just say so? I think User:Smeat75's evidence above is especially compelling, and agree with much of User:Riggr Mortis' essay Wikipedia as database: the lasting reason I'm retiring
  8. So what is to be done with User:Pigsonthewing? Here is someone whose focus on infoboxes and metadata over the years reminds me of the Santayana quote "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." This is my opinion, but the best explanation I can find for his behavior here is a long term effort to convert Wikipedia into a machine-readable database for reasons of his own, or perhaps for pay (as Kent Brockman might say "I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords!"). If ArbCom bans Pigsonthewing for a year, he'll just wait it out. The question is, are his contributions to the project more valuable than his disruptions? To me the answer is no, and I can see no remedy other than an indefinite ban. I hope this is helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the above statement, although I have no opinion on the COI question. Motives or a possible COI do not matter—what is known is that Pigsonthewing will never stop, and that is the issue. The way forward is pretty simple—do what is best for the encyclopedia. My reading of the events at several articles shows that there has been severe disruption to the collaborative community of content builders, and no matter how unpleasant, I would do what is necessary to reduce that disruption—an indefinite ban is the only solution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Riggr Mortis. Ruhrfisch, I found your evidence interesting and your post above distills this entire case. I have also wondered about the conflict of interest issue with respect to the small number of tireless advocates of these templates who show up at every infobox discussion. In light of the link [51] you provided that indicates a connection between Google and User:Pigsonthewing, I would like to present, at least on this talk page, my findings and some principles. I've not participated in an arb case before, have no intention of doing so extensively now (in "retirement"), but this issue is important to me. It's why I quit.

The methodology is simple: I searched the talk page namespace for "Google" and "Pigsonthewing". Here is what I found (emphasis mine):

  1. "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to, because they do good and useful things with it, and because it serves our mission."
  2. "Using an infobox makes metadata about the subject downloadable from the browser, or to partner sites which use it, such as Google[,] Yahoo and DBpedia"
  3. "parter [sic] organisations such as Google also make use of them"
  4. "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo."
  5. "the metadata emitted by infoboxes, the hCard microformat, is a generic, open standard understood by tools such as Google and Yahoo."

The above were by User:Pingsonthewing. The below are by User:RexxS:

  1. "Blanket removal of infoboxes (such as the one that is illustrated to the right) is an unjustified removal of the functionality the boxes provide: an easy-to-read summary and the emission of metadata which is useful to major re-users such as Google."
  2. "You are also mistaken about the value to Google and the way in which an infobox benefits them as re-users - you clearly have not looked at this Google talk [youtube link] otherwise you'd realise how far short of the reality the assumptions you make are."
  1. "At present only infoboxes do the job we want for Google" (again, the implicit reference to "partnership" as in 2 and 3 above)
  2. "Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia [youtube link] from a Google talk dated 2008?"
  3. "in your mind other users like Google wanting - for more than five years - to make use of our content is 'secondary'."

And with that final quotation, I can safely say that for most editors of this encyclopedia, the answer is "yes". My concern that Wikipedia content was being subtly manipulated to suit third-party interests by the pro-infobox participants in this case is why I decided that, ethically, I could no longer contribute here. (A growing number of editors are now seeing this concern, and have made reference to the essay on my user page; in fact the essay/user page was deleted until a user unknown to me asked an admin to recover it from history!)

I would like to propose some principles here, in light of the quotations above, which were all used in infobox arguments. If someone else finds them worth entering into the "official" section, please feel free:

  1. Arguing to add, change, or remove Wikipedia article content for any "interest" other than readers is not valid. Such arguments should be given no weight in infobox discussions or in any other discussion.
  2. Wikipedia users in their individual capacity have no authority to refer to "partner sites" [diffs 2 and 3, implicitly many more], even if Wikipedia had partner sites.

"Fanaticism" is a strong word to use, as in your final point, Ruhrfisch, yet it is entirely appropriate. This brings me to proportionality. I would like the arbitrators to observe that one side in this case is using valid and specific rationales to make their case against using infoboxes for some page or group of related pages. Usually in these cases one of those editors has had some substantive investment in improving the article, which means that they understand how appropriate it is to summarize a topic in terms of "this=that" pairings (i.e. infoboxes). (Sadly, this case is entirely missing the "scope" issue--most infobox opposers find infoboxes problematic primarily in humanities articles, yet I don't see clarity on that point. You'd think someone were clammering for removal of the infobox on everything; on Potassium or an (astronomical) star. They aren't.)

On the other side of the "proportionality" issue, we do have a party clammering, all the time; a party whose interest has been achieved directly or indirectly in some very large portion of Wikipedia articles, yet that party still shows up on the small number of talk pages mentioned above to tirelessly advocate for their position. They get "their way" with the majority of articles because no one "on the other side" of the debate is as singled-minded as they are, or because infoboxes often are much less disputatious. Yet, still, every individual page that doesn't have an infobox by someone's conscience choice becomes an attack ground for the infobox warriors--a place to win, or to make a point, one more time, using extraordinarily strong rhetorical language--language that disturbs many, including me, such that I would not edit where these users had made an appearance. Their behavior demonstrates an inability to understand or recognize that "one size does not fit all". When taken to the extreme that it is here, it is actively harmful to the project, and should be strongly condemned.

If this were all the information you had about this case (what I've described as "proportionality")--combined with the fact that there is no policy about the specific arguments to fall back on--one would conclude that "bullying" and "fanaticism" (incessant repetition) are likely part of the repertoire of the main infobox advocates. Having described the issue this way, we are now on territory that is very familiar to the Arbcom. Individual instances of incivility are not the point. The point is, one side makes a war out of everything, having a very strong agenda not supported by the pillars or policy of Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they occasionally encounter resistance, and since they are never satisfied with anything less than 100% of the "territory", argument ensues. They have, effectively, 99.99% of the "territory" that they've staked out to date, and this infobox arbitration has still come to pass. Now, why could that be? What does that say about the overall behavioral patterns of each side of this debate?

Fanatics, in all forms, harm Wikipedia. Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence&oldid=1137351697"