Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recused
Bishzilla Waited for Godot. Godot arrived on 10 February 2011. No, that was only the Godking. Bishzilla still waiting for Co-Founder. |
Oh template template template template template template template. Get on with it already. Please. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC).
The proposed decision will be posted this evening. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 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).
@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).
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).
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)
FWIW (as the number of talk page archives was mentioned in this case), the articles on Wikipedia with over 50 talk page archives appear to be the following (17 at time of writing, in descending order, with number of talk page archives in brackets - someone could add the article date of creation to give more context, or even calculate the amount of text in these archives, and also indicate the article assessment level, and also whether lots of discussion necessarily equates to lots of editing of the article):
I found these by running the following search: intitle:archive intitle:50 limited to namespace 1 (talk pages). Similar searches can be done to find those articles with 30 or more archives (around 50 have 30 or more; for 20 or more it is over 100, for 10 or more is over 500). This presumes that talk page archives are of the form "Archive XX" - there are some of the form "ArchiveXX", but none for 30 or more archives - and that thematic talk page archiving (by topic rather than date) is not in place, as it is for some articles. Of course, the number of talk page archives is also a function of whether archiving is done manually or by bot, how large each archive page is, and when the article was created (older articles have had more time to accumulate talk page archives). It would be trivial to automate tracking pages with large number of talk page archives, and it might be worth the community keeping more of an eye on such articles, as talk page archive bloat is definitely one of the symptoms that can indicate an ongoing and unresolved problem. The key is finding someone willing to look at the quality of the talk page discussions if problems do exist. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason why proposed principle 3 causes difficulties (in my humble opinion) is that principle 2 is actually a consequence of principle 3, not the other way around. I also suspect that although the sentiment is clear, the vocabulary employed is not quite the mot juste at times. I'd suggest you might consider some minor amendments like these:
By means of explanation:
Cheers. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recused
Bishzilla Waited for Godot. Godot arrived on 10 February 2011. No, that was only the Godking. Bishzilla still waiting for Co-Founder. |
Oh template template template template template template template. Get on with it already. Please. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC).
The proposed decision will be posted this evening. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 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).
@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).
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).
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)
FWIW (as the number of talk page archives was mentioned in this case), the articles on Wikipedia with over 50 talk page archives appear to be the following (17 at time of writing, in descending order, with number of talk page archives in brackets - someone could add the article date of creation to give more context, or even calculate the amount of text in these archives, and also indicate the article assessment level, and also whether lots of discussion necessarily equates to lots of editing of the article):
I found these by running the following search: intitle:archive intitle:50 limited to namespace 1 (talk pages). Similar searches can be done to find those articles with 30 or more archives (around 50 have 30 or more; for 20 or more it is over 100, for 10 or more is over 500). This presumes that talk page archives are of the form "Archive XX" - there are some of the form "ArchiveXX", but none for 30 or more archives - and that thematic talk page archiving (by topic rather than date) is not in place, as it is for some articles. Of course, the number of talk page archives is also a function of whether archiving is done manually or by bot, how large each archive page is, and when the article was created (older articles have had more time to accumulate talk page archives). It would be trivial to automate tracking pages with large number of talk page archives, and it might be worth the community keeping more of an eye on such articles, as talk page archive bloat is definitely one of the symptoms that can indicate an ongoing and unresolved problem. The key is finding someone willing to look at the quality of the talk page discussions if problems do exist. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason why proposed principle 3 causes difficulties (in my humble opinion) is that principle 2 is actually a consequence of principle 3, not the other way around. I also suspect that although the sentiment is clear, the vocabulary employed is not quite the mot juste at times. I'd suggest you might consider some minor amendments like these:
By means of explanation:
Cheers. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)