Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 11 November 2012 (→Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova: archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71   26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Shakespeare authorship question none (orig. case) 3 November 2012

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

Amendment request: Shakespeare authorship question

Initiated by NinaGreen (talk) at 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Shakespeare authorship question arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 2
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request
  • Remedy 2 "NinaGreen is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."
  • Request: Remove topic ban.

Statement by NinaGreen

I'm requesting that the indefinite topic ban be lifted. After my account was unblocked two months ago, I began editing articles on historical figures from the Middle Ages and the Tudor period. In the past two months I’ve edited over 120 articles, expanding them with new material, and adding reliable sources, in-line citations and links, particularly on pages where there were notices requesting help with expansion of articles, sources and in-line citations. There is now a matrix of interlinked articles on these historical figures which should provide a valuable reference for Wikipedia readers. I have considerable background knowledge in this area (by way of example, I’ve submitted numerous suggested corrections to the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in recent years, and all but a few have been incorporated into the current online edition).

A list of 119 articles I’ve edited, which includes all but the most recent ones I’ve been working on, can be found here [15]. A chart showing my total edits, and their nature, can be found here [16].

During these two months a few potential conflict situations have arisen with other editors, and I've successfully defused them. See, for example, [17] and [18]. I've also made use of the Wikipedia Help Desk. In short, there need be no concern on anyone's part that lifting the indefinite topic ban will occasion conflict. It won't. If conflict situations arise, I'll either defuse them, or simply walk away from editing a particular page.

Another reason for my confidence that conflict will not arise is that two editors who were on the other side in the arbitration have complimented my recent work on my Talk page. See [19] and [20].

If the indefinite ban is lifted, I would like to continue editing the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere [21], which is primarily a biography of a historical figure (there is only a brief section at the end with links to the authorship issue, and Oxford’s authorship is flatly rejected in that brief section). See [22]. There has been discussion in the past year on the Edward de Vere Talk page concerning the need to shorten the article. See, for example, Archive 4 under the heading Rewriting, [23]. I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to shorten the article more than has already been done. However if there is consensus that the article needs to be further shortened, I would be the best person to do that since I rewrote the entire article for Wikipedia two years ago, and it was recently acknowledged on the Talk page that I know more about Edward de Vere than virtually anyone (see here under the heading Fair Use, [24]). I could shorten the article without letting factual errors creep in in the process.

I’ve also noticed instances where I could usefully edit the article on the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship [25]. For example, there is factual inaccuracy in the paragraph on Oxford’s Geneva Bible in the use of the words ‘marginalia, ‘annotator’ and ‘annotations’ (see [26]). With the exception of a few hand-written annotations, many consisting of only a single word or fragment, there are no marginalia or annotations among the 1028 marked passages in Oxford’s Geneva Bible. There are merely many underlinings in the text, a significantly different thing (see [27]). Also, in the same article on the Oxfordian theory, the paragraph on Looney’s development of the authorship theory (see [28]) makes no mention of the central tenet of Looney’s theory, which is the 18 aspects of the author’s character and background which Looney identified in the plays before beginning his search for the author. See here, p. 92 [29], and here, p. 103 [30]. Since Looney was the originator of the Oxfordian theory, his exposition of it should be presented accurately in the article. I could help with that.

A further reason for requesting the lifting of the indefinite ban is that it is so broad that I’m sometimes uncertain whether I can edit or not without infringing it. For example, I extensively revised the article on Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, a major historical figure and a significant character in Shakespeare’s plays. In this section of the article. [31], a proponent of the Neville theory of Shakespeare authorship had added a statement that Sir Henry Neville wrote the works of Shakespeare. This has nothing to do with the biography of the 1st Earl of Westmorland, but I was reluctant to delete the statement in case the deletion might be interpreted as an infringement of the topic ban.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. And my apologies if there are any problems with the diffs. I’ve always had difficulty pinpointing specific statements with diffs, particularly when a discussion has been archived.

