Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Bishzilla Waited for Godot. Godot arrived on 10 February 2011. No, that was only the Godking. Bishzilla still waiting for Co-Founder.

Waiting for Godot

Oh template template template template template template template. Get on with it already. Please. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

No need to send the 'Zilla, we are on time, and on target :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Will the proposed decision be posted at the workshop first? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it looks to be going straight to the PD page. SirFozzie (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Are there not enough (or too many) parties to comment on the proposals before they formally come here...or is it something else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the case. While I speak only for myself (and not for the other arbs) Usually, when things are brought to the workshop level, it's not only to gauge the community's reaction to what could be a complicated decision, it's to get valuable input on whether the issue the parties see "match up" with what the issues the arbitrators see. This case is not only relatively straight-forward, I think in general, it's the sense of the drafting arbitrators and the community that things "match-up". Things have gotten relatively messy, discussion wise, over the last week, and we're taking into account the thoughts of parties above (and elsewhere) that it's about time to wrap things up. SirFozzie (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed decision will be posted this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers (which have also answered the next questions I was going to ask). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm done. I thought I was doing too well, and I was right - I have reached the end of my tether; I am taking these pages off my watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PFoF 3 - NinaGreen

Just a minor grammatical correction: "NinaGreen ... has engaged in ... repeated false ... failure to improve ..." – that should be "failed" as part of a list of past participles. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's correct the way it is. The listed behaviours are examples of what she "has engaged in", and aren't required to use parallel grammatical construction. "NinaGreen ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including (list of behaviours)." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I thought I wrote it as a series of noun phrases: "advocacy, ... monopolization, ... allegations, ... failure, ... behavior." I will, however, defer to any consensus that may emerge on this important matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As the local card-carrying expert on Bad Grammar, I hereby opine that "repeated false allegations" is syntactically ambiguous, allowing both a reading where "repeated" is an adjective modifying "allegations" and one where "repeated" is a finite verb and "allegations" its object, but that the first of these readings is by far the more plausible from the context, making NYB's version grammatically coherent. You don't really want me to start explaining the analysis of why the nominal interpretation wins out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, though, I didn't actually write the sentence in question; the decision was drafted for me by Christopher Marlowe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Poor Poet-Arb, that would be thought our chief. Now we understand why no eye-witness has come forward who has ever actually seen you writing a decision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see now! You parsed the fragment as:

• ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including [1] advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, [2] repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, [3] failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and [4] continued disruptive behavior ...

making each of the past participles purely adjectival. Whereas I parsed it as:

• has [1] 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, [2] repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, [3] failure[failed] to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and [4] continued disruptive behavior ...

making each of the participles the past tense after the shared auxiliary 'has'. Academics who are expert in analysing Brad's handwriting have commented that he often wrote a ligature to represent '-ed' in such a way that it resembled '-ure', so I can see how it was easy for you to make that mistake. But as you know, Wilson Knight in Wheel of Fire makes the exact point that I do. As my contention is the only one to be backed up by a reliable source, I expect that you'll be willing to relegate your reading to that of a FRINGE theory per policy. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

He is listing noun phrases, not verb phrases. The phrase "has ... including advocacy rather than neutral editing" is nonsensical, and the "including" can only refer back to the "persistent pattern of disruptive behavior". To read it your way would require semi-colons instead of commas. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And for the record I parsed it as:

• ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including [1] advocacy rather than neutral editing, [2] misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, [3] repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, [4] failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and [5] continued disruptive behavior ... Tom Reedy (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your [1] should really be [1] and [2], but other than that you make some valid points.

You know, I bet they aren't having nearly as much fun on the talkpage of that other case that I'm not drafting. :P Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd heard it was an open secret that all of Kiril's work was actually written with Bacon. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... Bacon 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Push button, receive Bacon. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

PP 11 - Review of community sanctions

As Luke says, it's probably too easy for any party to cry "unfair", and then there's no objective criterion to measure by. How about something like:

• "... such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion fell short of usual standards, ..." ?

Then at least you can rely on a collective consensus about what the usual standards are (adequate discussion time, clear consensus to sanction, etc.). It's not a perfect recipe, but might be a starting point to improve on. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its implied that Arbcom is the one that will decide its unfair. Any party can cry unfair all they want, but if it wasn't then their review gets rejected like any other case. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's too easy. We are likely to reverse (or freshly reconsider) alleged community bans that had almost no input, or where the participants were canvassed, or where the discussion was closed too quickly. It seems that what's NYB meant to capture, but this kind of shortcoming is a different thing than unfairness. Sure, ArbCom decides what "unfairness" means, but we should also let appellees know what we're actually looking for in appeals.

I think your proposed alternative is sufficiently unlawyerly; will ask Brad. Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, many sanctioned editors feel the sanction was unfair to them and I can see how, absent context, it could appear like we're encouraging people to appeal on that basis (which rarely ever gets someone anywhere). Shell ^babelfish 05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely persuaded; we review almost every request that comes to us one way or the other, and have often decided not to overturn community-based sanctions even if they don't meet the fairly ill-defined usual standards to the letter. We've all seen community sanctions enacted in under 48 hours; I'm more concerned about longer discussions with few participants (several of whom are likely to be involved) than shorter discussions where there is a large number of participants who agree that the sanction is required. On the other hand, I'm also concerned that AN and ANI have become echo chambers to some extent, with the same small number of users and administrators consistently participating in these discussions, and little input from the larger community. Risker (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If we give no deference to community sanctions, shouldn't we be radical and say we give no deference? I tend to give deference proportional to the rigorousness of the procedure. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PP 10 — Revealing personal information

I had a little giggle at David Fuchs' declaration that "Restating a principle can't hurt". Isn't that Nina's motto, too.. ? Which suggests to me that if the restating is taken far enough, it can hurt like a bastard. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Restating a principle once is hopefully a reminder, restating it until people run away in frustration - yep, that hurts. Shell ^babelfish 04:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PFF 2—Persistent disruption

@Cavalry: Yes, IMO you do need the word "miserable" in there; it's well chosen. It expresses the state of mind of the unfortunate editors who work, with little enough thanks, to defend Wikipedia against persistent misuse and disruption. (Hello, MONGO, are you there?) A lot of misery has been in play while those 21 archives were produced, and it's surely not necessary to remove all words with any hint of feeling in them from the FoF's. If you'll all pardon my saying so, there's enough starch and lawyerspeak in the arbcom decisions anyway. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

You're right in a way, it is miserable: but if I was to put my feelings into these votes, I'd get an incivility block no doubt! It's a thin line between appropriate and inappropriate language, and I don't want good faith editors to be censured because they were once involved in an 'officially miserable discussion'. People can make up their own minds about that sort of thing without us having to resort to adjectives. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen is right as always...best never to argue with anyone whose alter-ego/best-pal is from the Cretaceous...unwise. Excessive article talkpage archives...more often than not, they allow one to review (if they wish to relive the horror) of what hasn't been accomplished rather than what has....how about 54 of them!...with little to no net improvement in article quality...how can there be when so much time is wasted dealing with SPA's and fringe/preposterous theory POV pushers....MISERABLE sums it up.--MONGO 19:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone pointed out to me Talk:Race and intelligence with - 87! The Cavalry (Message me) 20:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unusual Proposed Decision page

It's kind of unusual, at least among the cases I've followed, to see no proposals from individual arbs adorn a Proposed Decision page. While I hesitate to suggest that the rest of the committee are all cowering in fear of the primary drafter Brad (that would be unusual), I'm wondering if nobody sees any importance in the problem of the established users who built a Great Wall of China around Nina's talkpage, blowing off any counselling that could have been useful to her. (I name these users on the evidence page, the section "Nina's helpers".) Is Nina supposed to be the single guilty party, and to have achieved her confident disruption all by herself, without encouragement? See my evidence (just a few examples) and this workshop proposal: "It is disruptive for established Wikipedians to countermand good advice to new editors, or otherwise encourage them to continue flouting community norms."[1]. Shell and Luke commented favorably on it as a "useful corollary" (to RexSS' proposal, also ignored in the Proposed Decision), while MoreThings commented so grossly, in typical "helper" attack mode, that Shell removed his post.[2] Brad, Sir Fozzie, do you see the countermanding of good advice as having any importance for how NinaGreen's editing developed?

I am aware that most workshop suggestions go nowhere, and also that Brad, as he said somewhere (where.. ?), was leaving out some users from the Proposed Decision by way of giving them a "last chance". I don't know if that referred to the users I have in mind. But, whoever they were (Nishidani? Me? Helpers? Tom?), it seems a bit paradoxical to be giving people last chances without telling them they were ever in hot water (such as through an admonition). Can't be much of a learning experience for them. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

I did like that proposal. I can put it up quickly to see what happens, but there may be tomatoes lobbed for potentially stalling the closure vote. Cool Hand Luke 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. Tomatoes are wonderful for the complexion! Bishonen | talk 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

My colleagues cowering in fear of me has not been an issue since, approximately, ever.

I've supported both of the proposed additions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. From your wistful tone, I bet you'd like it if they did cower. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

And I suppose going out of your way to get an editor called Nina Green banned and then dancing on her grave with Green die! is entirely within community norms. It is no way disruptive or provocative, nor is writing in green font on the arbitration page. It is exactly the kind of friendly, collegiate behaviour we want to encourage here. It's exactly the sort of admin behaviour we rely on arbcom to ignore. But do you think it might be indicative of the personal animosity that led to this case in the first place? Do you think it might qualify as just just plain nasty? As crowing? Provocative? As, heaven forfend, an attack? Nope, I'm sure you're right.

Anyhoo, now that we've had Green dye, anyone who makes a wisecrack about admins arranging for editors to be taken out back and shot should be taken out back and shot.

Ey up! It looks to me like there is something on the decision page about behaviour during arbcom cases, after all. Perhaps it's my monitor, or perhaps it's not green ink at all—perhaps it's invisible admin ink. MoreThings (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, seriously?!? You infer conduct unbecoming (and so forth) from use of text in a certain color? I mean, there are a bunch of complaints you could make about Bish—and I might even concur if you complained green text was illegible—but to make conspiratorial veiled gloating of it is just… Well, it's not WP:AGF at any rate. --Xover (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, X. And I'm sure Bishonen always refers to green text as "Green dye!" Or perhaps it's an exclamation she tags on to the end of posts at random. MoreThings (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)