Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Infoboxes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 3 August 2013 (→How many infoboxes on articles?: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Giano's comment/evidence

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence&oldid=566998181"