I’ll notify the editors and administrators listed as involved parties on the initial request for arbitration with the exception of administrator LessHeard (whose Talk page states he is retired, and discourages messages), and editor Charles Darnay (whose Talk page says he is indefinitely blocked). Please advise if there are others who should be notified. NinaGreen (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by warshy

  • Support. I definitely support it. I did not think Nina Green should have ever been banned at all from editing at Wikipedia to begin with. I did not understand then how Wikipedia really works, and don't think I really understand it today. The overall politics and bureaucracy of the whole entreprise (compounded by the technical demands of the platform) still baffle me. The whole procedure here is new to me, and it seems also very serious and complicated. What I do not have any doubts about are Nina Green's intellectual habilities and her historical knowledge of the period and the subject matter. If Nina Green is back and she believes she can now work within the political and bureaucratic (and techno-bureacratic) constraints of the entrerprise, I, for one, can only express my praise and admiration for her courage and determination. I offered her my editorial and intellectual support long ago, and I am glad she is back on Wikipedia and I can now just reaffirm it once again. I look forward to learning again from her deep knowledge of the subject. warshytalk 18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MoreThings

I support Nina's request. It's clear that she is extremely knowledgeable in this topic area. She is the type of editor WP should be going out of its way to encourage. 31.185.213.13 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (MoreThings)[reply]

Statement by Zweigenbaum

Since Nina Green has requested the removal of a permanent topic ban, and since she has shown merit in her work in other areas, and a year has transpired since the topic ban, there is no just or wholesome reason to maintain it against her. Zweigenbaum (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moonraker

  • Support There's no need to say again what I said in the original debate, which is on the record. When the ban on NinaGreen happened, well over a year ago now, I felt (and still do) that it was a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that getting to the point of imposing it had stretched the definition of "disruptive behaviour" quite a long way. The ban was surely at least partly the result of several users seeing Oxfordians collectively instead of individually, some even suggesting that there was a grand conspiracy at work. (Some much less rational Oxfordians actually had misbehaved on the English Wikipedia not long before, and it seemed to me that Nina was suffering from the way they had been perceived.) For those who supported the ban, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. I am hoping that everyone is a little older and wiser and that NinaGreen will be welcome to make a new start in the Shakespearian pages. Moonraker (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Newyorkbrad's suggestion, I do not see what exactly it amounts to, nor, to be quite frank, what the rationale for it would be. All of the editors involved in the original case were notified of this request to lift the topic ban, and most of them have spoken up here, unanimously supporting the request. In view of that, it is disappointing that the arbitrator comments are generally far more negative, along the lines of "we got it right and we feel it's too soon". Given those reactions, which to my mind are rather ungenerous, Newyorkbrad seems to be exploring a possible compromise solution, perhaps aimed at saving face on all sides. However, looking now at Tom Reedy's attempt to draft the detail of such a compromise, which includes continuing to ban Nina from parts of certain pages, but not from all of them, it strikes me as awkward and unlikely to be supported by anyone, except with a view to bridging the gap between the editors and the arbitrators. The real question here is whether maintaining the indefinite topic ban would serve any useful purpose, and in my view the correct answer is that it can safely be lifted. After all, it can always be reimposed later if the arbitrators feel a case for that has been made.
  • Newyorkbrad surprises me on at least one point which may be relevant. Nishidani, who has long been working in the SAQ pages, and who took an active part in them while Nina was also working there, says of her views on the authorship question "I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong." So clearly he has not observed any excesses of Oxfordian zeal. I myself took a lesser part at the same time and saw her as probably an Oxfordian, and if so then one of a subtle mind with an objective approach to the authorship question. However, Newyorkbrad, who so far as I know is not active in the SAQ pages, says "NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis... her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays." I find myself wondering where this claim comes from and what evidence could be adduced for the "strong advocacy" part of it, which neither Nishidani nor I observed. I hope we can avoid any over-statement of the case (such as it was) against Nina when the topic ban was imposed.
  • In conclusion, I feel it is best to have a clean decision on whether to lift the topic ban or not, and that it can now be lifted. Moonraker (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

