Case clerk: Hahc21 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
Location | 12°20′42″N 98°45′54″W / 12.345°N 98.765°W |
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)
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)
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".
{{Infobox}}
{{Infobox}}
, and not flagged for conversion (NB, this number is far higher than the previous group)
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)
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)
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)
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)
FYI to the committee: I've had a username change from Truthkeeper88, to explain discrepancies in diffs.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here are my thoughts on this case, which are my opinions. They could be wrong, but seem right to me.
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):
The above were by User:Pingsonthewing. The below are by User:RexxS:
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:
"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)
Case clerk: Hahc21 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
Location | 12°20′42″N 98°45′54″W / 12.345°N 98.765°W |
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)
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)
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".
{{Infobox}}
{{Infobox}}
, and not flagged for conversion (NB, this number is far higher than the previous group)
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)
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)
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)
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)
FYI to the committee: I've had a username change from Truthkeeper88, to explain discrepancies in diffs.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here are my thoughts on this case, which are my opinions. They could be wrong, but seem right to me.
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):
The above were by User:Pingsonthewing. The below are by User:RexxS:
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:
"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)