Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop

re Comment by AlexPope
Perhaps this could be moved to the General Discussion area by a Clerk? It is neither a request nor a motion, by my understanding of the intent in this instance, and appears to be incorrectly placed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Something other than "template"?
Please call proposals something other than "template." (Is this something the clerks should do?) This will make it easier to follow discussions on the watchlist. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To Nina, Nish and Tom (and clerks?)
In everybody's best interest, can people perhaps agree to close that overlong thread that has developed in Nina's proposals section? The workshop page is meant for brief discussion of concrete proposals for the final decision. Nina's proposals were unlike anything the Arbcom would ever actually do from the start, and the ensuing debate has strayed even further from the goal of the page. It might be useful for the parties to study actual Arbcom decisions in prior cases, to get a feel for what kinds of proposals are likely to be adopted, and how to word them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies.I'd gladly delete my contributions, but clearly cannot do so unilaterally because it would mess up the page.Nishidani (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may wish to request a Clerk to collapse the discussion from the point where it went off topic (and, no, I do not care to suggest where that might be)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I not only agree, I would be grateful. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collapsed monster thread per WP:BOLD. Do it differently, or ask a clerk to, if you prefer a different model. Bishonen | talk 05:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Note to clerks: Unbelievably this has been reverted by Smatprt with the edit summary Bold-revert-discuss - no discussion or consensus on collapsing my proposal. Indeed the consensus above applied only to Nina's proposals by the letter, but the point of the consensus is that those threads (two of Nina's with Smatprt's sandwiched in between) were inappropriately long for a workshop page (extended discussion should be here), off-topic, and so far away from anything that ArbCom was even remotely likely to consider that they ought to be collapsed. I'd be grateful if a clerk would collapse the section per consensus above, and drop a note to Smatprt to ask him to quit playing word games and making pointy reverts. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's the only proposal Smatprt has made and it got hidden? I didn't realise. Not sure I'd call his revert of my action "pointy", then. I agree with RexxS that Smatprt's proposal isn't the kind of thing arbcom would consider, but that doesn't make it unreasonable of Smatprt to want people to read it. It's not like it is for Nina, who would still have input all over the shop if that bit was collapsed. I wonder if we could move Smatprt's motion down, to below the hatting and habbing, and then collapse what was above? I don't think I'm the right person to do that, though, with my already GIGANTIC bias against Nina. However. This workshop talkpage we're on is a very obscure page. The workshop is already used much like a talkpage, and I don't think it easily occurs to people that there's an actual talkpage as well. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Smatprt, who cited bold-revert-discuss, but only reverted me, without coming here—the putatively correct place—to discuss anything. And if the clerks know about this page—presumably they do—it clearly doesn't qualify as their favorite hangout. The best place to ask for some clerk action here is probably the Clerks' noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
 * No, you're right, Bish. It hadn't occurred to me that it was the only proposal Smatprt had made. It was clearly churlish of me to complain and I've struck my previous comment. I hope Smatprt will accept my apologies for misreading his revert so badly. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Clerk comment) It is the nature of the workshop that discussions can become excessively lengthy, and the long-standing policy of the clerks (because only an arbitrator may evaluate the merits of proposals or the points raised in discussions) is to only collapse or remove threads that contain personal attacks or other objectionable material. Taking that in the context of it being prohibited for any user who is not an arbitrator or clerk to remove or collapse a discussion, and moreover to avoid giving the impression that the proposals of some parties are being removed, we will please refrain from these kind of actions in future. Concerns about individual threads can be brought to the attention of the clerks directly (at the clerks' noticeboard, linked to above by Bishonen).  AGK  [&bull; ] 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Arbitrator comment) Further bickering among the parties at this point is not going to be helpful. I anticipate that we will have a proposed decision posted within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's bickering? I don't see it, Brad. This looks like a civilised thread to me. Put in the context of what's going on on the workshop itself and other similar pages pertaining to this case (like Evidence), it's amazingly civilised. Isn't it? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Note from the drafting arbitrators
Brad and myself have begun work on a proposed decision in this case. While I won't say that any further information will go unread, I would suggest it would be a good idea to finish up any evidence or workshop proposals in the coming days. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of setting a definitive time frame, 11:59 PM UTC Feb 2 (or about 65 hours or so from now), is considered the deadline for stuff that we DEFINITELY will read before posting any PD. SirFozzie (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Claim of false allegation
I am responding to a statement by NinaGreen that includes "a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December"undefined. My "allegation" was not false: it was a simple statement of fact, with evidence. As seems common in matters relating to SAQ, the message was missed. I was simply suggesting that an excessive number of talk page edits were being made, and I provided brief explanations of my concern. This is the background:
 * At Talk:Shakespeare authorship question I made a mild statement including "You have edited this talk page twenty times in the last 24 hours".undefined
 * Apparently that issue was raised at User talk:NinaGreen because NinaGreen later commented on the article talk page, "...on a false allegation that I had posted 21 times to this Talk page...".undefined
 * I replied with "The history of this talk page shows that NinaGreen made 21 edits on 27 December 2010. At contributors we see that Tom Reedy has made 697 edits over the last 3 years, with an average of 39 hours between posts. NinaGreen has made 176 edits in the last 15 days, with an average of 2 hours between posts. This is not a forum: it is a place for collaboration, and typos and clumsy expressions do not need to be corrected. Other editors want to review changes that have occurred to the discussion, and it is unhelpful when someone frequently edits the page. The open nature and AGF attitude of Wikipedia are being misused to make this page a forum."undefined
 * NinaGreen replied, pointing out that a lot of the edits where minor such as fixing typos etc.undefined
 * There is no conflict between what I had written and what NinaGreen wrote as a refutation, but there was also no acknowledgment that it can be problematic to frequently edit a talk page (averaging one edit per two hours, 24×7). Therefore, I listed the 21 edits in question, with a diff for each, showing how many bytes had been added or removed.undefined