  • Support: In my opinion, all criticisms of editors should be backed up with verifiable reliable sources (article editing diffs) in order to facilitate due process and to ensure transparency. The first finding of fact is that she was using a "single-purpose account" (SPA). This is not evidence of wrong-doing. While bad editors may use an SPA, using an SPA does not imply a bad editor; Correlation does not imply causation. She may even be an expert in her field and doesn't want to stray off-subject. We're told that she has "engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior"... but there are no diffs. We're told that she has "been repeatedly counseled"... but no diffs. And then we are given "sample evidence", but no indication how it relates to the findings of fact. There may be diffs here, but they are not supplied in a coherent and relevant fashion.
    Looking at some of the sample evidence, at last we find a page of article diffs from Bishonen. Unfortunately the first set of 22, gives no indication of wrong-doing, only that they are her first 22 edits on an article. However, the second set of 9 article diffs is presented to illustrate "the disruptive side of Nina's editing", a hat tip to Bishonen, this is hard evidence (verifiable reliable sources). Unfortunately I'm not entirely convinced. Swapping references for a cn tag, and replacing the entire lead without discussion or consensus, are potentially bad, but they might be OK. There is no evidence that these are not just one-off naive attempts at being bold. I would like to have seen evidence that there was an attempt to discuss the issue (it may have happened, but there is no evidence/diffs of it). I'd like to have seen evidence that despite discussion, that the edits were reverted regardless.
    Wikipedia makes it easy for editors to provide article edit diffs representing verifiable reliable sources that support their criticisms, and, demonstrate that the high standards that are described in policy have not been met. Diffs should be compulsory, and included in such a way, that an edit trail can be followed. We'd expect nothing less in an article. I see evidence of edits that I would query myself and may disagree with, and over-zealous contributions. I don't see sufficient evidence of "a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior", which is not to deny that it did not happen. I think that an RFAR should have a high standard of documented evidence. I don't see that it has made a water-tight case. I spent about 30 mins going through the material, which should be ample time to follow a good edit trail.
    If the editor persists in problem editing, Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to deal with it, and a sliding scale of blocks to quickly return to 6 and 12 months blocks. --Iantresman (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Reedy: You are quite correct, that I did not review all the evidence (I said that I spent about 30 mins on it), and I was not familiar at all with the case. But I feel that it should not matter. As an editor with no opinion either way, I felt I should be able to read the "Findings of fact", and see a well-documented case supported by hard evidence. ie. the finding of fact is "the editor was uncivil" together with a diff supporting the finding of fact. Where a simple diff is insufficient (eg. the editor's pattern of behavior), I expect to find a series of diffs, or a link to a post containing a series of diffs. If the case was an article, it was get lots of "citation needed" tags. If someone is accused of a certain behavior, it should be trivial to offer article editing diffs in support, and transparency requires that we provide verifiable reliable sources in a coherent and relevant fashion. Without it, we have hearsay. --Iantresman (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Reedy

Support: The idea floated here by some that Nina did not deserve her topic ban is beyond ludicrous. Warshy admits he doesn't know how Wikipedia works; and iantresman appears to not have reviewed all the evidence (and in truth I don't understand why he even commented on this case since he's not familiar with it at all). Reviewing a few few gigabytes of her article talkpage entries from that time would set him straight. And of course we have the usual Oxfordians who edit little, if any, but who can be counted on to pop up to support what they hope is another would-be champion for the cause. Their opinions can be appreciated for what they're worth, i.e. nil.

Having said that, it appears that she has taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works and its intended purpose. I'm not sure if she's the one to revise the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, but noy because I think she'd return to POV editing; the page needs a biographical unity instead of being a list of chronological events. I've reviewed Nina's editing, and she's done some good work. I think she has become closer to the type of editor I had hoped she would when I invited her to rewrite the Oxford page more than a year ago (or has it been two now?). The purpose of blocks and topic bans is to stop the encyclopedia from being sabotaged in fulfilling its purpose, but I think another purpose of them is to let editors know what won't be tolerated and to get them to comply with WP principles and become productive editors. I think Nina has done that. If, as some suspect, it's all a big ruse to slyly introduce fringe beliefs as mere minority views down the road sometime, with as many eyes as there are on her editing I think that will become evident sooner or later and another ban could be instituted. But I think all the work she has done and the evidence of her dealing with other editors in editing disputes clearly indicates she deserves a chance. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Newyorkbrad's comment, "I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this."
Perhaps the ban could be lifted on editing the main Shakespeare pages and the historical pages of the SAQ alternative authors such as Bacon and Oxford, but not including any topic concerning the SAQ or any directly-related SAQ pages. An example would be the Edward de Vere page: the ban would be lifted for everything on the page except for the SAQ section, and it would also remain in effect for any SAQ articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I support removal of NinaGreen's topic ban as it is likely there will not be a return to former disruption, and Nina is able to improve many articles that are connected with the period and people often mentioned in association with the Shakespeare authorship question. Sampling Nina's recently edited articles shows that very good work has been done since her return, and there is no indication of problematic behavior. Her commitment to defuse conflict or to walk away from editing a particular page, together with the discretionary sanctions that apply to all editing associated with the topic, shows that this request should be taken as an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia.

Some of the commentary presented in earlier statements is most unfortunate as this is not the place to restage old battles. The misguided supports are not a reason to prolong Nina's topic ban, though they do confirm that SAQ topics will require ongoing maintenance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Support without hesitation. I don't think the apostles of the higher alter-Shakespearean truth are doing her cause any good. To call into question the original decision is profoundly wrong-headed (and bad politics, but then again, there's a history of that in the movement). The arbs made the correct call in the circumstances. Those who supported a ban weren't being ideological or motivated by animosity: Nina wasn't listening. I can also understand why she wasn't listening. She knows that era far better than people like myself, works with primary sources (like Tom Reedy), and has a passion for hunting things down to their sources, and generalists like myself may well have struck her as ignoramuses. We just go by academic Shakespearean sources, which, regarding the two or three controversial articles, generally ignore the alternative hypotheses about a counter-identity, and thus fail to cover what sceptics argue (I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong).

The case for waiving should rest, therefore, on what editors in the area who either opposed Nina, and supported her ban, or were engaged in supervising the conflict, now think in review. My reasons for suggesting we welcome Nina back are (a) she has a depth of knowledge of the period that, as her recent editing shows, can greatly benefit period articles (b) she's shown a clear willingness to abide by wiki procedures and, if the occasion arises, step away from conflict (c) unlike a large number of editors, troublesome or not, she can work articles from top to bottom and we are in need of people willing to dedicate their expertise to comprehensive editing (d) the two Oxfordian articles are a wiki disaster and will never be written adequately unless someone with Nina's long familiarity with those recondite if fringe theories offers her assistance and collaboration to regular mainstream twits like Tom Reedy , Paul Barlow and myself. With her drive, and grasp of the 'stuff' these articles could achieve encyclopedic respectability. All that needs to be ironed out is what constitutes RS for a fringe topic. I think Nina's last effort, before her ban, where she comprehensively rewrote the de Vere bio from Nelson, a source she disagrees with, but which is the only one, as we insisted, that fits the highest RS criteria, shows that she understood, if rather late, the principle other wikipedians insisted on. Unlike most of the fringe, Nina really does have a work ethic, and a commitment to precise control of sources, and I think she should be treated on her individual merits.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zbrnajsem

Support, without any restrictions whatsoever. Nina Green is welcome as another person who can profoundly contribute to the complex SAQ on WP. Additionally, what is about User:BenJonson? He is not mentioned in the above sections. I think he was also involved in the case, and he was also banned from the SAQ editing. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting further community statements. We may want to see a longer track record, but this proposal seems to be worthy of serious consideration. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest at all in lifting this topic ban, it is far, far too soon, NinaGreen's disruption was so severe, and her socking bad enough, I'd need to see at least a year of problem-free editing, and perhaps more. Courcelles 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Independent of this request, I can't see Tom Reedy's idea working particularly well, it would just drown AE in arguments about what edits were and wern't covered by topic bans, which we normally preempt with the "broadly construed" language that makes any semantic arguments baseless. If we were inclined to change this, moving Nina from "full topic ban" to the MER system from the Falun Gong 2 case would be an interesting idea and likely produce less arguments at AE. Courcelles 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Nina Green has done some good work, no doubt about that, I am horribly suspicious that everyone appearing here so far is trying to argue from a premise that the original ban and topic ban were unwarranted. That just isn't going to wash, and raises deep concerns about the reason for this request. I'd want to hear from some of the people she has actually edited with since the ban ended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of community support for this, however I feel that more time is needed than two months to assess someone's behaviour. In NinaGreen's case, the language of the Findings of fact is very strong: "NinaGreen (talk · contribs) ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself." Generally, six months is considered a minimum amount of time to assess someone's behaviour. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I authored the original decision in this case, and I am confident that the decision we reached in that case was well-supported: NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis. The remedies that were adopted—a period of separation from the project, followed by a topic-ban upon her return—were entirely warranted. Since her return, NinaGreen has abided by the topic-ban and has focused on editing historical articles, although her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is obvious that NinaGreen has a thorough base of well-documented historical knowledge and it appears that she is capable of improving Wikipedia articles about English history and biography with reliably sourced writing based on that knowledge. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to lift the topic-ban altogether, which could allow NinaGreen to edit about who wrote the plays, which I don't think she is looking to do right now anyway. Thus, I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=522416039"