At no time did I suggest there were 21 distinct messages, just 21 edits. The claim of a false allegation should be struck out. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will also note that Nina made this false allegation almost immediately, and the fact that it was false was explained by me in this section on December 31. Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_19 And yet she continues to repeat the same false claim. The section above contains other demonstrably false allegations Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_19. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys.. If you care about those misstatements, please ask a clerk to strike them out or remove them. I don't think I'd be the right person to do it, not (any longer) being an uninvolved admin, but more of an engaged/annoyed admin. Perhaps I should have refuted what Nina said about a false allegation immediately, instead of letting it ride at the diff you give, John. Sorry about that. But the thing is, Nina spreads such clouds of misstatements and misunderstandings around whatever anybody says to her (violating either WP:AGF or WP:COMPETENCE or a mix of them) that I have become lazy about containing her statements. When she discusses my BIAS and appalling iniquities generally, I usually only reply to her once (and with increasing frequency, zero times), and apply the brakes if/when she counters with fresh accusations. It never seems worth letting the exchange balloon into a to-and-fro. I suppose I tend to assume that if I've discredited Nina's first layer of error, people probably won't take the second one very seriously. In the Case of the 21 Edits (or not), she develops a personal terminology whereby only big, important posts count as "edits"—I'm afraid I never engaged with that, either. If you look at your diff again, you'll see how she there creates a (diffless) fairly absurd "directive" from me, which she then uses as a stick to beat Tom with.. and claims I "refused" to answer a particular question from her (clearly, something on the lines of "omitted to answer" would have left her with more face to save after I linked to the very adequate answer I'd actually made)..  she will soon go on to gracelessly blame me for taking so long over answering her that time, back in early January: "It appears you didn't respond for two days.. it's no wonder I didn't see it.. had you not responded so slowly"—well, she'll just have to dock my pay, that's all. Anyway.. where was I? Oh, yes. On my way to the point that I ignore attacks and misstatements from Nina all the time, especially those against myself. Stuff like "false allegation" is by now, surely not only to me, just the way she talks. I scarcely notice it any more. It's gotten hard to imagine the arbcom taking that type of attack seriously.


 * I remember your mild statement, John (it really was) and what you mention about there being no acknowledgement from Nina that it can be problematic to frequently edit a talk page. I think she came back with a request to be directed to the policy that says it's wrong to improve your own text by correcting typos. I can't find it right now, but she does post those irrefutable zingers from time to time. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

I have notified NinaGreen of this discussion here.undefined Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving repetitive posts from workshop page

 * Tom Reedy outed one prominent Oxfordian editor in 2007 and attempted to out another, posting the names of two prominent Oxfordians on Wikipedia as possibilities (diffs elsewhere on this page). Tom has just outed another Oxfordian editor in his statement of evidence in this arbitration. Then there are the two 'troubling' diffs above. And Tom merely has to 'agree not to repeat that sort of behaviour'?NinaGreen (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Smatprt writes above: Regarding the Charles Darnay matter, you state "Since I don't know who that person is, I could not have outed him had I wanted to." I'd like to believe that, but you still appear to be threatening to out him. It's the threat that is troublesome. I clicked on the diff above, and it's been deleted, and I note on the Evidence page that Charles Darnay has been indefinitely blocked and had his Talk page access revoked by LessHeard vanU . What's going on here? It might be pertinent in view of Tom Reedy's threatened outing.


 * I must say it's also very interesting to see Tom Reedy now characterizing Smatprt as 'passive-aggressive'. Tom Reedy called me 'passive-aggressive', as did Bishonen. Anyone notice a certain pattern here? And Tom Reedy is now accusing Smatprt of being unable to communicate. Anyone notice a certain pattern here? It seems there are certain stock accusations which are thrown by Tom Reedy at any all Oxfordians. Oxfordians are all 'passive-aggressive'. All Oxfordians have difficulty communicating effectively. Could it be that the one common thread is Tom Reedy, and that he's the problem, not the rest of the world?NinaGreen (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nina, you were not outed. I was. I am trying to follow this issue to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with you. Would you please step away from this particular issue? As I said, it has nothing to do with you. And please stop copying and pasting everyone else's comments all over the place. Please. Smatprt (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Block NinaGreen now?
The incessant stream of frivolous accusations by NinaGreen against other participants in this case has become unbearable. I am aware that it's usual practice of Arbcom to let people in Arbcom cases do more or less as they please, giving them "enough rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes, but we must also take account of the stress this causes for the other participants. In the present case, I believe a borderline about how much we can legitimately ask other contributors to endure during a case has been crossed.

I consider myself still an uninvolved administrator who can legitimately impose sanctions to stop disruption, and I am willing to do so if none of the Arbs or clerks will do it themselves, unless I receive explicit instructions from Arbcom members against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not, at this moment. I will open a discussion with Brad and the other arbs on this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, no prob, holding off from any action as long as you guys take care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We are just waiting for the final submissions of evidence, and I don't think that it will take long for any proposed decision to be voted on once that last deadline has passed. We appreciate everyone's patience. We're almost to the finish line here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is not about waiting a longer or shorter until the case closes. The point is you arbs need to allow for a way to make the period until then less unbearable for the participants, no matter how long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - latitude is one thing, this has now gone far beyond. Shell  babelfish 23:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see I'm not alone in this heartfelt sentiment. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC).