User talk:NinaGreen

This user participates in
WikiProject Biography.

This user is a participant in WikiProject English Royalty

• /Archive 1

The apricot tree

not only flowered, but bore abundant fruit, and I'm happy to see the metaphor applies. Welcome back Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I wondered about that. :-) NinaGreen (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne de Mortimer

Thanks for trying to help. I notice that the spammy query about the artist is 8 years old, from an IP, included two spamlinks, and was unsigned. Of course, if the other Anne is in fact notable, then she's notable.

I also wanted to thank you for your work on Anne de Mortimer herself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the heads up on the spammy query. NinaGreen (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Help request

I noticed your help page request. If you find an image to append to the end of the lead section of an article, or find a really tall object or image to put at the top of the lead, it will extend downward into the space to the right of the table of contents. See Muhammad or Jesus for example. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful hint! NinaGreen (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard [Plantagenet], Earl of Cambridge Paternity Question

I was wondering if you could direct me to where you found the info that Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge may be the product of an affair his mother had. The affair between Isabella and the Duke of Exeter is reported in the year 1379, 6 years before the birth of her son, Richard. How long did the affair last and does this have anything to do with the story The Complaint of Mars by Chaucer?

Your statement which I'm assuming you added seeing how you've edited more than a few things on that page within a few 24 hrs. --
Richard was twelve years younger than his brother, Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, and may have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, since he received no lands from his putative father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and is not mentioned in his will.
-- Lady Meg (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I added the statement. I found it in the source I cited, the ODNB article by Harriss. This is how it appears in Harriss's ODNB article:

Richard was twelve years younger than his brother Edward, duke of York (c.1373–1415), and may have been the product of his mother's illicit liaison with John Holland, earl of Huntingdon (d. 1400), for neither his father nor his brother provided him with land or income and neither mentioned him in his will.

Harriss cites a number of sources at the end of his article, but it's not apparent on the face of these sources where Harriss himself got the idea. You mention that the affair was reported in 1379. Perhaps it might be worth adding that source to the article? NinaGreen (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "affair" was brought up in 1379 via a poem/story by Chaucer where people thought that the characters in the poem represented Isabella and Exeter. So it confuses me as to how something became "known" via a poem in 1379 and the child was thus born years later. I would think by that time, if the affair had been outed, she would have either been divorced or banished to a nunnery instead of "going back to her husband." I seriously wonder if Harriss was commenting on the poem or not which explains:

The 'Compleynt of Mars' an occasional poem of very peculiar character which Chaucer wrote at his request. It refers to incidents which seem to have taken place in the spring of 1379 viz an episode in the chronicle of scandals at the English court of that time. As may be imagined the subject of the poem is presented in an allegorical disguise. The veil indeed is not exactly transparent but the initiated must undoubtedly have known who was meant by Mars and who by Venus. According to the tradition established in the reign of Henry VI by a disciple and copier of Chaucer, Mars represented John Holland third son of Thomas Earl of Kent afterwards Earl of Huntingdon and Duke of Exeter and the Venus of the poem was Isabella, Countess of Edmund Earl of Cambridge who was made Duke of York in 1386. John of Gaunt was doubly related to this Venus Isabella who is reported by a chronicler as being 'mulier mollis et delicata' and towards the close of her life 'satis pxnitens et conversa.' Holland also came after a time into family relationship with Chaucer's patron by marrying Elizabeth the divorced Countess of Pembroke who was a daughter of Blanche and John of Gaunt. The whole atmosphere in this affair is not at all refreshing; John of Gaunt may have followed with a malicious pleasure the progress of the adulterous connection between John Holland and the Countess of Cambridge and when at length a kind of catastrophe supervened he shook with laughter and Chaucer had to write out the story for him in flowing rhymes. In order to escape the growing suspicion and to enjoy each other with less disturbance it appears the enamored couple had agreed upon a short separation with a subsequent assignation at a remote castle belonging to the absent Earl of Cambridge John Holland went there first Isabella soon followed by a circuitous route... It continues on page 75, It is not absolutely certain that the above outline is correct in every point. Possibly we should consider the situation as abstract rather than local and concrete, there may have been obstacles to close intercourse rather than intervening distance instead of surprise in a castle there may have been merely a threatened discovery of their love affairs and a consequent constraint to suspend for a time their intimacy. But the affair as it actually happened was certainly not wanting in many realistic and pungent touches. History of English Literature -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Harriss doesn't mention this literary evidence in his cited sources, although he might well have been aware of it, and put it together with the fact that Richard wasn't given any lands by his father, and wasn't mentioned in either his father's or his brother's wills to reach the conclusion that Richard may have been the child of an affair between his mother and Holland. I've changed the statement to attribute the conjecture specifically to Harriss in the text of the article. Perhaps we can both look around for further mention of the alleged affair in other reliable sources, and depending on what we find, alter the article accordingly? NinaGreen (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't help wondering, Lady Meg, what weight should we give to a tradition established in the reign of Henry VI, two or three generations after the events? Moonraker (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Good job on 15th earl. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! NinaGreen (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles edited

I have created a very impressive list of 119 articles that you have edited since September 2012 (I have tools to manipulate text, and this is simply a tricky search-and-replace on all your contributions since then). I hope you don't mind, but as I believe this will be useful, I have created your sandbox with the list, see User:NinaGreen/Sandbox. It's easy to move that or have it deleted if you like (ask if wanted). Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And see here. Moonraker (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! This is really helpful. NinaGreen (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't give up

It appears you're not gonna make it this time, but don't give up: time has an irritating tendency to pass too quickly, and you'll surely be successful in the future.

Pro tip: instead of linking to open edits to illustrate an edit, link to the diffs instead. That way the chances of an unintended edit are much less. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, Nina. Still, I have my cingers frossed. Ya never know.

Tom: only proves we've very little heft round here! Or perhaps it's just that anything I, a former denisov of the perma-frosted gulag, might say as a character witness backfires and makes for a dubious reference. Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Tom, and for the amusing allusion, Nishidani. :-) NinaGreen (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought you'd appreciate the content as well as the technical info. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Hungerford: Earls of Northumberland

I have reversed your edit on Mary Hungerford. The reasons are in the talk page. Trahelliven (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've put some comments there for your consideration. NinaGreen (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I put a reference from tudorplace [1]. Trahelliven (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined

Hi Nina. I have removed your amendment request, as there was no support from any Arbitrators to take action on it. I would advise waiting at least six months before reapplying to the Committee. Best, NW (Talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you advise where the record of the request has been moved to so I can bookmark it. I can no longer find it at. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Shame about the outcome—I'm not sure the arbitrators realized the significance of the supports from Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Some of the early supports were overly enthusiastic and misguided in their approach, and that might have had a negative effect (Arbcom hates agreeing to anything that looks as if it may rekindle disputes). It would be best to not respond to my thoughts—I'm just letting you know my opinion, and further analysis would probably be unhelpful.

I believe declined requests are not saved anywhere apart from in the page history. The permanent link to the page showing the request as it was just prior to removal is here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the report has been moved to the talk page (here). I don't know if it will stay there permanently. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It should, unless it gets archived in the future to a subpage of that page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 1). NW (Talk) 03:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A very low-quality process, I'm afraid, typified by the blatant gilding of the lily by Newyorkbrad. Does anyone here have an opinion on whether he should be taken to task for it? I hear what Johnuniq says above, and perhaps my intervention was unhelpful, but I was properly invited to take part, and it would be crazy if I or others were expected to change our view. The contribution to the discussion by Iantresman suggests to me that if such injudicious stuff were to continue it ought not to be impossible to reopen the question of the original findings, whether the "arbitrators" hate it or not. Moonraker (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The contribution to the discussion by Iantresman suggests to me that he didn't know what he was talking about. I suggest you review every page of the arbitration case and reassess why you think the original ban was unjustified (or you could just review these examples). Since that ArbCom decision, the SAQ page has reached FA status, an accomplishment that would have been impossible had the editing situation been left unchanged, and it has had a positive impact on the related articles,

There's no reason to go on about this, Moonraker. The original decision was fair, a process has been laid out for Nina to return to unrestricted editing, that process is entirely consistent with other cases of this nature, and I have no doubt she'll achieve it. Going on about it is unproductive and a waste of your time and energy. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to take it on the chin, which I'm sure Nina can. But it's unhelpful to lead with the chin when stepping in as a paladin to fight someone else's battle, as a few folks in there did in suggesting that the process was at fault. The next time round, say 4 months, could 'friends' just stay out of this. I'm sure with the work Nina will do in the interim, and strong support from Tom, Johnuniq and myself, and I hope you too, Moonraker, as well as a few others, this request will get closer attention. I've never found NewyorkBrad anything but fair and equitable (I don't brownnose, but I don't allow caution to get in the way of saying what I think), nor NW for that matter. These people have a far wider range of concerns and perspectives than most of us, because they have an experienced insight into how fragile the positive work, esp. the stuff that gets past FA, of wikipedia can prove to be unless caution rules the roost. Seeing support from quarters that are both partisan and critical of the due process that took place did not augur well. A lesson's been learnt. If Nina continues her work, I'm sure it's only a matter of four or five months before this can be positively reconsidered. (Cheers Nina) Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to everyone from the Wikipedia community who supported my request! The support from the community was unanimous.

In light of the unanimous support for my request from those in the Wikipedia community who responded, I feel I should express once again my opinion that the Wikipedia arbitration process needs substantive reform. In the original arbitration I expressed my complete bewilderment at what was going on. It's clear that as a new and inexperienced editor I had wandered into a firestorm of controversy over the Shakespeare authorship issue which had been going on on Wikipedia for years, and which I had been no part of. The arbitration was brought on the ground that there was a conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, but not a scintilla of evidence of a conspiracy was introduced during the entire arbitration. The reason for that is clear. There was no conspiracy. Instead of dropping the arbitration for lack of proof of any conspiracy, as I had requested, the arbitrators focussed all their attention on me. The time period for adducing evidence elapsed, and I protested that no specific evidence had been adduced against me, and that I could not respond without knowing the case (if any) I had to meet. At that point, the time period for providing evidence was re-opened on the spurious grounds that another editor needed further time to respond because of family circumstances. No further evidence was adduced by or on the part of that editor (whose identity was never disclosed during the arbitration). Instead, further 'evidence' was adduced against me, and the case was immediately closed again, and I was slapped with what must be among the most Draconian sanctions Wikipedia has ever imposed on anyone.

It is clear that there is no due process or transparency in a Wikipedia arbitration, and no clarity whatsoever as to what is actually being arbitrated and what case an editor who finds him/herself in an arbitration has to meet. I'm quite willing to admit that I could have handled Talk page discussions better, but so could any number of editors involved in those same Talk page discussions, and none of them received even the most minimal of sanctions by the arbitrators.

One learns from experience, which is sometimes a harsh mistress, and I hope that my experience can help to improve the Wikipedia arbitration process. To that end, when Steven Zhang of the Wikipedia Foundation asked me to participate in a survey concerning Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, I responded to the survey. In addition to requesting completion of the survey, Steven Zhang requested volunteers to be part of a group which would offer suggestions for the improvement of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. I volunteered to do so at least three times, suggesting that my experience with arbitration had given me some insights which would be helpful in improving the arbitration process. Steven Zhang completely ignored my offer to participate.

My Wikipedia account remained blocked for months after the one-year ban had expired, and there appears to be no process on Wikipedia for ensuring that accounts are automatically unblocked when fixed-time period sanctions expire. So that is one area obviously in need of substantive reform. There needs to be a process for unblocking accounts when fixed time period sanctions have expired because when a user's account is totally blocked, there's no way of contacting Wikipedia to get it unblocked. And why should a user have to do that in any event? The account should be automatically unblocked.

Once my account was unblocked, I began editing biographies of English historical personages from the Middle Ages and Tudor periods. I have considerable background knowledge in this area, and access to reliable sources of very high quality. Before I requested that the topic ban be lifted a short time ago, I had edited over 120 of these Wikipedia articles, sourcing unsourced statements, providing in-line citations, and expanding articles which were stubs. I suspect it would be difficult to find many other editors in the entire Wikipedia universe who contributed anything approaching that amount to Wikipedia in that short space of time. However if the arbitrators took any notice whatsoever of the volume and quality of my contributions during the past two and half months, or of the fact that my contributions were in an area which is now relatively neglected by other Wikipedia editors, and in which there are notices on many many articles indicating that they are in need of improvement, it was not evident in the slightest from the arbitrators' comments. Not a single arbitrator appears to have taken any of this into consideration, and my request was abruptly closed off yesterday on the ground that the arbitrators simply weren't interested in lifting the topic ban. It is obvious to any disinterested observer that when those in a position to decide can merely say, 'We're not interested in doing anything', there is no due process and no transparency, and no Wikipedia editor can feel confident that he/she will be given fair treatment.

Moreover the arbitrator who authored the original arbitration decision added unsubstantiated new allegations in his comments regarding my request that the topic ban be lifted, and it was rightly pointed out by another editor that those new allegations by that arbitrator could not, in fact, be substantiated. The record clearly shows that I did not at any time specifically advocate for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare plays.

In addition, the path forward was not made clear in the slightest. There was no agreement whatsoever among the arbitrators as to what would be expected of me if I were to apply at a future date to have the topic ban lifted, or when such an application might be favourably received. And in fact the comments from several of the arbitrators that they had not the slightest interest in lifting the indefinite topic ban strongly suggests that there is no path forward, and that they will never agree to it being lifted, despite the fact that it has now been in place for almost two full years.

Moreover the comments from members of the Wikipedia community who offered support in my request to have the indefinite topic ban lifted were viewed with deep suspicion by some of the arbitrators, as though anyone who had anything positive to say about my work was somehow also suspect, and that was the case in the original arbitration as well, as the record shows. And some comments made earlier on this page suggest that in any future application I might make anyone who has anything positive to say about my work should just stay out of it. One can well imagine what the result would be for my application if that advice were taken, and anyone who had anything to say in support of my work just shut up, leaving the field to those who keep harping on the erroneous findings of the original arbitration.

In brief, neither the arbitration process nor the process governing requests for the lifting of indefinite topic bans provides for fairness, due process or transparency, and I would hope the entire Wikipedia community, including Jimmy Wales, would get behind an effort to put in place the substantive improvements which are needed to guarantee fairness, due process, and transparency, specifically:

(1) Editors need to know the specific case they have to meet, which implies that the arbitrators should never take on a case alleging a vast conspiracy without first requiring evidence establishing the alleged conspiracy, and if none is forthcoming, the arbitration should not be taken on.

(2) When an editor says, 'I don't know what the case is which I have to meet, and which specific Wikipedia policies I'm alleged to have violated', the arbitrators should spell out the details with specific diffs. In my case, the specific policies which I was alleged to have violated were never spelled out.

(3) If a large number of editors are swept into an arbitration, the case against each one should be spelled out very specifically, and those against whom there is no case should be immediately excused. One of the reasons for the vast amount of confusion in the original arbitration is that a very large number of people were dragged into it who had nothing to do with it, and it was never clear what the arbitration was about.

(4) Before a decision is voted on by the arbitrators, specific findings of fact, supported by diffs, should be spelled out, so that it is transparently clear to everyone exactly what the arbitrators are voting on.

(5) Before an arbitration is taken on, there should be a clear statement, supported by diffs, of the earlier steps in dispute resolution which were taken, and if no earlier steps have been taken, the case should not be taken on. In my case, no earlier steps were taken.

(6) Any decision by the arbitrators should include clear parameters as to what further steps need to be taken (if any) to lift the sanctions, particularly in the case of indefinite topic bans.

(7) Accounts should be automatically unblocked when fixed time period sanctions have expired.

(8) There should be a clear process set out as to what happens when a request is made to lift an indefinite topic ban. I was completely bewildered by what happened during my recent application. Arbitrators made laconic comments stating they didn't feel like doing anything, comments voicing suspicion, comments adding additional unsubstantiated allegations, etc. etc. The process seemed completely haphazard. And in the end the process was cut off abruptly without any agreement among the arbitrators as to what they would consider sufficient if I eventually reapplied, or when they would consider it suitable that I reapply.

I appreciate that the arbitrators have a thankless job, but there are a lot of editors out here on Wikipedia also doing what is, in essence, a thankless job. And we're all doing it for the common good because we feel Wikipedia is a worthwhile project which contributes to the store of human knowledge. I hope my comments will be taken in that light. They constitute a bona fide attempt to improve Wikipedia.

I would also like to add that it is one of Wikipedia's policies to encourage women editors, and I can't help but wonder how women editors would be encouraged by my experience on Wikipedia, which seems to smack in at least some measure of overt male chauvinism. NinaGreen (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nina, when you're trying to walk up stairs it doesn't help to wear roller skates. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tom, the arbitrators made it clear I'm never going to walk up those stairs. :-) The minimum anyone should be able to expect from an application is an clear-cut decision from the arbitrators as to the path forward, i.e. how long to wait before the next application, and what steps need to be taken to ensure the application will not be turned down a second time, and all the arbitrators agreed on was that they 'didn't feel like doing anything'. Who in their right mind would ever want to go through such a humiliating and bewildering process a second time? There's nothing in the world which can't benefit from improvement, and the Wikipedia arbitration process is no exception. I've set out 8 specific suggestions above, and I hope they will be circulated in the Wikipedia community, and that everyone in the Wikipedia community will get behind them, including Jimmy Wales, so that there is fairness, due process, and transparency in Wikipedia arbitrations and follow-up applications, something which is sorely lacking at the present time. NinaGreen (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Nina says, and I also stand by my comment above about "the blatant gilding of the lily by Newyorkbrad", who plainly invented a new original offence without anyone except me minding or pointing it out. The contributions from the concerned editors were generally thoughtful, informed, and intelligent, but what ought to have been the judicial process was almost wholly subjective, unreasoning, and injudicious, quite like the original arbitration, but worse. If all the submissions to the arbitrators are to be treated as irrelevant, even when unanimous, what on earth is the point of anyone's making any? If a judge in an English court, or a member of an English tribunal, behaved in such a way he or she would be in very hot water. Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

NB I have just read through the Amendment request and I see that Newyorkbrad says "I authored the original decision in this case", a point which I had forgotten. As the leading arbitrator has been observed wildly exaggerating the original offences, there is a strong case for the original decision to be reviewed by someone independent of it; indeed, someone completely independent of Wikipedia is needed for the decision to be suitably tested. Moonraker (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can I state the painfully obvious here. Nina, I supported your re-emergence into editing, and I would have supported lifting the restriction on editing other than in the SAQ area (so you would have been able to edit articles on the historical persons). What guaranteed that your request received zero support from the Committee was the parade of "supporters" insisting that the sanction should be overturned on the basis that the original decision was the wrong one. Since everyone who was sanctioned in that case was horribly disruptive, this was a complete non-starter as an effective argument. Worse, it gave the impression that you did not understand that your editing had (maybe unintentionally, but the effect was the same) been disruptive. And even worse, it gave the impression that you were likely to start up again with the disruptive edits.

• I don't think that you have lost all chance of being allowed to edit without restrictions, but your statement above has made it a lot less likely. You really do need to go back and understand why your behaviour caused such a problem that you still have a sanction. As with anyone who has strong views on a topic, you need to be able to edit neutrally, and this is what you have to convince the Committee that you understand if you are to get the sanction lifted. You need to show that you have moved on from the problems that gave rise to the original decision. You need more people saying 'Nina's editing has been neutral, well-researched, and valuable' and less people saying 'should never have been sanctioned in the first place.'--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• What Elen of the Roads says is every bit as lacking in balance and objectivity as the arbitration process and the consideration of the Amendment request themselves were. She says -

1. "Can I state the painfully obvious here." Absolutely nothing of what follows is obvious, and what follows is painful only in its absurdity.
2. "Nina, I supported your re-emergence into editing..." Once the block on Nina had expired, there was no question of supporting or opposing that. This comment is very like saying "I supported your release from prison once you had served your sentence."
3. "...and I would have supported lifting the restriction on editing other than in the SAQ area (so you would have been able to edit articles on the historical persons)." Here there is a division of the Amendment request into two parts, and the different responses of Elen of the Roads to those parts are not reasoned and are certainly not "painfully obvious". What is said purports to show the start point of Elen's thinking. In the event, she did not support lifting the topic ban in respect of "the historical persons", and she goes on to explain that outcome in terms of the behaviour of people other than Nina. This is also not "painfully obvious"; rather, it is painfully injudicious.
4. "What guaranteed that your request received zero support from the Committee was the parade of "supporters" insisting that the sanction should be overturned on the basis that the original decision was the wrong one." This statement raises several issues. Firstly, Nina has no ability to control what is said by others, so why on earth should she be punished for any of it? Secondly, if Elen of the Roads takes the trouble to read through all of the arbitrators' responses she will find that the request did not receive "zero support from the Committee": this is an overstatement which is sadly typical of the whole of this arbitration process (which did not even begin as a complaint specifically targetted against Nina). Thirdly, the melodramatic expression the parade of "supporters" is plainly injudicious. Why use the word "parade"? A parade is always highly organized and regimented, but what it is seeking to describe was simply a series of concerned editors who individually support Nina, some of them on the basis described, some not. So Elen's choice of word is improper and must demonstrate prejudice. Why on earth should Elen of the Roads object to Nina's having a series of supporters? And goodness only knows why she decided to put "supporters" in quotation marks. What is that implying? Is she suggesting that those concerned were not in fact supporters, and if so on what basis? Lastly, only a minority of the contributors to the request suggested that the original decision was the wrong one, but anyone doing so is perfectly entitled to voice that opinion and nothing adverse to Nina can properly be drawn from it.
5. "Since everyone who was sanctioned in that case was horribly disruptive..." I suppose "everyone who was sanctioned in that case" is intended to include Nina, so "horribly disruptive" refers to her.
6. "this was a complete non-starter as an effective argument..." I agree that the purpose of the request was not to overturn the original decision, but no one argued that that should happen. As an argument in mitigation, it must be admissible that some contributors felt that the original "offences" had been punished too severely.
7. "Worse, it gave the impression that you did not understand that your editing had (maybe unintentionally, but the effect was the same) been disruptive." This is irrational. How could the comments of other users give any impression about what Nina did or did not understand?
8. "...that your editing had (maybe unintentionally, but the effect was the same) been disruptive." This concedes that Nina's editing may have been unintentionally "disruptive". That is an important point, and I should have thought that arriving at that view ought to have led Elen of the Roads into supporting the request, as the whole concept of culpable "disruption" must surely include some intention to disrupt. In any event, it is hard to see how the editing of anyone as rational as Nina could be both "unintentionally disruptive" and "horribly disruptive" (see point (5) above).

• If necessary I can offer an analysis of the second paragraph from Elen of the Roads, part of which echoes elements of the first, but for now it is enough to say that all of her comments seem to me to be coloured by emotion and poor reasoning. Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, you stated above that 'everyone who was sanctioned in that case was horribly disruptive'. In fact, the only person who was sanctioned in the original arbitration was me. Although the arbitration was launched on the spurious grounds that there was a vast conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, not a scintilla of evidence of any such conspiracy was adduced, and the entire weight of the arbitrators came down full force on me. (Smtprt, with whom I'd never edited because he was under a ban the whole time I was editing, wasn't sanctioned in the arbitration; he merely used the arbitration as a vehicle to apply to have the earlier sanctions against him lifted, which didn't happen. And if the arbitrators are of the view that Smtprt was 'horribly disruptive', that has absolutely nothing to do with me because any editing Smtprt did on Wikipedia was before my time, and I should not be tarred with guilt by association.)

You also wrote, 'You really do need to go back and understand why your behaviour caused such a problem'. I told the arbitrators during the arbitration what caused the problem, namely that I was not allowed to make a single substantive edit on the SAQ page. Every single substantive edit I made was instantly reverted by other editors, and every single substantive edit I suggested was argued about endlessly on the Talk page by other editors. Any one of the arbitrators can go back to the SAQ page and see that for him/herself. Yet none of those other editors was sanctioned by the arbitrators, or even came in for the slightest criticism from the arbitrators.

You also wrote, 'You need more people saying 'Nina's editing has been neutral, well-researched, and valuable' and less people saying 'should never have been sanctioned in the first place.' Why do I need that? In the first place, all the editors who commented during my application supported the lifting of the sanctions. Secondly, and more importantly, I provided the arbitrators with a list of 120 articles I've edited in the past two and half months (since then I've edited several dozen more articles, usually revising them from top to bottom, adding references and in-line citations). Why couldn't the arbitrators go take a look for themselves at some of those articles and make up their own minds as to whether my editing is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable'? It undoubtedly is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable', and if the arbitrators would bother to take a few minutes to look at it, they'd see that.

You also wrote, 'You need to show that you have moved on'. All the editors in the Wikipedia community who responded to the application indicated that they are ready to move on. I'm ready to move on. The only ones who aren't ready to move on, and who seem to want to keep harping indefinitely on the past, are the arbitrators. Surely that's not what Wikipedia is about. Why don't the arbitrators just lift the indefinite ban? If things turn out badly, the arbitrators can just re-impose the ban. What have they got to lose? Nothing. But things won't turn out badly. Things will be just fine if the indefinite ban is lifted.NinaGreen (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although that is not going to surprise anyone. There were clearly fundamental problems with the Request for Amendment process in this case, which I suspect must reflect equally fundamental problems with the process in general. This one happened without anyone except the applicant defining what was going on and what issues needed to be considered. Some arbitrators began to jump in to give their decisions before the views of the editing community concerned with the matter had been heard. Indeed, only one of them showed any real interest in listening to the views of the community. Even when those views proved to be unanimous, most arbitrators felt that the real issue was whether the original decision had been correct, and that led to the community's views on developments since the Arbitration being completely ignored. The lead arbitrator at the Arbitration (that is, the author of the original decision), exaggerated the original findings and was able to get away with that because even when it was pointed out on the page that he had done so nobody cared. Most arbitrators proved to be opinionated, did not analyse the issues or take a reasoned approach to resolving them, and in voting did no more than to offer a few curmudgeonly remarks. The whole process seems incapable of being anything but crazy.

The Wikipedia community is self-regulating, but what other worldwide organization with millions of members would allow the decisions of its disciplinary process to be taken by opinionated people with no relevant training and (rather critically, I think) no legal advice? As Wikipedia grows in importance, there surely needs to be a much more professional approach to such matters. Moonraker (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note about this matter at User talk:Michael Snow. Moonraker (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I just now read this wall of text and I'm astounded at the stubborn refusal to face reality that is on display here and the idiotic idea that any of this is helping anything. Wikipedia is not a U.S. (or any other) governmental agency, and Constitutional and legal arguments don't apply here. For a brief moment I thought about rebutting all of Nina's points with examples from her diffs, but a sufficient number was presented at the original arbitration, and I don't even care anymore. I suspect nobody else does either, since it appears that any change exhibited by Nina was merely cosmetic. Suffice to say that the next such request for clarification will not have my support or participation. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as unexpected, Tom. It is not the first "wall of text" the affair has generated, and you know better than most editors here that complicated problems call for a careful analysis. I am surprised if you are not concerned about the matters raised above by Nina and others raised by me. You say

"Wikipedia is not a U.S. (or any other) governmental agency, and Constitutional and legal arguments don't apply here." Indeed, Wikipedia is not in any sense a public body, it is rather like a co-operative or even a private members' club, but it is a significant one, with millions of members. On your word "constitutional", so far as U.S. citizens (I am not one) can rely on constitutional rights in their everyday lives, they should be able to rely on them in their relationship with Wikipedia. On your statement "legal arguments don't apply here", I broadly agree with you if you mean that there is little legislation which has a bearing on on what is acceptable behaviour on this web site, but nevertheless we have policies which should carry out that role for each Wikipedia project. Even in running their own affairs, private members' clubs and societies are subject to the law of the land they are based in, and most of them would accept that the concepts of natural justice and human rights should be respected. The notion of an arbitration process which is injudicious and arbitrary is alien to all the high principles rightly promoted by Wikipedian leaders like Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow.

"... a stubborn refusal to face reality" To me this looks more like a stubborn refusal to accept the evident flaws of a process which needs to be improved. If you cannot see that there are any flaws, then you are one for the status quo, whatever it is.

"...I don't even care anymore. I suspect nobody else does either, since it appears that any change exhibited by Nina was merely cosmetic." Forgive me, I thought the central issue here was whether Nina's editing was constructive, valuable, orderly, etc? Nothing has changed on that front. If for you the central issue was that everyone (including Nina) should accept that the outcome of the original Arbitration was correct, that was really not the subject of the Request.

"Suffice to say that the next such request for clarification will not have my support or participation." If you take no part in the next request you will of course not be heard. All the same, the anger you have displayed here surprises me. Moonraker (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your irrelevant blabber does not surprise me, but it is surprising that you discern anger where there is none. That appears to be a classic case of projection or misreading, probably both.

Enough. No more of this for me. Continue with your pole vaulting over this rat turd as you so choose and if you honestly think you're doing any good for anybody besides your spleen. I'll not stand in your way. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started. Moonraker (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• You do go on, Tom. Listen to me instead. I think all our exploring has reached the kernel of the nut: the arbitrators are opinionated, unreasoning and injudicious. Moonraker, by contrast, is fair-minded, analytical and sane. Rare qualities, sorely needed on the imbecile committee. Moonraker, did you know there's an ArbCom election starting right now? Why don't you throw your hat in the ring, and stand for arbcom on a platform of, as you say, "a much more professional approach"? You don't have to be an admin or anything to run for arbcom — just a user in good standing with a reasonable edit count — 500 mainspace edits or something like that, I think. Obviously you'd ace that. This page is where you post your candidacy and election statement. You've got till 20 November 23:59 UTC. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC).

Bishonen, it seems clear that your comment is intended to be sardonic, which suggests that you object to the analysis of the issues on this talk page and prefer instead such trash as the inventing by Newyorkbrad of a new and supposedly serious offence which he has claimed was committed by Nina, one for which there is no history, and the irrational thought processes of Elen of the Roads. If so, then you are yourself part of the problem. In any event (pretending for a moment to take your suggestion seriously) ArbCom is far too arbitrary a body for me to want to be part of it as it is set up for now. Its ethos is cracked and its processes plainly need major reform. Moonraker (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Arundell

Nina, I was thinking of starting a page on Charles Arundell, the brother of Matthew Arundell, but I want to be sure he is notable. Do you have any thoughts? Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he could be considered sufficiently notable from the perspective of:

(1) Family connections. He was the son of the convicted traitor, Sir Thomas Arundel, beheaded on Tower Hill on 26 February 1552, and Margaret Howard, the daughter of Lord Edmund Howard and sister of Queen Katherine Howard, and was thus a kinsman of Queen Elizabeth. His niece by marriage was Southampton’s sister, Mary Wriothesley.

(2) His role in political intrigue. He and Lord Henry Howard were briefly imprisoned in the Tower at Christmas 1580 after being denounced as traitors to the Queen by Oxford, and Arundel spent the next seven months or so under house arrest. In the wake of the Babington plot in 1583 he fled to Paris in the company of Thomas, Lord Paget, brother of the conspirator, Charles Paget. Although his role isn’t entirely clear, he seems to have been involved in putting the English ambassador in Paris, Sir Edward Stafford, into contact with Philip II of Spain. In the ODNB article on Stafford, James McDermott says Stafford was in close communication with Arundel, and in early 1587 Arundel secretly acted as a mediator between Stafford and Bernadino de Mendoza, Philip II's ambassador in Paris, to offer Stafford's services as a spy. Arundel was given 2000 crowns to pass on to Stafford. He died in Paris in 1587, perhaps poisoned. He is sometimes referred to as 'Sir Charles Arundel', a knighthood having allegedly been bestowed on him by King Philip of Spain.

(3) His reputed authorship of Leicester's Commonwealth. Dwight C. Peck argued, in his edition of Leicester’s Commonwealth, that Arundel was the anonymous author.NinaGreen (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the uncertainty on the last matter was my main worry, but the main question here is probably whether he meets WP:N by being dealt with in enough reliable sources - are you in a position to estimate the number? Moonraker (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don’t know that I could estimate an actual number, but Arundell is mentioned in recent books by the historians Victor Houlihan (Catholic Resistance in Elizabethan England, p. 13) ; Michael Questier (Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England, pp. 88-154); Paul. E.J. Hammer in The Polarization of Elizabethan Politics; John Bossy in his article in Recusant History, ‘English Catholics and the French Marriage 1577-1581'; by the historian James McDermott (as noted earlier) in his article on Sir Edward Stafford in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; rather extensively by Alan Nelson in Monstrous Adversary; by Douglas Richardson in Magna Carta Ancestry; and (as noted earlier) by Dwight Peck in his edition of Leicester’s Commonwealth. A quick search of the internet indicates that Arundel is mentioned by Donna Hamilton in Anthony Munday and the Catholics; by J.E. Neale in an article in the English Historical Review entitled ‘The Fame of Sir Edward Stafford’; by Katy Gibbons in English Catholic Exiles in Late Sixteenth Century Paris, p. 24; by Samuel Hopkins in The Puritans, Vol. II, p. 506; by Joanna Rickman in Love, Lust and Licence in Early Modern England, p. 32; by Stephania Tutino in Law and Conscience; Catholicism in Early Modern England 1570-1625, p. 60; by Richard C. McCoy in The Rites of Knighthood, p. 174; by Thomas McCoog in The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland and England, p. 253, and perhaps others I may have missed. Most of the authors are historians, and the books were published by academic publishers.NinaGreen (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's more than I was aware of, so I shall make a start on a basic page and hope you will be able to get around to building it up. I expect it will be one for DYK. Moonraker (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fast work! I added a further citation for Arundell's family background, and made one change to the text, substituting the views of historians who have recently commented on Leicester's Commonwealth for 'recent editions' of the tract as I don't know of anyone who has edited it since Peck. Do you have a suggestion as to what could be submitted to DYK? NinaGreen (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I found some better information than expected and got on with it. Have only just noticed that Arundell is mentioned several times in our article on Oxford. Will look out for another collaboration. Moonraker (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this would interest you, but the article on Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton is just a stub [2], and I'm sure we could find material to improve it. NinaGreen (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The father of a notable namesake, he has an article by someone called J. G. Elzinga in the ODNB which cites G. P. V. Akrigg's Shakespeare and the earl of Southampton, not to mention W. D. Hamilton's edition of Charles Wriothesley's Chronicle, &c.. I have never come across J. G. Elzinga before. Would you like to make a start, and I'll see what I can add? Moonraker (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to acquire a public domain close-up of his tomb effigy at Titchfield! Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've considerably expanded the article. My format for adding references and citations is a bit different from yours, but I don't think that should be a problem. You can just add yours in whatever format you like. I also usually add an Infobox, which I've done with this article. I'm not sure where to look for a closeup of the effigy, but agree it would be a nice addition. NinaGreen (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work! The 16th century pronunciation of the name Wriothesley is an interesting question. Somewhere I've seen it suggested that it might have been "Rosely"... "a rose by any other name". Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Should there be an article on the 2nd Earl's wife and 3rd Earl's mother, Mary Browne? For some reason there are links to her in several articles which redirect to her father, Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu. NinaGreen (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have quickly found several references to her in reliable sources, so I see no reason why not. Wives of peers have been a difficult area - see this recent afd, for instance. Another disputed question has been what surname to use in the article title. To me, Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk and Lady Mary Grey make more sense than Susan Bertie, Countess of Kent and Mary Cromwell, Countess Fauconberg. Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Another possibility would be to use the maiden name of the wife of a peer with her date of death as a descriptor, i.e. 'Mary Browne (died 1607)', particularly when (as in this case) she had three husbands. But I'm not sure whether that would accord with Wikipedia's general protocols for article titles for members of the nobility. In any event, if that can be sorted out and you decide to create the article, I'd be happy to add what I can to it. NinaGreen (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Have made a start on Mary Wriothesley, Countess of Southampton. Moonraker (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! I've added some further information, and will add a bit more later. NinaGreen (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the article on the Countess, and have been working on the article on her father, Anthony Browne, [3]. The articles you've recently created provide a means of adding a very substantial number of links to existing articles so that Wikipedia readers can see the multitude of ways in which all these people were related, which in turn sheds light on their actions and motivations. Another article which might be useful would be one on the Countess' brother, Anthony Browne, who predeceased their father by only four months, and thus did not become the 2nd Viscount Montague. He's probably sufficiently noteworthy. He's mentioned several times by Stopes. NinaGreen (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

'Did You Know' Nomination for Article on Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton

All references to the nomination to 'Did You Know' for the article on Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton [4], seem to have disappeared, both on the 'Did You Know' pages, and on the Talk page for the article, where two of the DYK editors had left brief comments asking for clarification as to which article was being nominated. I've left a message on the Talk page of one of the editors at [5]. I'd leave one for the other editor as well, but I can't recall his user name. It's very puzzling, as I didn't think comments on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles, or the record of a nomination, could simply vanish. Any help resolving this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it had been moved to a prep page, and was published today (see below). Many thanks to Moonraker for nominating the article! NinaGreen (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NinaGreen. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 00:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AARON• ^TALK 00:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Browne (1552–1592)

I have made a start on Anthony Browne (1552–1592), but for me he's struggling with notability. Although I have included the claim from the tudorplace site that he was Sheriff of Surrey and Kent in 1580, something about that seems to be wrong. Some more references would be a help. Moonraker (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. I added a source for your DYK for Mary Wriothesley. I've been revising the article on Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Norfolk. There's a portrait of her here Portrait of Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk. Do you happen to know if there's a version in the public domain which I could add to the Infobox for the article? NinaGreen (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added to the article. Feel free to change as you see fit, including the formatting of the references. NinaGreen (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That image of Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, looks to me like a stipple engraving after a portrait. I have found other copies of it (such as this one) but can't find one with an attribution. Let me look around a bit. Moonraker (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither the National Portrait Gallery nor the Royal Collection seems to have have any images of her, and I haven't been able to trace anything else referring to a portrait of her. You might like to check with the keeper of prints and drawings at Arundel Castle? In the absence of an attribution, that image could be almost any middle-aged lady of the period! Moonraker (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking around. She could indeed be anyone. I might send an e-mail to Emerson to see where she found the image on her Tudor Women site which you've noted above. I've added an Infobox to the article on Anthony Browne. I'm rather partial to them because they make it easy for readers to click to related articles, but feel free to remove it if you wish. One problem I have with Infoboxes, though, is that I can't seem to increase the size of an image when it's in an Infobox, and the one you had on the page now unfortunately appears slightly smaller in the Infobox. Perhaps you know how to fix that, if you decide to keep the Infobox? I've also added a statement in the lead paragraph that Browne was Southampton's uncle. although I can't find any mention of direct contact between the two which I could put in the main text of the article. NinaGreen (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added more material from Stopes, including mention of a journey Browne made in the 2nd Earl of Southampton's company. In connection with the latter, I notice that the article on Sir William More of Loseley, [6] a fairly significant figure during Queen Elizabeth's reign, is a mere stub which perhaps could be expanded as time permits. NinaGreen (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking of an article on William More, didn't know there was a stub. It will need to wait for another day, I am away now. Moonraker (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Emerson confirmed your hunch that the portrait of Elizabeth Howard might be at Arundel Castle. She says it is. Are you thinking of submitting the Anthony Browne article to DYK? There might be a nice hook in that his young son was with him when he, his father and his brothers mustered before the Queen at Tilbury. However I don't know much about choosing hooks, so it's merely a suggestion. And perhaps you won't be able to submit it since you're away? NinaGreen (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether to invite scrutiny of it! I suspect the Sheriff thing is wrong, and without it he is arguably not notable. Perhaps it may be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Moonraker (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Away was just away for some rest. I am wondering whether that image might be an engraving after this portrait of Mary Guildford by Hans Holbein the Younger? See what you think. Moonraker (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Neat find! If one portrait isn't based on the other, at the very least one of the ladies seems to have borrowed the other's jewellery. :-) Thanks for the additions to the article on the 14th Earl of Oxford. Your link to the Garden Museum inspired me to use it for the hook for my submission of the Elizabeth Howard article to DYK. I'm hoping the extensive rewrite and sourcing of the latter will meet the DYK criteria. NinaGreen (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford

Hello! Your submission of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's about 200 characters short of a 5x expansion, but otherwise looks fine. Perhaps there's something more that could be added? Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK Elizabeth Howard

I posted an answer on the Template to your question about counting characters in an article. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby de Eresby

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK Check installation on the Toolbox

Nina,

Try these steps for installing DYK Check into your Toolbox: Click on the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinaGreen/common.js

This should come up with a blue link message "Start the NinaGreen/common.js page" Click on the blue link. It should open up a blank Edit Window just like you were starting a new article.

Copy and Paste the "importScript" (etc) from the bottom of this message, all of it exactly as it is, into the blank edit window and hit Return.

That sets up your skin, hopefully, no matter which skin you use, with the DYK Check in the left-hand toolbox. You might have to refresh or restart your browser. This should put it in your Toolbox. If this does not work, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool importScriptURI('http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:Haza-w/cactions.js');

Thanks! I followed the instructions, and it showed up in the Toolbox, and I tried it on an article, and it worked. NinaGreen (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! You're all set to go! — Maile (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby

Mifter (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Marmaduke Constable (died 1545)

Hello! Your submission of Marmaduke Constable (died 1545) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Merry Christmas!
Moonraker (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NinaGreen. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Constable.
Message added 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I left you a reply there. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford

Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marmaduke Constable (died 1545)

(X! · talk)  · @309  ·  12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adelina Domingues

Hey Nina, I responded to your latest comments here--Template:Did you know nominations/Adelina Domingues. Please see my latest response whenever you have time. Futurist110 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I responded to you again, Nina. Futurist110 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Neville (poet)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot Removed Citations and Text

Sorry about that. First of all, I did not create the bot. The bot in question, Citation bot, was created by Smith609, and is available from the 'Preferences' page to all wikipedia users; it shows up as an 'Expand citations' link in the toolbox. I haven't experienced errors like this before, and I am unsure what went wrong, so for now I'll undo the edits and add a tag to prevent the bot from further editing of the page. My apologies. Bensci54 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a note on Smith609's Talk page to let him know about the problem. NinaGreen (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a missing right brace in your wikitext was the problem. Fixed now. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Barons De Ros moves

Hello, Nina. I've gone ahead and moved, first, William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, and, second, William de Ros, 4th Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros, as you requested and have closed the discussions. There's probably some tidying up to do on these but I'll leave that to you. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I've moved Thomas de Ros, 10th Baron de Ros → Thomas de Ros, 9th Baron de Ros. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check the articles for necessary clean-up resulting from the moves. NinaGreen (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK: James Hales

I passed the DYK nom for James Hales, but there are a few minor reference issues you need to address. Please reply on the DYK nom if needed. – Maky ^« talk » 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Constable (died 1591)

Hello! Your submission of Robert Constable (died 1591) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Constable

Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Nice job expanding Henry Constable for DYK. It was pretty interesting. Happy editing! ComputerJA (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What a nice surprise! Thank you. Glad you enjoyed the article. NinaGreen (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK? Review Request

Hey Nina,

Do you have some extra time? If so, would you please be able to review this DYK? nomination of mine? The previous two people that reviewed it haven't gotten back to me yet, and it's already been several days since I last messaged them. If you're unable to review this DYK? nomination, that's okay. Here is the DYK? nomination that I'm talking about--Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history profile of Detroit. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out if needed, but let's wait until BlueMoonset has a chance to get back to your nomination, as it's only been a few days since you finished the fixes he suggested, and he may now be ready to OK it. NinaGreen (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Displaying_Image

I added the category "Canterbury Cathedral", if that's what you mean, [7] CTF83! 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! NinaGreen (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Constable (died 1591)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Thank you for your suggestions regarding my article submission. I've made most or all of the suggested changes and I've clarified the text regarding Sinclair Lewis in a way that I think may satisfy your concern about the hook. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with my DYK nomination for Brunette Downs Station. Keep up the good work. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I learned some interesting things from the article. NinaGreen (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Michaelh2001's talk page. Regarding your help with and response to the Did You Know? nomination for Juneau Raptor Center AlaskaMike (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK review comment

Hi Nina, thanks for the review of my DYK nomination. I've replied to your concerns at the discussion page. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything. Take care, Moswento ^talky 09:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've marked the nomination good to go. NinaGreen (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tick! Take care, Moswento ^talky 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Blaufränkisch. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi there NinaGreen, I reviewed your submission at DYK, you can find the link here. Just a couple of things, nothing serious, and it's good to go. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Waldegrave

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Buckler

Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Wolley (MP)

Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Wolley

Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Wolley

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to review this

You've done some good work but I think you need to reread this. If you continue to step over the line it is liable to affect you in the future. Patience is a virtue. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Tom. It says 'topic banned', and I've not done any editing whatsoever which relates to the topic of the Shakespeare authorship, so I most certainly haven't 'stepped over the line', as you put it. In fact the ironic thing about the indefinite topic ban imposed by the arbitrators is that I actually never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue, so I was topic-banned indefinitely by the arbitrators from editing on a topic I'd never edited on! My edits on the Edward de Vere article prior to that bizarre arbitration were all on Oxford as a historical person, not on Oxford as a possible author of the Shakespeare canon, and as you well know, the very few edits I attempted to make on the Shakespeare Authorship article prior to the arbitration were all instantly reverted. Justice is also a virtue. The topic ban should be lifted forthwith, as it makes no sense, and has never made any sense. NinaGreen (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"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." Have it your way. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing wording, Tom. It should either be a ban naming a specific topic, i.e. 'the Shakespeare authorship question', minus the 'broadly construed', which is far too wide open to be clear, or it should be a ban against editing on specifically named pages, i.e. the Shakespeare Authorship page, the Oxfordian Authorship page, etc. A while ago I edited the page for the 15th Earl of Oxford, providing historical facts supported by reliable sources, and you thanked me for my contributions [8], yet that article could fall within this badly-worded ban. I think that demonstrates that the ban needs, at the very least, to be clarified, although as I've said, the preferable course would be for it to be lifted entirely, for any number of very good reasons. NinaGreen (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want, but the policy on topic bans is very clear. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom, you may be right in stating that the policy on topic bans is very clear, but my point is that this particular ban is not only very unclear, but is manifestly illogical and unfair, as it is a topic ban on a topic (i.e. who wrote the Shakespeare canon) on which I have never made a single actual edit (or even attempted to make any such edit) during the entire time I've been on Wikipedia, both before and after the arbitration. As the person most interested in this topic ban you're personally well aware that I've never made a single actual edit, ever, on Wikipedia which either put forward the view that Oxford wrote the Shakespeare canon or that William Shakespeare of Stratford didn't write it. The topic ban is thus an absurdity. It should be lifted entirely, but when I attempted to have it lifted a few months ago, as you're aware, despite support from every member of the Wikipedia community who commented, including yourself, the arbitrators simply closed the application while support for it was still coming in from the community.NinaGreen (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination William More (died 1600)

Hello! Your submission of William More (died 1600) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod ^talk 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher More

I can't make a talkback tag link properly for some reason, so I'll answer here. The earlier articles were someone of that name trying to post his CV. He was persistent enough for the title to be salted (create protected), but he gave up years ago, so I have unsalted the title, and there is nothing to stop you going ahead at Christopher More. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I count five places where Christopher More should be linked after the article is created: William More (died 1600) , More baronets , Surrey (UK Parliament constituency) , Elizabeth Wolley , Francis Wolley . Have fun! :)Naraht (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both! NinaGreen (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for responding on the help desk as if you were a novice user. You've got more edits on English Nobility than I ever *want* to have! :)Naraht (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Did the wl. All five pages should be connected.Naraht (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to both of you for help with the initial editing of the article. I'm particularly glad to learn about the underconstruction template, as it's often difficult to get a whole article done at once, and the template explains to readers why the article might look unfinished for a time. NinaGreen (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK? nomination review request

Hey Nina,

Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. For the record, I previously reviewed one of your DYK? nominations (I think it was Walter Buckler). If not, that's okay, but please let me know your decision. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't do it today, but I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the DYK nomination just now, and another editor says he was asked to review it and will provide a detailed review later today. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Thank you very much for offering, Nina. Even though Medeis is reviewing my New York City DYK? nomination, are you able to review my Ralph Tarrant DYK? nomination (it's located here--Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Tarrant)? For the record, I have just finished reviewing your Christopher More DYK? nomination and I approved it. If you are unable to review my Ralph Tarrant DYK? nomination for some reason, please let me know, and that will likewise be okay. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see another editor has already reviewed and approved it. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Anyway, I've got another DYK? nomination that needs to be reviewed--Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States. If you're willing to review it, please let me know. If not, that's okay, but please tell me what your decision on this is. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting on the article, I think too much for me to review the article now. I hope the copyediting has been helpful. I fix some DAB links, deleted links to topics which seemed too general to require a link, added links to others which seemed to need them, broke the article into paragraphs for easier reading, tightened up the prose here and there, and enlarged one of the images to 150px as a sample (the images seem too small at 100 px). If there is any way you can move that large statistical table so that it runs directly under the article, with the images running alongside the whole thing, I think it would improve the look of the page. I hope this copyediting hasn't been intrusive. You can undo anything you like. Good luck with the nomination! NinaGreen (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for James Hales

Shubinator (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William More (died 1600)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Christopher More

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Drury (died 1558)

A tag has been placed on William Drury (died 1558), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

there is already a page referring to this person, William Drury

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. smileguy91^talk 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your note re speedy deletion of article William Drury (died 1558)

You seem to be correct, according to my most recent research. There seems to be many people named Robert Drury or William Drury. Apologies for my late reply - I posted the link from my talk page to this talk page before I wrote the message. I'll negate my deletion notice when I can.smileguy91^talk 02:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a confusing number of people named Robert Drury and William Drury. :-) Looking forward to negation of the notice. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Negated. smileguy91^talk 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Drury (died 1558)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Drury (died 1577)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Sackville (died 1557)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Holland

Hi, I've just reviewed your DYK for Abraham Holland. I was going to do a DYK? as I feel to belt and brace the rule about ref appearing immediately at the end of the sentence, it needed to be right at the end of the sentence. I then decided just to put it in place myself but could you double check I have it right? Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC) PS: There is also a DAB link for Folio.

Thanks for the review and for fixing the citation. I've fixed the DAB link. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! By the way, I always like your historical articles! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No surprise here. You should be advised that Nina Green is an eminent new historian of Renaissance English society. Her work on WP still lacks the overall recognition it deserves... It will come eventually, of course. warshy^talk 17:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Stafford

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Scott (died 1533)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

QpQ

Done. Also replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Finer. Thanks again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Abraham Holland

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Philemon Holland

Hello! Your submission of Philemon Holland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Philemon Holland

Chamal ^T•C 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Gray

Before I plunge ahead with a talking point in the Discussion section of the article "Thomas Grey (chronicler), I thought I'd check with you first since I saw your name as a frequent recent contributor to the article. I'm going to propose changing the spelling of the surname (and therefore, the article title) to conform with what appears to be the most frequent form found in references, that is, "GrAy". In fact, I've never come across the "E" spelling for this man before. From what I can tell, this was an editing choice back in 2008, with no apparent reference to back it up. Your thoughts. Tmangray (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I googled "Thomas Gray" and "Scalacronica" just now, and got some 2700 hits. I then googled "Thomas Grey" and "Scalacronica", and got some 1300 hits. There does thus seem to be a preference for the 'Gray' spelling of the surname, but despite that, one of the hits I got for the 'Grey' spelling was a contemporary document from the reign of Edward III [9], and three others [10][11][12] were scholarly works discussing him, so all in all I'd be inclined to leave the spelling in the title as is, if only because it links up with Wikipedia articles on members of the family in succeeding generations who seem to have used the 'Grey' spelling. Hope that's helpful. NinaGreen (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But doesn't the Scalacronica itself have his name with the "A" spelling? Since this is his most notable work, it would make more sense to use that spelling. Tmangray (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Browne

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Margery Golding

Nina, how would an article about Margery Golding be titled? I've got enough information but I don't know how it should be titled: Margery Golding, since that's the name most used, or Margery de Vere, Countess of Oxford, with a redirect from "Margery Golding"? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This problem crops up all the time on Wikipedia, and hasn't been resolved in the Wikipedia manual of style. My preference is to use a woman's maiden name, in this case, 'Margery Golding', particularly if the woman has been married more than once. A few days ago I did an article on Elizabeth Bacon. Initially I titled it 'Elizabeth Neville' because her second husband was Sir Henry Neville and she has been identified as the owner of a manuscript book of music by William Byrd, My Ladye Nevells Booke. But after she married her third husband, the judge Sir William Peryam, she was apparently known as Lady Peryam for the rest of her life, and made her will as 'Lady Periam', so I changed the title of the article to her maiden name, 'Elizabeth Bacon'.

Another reason for using a woman's maiden name in the title (this is just my impression from reading documents of the period) is that women whose husbands had been knighted or who had a title didn't seem to attach their husbands' surnames to their own Christian names at the time, although they were commonly referred to as 'Lady (husband's surname)' or 'Countess (husband's title)'. So, for example, while she was married to Sir Henry Neville, Elizabeth Bacon was referred to in contemporary documents as 'Lady Neville', but whether she was ever actually referred to in documents of the period as 'Elizabeth Neville' is moot. Ditto for Peryam. While she was married to Sir William Peryam, she was referred to as 'Lady Peryam', but whether she was ever referred to in contemporary documents as 'Elizabeth Peryam' is again moot. I think the custom of women attaching their husbands' surnames to their own Christian names, and being commonly known and referred to in that way, is probably more recent than the Tudor period (although I haven't researched the subject in detail). Hope that helps. NinaGreen (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It does, thanks. I'm on the road this weekend and I'm gonna be holed up in a hotel room, so I'll have something to fill my time writing that article! Good work on Strachey, BTW. He's one of my favorite also-rans. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm using Elizabeth Trentham, Countess of Oxford as a model, since she was a commoner who married an earl also. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest, but I find the combination of maiden name and title odd, although it seems to have become popular on Wikipedia along with some other odd locutions. The ODNB uses this format:

Howard [née Stafford], Elizabeth, duchess of Norfolk (1497–1558)

Vere [née Cecil], Anne de, countess of Oxford (1556–1588)

Hastings [née Stanley], Elizabeth, countess of Huntingdon

Carey [Carew], Elizabeth, Lady Hunsdon [née Elizabeth Spencer; other married name Elizabeth Eure, Lady Eure]

Cary [née Tanfield], Elizabeth, Viscountess Falkland

I think just the woman's maiden name in the article title, and then the ODNB format in the opening line would be a good model for Wikipedia to adopt. NinaGreen (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Townshend (died 1590)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621)

Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. For the DYK rule, could you insert a ref for the last line in the article, I've temporarily stuck a {{cn}} tag there; sorry, I know it's a bit of a pain and may need a ref for each of her marriages but the DYK rule is a ref for every paragraph (or maybe just move it up so it becomes the final sentence of the preceding paragraph?) SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore the above - I decided to just go ahead and move it myself so I can pass the nomination - hope that's okay? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Phew, I can breathe a sigh of relief now as it's already been promoted to prep 2! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Joan Leche, NinaGreen!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I added some links.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback

Hello, NinaGreen. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 05:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Thomas Brend

Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621)

Allen3 ^talk 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Stanhope (died 1552)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Bourchier (died 1557)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Leveson (died 1621)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For an elegant compromise :) Irondome (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I love strawberries! NinaGreen (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are not...

thinking that I am trying to rain on your parade. Last night I was convinced that the only issue was that the article's name was unusual. On waking this morning I found that the article's name was the smaller of the two issues, and that genuine notability needed to be addressed first. I see him as borderline notable because i feel he inherits much of his notability from his surroundings. The verifiability also comes rom there, though I am sure the source passes WP:RS. On balance he is probably notable, but I may be basing that ion the paucity of notable people available at the time. I feel we need an absolute yardstick.

I wanted to drop this note on your talk page rather than the article's talk page because it is form me to you, tangentially about the article. I was asked to come and look at the discussion, and, if I have an opinion to offer, try very hard to add value to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a disambiguation page?

I suggest you use your sandbox.

Add {{Disambiguation}} to it and see what happens.

When you want to create a real one, make sure it is one you wish and need to create. The create Nina Green's Very Own Page (disambiguation) adding {{Disambiguation}} to it and a bulleted list of the articles it distinguishes between

Sometimes I am lousy at explaining things, but, if you place {{Helpme}} on your talk page and ask for specific guidance after it, someone better than I will drop by and do their best to guide and help you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've created a disambiguation page for Robert Throckmorton, and am trying to figure out the proper hatnote to use. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Hatnotes, please be aware of WP:NAMB - admittedly under discussion, but still in force. When the article titles are not ambiguous, they should not have hatnotes to the general name disambiguation page. So while Robert Throckmorton should have the hatnote, Sir Robert Throckmorton, 1st Baronet and Sir Robert Throckmorton, 8th Baronet should not. Benea (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Benea. I notice you undid my two redirects for the Edward Stafford disambiguation page and the Anne Hastings disambiguation page. I'm not clear on Wikipedia's policy. Should there not be a primary article titled simply Edward Stafford (likely the person Wikipedia users would be most likely to be searching for when they type in that name) with a disambiguation page which is titled Edward Stafford (disambiguation), with hatnotes added to all articles with Edward Stafford (plus disambiguator) in the title? That seems to me to be the logical way to set the system up, because readers looking for an article on a particularly well-known Edward Stafford want to be sent directly to that article, not to a disambiguation page with the title Edward Stafford which they have to sort through. It should be the primary article which is titled just plain Edward Stafford. It shouldn't be the disambiguation page which is titled just plain Edward Stafford. Just my thoughts. I'm new to this. NinaGreen (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There should not be hatnotes on all articles that link to the disambiguation page, only if that title is ambiguous. For example, John Hales is considered the primary topic. That may be rightly or wrongly, I can't say. But when someone types in John Hales, or links to him in a wikipedia article, they will get the English theologian. If they actually wanted one of the five other people we have articles on named a disambiguated form of John Hales, the hatnote will allow them to move to the page to find the one they want. If they are on one of the disambiguated pages already, they have come to it not be accident looking for a generic John Hales, but that particular one. Finally, who is to say which is the primary topic in some cases. In the case of Edward Stafford, which is the one that is 'particularly well-known', so far above all others? In many cases we cannot say. For example, there is no primary topic for John Smith. The only exceptions are when there is consensus that one person of that name is by far and away the best known, for example though there are other George Washingtons and Winston Churchills, it is one particular person they are looking for 99% of the time that readers search for them. I've responded on your help desk query, but I will add in your examples of Thomas Savage, etc, where there exists no primary topic, it's not really for the sake of solving a disambiguation term dispute that one article will be designated a primary topic. Benea (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Savage (died 1611)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rowland Hayward

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Carmarden

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather lengthy, and some thoughts in return

One problem with Wikipedia is Too Long Didn't Read. I did read. You will notice that I have not commented on that talk page for a good length of time. This is because the article title truly does not matter.

No, really. It doesn't matter.

Why not?

Because it can be found anyway.

There is a point when one steps away from a battle. That point is when one realises that things do not matter, and that doing something else is more productive. One of the combatants seems to be on Wikipedia to have battles, though I suspect he does not realise that yet. When he does I think he will stop. He's doing it in all sorts of other paces, too, and with an imperfect understanding of those areas as well.

I'm sorry I came to the article. WIth hindsight I think I achieved a negative benefit for the article, but these things are transient.

What I suggest is that you let this article take its chances and work on a new one. I like your work. I think this load of mess is a distraction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree about the 'combatant'. An experienced editor needs to have a word with him. It's so nice of you to say you like my articles. I'm working on a new one right now. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The time when the combatant is ready to hear is when he will listen. Much advice has been given by many editors of experience, but the sad fact is that little notice is taken so far.

So continue on your way doing your best, and enjoy what you are doing. Articles are the key. We are ere to build an encyclopaedia, probably. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

List of National Trust properties in Somerset

Thank you for your DYK review of List of National Trust properties in Somerset. It was the most comprehensive I've ever seen, including correcting my poor grammar on several of the articles linked from the list - great work.— Rod ^talk 14:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome! NinaGreen (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Katharine Way

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Brend

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sigismund Zinzan

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joan Leche

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nicholas Brend

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dorothy Kitson

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution and Template:Infobox person

If the text in a Wikipedia article has a substantial amount of text or structure that would be enough to be a breach of copyright if the work was not in the public domain then it must meet the attribution criteria laid down in WP:PLAGIARISM. The history articles John Pakington (serjeant-at-law) is clearly a copy of the the DNB article and so the attribution template {{DNB}} needs to remain on the article and inline citations need to be provided to the DNB citation. This is particularly true for text copied from a DNB article because there is a danger that otherwise the article will be flagged as a breach of ONDB copyright.

I suspect that we approach biographies of historical English people from opposite ends of the spectrum. I put the emphasis on their historical notability while you are more interested in the genealogy of the subject. This in itself does not matter as we will probably meet in the middle. However there is one area where I think you are placing too much emphasis on genealogy which distorts the article and that is the {{Infobox person}} I think for that you should only place information in the box that is notable for that person and that should in addition to the information you have provided one or more of theses three fields (or similar)

| occupation =

| known_for =

| notable_works =

(for example I added "| occupation = Serjeant-at-law, MP and Sheriff of Herefordshire and Worcesershire" ) to John Pakington (serjeant-at-law). I also think you should substantially reduce the genealogy in those boxes for example in the William Dormer article wording along the lines of "He had about a dozen children including (and only explicitly mention the three for which there are articles)" and remove non-notable information (such as the names of children who died in infancy or were not themselves notable). Similarly if there are no articles on the parents then why mention them in the infobox as presumably they are not notable? -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we can 'meet in the middle'. The point is that I began work on several articles which hadn't had much done to them for a very considerable period of time, and you've now taken an interest in them, which in general I welcome. However deleting factual information I've added isn't helpful. The genealogical aspect is important, particularly in Infoboxes, because the links it generates to other Wikipedia articles is what makes Wikipedia stand out from other sources of biographical information, and often leads to the generation of further Wikipedia articles on historical persons who have some claim to notability. If you can be tolerant of that, I think we can collaborate successfully on these articles. I've tried to conform to your style of referencing, which is a bit difficult for me as I'm unfamiliar with it. As to the issue of notability, once the subject has been deemed sufficiently notable, not every fact in the article is notable in itself, including the names of children, but also including many other facts which are routinely included in biographical articles but which in themselves are not notable. On the plagiarism issue, I didn't create the original article on Sir John Pakington, and my objective is to improve it so that any claim that earlier editors plagiarized the material (if that's what they did) can be eliminated. I didn't remove the link to the Wikisource DNB article (which incidentally didn't work); I merely added it at the end of the reference to the updated ODNB article. NinaGreen (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually my interest was in passing as I have them on my watch list, but I am working on other things which are higher up my list, and only tend to look at these types of articles when someone changes them, nice additions John Pakington (serjeant-at-law) (which thanks to your work as had to be renamed!). I have added the OED entry to Chirographer.

The citation style was unfamiliar to me at first! But using {{sfn}} is neat because it automagically takes care of multiple citations and providing {[tl|citation}} or ref=harv are used automatically link to the long reference. BTW I prefer to place the long references on one line starting with surname, first-name, year because it is easier to deal with (and sort) a list of multiple references when editing with a small screen.

Just one nit pick with your most recent edits to John Pakington. If you split a paragraph which has a citation at the end to cover all of the paragraph (or add information into the paragraph with a new citation), please remember to copy the citation at the end of the paragraph to new locations so that it covers the information in the new leading paragraph and/or the information before the insertions (see WP:text-source integrity) -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised you moved the page without consultation after I had to move it because the article title turned out to be totally inaccurate (i.e. he was never a serjeant-at-law). That is the main problem with these descriptors. Sometimes they turn out to be totally inaccurate, and often they merely focus on one narrow aspect of the person's life which is not an aspect which Wikipedia users at all familiar with the person would search for or even know of, whereas they would know the approximate date of his death and be able to pick him out on that basis on the disambiguation page. The new title you've given the article focuses on two narrow aspects of his life which don't accurately describe his career. It seems you know something of the period, and I'd welcome the opportunity of working with you on these articles. However so far it seems you're simply imposing your ideas (i.e. the style of referencing to be used on the page, the new article title) on someone who's doing most of the actual work. NinaGreen (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of job descriptions in dab extensions is the norm and in part it comes down to notability. A biographical article is written because the subject is notable. If there are two or more subjects with the same name then the dab should reflect their notability. This is standard practice (and as such I did not think it controversial to move the page to a descriptive dab). As to covering all of a subject's life achievements, the dab could be extended to be a short biography but that is discouraged and they should be kept as brief as possible and (obviously) unique. The reason I did not choose MP alone was because he was an MP for a relative short period, and sheriff alone as a dab has problems because there is also John Pakington (died 1625) who were also a sheriff. I probably should have gone with the one word descriptor used by the ODNB which is "judge" and if you like we can move it to that. The problem with dates is that it tells you nothing about the man and it may well be that the lives of two men overlap, so without knowing a lot about the man date dabs are not very helpful. As to your parting comment, I am sure on reflection you will appreciate that such comments are not collegial -- on some pages I have contributed more than on others that the advantage of a joint project like this one. -- PBS (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting another editor's work is always controversial. Moreover I think you've missed the point about descriptors. For contemporary figures they make sense because there's usually a generally-accepted descriptor which is recognizable to a large number of Wikipedia users. For historical figures from as far back as the Tudor period, descriptors often don't work well because people from that era wore many occupational 'hats' during a lifetime, and often no single one really adequately describes the person. 'MP and Sheriff' certainly doesn't adequately describe Sir John Pakington's career. On the other hand, dates of death often are useful, firstly because there's usually no argument about when the person died, and secondly because Wikipedia users searching for persons from the Tudor period are generally directed straight to a disambiguation page where the easiest way to sort through the various entries is by date of death. If there are two Sir John Pakingtons, and one died in 1551 and the other in 1625, any Wikipedia user who knows anything about the period (and what other Wikipedia user would be likely to be searching for a Sir John Pakington than one with some knowledge of the period?) is going to immediately know which of the two Sir John Pakingtons he/she is interested in. A blind insistence on occupational descriptors for historical figures from the Tudor period hinders Wikipedia users rather than helps them. As for collegiality, as I said before, imposing your views without consultation with respect to the style of referencing and page title when you're not actually doing much editing on the page isn't collegial. Collegiality is a two-way street. NinaGreen (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Pakington

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Baldwin

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Stapleton

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Amadas

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Hales (died 1608)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Dormer (Lord Mayor)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Scrope

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Palacio Haedo

Howz dat?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Jerningham

The DYK project (nominate) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Broughton (died 1506)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edmund Walsingham

Hello! Your submission of Edmund Walsingham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar · · 06:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ODNB

Thank you for this improvement to the John Barkstead article. But if you make such a change please cite the reliable source from which the information came. In the case of the ODNB there is a template available to help and speed up the process

• {{ODNB|id=1426 |title=Barkstead, John (d. 1662)}} which gives
• "Barkstead, John (d. 1662)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1426. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

But it also takes all the other usual parameters such as |first=Christopher |last=Durston |origyear=2004 |year=2008 |ref=harv which produces:

• Durston, Christopher (2008) [2004]. "Barkstead, John (d. 1662)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1426. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

-- PBS (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information concerning the ODNB template. I'll try it out. I've been working on an article on the Lieutenants of the Tower, and have added a few facts to the articles on the individual Lieutenants as I've come across them, just citing the ODNB in the edit summary for future reference. Also, thanks for the earlier information on the sfn format for citations. I've been using it regularly since then, and it's much simpler. You know a lot about this sort of thing, and I appreciate the pointers. NinaGreen (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lieutenant of the Tower

Hi. Good job with the article, which must have been a lot of work! It could use a photo or drawing of one or two of the most prominent Lieutenants, if you can find any. I am happy to be a co-nom, if you like, but I have no idea how to do the nomination process. I can suggest, as a possible hook: "...that in 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the Lieutenant of the Tower of London fired artillery into the City of London, drawing the ire of the city elders." Send me a link if you nominate it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the extra images. Looks great. I've nominated the article (see the article Talk page). Thanks also for the suggested hook. I used a hook which included several Lieutenants, but if that doesn't work, we can use the Evil May Day hook as an alternate. NinaGreen (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let me know if you need any further help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Parsley Peel

Morning Nina. Just regarding Parsley Peel, I worked on it in my userspace for a good few weeks before putting it live - it hit mainspace on 17 June, which is when I nominated it for DYK. Unless anything's changed in the process, I believe that's still fine - odd the tool missed it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've given it a tick. NinaGreen (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Walsingham

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lieutenant of the Tower of London

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

17th Earl of Oxford

Nina, Have you given up editing the article on 17th Earl of Oxford? If you have been deterred by other editors you might find you now have someone who shares some of your views Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Even though I rewrote the entire Edward de Vere article in the late fall of 2010, and most of what I wrote is still there, together with the reliable sources I cited, Wikipedia has specifically banned me from editing that article. I could ask again to have the ban lifted, but it's a horrible process. When I asked to have the ban lifted a few months ago, my application was arbitrarily closed off while comments were still coming in from the Wikipedia community, and without the arbitrators having actually voted on it. Very disheartening. NinaGreen (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out why you got banned (I was once banned from editing indefinitely, it took me more than a year before I asked for the ban to be removed, which it was without too much trouble.) I'd be interested in supporting you if you reapplied. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Is it possible to email you privately? Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of support. I really do appreciate it. I'm glad your ban was lifted without too much trouble. I seem to be some sort of exception. I wouldn't want to try again unless I had a guarantee in advance from the arbitrators that I would be treated fairly. I went through an extremely unfair arbitration in the first place, and then had a similarly unfair experience when my application for reinstatement was arbitrarily (pun intended) cut off while community support was still coming in, and before the arbitrators had even voted on my application. NinaGreen (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Shaa

Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Husee

Gatoclass (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joan Wilkinson

Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I really love your articles on Tudor personalities. Congratulations on your amazing work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You've made my day! NinaGreen (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing Richard Carmarden - a fascinating (and wonderfully esoteric) subject :). Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! NinaGreen (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Tuddenham

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Browne (died 1514)

Orlady (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your topic ban

It's been brought to my attention that you have been making edits on the topics of various Shakespeare plays. Unless I'm missing something, I'm afraid that per the Arbcom decision you are still topic-banned not only from the authorship question but also from Shakespeare in general, broadly construed, so these edits would seem to be in breach of the sanction. I'm not particularly keen on having to enforce this through blocks, as long as the edits themselves appear to have been constructive and uncontroversial, but I'll still have to ask you to keep to the rules.

If you wish to have the sanction modified so as to allow you to make Shakespeare edits outside the SAQ topic, I guess there might well be a chance to get such a modification, but you'd have to do that through an appeal at WP:ARA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Future Perfect. I think the ban should be lifted entirely by Arb Com without my having to apply again. I applied earlier to have it lifted (see above), and my application was unfairly and arbitrarily shut down while support from the community was still coming in (support from the community was unanimous at the time, by the way). Under those circumstances I should not have to apply again. Arb Com should just lift the entire ban of its own volition. I've made thousands of edits to Wikipedia on several hundred different articles, supplying information and reliable sources which have enormously benefited Wikipedia in those subject areas, and have had more than fifty of the articles I've created or expanded featured on Wikipedia's Main Page under DYK. The basis of the original arbitration decision was that I was a single-purpose editor, which the editing I've done proves beyond doubt was an erroneous finding of fact by the arbitrators. Perhaps you could contact the arbitrators to suggest they lift the ban of their own volition? If they're fair-minded people, I'm sure they'd do it. As for violating the ban, I don't think I've done that. The entire arbitration concerned the Shakespeare Authorship Question, and so the arbitration sanctions, even broadly construed, should not go beyond the SAQ if the arbitrators were being fair and judicious. I don't think the arbitrators did intend it to go beyond that topic. Again, thanks for your message, and hopefully you'll contact the arbitrators as per my suggestion and put it to them that they should lift the entire ban of their own volition. I'm a very useful and productive member of the Wikipedia community, as the editing I've done proves, and I should not be banned from editing on any Wikipedia page, particularly when the ban was imposed on the basis of the erroneous finding of fact by the arbitrators that I'm a single purpose editor. NinaGreen (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how it works. The arbs were quite explicit in the original decision that clearly stated you were being banned not only from the SAQ but also from Shakespeare as a whole ("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"), and that decision still stands. They were also quite explicit during the amendment discussion that they didn't want to either lift or even just narrow the ban. I have to agree it is somewhat unusual to see such a near-unanimously harsh reaction from the committee at a time when even the editors who had been your main content opponents were signalling support for you, but for the moment we are still left with this decision.

You could do several things now: as some of the arbs indicated they might be more willing to consider an appeal after a longer period of time, and more than half a year has indeed passed now again, you could try to appeal again now (though I can understand you are not particularly thrilled at the thought). You could also try an appeal with a somewhat narrower scope (not a full lifting but a narrowing down of the restriction). You could theoretically also try sidestepping the arbitrators and appeal not to them but directly to the whole community (although that's a bit of a risk and I don't think it's been successful very often.) But what you really shouldn't do is to sit there waiting for the ban to go away all by itself – people just won't do that work for you; the person taking the first step will have to be you. What you should do even less is to just ignore the ban and pretend it doesn't apply – that will certainly backfire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your message, Future Perfect. I agree that that's not how it usually works, but this is a very unusual case because my earlier application was prematurely cut off with no explanation while support from the community was still coming in. Moreover the original decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact by the arbitrators that I was a single purpose editor. And since the entire arbitration was over the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the ban obviously went far beyond the stated purpose of the arbitration. Wikipedia has to present itself to the outside world as a place where editors will be treated fairly, particularly by the arbitrators, and these circumstances do not give the appearance of fairness in the slightest. For those reasons I think the ball is in the arbitrators' court. It's entirely in their power to lift the ban of their own accord without any further discussion. They can see the record of my editing. Why would the arbitrators wish to continue to penalize, after two and a half years have passed, a very productive member of the Wikipedia community? It doesn't present a very attractive picture of Wikipedia to the outside world. NinaGreen (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., your comments are helpful in showing the eccentricity of ArbCom's ban, which in my view lacks any purposive foundation, quite apart from having lost what little community support it might once have had. The ban, as you say, covers "any article relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed", but just how broadly should that be construed? If articles on all plays attributed to Shakespeare are off limits, then why not those on the Globe Theatre, Stratford on Avon, Bishopsgate, Southwark, the City of London, Hedingham Castle, Queens' College, Cambridge, Cecil House, and the Kingdom of England? Every penalty must be clearly expressed, but this one has to be interpreted, and that simply creates confusion. Please do take the initiative in revisiting the matter and removing the ban. Moonraker (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Crosby (died 1476)

Alex Shih^Talk 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Family sections at the start of biography articles

FYI: One of the major differences between the DNB and the ODNB is that the ONDB has cut out most of the genealogical information from their biographies. This is a trend that one can see in many similar references works compiled and published post World War II.

I have removed the section you label "family" at the start of Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland, in doing so I have also removed the mention of his brothers from the first paragraph. As we have discussed previously this is a general encyclopaedia, it does not focus on genealogy. Therefore if his relationship with his brothers is notable then they will be mentioned in the bibliography section (in this case his brothers played a significant part in his public life, so they are mentioned in the text, and I have supplemented that by adding the information about which one was older and which one was younger than the Francis: "On his return to England he took part, along with his older bother Roger and their younger bother George, in the 1601 rebellion...").

What is not needed in are sections at the start of a biography article listing what may or may not be notable relationships with other members of the subject's family, because they overemphasise the genealogy (tail wagging the dog), so I have removed the Family section from the start of the biography on the 6th Earl of Rutland and will take similar action when I find such as section in other articles. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree because what Wikipedia offers which the ODNB doesn't offer is links to hundreds of other articles on persons of the period which illuminate the actions taken by people of the period, which were often based on kinship. This feature is unique to Wikipedia, but cannot be taken advantage of unless some attention is paid to the subject's family members. You mention that you've removed the mention of Francis Manners' two brothers from the first paragraph. This illustrates my point. Francis succeeded his elder brother, and was succeeded by his younger brother, who are both notable, and who have separate Wikipedia articles, to which I provided links. And the ODNB article mentions both (although the ODNB erroneously gives the name of Francis's younger brother and successor as 'John', which I advised the ODNB of in an e-mail yesterday), so if we are using the ODNB as a guide to content (which I think we should be cautious about since if Wikipedia is merely a copy of the ODNB then what's the point?), the ODNB does in fact mention the two brothers, whose names you've deleted from the first paragraph of the article.

We're interested in the same historical period, and I hope we can work together. Might I suggest that prAshton erroneously states that Hungerford's second wife was the daughter of Jane Dormer.ch contains links to other Wikipedia articles, you place a note on the article's Talk page so that discussion can take place among all interested parties prior to the removal of the content, if in fact that is the consensus after discussion? I understand that's the accepted practice on Wikipedia when the issue is removal of content which has been sourced to reliable sources and which has links to other Wikipedia articles. NinaGreen (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you clearly understood what I wrote. If the brothers are notable in the biography of the subject then they will appear naturally in the text of the biography so there is no need to list them in a section at the start of the biography. In this case I have highlighted in green in this section where I have done this. So there is no removal of content. In the case of the Knight of Farley I went to move information about his extended family of siblings to his father's biography only to find the identical text there, so there is no need to include it in a separate section near the start of the Knight of Farley's biography -- as the obvious place to look up his siblings is in his father's biography.

As I have highlighted above, Wikipedia NOT makes it clear that articles are not simply random collection of facts, and genealogical information is only acceptable if it supports and enhances other notable information. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You have brought up another point: erroneous information. In several articles that I have read and edited in the last few days you have made comments such as this:

• "Hardy erroneously dates the letter to 1589"
• "Ashton erroneously states that Hungerford's second wife was the daughter of Jane Dormer"

(here). The problem is that this is a POV based on your OR. As an editor you have several choices on how to handle erroneous information provided in (what are often old) secondary sources, but you can not state in the published Wikipedia text that it erroneous unless you have a source that does it for you. The second option is to mention it on the talk page or place it in a hidden inline comment <!--Hardy erroneously dates the letter to 1589--> to warn other editors. The third is simply to silently ignore the incorrect/old information -- more modern sources (such as the ONDB) often alter information found in 100 year old biographies, this is normal history. The final option is simply to footnote the discrepancy eg:

• Hardy dates the letter to 1589

One other thing that I notice is that when copying quotes from a British English source, you sometimes use single quotation marks. The MOS dictates that articles use doubles (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS).

By and large I approve of the changes you have made to the articles and I hope you take these comments as ways that we can improve articles, rather than confrontational (which is unfortunately all to common on Wikipedia). For example while looking through the changes you had made I decided that two more articles were necessary because your edits highlighed them in several places :

• Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney
• William Darrell of Littlecote

The latter is stub and could do with an expansion, particularly as there was a link from Wild William Darrell to Littlecote House#Wild William Darrell which is a sort of sourced biography of the man.

At the moment I have lots to do which are not directly linked to this historical period see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations so I for one will not be expanding Wild William Darrell in the near future. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion as what you're pushing is your personal preference, not Wikipedia policy. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia biographies of historical personages created and added to by earlier Wikipedia editors which contain the type of information to which you object, and dozens of Wikipedia editors who currently add to and revise that type of information in Wikipedia biographies (I see it taking place daily in the articles which are on my watchlist). It would take a radical change in Wikipedia policy to authorize the deletion from Wikipedia of all that content.

I do want to make it clear, though, that your statement that the two notes I added are my 'POV based on OR' is false; the notes are supported by reliable sources cited in the relevant articles, and I added the notes merely to explain the discrepancies for the benefit of Wikipedia users. NinaGreen (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I know why you did it, but in format in which you added the derived information is a form of WP:SYN and is against the OR policy. As I wrote above there are several other options available to you to convey the same information. Another way is to say "Abc writing in 1866 states, this is not supported/contradicted by Xyz's more modern research", such wording does not draw a conclusion but states the facts. -- PBS (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the Dormer one (which is such a blatant error that it hardly seemed necessary to point out in the note that all other reliable sources state that Anne was the sister, not the daughter, of Jane Dormer; I've advised the ODNB of the error, BTW, and it will likely be corrected when the ODNB next puts revisions online). Someone else changed the Hardy one (perhaps you did?), which again is a very blatant error as the Calendar of State Papers, which I cited in the article, gives the correct date of the letter. When errors are very obviously blatant errors, it seems to me that it only confuses Wikipedia users to give the blatant error and the correct information equal weight, as Wikipedia policy seems to mandate, according to your comments above. But so be it.NinaGreen (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would advise that you do not hold you breath on that amendment. I have two outstanding requests with the ODNB from 2011 one of which is a minor issue of changing initials of an artist of a picture of a subject of a biography from "I.J." to "J.J.". You are too used to the speed that Wikipedia changes! -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Paston

See my comment at {{Did you know nominations/William Paston (died 1444)}}. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Poynings

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Adrian Poynings

The DYK project (nominate) 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Leveson portrait

Many thanks for your information on this, which I have used in the article. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! NinaGreen (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for George Browne (died 1483)

Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Speke

with regards to our last conversation about articles on notable women and how to link to them. I have been working on a few biographies today and came across a hole in Wikipedia's coverage:

• Mary Speke

The husband and father article exist and now have red links to Mary Speke I am not really interested in creating a biography as editing the husband was one step further than I wanted to go and I only started it because the article on he husband linked to her brother and not her father. The DNB article has next to no coverage but the ONDB does see

• Zook, Melinda (May 2009) [2004]. "Speke, Mary". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/67750. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

So I thought you might like do something with the information. -- PBS (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit swamped right now, but I've looked at the ODNB article, and will keep Mary Speke in mind for a future article if someone else doesn't jump in first. NinaGreen (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Perrot

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: St. Louis Cathedral, Fort-de-France DYK

Hello, NinaGreen. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Louis Cathedral, Fort-de-France.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Paston (died 1479)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Balderschwang Yew

Hi NinaGreen, thanks for reviewing my submission, I believe addressed your concerns. Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've given the article a tick. NinaGreen (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Heydon

Allen3 ^talk 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Hastings, Baron Welles

The DYK project (nominate) 08:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Hastings (died 1495)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Paston (died 1466)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Heydon (died 1479)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Paston (died 1444)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wonderful. Well done. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Your comment is very much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Waterton

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, NinaGreen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you know nominations/Haidoterminus

I have responded to your question at template:Did you know nominations/Haidoterminus.--Kevmin § 03:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice of Norfolk

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh Waterton

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edward of Norfolk

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

John Crabbe (died 1352)

What a wonderful article. I had always planned on writing an article on the subject since he is/was a namesake and a countryman. See User:Buster7/Sandbox-John Crabbe, Pirate for a rough draft. I'm so glad I never did. Mine would have been amateuristic compared to yours. Suggestion: The fact that he may have been the first to use a catapult aboard a ship may be worth DYK. Thanks again for the pleasure of reading your article. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What a nice thing to say! Thanks so much! I submitted the article to DYK, and it was reviewed yesterday, so it will likely make its way to the Main Page in a few days. NinaGreen (talk)

DYK for Peter de Montfort

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Crabbe (died 1352)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth de Vere

Nina, as you know, there are no extant plays by De Vere. He is notable as a courtier and poet. He is not notable as a playwright. We only characterise people by what makes them notable, not by everything they ever did. We don't say "Heather Mills was married to musician and painter Paul McCartney", even though it's true that McCartney is also a painter. Likewise we wouldn't say that Elizabeth de Vere was married to "courtier and playwright" William Stanley, Earl of Derby, even though the evidence that he wrote plays is just about as strong as the evidence that de Vere wrote plays. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul, Puttenham and Meres are unquestionably RS, and if this isolated edit to the article is any indication, you appear to be searching for this sort of thing in order to delete it, which suggests POV-pushing on your part. I don't wish to engage in a lengthy discussion, so why don't we leave it at that? NinaGreen (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina, this reply is outrageous. You have not even, apparently, understood the point I made, least of all responded to it. Meres and Puttenham are absolutely not RS. Try reading WP:RS to get a basic understanding. But that's utterly beside the point, since the issue concerns notability for characterisation of a person, as my examples made 100% clear. We do not describe Paul McCartney as "the musician and painter" even if there are 1000 RS sources saying that he's a painter (and there are certainly plenty). And please do not make baseless and frankly false allegations. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul, if he hadn't been 'noted' as a playwright in his day, Puttenham and Meres wouldn't have 'noted' him for it. As I said, I don't wish to discuss this further with you. You're clearly pushing a POV. NinaGreen (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You last sentence is a bit rich given your history. I am following policy, and your argument is nonsensical. Elvis Presley was in the army, but we don't describe him as a "singer and soldier". 'Noted' as you are using the term here means "mentioned", which is quite different from "notable". He is not notable as a playwright. He has never been notable as a playwright. He is briefly mentioned as such, just as he is mentioned for many other things. Derby almost certainly wrote plays. We don't add "playwright" every time he is mentioned. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina, just observing from the side it looks to me that the issue at hand is the notability (or not) of De Vere as a playwright. Obviously, given all the myriad and complicated issues surrounding the SAQ question, this is bound to be a big contention point for the mainstream/"establishment" supporters here. As a matter of temporary tactics I would suggest to you 2 courses of action:

1. Defer to Paul on this question now, removing the contentious title/description as he is requesting.

2. Prepare for the long run a detailed document that would support the inclusion of the contentious title/description ("a notable playwright on his own") in the De Vere article. With such a document ready to pass muster in all the WP boards into which it would probably be submitted, either you, or if not, some other editor representing you, could then start the long fight to possibly include such a new section in the De Vere article/page itself. Even if such a document is very good and compliant with all WP policies, it may still be a long battle of years just to include such a new section in the main De Vere page/article. This is just a tactical suggestion for your consideration, in order to avoid immediate battles while you are still technically banned from the subject broadly considered. Regards, warshy^¥¥ 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Warshy. Paul shouldn't have opened this discussion, with his usual endless and pointless digressions on Paul McCartney and Elvis Presley and the like, on my Talk page in the first place. If Paul had anything to say, he should have said it on the Talk page of the article on which he made the edit, as he well knows. NinaGreen (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nina. I believe you may be correct in this small procedural point. I have now tuned in there, which I was not, expecting the discussion to maybe continue there, not here, at least for a little while, perhaps along the courses of action I suggested above. In any case, the larger point he is raising is bound to be very contentious on the long run, in my view. Good luck on your continued, difficult endeavor to change long and deeply rooted historical perceptions of some key players in Elizabethan culture, one little element at a time... warshy^¥¥ 19:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One more quick note. If I understand the history of the editing there correctly, he edited it a while ago, and you have not reverted him since. So I really don't understand the reason for this to be brought up here today in the manner that it was. Alas, these things do happen here on WP, and one needs a lot of patience, I guess... warshy^¥¥ 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgotten that you seem to find the concept of an analogy difficult to understand. I admit that I find this very bizarre, making it difficult for me to work out how best to communicate what seems to me to be a very simple point. I suspect that warshy can perfectly well understand the point of the comparisons with McCartney and Presley, even if he doesn't agree with my argument. They are examples to illustrate how we describe people. Wikipedia's policy pages are filled with similar such examples. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I'm going to ask you politely, one more time, to stop posting this irrelevant material on my Talk page. As you well know, the appropriate place for any comment about your edit is on the Talk page of the article on which you made the edit. NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss as matter such as this on an editor's talk page. It is done all the time, quite properly. I thought it more appropriate here than there because this is not in any meaningful sense about Elizabeth de Vere, the subject of the article. And please do not say things that are clearly false. You never "asked me to to stop posting this irrelevant material on my Talk page". Read your own words. All you said was "I don't wish to discuss this further with you". Well, your wishes are neither here nor there, and the material is of obvious relevance to the matter at issue. However, if you want to transfer the debate to the talk page of the Elizabeth de Vere article, that's fine by me. Copy the discussion over. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to copy your irrelevant digressions here to the Talk page of the article in question, nor should you. If you have a point to make about your edit, make it on the Talk page of the article on which you made the edit so that any Wikipedia editor who chooses to can discuss it, as per the usual Wikipedia practice. As you well know, you should have done that in the first place since your edit was clearly, in your mind, a controversial one. NinaGreen (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is obvious. I see many people on this talk page have asked you questions about edits to articles. I see nowhere any demand that they should have raised on the article page and not here. Your request seems unique to my query, and thus indicates a pure and simple double-standard. I will copy the query over the article, even though the issue is not specific to it and your behaviour here shows, to my mind, a refusal to participate in good faith engagement by inventing a series of ad hoc deflections. Paul B (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me once again. This issue should be closed here, since Nina has already said very clearly above "Paul shouldn't have opened this discussion ... on my Talk page in the first place." I believe she simply does not appreciate engaging with you here, and I can definitely sympathize with her feelings on this matter. You should respect her feelings and specific multiple requests in this regard too.

However, to state here that "I forgotten that you seem to find the concept of an analogy difficult to understand" is a clear insult to any person's intelligence, let alone an accomplished scholar of the caliber of Nina Green. It should be completely stricken from the record by you forthwith.

As for copying the material over, she also asked you to not do it, and I hope you don't. You are just going to compound the insult and affront already committed. If you want to make your point of view explicit there, once the insult is stricken above, you can just state it there once again. If you did that clearly and succintly, I believe there would be no need for Nina even to respond to it, since your edit was done a while ago and it was never changed. Thank you for understanding. warshy^¥¥ 22:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference to analogies has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with previous discussions in which similar illustrations were greeted in a similar way. I do genuinely find it difficult to understand these responses. As you know, I did, very clearly and very succinctly, state the problem. As for copying the material over, yes, that was my fault. I misread what she wrote by reading it too quickly. I thought she'd advised copying it over. Paul B (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite enough said on this issue here already. I would strike the insulting comment if I were you, but you of course are free to do as you wish. As for your initial, larger scholarly point, I am sure it will be duly refuted and clarified by sheer scholarship in due course, as I suggested to Nina above. Just that certainty, I hope, would be good enough for her to bypass your personal insults above, and let the issue rest for now. In the future, I also hope, you will refrain from coming and confronting and insulting her in her own talk page. I would hope you never come to mine either. Sincerely, warshy^¥¥ 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice of Hainault

The DYK project (nominate) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bevis Bulmer

The DYK project (nominate) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Christopher Schutz

The DYK project (nominate) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Humfrey

The DYK project (nominate) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious

biographies of English history
Thank you for quality articles such as Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, Christopher Schutz and Burchard Kranich, and for contributing to article space alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Coming from you, it's a real honour. NinaGreen (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 658th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Battista Agnello

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jean de Ferrieres

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rowland Haywood

Hi Nina, I've just been admiring your work on R.H. It has become a very informative article, thanks! I have just been fiddling rather less effectively with Sir Thomas Lodge. Are you able to pinpoint exactly where the funders specifically for the Hawkins slaving expeditions are named? Similar things are said of Lodge, but in trying to navigate the Hakluyt references for Lodge I came up with the Guinea expeditions which seem to have crossed paths with Hawkins in 1563/4 by accident (or was it 'by accident on purpose'?). I realise all these adventurers were closely associated and related. Any guidance gratefully accepted! thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eebahgum. I haven't researched Hawkins' slave-trading voyages beyond what I found for the Haywood article, but I see that Lodge is mentioned as an investor in Gonson's voyage on p. 110 [13] of Andrews' Trade, Plunder and Settlement, and it seems his source was Williamson's biography of Sir John Hawkins, so perhaps the investors in Hawkins' slave-trading voyages are named in Williamson's biography. But perhaps you've already looked into Williamson's biography? NinaGreen (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's a very helpful reference and I have incorporated it. I'll look for Williamson. Thanks also for all your great work here and elsewhere. So much food for thought. Eebahgum (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. I've created an article on the printer Edward White, and added a link to it in the article on Sir Thomas Lodge. I've also added some material to the article on his son, Thomas Lodge, which you can incorporate into the article on Sir Thomas, if you like. I thought I'd leave that up to you as you're doing some major editing on the article on Sir Thomas, and I don't want to get in the way. NinaGreen (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff on E White and Thos junior too. That Bernard reference for the Littleton descent is sensational. Perhaps something of that can be incorporated into Sir T. Kind of you to defer, but no need really: I probably won't do much more with Sir Thos himself. My interests are, shall we say, cousinly, and I am reserving them from here for the time being as I suspect they will attract an edit war, an activity which I deeply wish to avoid! least said soonest mended. Eebahgum (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Burchard Kranich

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edward White (printer)

Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rose Lok

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Lok

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Fabyan

Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

St Spyridon Church

Hi Nina. Sorry about that but I had an edit conflict with you as soon as I changed the hook to a new one. Do you mind checking the new hook and let me know if you approve of it? Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry again. Just done the QPQ. Whenever you have the time you can have a look. Thank you very much for your time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Lok

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Brayne

Hello! Your submission of John Brayne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Brayne

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Lee

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Vardges Sureniants

Hi NinaGreen,

Can you check out the Vardges Sureniants' DYK nom. page please. Thanks! Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello NinaGreen, if I could please have you at the Vardges Sureniants DYK again if it's possible. I did a last

minute change in the hook and picture. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please check out the nomination and let me know what you think. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bridget Chaworth

Hello! Your submission of Bridget Chaworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cromwell Lee

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bridget Chaworth

Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carelton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elizabeth Hussey

Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Hussey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked the DYK page just now, and there are no comments under my nomination of Elizabeth Hussey. NinaGreen (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite sentences in Western legal systems

Here you wrote: "no justice system in the Western world, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, uses indefinite sentences or sentences 'broadly construed'."

I'm not sure what you mean by "broadly construed" but there are several situations in Western cultures where sentences are "indefinite."

• In most some US states, the sentencing judge will sentence convicted criminals to a sentence of "25 to life" or "5 to 10" or whatever the law says, with the discretion of when you actually get out being left up to the parole board. This is kind of like "indefinite" except there is a lower bound and an upper bound on it.

• In many US states, low- and moderate-level felony crimes tried in juvenile courts result in "indeterminate sentences" which basically means you could ask for a "release hearing" almost immediately and you could wind up being released very quickly if you were obviously rehabilitated, but you could also be kept locked up until some fixed age (it varies by state, but it's usually in the late teens to early 20s) if you are never considered "rehabilitated." In theory, this could lead to seemingly-bizarre situations like a 12 year old committing a crime which an adult would get 2 years in prison staying locked up until he is 21 because he won't change his defiant attitude, or a 12 year old remorseful murderer getting released after a few weeks when it's obvious the remorse is genuine and his risk of committing a new serious crime is actually lower than that of the average teenager who has never committed any serious crimes.

• In England, some sex offenders are sentenced to "indefinite confinement" with a minimum sentence of a few years and periodic evaluations to determine if the person should be released after that. This is a concession to the reality that some sex offenders are pathologically illness that involve either a compulsion or willingness to rape or molest others that is part of the person's baseline personality and is not likely to change over his lifetime, and the reality that in Britain at least, voting for such sentencing options helps get politicians re-elected.

• It's not unheard of for businesses to "ban you for life" from their property if you vandalize it or otherwise disrupt their business in a major way. In most US states, violating such a ban, even decades later, constitutes criminal trespass, which is a very minor crime but you can be arrested for it if the property owner complains and can prove that you had been notified of the ban.

Just some food for thought. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Davidwr. Thanks for your comments. I agree with your last point, and my own comment included permanent bans, which in certain circumstances might be entirely justified for Wikipedia. It's the indefinite bans which cause a lot of problems, both for the banned editor, who usually has little idea of the technical aspects of launching an appeal or when the arbitrators might be disposed to grant it, and for the arbitrators, who wouldn't have to waste their time hearing appeals from editors in most cases if bans had definite time limits. Most banned editors would simply sit them out, but with an indefinite ban, there has to be an appeal sometime unless the editor just leaves Wikipedia forever. The thrust of my comments was to try to make things simpler, more efficient, and fairer for everyone, and I think my suggestions would do that, if implemented. NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for George Carleton (died 1590)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Hussey

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hercules Underhill

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Carleton

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:EB1911

If you come across an article like Christopher Hatton that includes the template {{EB1911}} most of the text is almost certainly copied from EB1911.

If the text is not available on Wikisource, you will be able to track it down through the versions available in the section Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition.

To meet the requirements of the plagiarism guideline, articles that include text from public domain must contain suitable attribution (like {{EB1911}} linking to the correct article) but also inline citations.

In the case of the Christopher Hatton article, links to the EB1911 article would have answered most of the {{citation needed}} templates you added, and in many cases would have alleviated the need to add other sources to verify facts.

The reason why many of the articles like Christopher Hatton do not carry adequate inline citations is because the text was copied into a Wikipedia article long before (in this case in 2002) there were guidelines on how to support content with citations. That developed as a response by the Wikipepdia community to improve the quality of the content of articles in about 2006 because the press was having fun finding unsourced articles and showing how unreliable Wikipedia was.

So in future if you come across an article with {{1911}} (which redirects to {{EB1911}}) or {[tl|EB1911}} a way to quickly improve reliability of the content is fill in the "|wstitle=wikisource" parameter or the parameters "|title=other source url=..." and add inline citations to the template (the parameter ref=harv is set by default so (Chisholm 1911) usually works).

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hatton, Sir Christopher". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 63–64.

-- PBS (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is more than a century old, and the biographies in it have in many cases being significantly updated by more recent research. If other editors wish to locate a 1911 EB article (such as the one which you say may have been the source for the entire Christopher Hatton article on Wikipedia), and provide inline citations from it, they're certainly free to do so. I feel my time is better spent in finding and citing more up-to-date sources where possible. NinaGreen (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Vandalism Comments

First, I see that you asked me at the Help Desk to stop attributing comments to you that you had not made. You made a similar comment to another poster in your comments on the 2013 review of discretionary sanctions. I understand that no one likes to be misquoted, but if you twice think that your comments were misinterpreted, please consider that maybe your comments were not entirely clear, and that they may have permitted two interpretations. On re-reading your comments about numeric vandalism, and my attribution that you thought that only a revert was needed, and that admins should handle the remaining details, I don't think that I misread your comments. I think that my interpretation was a valid interpretation of your comments, even if not what you meant. I am aware that discussions of complex topics such as numeric vandalism or discretionary sanctions are not always as clear as they could be. If you ask other posters repeatedly not to attribute comments to you that you did not make, maybe you should be patient with their efforts to understand your comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Second, I am familiar with ClueBot, as many of us are. It is an excellent vandalism-fighter. However, it is a bot, and doesn't have as much intelligence or the same kind of intelligence as a human. It uses a heuristic algorithm to detect edits that are likely to be vandalism. It is very good, although it has occasional false positives. I don't know the inner details of how it works, but I think that it mostly detects patterns that are either not good English, look like graffiti, or look like typical vandalism. I don't think that there is any practical way that it could be engineered to detect numeric vandalism, or, for that matter, the replacement of true statements by comparably worded false statements. I don't think that it would know the difference between: "Henry VII killed Richard III in 1485 at Bosworth Field", and "Richard III defeated Henry Tudor in 1486 in Kensington." I certainly don't know how it would recognize the changing of a 40% vote to a 60% vote, typical of what numeric vandals do. What could possibly done would be a different approach, which would be to flag or revert edits without edit summaries by unregistered editors. (That would offend those who think that unregistered editors should have all of the usual rights of registered editors, but reasonable Wikipedians differ on what those rights should be.) However, in that case, the numeric vandal would begin using an edit summary, such as "correction". I don't think that a bot can reasonably be used to detect and correct numeric vandalism. Only human editors with watch lists can do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was (and is) that administrators are there to warn the vandal once an editor has reverted an edit by a vandal using only an IP address and advised WP:AIV of the vandalism. Warning the vandal is an administrator's job, not an editor's job. Otherwise, what are the 1400 administrators there for? However when one goes to WP:AIV one finds that advice concerning a vandal is rejected unless the editor had repeatedly warned the vandal. In other words, administrators have fobbed their job off onto editors.

As to your comment that a bot could not be perfected which would detect a date change and revert it, given the brilliance of the technologically inclined editors on Wikipedia, I'm certain it could be done. You seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Why don't you suggest it to someone who could do something about it? NinaGreen (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, my contention is that the administrators are there to block the vandal, not to warn the vandal. You and I can reasonably disagree. If you think that the policy should be changed (because what I describe is the policy), you could propose that at Wikipedia talk: Vandalism. I am very skeptical of having a bot detect numeric vandalism. I think that it would be even more difficult than for a human to detect numeric vandalism. The only way that a human would know that the edit mentioned above, that changes the course of English history, was vandalism is that it is well-known via reliable sources to students of English history, and the altered statement "looks wrong" because it goes against history, that is, against reliable sources. However, it might be an interesting idea to throw out at Village pump (technical). Someone who knows more about bots than I do could probably explain why it isn't feasible for a bot to detect numeric vandalism, just as it isn't easy for humans, except knowledgeable humans, to detect numeric vandalism. It only "looks wrong" if you know that it is wrong. (On the other hand, graffiti vandalism "looks wrong" both to a human and to ClueBot.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments, Robert McClenon. I think it can be done. See my comments on the ClueBot NG page [14]. NinaGreen (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Groatsworth

I have raised the issue at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And I have reported your violation of your topic ban it Arbcom. Edward321 (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

Sorry Nina, I've unblocked your account. One of the times I was looking at was UTC and the other was in local time which made it look like you were editing logged out during the block. I've removed the block and the entry on the case page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nina. I pointed out on Sandstein's page just half an hour after Robert McClenon posted there that there was no block evasion, and also that I wasn't able to engage with the sock puppet investigation because of time constraints.[15] But it looks like Robert, who I hoped would fix his error, was no longer on line, nor Sandstein, and then the SPI was closed very quickly, before I was awake. I'm sorry it went like that, but I did what I could. Callanecc, have you considered adding a note to the SPI archive? Bishonen | talk 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Much appreciated. Incidentally, the reason I didn't log in was because at WP:AIV administrator BrownHairedGirl stated that she had already blocked me, so I assumed I wouldn't be able to log in. NinaGreen (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nina: You can always log in. If a user logs in and they are blocked, they will not be able to edit pages (and I believe they see an explanation if they try). If it is a normal block, the user will be able to edit their own talk page and is able to use the "email this user" feature (sometimes there is a lot of disruption and those abilities are removed). I have removed the stale block notifications. Do you want to archive this page? It's easy, but if you would prefer, I would be happy to archive everything from the top down to and including this section. You don't have to archive—that's just in case you wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about logging in, and for removing the stale block notifications. I think I'll forego archiving for a bit. I like looking at the DYK notifications. :-) NinaGreen (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators lack the subject matter expertise to interpret 'broadly construed'

I've added the two paragraphs below to the page on which the procedures for administration of Discretionary Sanctions are being reviewed [16] because the example demonstrates why use of the phrase 'broadly construed' is a bad idea for Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. This is a discussion every editor on Wikipedia should take an interest in because sooner or later it's bound to affect a very large number of editors in some way or other. NinaGreen (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting a new section to highlight the problem entailed with the phrase 'broadly construed', which is routinely used in the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions'. I've just been blocked for 48 hours for an alleged violation of a topic ban which used the same phrase 'broadly construed', so the example is instructive. My edit was made last August, and the issue arose because another editor ran across it a few days ago and deleted both the factual statement and the unquestionably reliable source which supported it. During an extensive discussion on the article Talk page, I added two more unquestionably reliable sources to the article in support of the factual statement, and a further eminently RS to the Talk page. The other editor added nothing to the article, and when he could not prevail on the facts, complained to WP:AIV that I had allegedly violated a topic ban. There was a lengthy discussion there in which I explained that the article itself was not covered by the topic ban, nor was my edit. The matter was then whisked off to WP:AE at [17]], and I was rapidly blocked for 48 hours. About 10 administrators rushed into the fray on the two last-mentioned forums, some of whom were baying for lengthy blocks. The 'evidence' put forward was framed in this way: 'Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.' This is completely inaccurate. My edit, made last August, clearly refers to the relationship between a line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit and an anonymous play published in 1595, The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, as I explained at WP:AIV. My edit has nothing to do with Shakespeare, either per se or tangentially, and it most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with 'the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare'. However the administrators involved clearly lacked the subject matter expertise to know the difference, and I was thus blocked under a topic ban 'broadly misconstrued'. It was sufficient that the editor had alleged to WP:AIV that I had violated the topic ban; that was enough for about 10 administrators to conclude that I must have done so because they have no expertise in the subject matter involved, and simply can't tell the difference.

I'm bringing it up here because, as I've mentioned here before, the use of the phrase 'broadly construed' in DS is a bad idea, both in terms of Wikipedia's public image, and in terms of the fact that administrators who are not involved in a particular subject area lack the expertise to determine whether an edit actually violates a topic ban 'broadly construed', which results in the injustices which have been complained of repeatedly by other editors elsewhere in this discussion. Wikipedia needs to get rid entirely of the phrase 'broadly construed' because it can't be administered fairly by administrators who lack expertise in the subject area.

Hi, since you started posting at the DS review I have been pondering how it is that you have had such DS troubles compared to myself. I mean, for over two years nearly all of my editing has been on articles subject to DS and I haven't had such troubles. Today I had a little light go off. FYI, One way you could make a much bigger splash in the DS review with your complaint and proposal for arb & admin reviews is to first demonstrate to the community an effort to comply with this bit of wisdom, and the best way to do that is to submit yourself to review, by way of a self-submission to WP:RFC/U. If you pass that with flying colors, then you'll be able to point to that as evidence of how badly DS treated you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, NewsAndEventsGuy, how did you come to the conclusion that I've personally had 'DS troubles'? I've had no 'DS troubles' at all. I've been posting about DS at the review page because DS are a terrible idea, and the process needs to be reformed. NinaGreen (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, couldn't have been anything you said, that's for sure. On a related point.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You're confused, NewsAndEventsGuy. Reread my statement above. Let's drop the discussion. NinaGreen (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fulke Underhill

Hello! Your submission of Fulke Underhill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hack (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello. It is not appropriate to go around spamming the same 5k of text to multiple users talk pages. This is disruptive. A bunch of experienced, well-intentioned editors have been giving you good advice about how to participate in Wikipedia constructively. Not only have you ignored them, you seem to be going in the opposite direction, just to make a point.

Your account is blocked until you and the editors you've been mis-interacting with come to an agreement about how you will participate constructively rather than disruptively. Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked. It will help to recognize any past errors and state how you would go about things differently in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review

Regards,

—Neotarf (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hi Nina,

Thank you for your interest in discretionary sanctions. I'm afraid governance is a bit of a niche topic. There are so few editors who take an interest in it, or who take the time to ask questions and try to understand it.

To address some of the issues about DS you have been raising elsewhere:

From what I have been able to piece together, discretionary sanctions grew out of the community-based "article probation". For an example of that, here is the "men's rights" article probation page. [18] Draconian terms, no? There is no way I would agree to edit under those conditions. Admins have a blank check to do what they want, as well as to determine whether they are WP:INVOLVED. And the condescending, unprofessional language! "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;" But in this case there is an admin who does not participate in the discussions, and can say she is not "involved", but who understands the article and the issues quite well. And she has dealt successfully with waves of meatpuppets from the Reddit "men's rights" group, the same one that the Southern Poverty Law center has labeled a hate group.

Unlike the old "article probation" admins, the current crop of DS admins do not know anything about the cases they are dealing with and have no intention of reading them. They just want to take a face-reading of the rules and apply them directly to the respective cases. What they are asking for, in this round of DS discussions, is a software decision-tree type flowchart with algorithms to apply blindly, that has been handed to them from a higher authority, to absolve them from knowing the reason behind their actions. I think the arbcom does not understand this, they think they are dealing with incompetence, but it is a disconnect based on ideology.

There is no question discretionary sanctions are needed. As far as I can see, they are useful in two situations. One is where there is some current event that draws a huge amount of vandalism, like during the election cycle. I believe that's how the DS started, with pages like Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. The admins can't take time to warn all the vandals, and then keep track of who has been warned. So they nuke everyone. And it seems there is a preference for keeping the page open to edits during fast-breaking news. I'm quite new to WP, actually, so I don't remember these discussions, but I think there has never been any traction for getting these pages locked, I don't think you will get a consensus for that. Consensus doesn't apply here anyway, since the ArbCom is authorized by policy to write their own internal "procedures", like DS. Discretionary sanctions are also often applied to perennially controversial subjects, like Palestine/Israel. Or, um, Shakespearean authorship theories. I'm not sure of the rationale behind this last application, perhaps it has more to do with 3R edit restrictions.

Regards,

—Neotarf (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations, but-?!?!?!

Nina I was going to ask you if you could look something up (if you have it) in:

Richardson, Douglas (2011), Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, ed. Kimball G. Everingham III (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City.

...as it would probably fulfil the last small requirements for GA status for Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, regarding his children. I don't have the book I'm afraid.

Having said that, you seem to be having some political issues here at the moment, so maybe it's not quite the best time to ask... sorry about that. Shame as you seem to have done grand work on historical biography. All the best. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Message to Wikimedia Foundation

I sent the message below to the Wikimedia Foundation. The arbitrators' refusal to define their own powers and to differentiate the powers they were elected to exercise from the powers they have illegally handed over to the 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not a problem which can be resolved within Wikipedia because the 15 arbitrators, who are the only structure within Wikipedia which could resolve the problem, are in fact the creators of the problem, and they block editors who even suggest that the arbitrators should resolve the problem by defining their and the administrators' respective powers to punish editors. The Wikimedia Foundation, the media and the general public must therefore become aware of the problem and take steps to force a resolution of it. NinaGreen (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Maggie Dennis,

Thank you for your reply. You wrote:

I appreciate that you feel that the discretionary sanction system is a problem, but concerns such as this need to be resolved by the volunteer community.

The evidence in the messages I forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation proves that this issue cannot be resolved in the 'volunteer community' because the 15 arbitrators are an all-powerful oligarchy who have illegally handed over the powers they are elected to exercise to 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers, with the predictable result that the situation of abuse of editors by administrators is now out of control, and good editors are regularly being 'punished' to the extent that many good editors have left, and are continuing to leave Wikipedia. The situation of which I complained took place during an alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), and as the evidence on the review pages proves, any 'community' editor with whom the arbitrators disagreed was either blocked or his/her comments were totally ignored, ridiculed, or 'hidden' in collapsed or archived sections or totally edited out by the three arbitrators conducting the alleged review (Roger Davies, AGK, and Salvio). This sort of conduct by the arbitrators during an alleged 'community' review of DS is what one would expect of a totalitarian regime, not of an entity funded by the Wikipedia Foundation and an entity to which the unwitting general public is regularly asked to donate.

The Wikimedia Foundation is funding this totally undemocratic oligarchic and punitive situation, thus allowing it to worsen day by day, with the arbitrators now utterly refusing to define the powers they, the administrators in DS situations and the administrators in non-DS situations can wield against the hard-working editors who are actually building the encyclopedia. I was indefinitely blocked for posting a message on the arbitrators' Talk pages mentioning the need for the arbitrators to define the powers which can be wielded by the arbitrators and administrators to punish editors, and Roger Davies not only stated that the arbitrators would not define these powers, but praised the fact that administrators are 'creatively' inflicting whatever punishments they wish on editors, no matter how harsh and unreasonable, and that once one arbitrators has done so, those punishments become, in Roger Davies' view, accepted practice for administrators. The statement from Roger Davies I quoted in my message below proves that that is the case, and that therefore the only realistic way in which this out of control situation can be rectified is for the Wikipedia Foundation to withhold funding until the situation is resolved and some semblance of democracy, fairness and justice is restored to Wikipedia.

This will only be done if evidence of what is going on reaches the highest echelons at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am therefore requesting that you pass on this message, and my earlier messages, to those persons at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation so that they will know of the existence of this out of control situation on Wikipedia. In that regard, I also stress the fact that one of the passages I've quoted in my earlier message indicates that there is at least some awareness already of the problem of abuse of editors by administrators and arbitrators on Wikipedia, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has been turning a blind eye to it. If the general public and the media were aware that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to this steadily-worsening problem, and continuing to fund it, it is beyond question that neither the general public nor the media would approve of either the situation on Wikipedia itself, notof the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to it and continuing to provide the funds to allow it to continuously worsen day by day.

Nina, I noticed your ticket at OTRS. As one of the 1400 admins you name, I cannot think of a power that has been handed to me by anyone other than the sysop bit itself. Arbcom has given permission to admins to speedily resolve what experience indicates will be sterile disputes, but I have never done this as far as I can recall without peer review. Regardless, what law is Arbcom supposed to have broken? I am not aware of any laws covering the operation of private websites, and I'd be interested to read up on it. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, you might find this recent exchange from the DS review enlightening as Roger Davies makes it absolutely clear that you have the same powers as the arbitrators, and the powers you have are completely unfettered, whether you're acting in a DS or a non-DS situation.

A very experienced editor, Robert McClenon, stated that I was right in saying that DS 'gives uninvolved administrators arbitrator-like powers', but Robert McClenon claimed that in non-DS situations, the power of administrators was severely limited, and that 'in non-DS cases, administrators have basically one power, the power to block'. An arbitrator, Roger Davies, then took Robert McClenon smartly to task for his error. Roger Davies did not deny that in a DS situation administrators now have arbitrator-like powers (which, moreover, unlike arbitrators, they can exercise without a trial (arbitration)), but stated that administrators in a non-DS situation have those powers too; there's no difference between DS and non-DS. Roger Davies stated that in a non-DS situation whatever creative punishment an administrator dreams up is just fine, as long as other administrators and arbitrators think it's just fine (that's the criterion), and if there's no objection (and try to imagine a situation in which administrators would object to a fellow-administrator extending their powers) then that new creative punishment (which Roger terms a 'successful groundbreaking action') now becomes 'de facto part of the admin's arsenal'. Roger Davies then concludes that 'in practical terms, I doubt that that there is very much difference at all' between the arbitrator-like power of administrators in DS and non-DS situations. This is what DS have brought about -- the creation of 1415 arbitrators on Wikipedia, whose power is completely unfettered, apart from the fact that the 15 arbitrators who are actually subjected to the scrutiny of an arbitrator election cannot exercise their powers without a trial (arbitration), while the 1400 administrators don't need to bother with that little formality.

Because I raised this issue which impacts every single editor on Wikipedia, and the arbitrators conducting the review didn't like having such issues raised, I was indefinitely blocked by Jehochman [19] (see above). It seems clear that requesting community input into a review such as the DS review is a sham; if an editor says anything the arbitrators conducting the review don't like, that editor is ridiculed, sees his/her comments collapsed, archived, or on occasion totally deleted, and ultimately is threatened and blocked.

Here's the exchange from the DS review, which has now been hidden from view by the arbitrators in an archive:[20]

Nina is essentially right that DS gives uninvolved administrators arbitrator-like powers, subject to appeal, such as the power to impose a 1RR rule (in place of 3RR) on edit warriors, or to topic-ban POV-pushers, or to interaction-ban editors who cannot get along. (The will-o-the-wisp of "the community" also has those powers at the noticeboards.) In non-DS cases, administrators have basically one power, the power to block, which is subject to review. That is the basic difference. [[WP:Discretionary sanctions{Discretionary sanctions]] are recognized as a draconian remedy for disputes that would otherwise have to be re-arbitrated over and over again. Maybe that answers Nina's question, or maybe Nina has some other question that hasn't been formulated clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon. That's no longer really true and hasn't been for some time. Admins, especially the creative ones, can and do issue all sorts of "voluntary" restrictions of their own volition, usually as an alternative to further blocking or as a condition of unblocking. Because of the way that policy works (ie new policy is created by successful groundbreaking actions, rather than following what is written), these restrictions are now de facto part of the admin's arsenal. Conversely, there are no limits whatsoever on the ability of the community to issue whatever sanctions it pleases or to authorise administrators to do so. (Though most kinds of longterm restriction are theoretically appealable to ArbCom, ArbCom traditionally doesn't interfere in the reasonable exercise of administrative discretion or attempt to restrict the community's discretion.) So, in practical terms, I doubt that that there is very much difference at all and it is certainly not worth the effort of attempting to codify elusory differences, especially when such a codification will, in and of itself, be hugely controversial. Roger Davies talk 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what Roger Davies says, it is necessary to codify the differences between the powers of the 15 arbitrators who were elected after close scrutiny by the Wikipedia community and who cannot exercise their Draconian powers without a trial (arbitration), and the 1400 administrators in both DS and non-DS situations. Every editor on Wikipedia has the right to know whether whoever is 'punishing' him/her has the right to do so under powers which are clearly defined for all editors to inform themselves of. NinaGreen (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Having complained to the Wikimedia Foundation about the DS review, you should consider that you may have lost all sense of perspective on it. AGK [•] 12:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

AGK, having congratulated yourself on your Talk page [21] for having silenced all the community editors in the DS review with whom you personally disagreed, perhaps you should consider that you yourself 'may have lost all sense of perspective'. Kumioko (using an IP address), wrote: I know you aren't going to respond to me but I wanted to congratulate you and the other members of Arbcom in eliminating all non admin/non arbitration comments to the review. You didn't deny silencing all the community editors, but rather congratulated yourself on it: A few people with fringe views who liked the sound of their own voices a little too much were politely but firmly moved along. Kumioko, again using an IP address, left a comment on the DS review page stating that you should 'all be utterly ashamed of yourselves' for threatening to block me merely for offering suggestions in the DS review and then encouraging Jehochman to do it, and you deleted Kumiokio's comment so that no-one could see it or even know of its existence. I saw Kumioko's comment before you deleted it, and it should appear in the collapsed section at the bottom of this page of the DS review [22], but immediately after Kumioko made the comment it was completely deleted, Salvio (an arbitrator) collapsed that section of the DS review, and Roger Davies (another arbitrator) archived it, thus hiding it from everyone who was following the DS review. You then put a block on the DS review page so that no-one, including Kumioko, could comment on the DS review using an IP address, even though Wikipedia's policy expressly encourages editing from IP addresses, and people are even allowed to comment in arbitrations using IP addresses. The sole purpose of the block was to prevent Kumioko from making any further comments in the DS review. These instances prove that community reviews of policies such as DS are a sham, and that the arbitrators conducting the review will silence all comments from community editors with which they personally disagree, and will collapse sections containing such comments, hide them from view in archives, and even delete them in entirety so that the Wikipedia community will not even know of their existence, and will encourage administrators to indefinitely block the community editors who have made the suggestions since, as arbitrators, you cannot block those editors yourselves without an arbitration, particularly since the editors in question have not violated any Wikipedia policy. The Wikimedia Foundation funds Wikipedia. The general public funds Wikipedia. Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the general public who donate to Wikipedia would recoil in shock from such actions by the arbitrators if they knew of them, and the funds for Wikipedia would dry up. NinaGreen (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to correct a couple thing here. First, The WMF does know and doesn't care. In fact whats worse the WMF and Jimbo have stated their unconditional support of Arbcom and vehemently refuse to even listen to anything that resembles a change to Arbcom. The fact is the Arbcom allows the WMF stay arms length away from the issues that plague Wikipedia so it has limited legal connection to the project. Using the issue about what happened at the Greek Wikipedia recently as proof, the WMF has no interest in meddling with the Arbcom or the affairs of the project because then they can be held responsible. The second is that the vast majority of the funding to keep the project comes from a few donors with large wallets. The "public" donates very little financially to the project, not even enough to keep it running. Remove those high dollar donations and this place stops. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The Wikimedia Foundation has to know what's going on. See: [23]

Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."

However I've taken the above analysis further in my e-mail to the Foundation by proving that administrator abuse of editors is the direct result of ArbCom's DS policy through which it has created 1415 arbitrators on Wikipedia by handing off to the 1400 administrators powers which it refuses to define and which are greater than the powers the arbitrators themselves were alone elected to exercise, and that the arbitrators conduct sham policy reviews in which they request input from editors in the community and then stifle any community editors with whose input and suggestions they personally disagree (see above for details). Maggie Dennis has now forwarded my letter to her supervisor, Philippe Beaudette, at the Wikimedia Foundation, and we'll see what he has to say. The Wikimedia Foundation may have been passively aware of the problem up to this point, but the more public signed complaints the Foundation receives, the less able it will be to persuade the big donors you mention to continue to fund Wikipedia. Big donors such as Google would not want it known that as a result of their donations the hard-working editors who are actually building the encyclopedia are subjected to abuse by ArbCom and by 1400 administrators to whom ArbCom has given free rein to trample on any editor in any way they please, subject only to sham 'appeals' (again, see above for details).

Pressure is also mounting in other venues, one of which, Wikipediocracy, [24], I only learned of the other day, whose stated objectives include exposure of Wikipedia's 'structural flaws', such as the fact that appeals of ArbCom's decisions and punishment of editors go to -- guess who? -- ArbCom! Now there's a 'structural flaw' if there ever was one!

I've offered a practical solution to this mess -- blocks for specified periods of the specific articles on which editor conflict is raging until things cool down. Roger Davies, AGK, and Salvio simply shut my proposal down, and refused to allow community discussion of it, even though it will solve the problem of administrator abuse of individual editors, and eliminate the huge workload of refining the complicated rules and regulations governing DS, appeals of DS, applications for clarification of DS, most arbitration enforcement (AE) etc. etc. What is needed is an open discussion in which input is sought from the entire Wikipedia community of editors on whether DS should continue when they damage Wikipedia's structure of governance, create an enormously complicated system of rules and regulations which no editor understands, contribute to the drain of good editors through administrator abuse, and even with all those negatives, don't get the job done -- conflict still rages on the articles in question! There is a better solution, and if the 15 arbitrators stopped standing in the way of it, it would come about through community input into the solution.NinaGreen (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This proposal has been answered already:

• [25] "Bitter experience shows that assigning fixed-term blocks or bans in long-term cases is ineffective because someone who is on a mission to promote the truth will simply wait out the sanction, and then resume"
• [26] "Close down a page and they'll decamp to another one. Shut that down and they'll move to the next."

That has been my bitter experience as well.

Page protection is actually pretty common; by the time a case gets to ArbCom, it has usually been tried already, so it's not an issue particular to discretionary sanctions. —Neotarf (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, my proposal wasn't 'answered' by the diffs you've provided. No facts, statistics, anecdotal evidence, or any other type of proof was provided; the statements are merely the totally unsupported opinions of two individuals.

But leaving these unsupported statements aside, the Wikipedia community has spoken in terms of the limited powers and mandate which it has given to administrators. In written policy the Wikipedia community has provided the 1400 administrators with the tools they need to block pages or editors under certain conditions, and the objection that the administrators might have to exert their efforts more than once because an editor has waited out a block and/or moved to another page just isn't valid. The administrators just have to keep at it, using the powers they've been given by the Wikipedia community, for as long as it takes, and if the conduct of certain editors becomes too egregious, again the Wikipedia community has already spoken on that subject in terms of the limited power and mandate which it has given to the arbitrators, i.e. the power and mandate to deal themselves, as arbitrators, with precisely that sort of intractable situation.

If the founding principle of Wikipedia is to be maintained, i.e. that it is the 26,000 editors who comprise the Wikipedia community who govern Wikipedia and write policy, then the arbitrators and administrators have to find a solution to conflict-ridden pages within the powers and mandate the Wikipedia has granted them in written policy. They can't go outside those powers and mandate, as they have illegally done with DS. NinaGreen (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Appealing your block

Hi, Nina. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal your block by adding below this post the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The point of using that code is that it'll automatically place your page in the category Requests for unblock, which will draw an uninvolved admin to your page to review the block. (Just writing on this page won't have that effect.) But it's really important to read the guide to appealing blocks first, to understand what kind of appeal will be considered. You need to convince the reviewing admin that you're able and willing to avoid disruption going forward. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen and I hope she considers doing that. I would also like to add, for the sake of whomever considers the request that the performed indefinite block was IMO extreme and inappropriate. There are few reasons to justify using an indefinite block; preventing a user from commenting in a Semi-secret Arbcom discussion because her views aren't shared by the Arbcom is not, by any reasonable definition of policy, among them. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, as you know, I think you're commenting from a position of unassailable ignorance where Nina's concerned. I've made you an offer on your page (the page of this IP). Bishonen | talk 17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

Replied there. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just read the above about an indefinite block on Nina Green and I am bewildered. Can someone please explain the nature of any "disruption" which may have been caused by Nina, with diffs? She is a hugely valuable editor, busy producing a flood of good work in the field of English history, and in my view we need her back as soon as possible. Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Her block was reviewed here.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Roger Davies, very helpful. I have read through that review, but I am sorry to say it seems to me to reflect a decidedly high-handed culture shared by most of the admins taking part. Where is the sympathy and understanding which a judicious function calls for? As I see it, NinaGreen has been given a hard time by the English Wikipedia, and at every turn those who are drawn into the fallout of that seem to resent her even fighting her corner. If the new indefinite ban is indeed simply a temporary ban until such time as Nina makes a "request to be unblocked", that seems to me a very strange way of carrying on. Could you please say, is it intended as a way to extract some form of apology for challenging authority here? If so, could you please say more about that? Moonraker (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Mookraker

Moved from User talk: Jehochman

I have just read on Nina Green's talk page about your indefinite block on her and I am bewildered. Would you please explain the nature of any "disruption" which may have been caused by Nina, with diffs? She is a hugely valuable editor, busy producing a flood of good work in the field of English history, and in my view we need her back as soon as possible. Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you not one of the editors who enabled NinaGreen's past editing problems that lead to her ban from Shakespeare related topics? Do you think it helpful that she migrated to neighboring topics and started producing huge masses of DYK articles about borderline notable people with sourcing that is difficult to verify? I'm not expert enough to say whether this is a walled garden of pseudo-history that some day will need to be cleaned up, but I think there's a substantial risk it could be, based on the editing pattern. I don't think NinaGreen needs to be unblocked swiftly because she has yet to accept her original sanction, she refuses to understand why she was topic banned, and is doing everything she can to resume past editing errors. She's working every angle of appeal and skirting around the edges of the ban. This is not good at all. Additionally, see my block rationale above and the comments and link from Roger Davies above. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please Jehochman, I think your generally a good admin but I just think this is abusive. She wasn't banned for violating sanctions, she was banned because she was criticizing the Arbcom on the DS review page. Every editor who left comments that didn't agree (which BTW is pretty much everyone not on the committee or AE) was blocked or banned with a couple hours of each other. Anyone who looks at her edit history and compares that to the block can see this was because of the Arbcom. It was even admitted here on the talk page that she was "warned" to leave Arbcom alone. Then they restricted the DS review page so I couldn't edit it as an IP. This block was only a weak justification to allow the Arbcom to hold their secret discussion so they can make changes to the DS program that will give them and the admins more freedom and power. Of course that's not what the block justification say, they couldn't very well say that in the block log. It did send a message though, no one has commented on that discussion since who isn't either AE or Arbcom. This block is nothing more than a signal to the community that Arbcom and admins can do whatever they want. This is just the latest in a long string of bullshit blocks and actions by admins on this site who want to keep the power at the cost of the project. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, please login with your account instead of posting anonymously. The shrill cries of "abuse" are meaningless. The only abuse here is that of NinaGreen who is arguing a wrong position endlessly to waste the community's time and attention. She had a chance to state her case and make appeals. She long ago crossed the boundary between reasonable appeal and abuse of process. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if I wanted to login I couldn't because I locked the account. I also recognize that the cries of abuse are meaningless because no one here wants to do anything about it. That doesn't make the invalid and it doesn't fix the problems. I could also comment on how its easy to just dismiss comments rather to do something to fix them. Fixing them requires effort and its much easier to just block and forget. This project has become a joke because we have a bunch children as admins acting like they are the leaders but yet don't want to take action when actions is needed. You don't like my criticism, that's fine, then do something to fix the problems and make the site better and quite bitching at me about how I am wasting the communities time. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm 45 years old. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great, and some admins are adults, now its time to start acting like adults. Your also not the only admin. I'm also 40 and I have been around long enough to read between the lines on whats going on around here. Its a show of force, that's all it is. The admins send a message to the editors to show who's in charge so they won't question their authority. It doesn't work and never has. This is a volunteer community not a military dictatorship so people just leave rather than put up with it. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko: Please moan elsewhere. Your comments here are most unhelpful because they may mislead Nina into thinking there is some support for her position, while if she were aware of the backstory, she would understand that support from the usual suspects will only cause onlookers to roll their eyes. Wikipedia is a major website where anyone can edit, so it should be no surprise that contributors disagree about how things should be organized. Naturally there will be a minority of contributors who do not accept decisions made by the majority, and naturally they will moan about it—the only surprise is that the community tolerates much more noise than is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing with this case that bothers me. Regardless of whatever her previous issues were, she hadnt edited anything except the talk pages of Arbs or the DS review or related things since she was taken to ANI back in January. When the block was implemented it was because she was "harassing" Arbcom and "Spamming" their talk pages. It had nothing to do with ANI, Shakespeare articles or anything else. At the same time, every other editor that was opposing the DS review were also ran off the page, the discussions where collapsed and archived and the DS page was protected to prevent it being edited by users who were IP's or weren't auto confirmed. Now you are trying to tell me that none of this is why she was blocked and she was really blocked because of a editing pattern of shakespeare articles. Do you really expect anyone to believe that? I'm sorry but I am just not that stupid. Do I think the shakespeare issues were part of it, sure, do I think they were the reason for the block. No.108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that as usual Johnuniq, your comments are neither helpful or insightful and do nothing but serve to antagonize me. If you don't have anything of value don't jump into the conversation 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community governs Wikipedia and writes policy, not the arbitrators

This relates directly to the penultimate section above, but needs a separate section as it identifies the crux of the problem, which is that the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, govern Wikipedia and write policy, not the arbitrators. See: [27]

Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.

Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator", a group of privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to block users making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).

The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators are defined in policy at [28]

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.

The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to arbitrators are also defined at: [29]

This policy governs the Arbitration Committee, arbitration proceedings and arbitration processes. It was ratified by the community on 13 June 2011.

Scope and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;

Via discretionary sanctions (DS), and the current DS review, arbitrators have made an end-run around this clear definition of powers and limited mandates granted to arbitrators and administrators by the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, and are conducting themselves, and the current DS review, as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to govern Wikipedia through a 1400-member 'police force' of administrators, and as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to write Wikipedia policy (see penultimate section above for details). The arbitrators need to reverse course, and eliminate DS because through DS the entire Wikipedia power structure set out in policy, and the overriding principle on which Wikipedia was founded, i.e. that it is the Wikipedia community which governs Wikipedia and writes policy, has been subverted. The arbitrators may not have intended this result, but nonetheless that it what the arbitrators have done: they have subverted the Wikipedia structure of governance through DS, and they have silenced any member of the Wikipedia community who has pointed this out. NinaGreen (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, User:AGK and User:Roger Davies have indicted through recent comments that they are reading this Talk page, and it must be assumed that they have read the comments above which prove that the arbitrators are acting illegally in imposing DS and in conducting the DS review and writing policy re DS since the Wikipedia community has explicitly not given arbitrators the power or mandate to tamper with the powers and mandate which the Wikipedia community, in written policy, has granted to administrators (see above for the powers and mandate which the Wikipedia community has granted to administrators in written policy). The essence of DS is tampering by the arbitrators with the latter policy, and the granting by the arbitrators to the 1400 administrators of 'arbitrator-like' powers, contrary to Wikipedia's structure of governance. The fact that the essence of DS is tampering by the arbitrators with the powers and mandate the Wikipedia community has granted in written policy to administrators is proven by these sections of the draft DS policy crafted by the arbitrators: [30]

(Nutshell and preamble)

Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track method for dealing with contentious or disruptive conduct within specified areas of conflict. It is a procedure authorised by the Arbitration Committee on a case by case basis and usually involves creating temporary, special rules for administrators to resolve disruption and promote civil participation.

Role of administrators

Only uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions. Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations.

Individual sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, blocks of up to one year in duration, and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Sanctions must be logged.

Page restrictions

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except where a firm consensus for the edit has been obtained); or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to prevent disruption. Such restrictions are enforceable by uninvolved administrators through the use of individual sanctions.

The definition of DS states that DS involves creating temporary, special rules for administrators, and the unfettered powers granted by the arbitrators to administrators under the other sections of the DS draft quoted above are vastly different from the powers granted to administrators by the Wikipedia community. There can thus be no question that the arbitrators are acting illegally, and are illegally usurping the Wikipedia community's power to govern itself and write policy concerning the powers of administrators, and are substituting governance of Wikipedia by 15 arbitrators through a 'police force' of 1400 administrators to whom the arbitrators are granting unfettered 'arbitrator-like' powers which they (the arbitrators) have no power or mandate to grant. The arbitrators are now clearly aware that they are acting illegally, yet they continue to push forward with the DS review.

It is also clear that the handful of administrators who are actively assisting the arbitrators in this DS review which illegally augments the administrators' powers in contravention of the clearly-written Wikipedia community policy setting out the powers of administrators are equally aware by now that they are acting illegally. NinaGreen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions is one of the processes and procedures permitted to the Committee under Arbitration Policy. Arbitration Policy was last updated in May 2011, after a two-year discussion beginning in April 2009, and formally ratified after a community referendum the following month. —Neotarf (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, I've quoted Arbitration policy myself above, and absolutely nothing in it allows the 15 arbitrators to override the limited powers and mandate granted to administrators by the Wikipedia community (also quoted above). What the arbitrators are doing in that regard is illegal, and subverts the Wikipedia community's governance of Wikipedia, as I've proved in detail here by quoting Wikipedia policy. If the arbitrators want administrators to be granted more power, they have to persuade the entire Wikipedia community of 26,000 editors to do so by modifying the existing policy which I've quoted above. Until the arbitrators do that, the Wikipedia community's policy limiting the powers and mandate of administrators stands, and any attempt by the arbitrators or the administrators who are assisting them to override it, modify it, make an end run around it, turn the arbitrators into their own 1400-member 'police force' etc. are patently illegal. NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We get it. You don't like discretionary sanctions. Your view is in the minority. Wikipedia is not a soap box where you can stand up and say the same thing over, and over, and over again, endlessly. You have been monopolizing the forum with your comments, making it hard for others to state their views. You haven't been able to get that message, even though it's been delivered to you several times by several different editors. Until you get the message and agree not to be disruptive, your account is going to remain blocked. I'm very sorry, but this is necessary. If you want to be unblocked, just say something like, "Okay, while I don't agree with this, I have said my piece and will now step back so that others have a chance to discuss it." Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that a lot of the community doesn't like discretionary sanctions so stating she is in the minority isn't really accurate. It is true that not many have actively voiced their disagreement, but given that history shows that those who speak up get blocked or smeared in attempts to discredit them by the admins who want to continue being able to use DS's, its not really that surprising that more people don't speak up. DS's are often abused and rarely are the abusers punished. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It actually doesn't matter whether she's in the minority or the majority. Her method of discussion is unacceptable. Trying to win an argument by burying all other participants in walls of text is not fair. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, it doesn't matter one iota whether I like DS or you like DS or anyone likes DS. I've proven above, by quoting policy, that DS are illegal because they make an end run around the Wikipedia community's policy which clearly defines and limits the powers and mandate of administrators, and you've blocked me for pointing out that what the arbitrators are doing in granting administrators 'arbitrator-like' powers under DS is illegal, and that what the administrators who are assisting them in crafting a DS policy and enforcing DS are doing is illegal as well. Illegal is illegal, and your blocking me for saying it's illegal isn't going to alter the fact that the arbitrators, and the administrators who are assisting them, are acting illegally, and are subverting the power of the Wikipedia community to govern Wikipedia. Someone needs to post a link to my Talk page at the DS review page so that everyone participating can be made aware of the specific Wikipedia policies which make DS illegal. At the moment, many of the administrators who are assisting the three arbitrators (Roger Davies, AGK and Salvio) are not yet aware that what they're doing is illegal. Some administrators have no doubt been reading this Talk page, and are now aware that what they're doing is illegal, but most of those administrators who are involved in crafting and enforcing the DS policy aren't yet aware that what they're doing is illegal, and by blocking me, you're preventing those administrators from finding out that what they're doing is illegal. As for the alleged 'walls of text', the Wikipedia policies I've quoted aren't sound-bites, and if Wikipedia policies are 'walls of text' in your opinion, so be it; to everyone else, they're Wikipedia policies. NinaGreen (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I;ve complained about discretionary sanctions myself... but that doesn't matter. I don't think the word "illegal" means what you think it means. Perhaps you are reaching for a word like "illegitimate"? Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in getting mired in semantics; illegal conveys the sense of what is going on well enough. Wikipedia is governed by the Wikipedia community. That's its founding principle. And since the Wikipedia community has spoken on the limited powers and mandate it has granted to administrators (as it most definitely has in the policy quoted above) it's illegal for the arbitrators to tamper with that through DS, and it's illegal for the 1400 administrators to enforce DS or take part in a review of an illegal DS policy. NinaGreen (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

. The difference is essential. You are making a personal attack when you accuse people of illegal activity. It's a serious accusation that can only be made if there are facts to support it. In this case there is nothing illegal. If you continue throwing that word around I may remove your talk page access altogether to prevent further slanderous attacks. Think it over. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

NInaGreen - that word, it does not mean what you think it means. So far, you have expressed an opinion. You have provided no proof to back your opinion. Many, perhaps most Admins, after seeing your clear violation of your topic ban, your edit warring on that page, and your refusal to listen to the large number of warnings about your problematic behavior, would have blocked you indefinitely for your actions, especially if they took your previous history of sock puppetry into account. I suspect the reason that block was not indefinite was because the Arbcom decision specifically limited the length of enforcement blocks. I recommend you do not listen to Kumioko's bad advice and stop your attacks on members of Arbcom. The Admins have been unusually patient with you, most blocked editors who showed your levels of argumentativeness and unwillingness to listen would have lost their talk page access long before now. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, the legal term is ultra vires, and Wikipedia has an entire article on it [31]. That the arbitrators and administrators are acting far beyond their powers, and thus illegally, in enacting and enforcing DS is crystal clear. No arbitrator has made the slightest attempt to quote a policy which would show that the arbitrators are acting within their powers, and it is clear that they cannot, because the policies I've quoted, enacted by the Wikipedia community, prove that the arbitrators are acting far outside their powers.

Edward321, it is not an 'attack on members of ArbCom' to state that ArbCom is acting illegally and completely outside the powers granted in policy to it by the Wikipedia community in enacting DS (as explained in detail above through reference to specific Wikipedia policy). It is merely a factual statement which accurately describes the situation. If you can quote a Wikipedia policy which permits ArbCom to meddle with the powers of administrators, and to grant them 'arbitrator-like' powers, as Roger Davies (see above) made no attempt to deny they are doing, please quote it. I take it that you're an administrator. Can you quote a policy enacted by the Wikipedia community which allows you to exceed in any way the limited powers and mandate granted to you by the Wikipedia community under the policy I quoted above? If you cannot quote such a policy, how can you and your fellow administrators legally enforce DS, which purports, in the draft quoted above, to grant you powers far in excess of what the Wikipedia community has granted you? NinaGreen (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

page protection

Please undo the semi-protection of User_talk:NinaGreen. If you don't like what Kumioko is saying you're not required to respond to it. NE Ent 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Socking is not allowed. Please explain why The IP isn't socking and I will consider it. I'm thinking of full protecting the page anyhow to stop Nina from slandering people with accusations of illegal activity. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you're making the accusation that it's socking so it's up to you to justify it. The issue of stopping K from IP was raised and closed as no consensus to do so: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Block_review:Kumioko.2FIPs. I haven't (and am unlikely to) read enough of the page to have an opinion on Nina's recent contributions, but the appropriate response to disruptive editing by blocked users is removal of talk page access, not full protection. NE Ent 02:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. That's what I was thinking of doing. So, the protection level is worth debating, because it isn't moot if I revoke Nina's talk page access. Can you tell me why Kumioko isn't editing under his primary account? Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection I will just ban Kumioko from this page. He's being extremely unhelpful by goading NinaGreen into more problematic behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Your not being particularly helpful here either. In fact all you are doing is instigating an argument by your heavy handed and draconian actions. Your indef of Nina was utterly excessive and abusive, your threats of blocking me for socking (when I am not socking) are extremely inappropriate and you attitude that being the hall monitor for Nina's page isn't needed or wanted. You are clearly involved and need to step back. Im not saying that Nina's conduct was perfect either but this Wiki gunslinger mentality you have is disappointing and unnecessary. I would also add that wihtout going through dispute resolution you do not have the authority to ban me from this page. Nina could do that if she desires or arbcom or Dispute resolution. Not one admin who thinks he is the custodian of this page. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, how can you claim that I am 'slandering people with accusations of illegal activity', and threaten to block my access to my Talk page for it, when I'm obviously merely stating the factual truth, i.e. that the arbitrators are acting ultra vires in vastly augmenting the powers of the 1400 administrators under DS? I've quoted policy which proves that I've merely stated the factual truth. All you have to do to prove I'm wrong is quote a policy enacted by the Wikipedia community which proves I'm wrong. If you can do that, I'll be happy to withdraw my statement that the arbitrators are acting ultra vires. Fair enough? NinaGreen (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nina, I'm not following why you have copy-pasted the policies here. As far as I can tell, the policy I linked earlier authorizes the arbitration committee to settle disputes, and to write their own procedures. Discretionary sanctions is a procedure. If the Arbcom is acting outside the policy in some way, then perhaps this loophole should be plugged, but I sure don't see one. So what do you think is being done outside of policy? Is it that the Arbcom should not be able to decide cases, or is this about some specific action of the admins? —Neotarf (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, there is a world of difference between policies and proceures. The Wikipedia community has authorized ArbCom to write its own procedures provided they are consistent with its scope', for the conduct of arbitrations. See: [32]

The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope; and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them.

The Wikipedia community has not granted ArbCom, in the foregoing statement, the power to rewrite the Wikipedia community's policy defining the powers of administrators, or in fact to draft any policies whatsoever. The foregoing statement merely gives ArbCom a mandate to write the procedures which govern an arbitration. Note also the limiting phrase 'provided they are consistent with its scope', meaning, provided the procedures ArbCom writes governing the conduct of arbitrations are consistent with the limited mandate which the Wikipedia community has granted to ArbCom to settle intractable disputes 'through arbitration, i.e. ArbCom has been given no mandate by the Wikipedia community to settle those intractable disputes by granting 'arbitrator-like powers' to 1400 administrators in violation of the Wikipedia community policy which sets out the limited powers of administrators.

This separation of powers which the Wikipedia community has set out in the mandates it has granted in policy, respectively, to arbitrators and administrators is vital to the function of Wikipedia. That's its structure of governance. The Wikipedia community writes policy and governs Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community, in written policy, has granted a limited power to arbitrators, and a limited power to administrators, and for the arbitrators to meddle with that through DS is ultra vires, i.e. beyond the power the Wikipedia community has granted to the arbitrators. And for the administrators to exercise additional powers beyond what the Wikipedia community has given them is also ultra vires. NinaGreen (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, I forgot to mention, in response to your statement that the Wikipedia community has authorized ArbCom 'to write its own procedures', that DS is not described as a 'procedure', but as a 'remedy' (see [33]), and 'procedures' for an arbitration such as who will be allowed to give evidence, what form that evidence has to take etc. are different from the 'remedies' imposed by the arbitrators in their decision at the end of the arbitration. However, that said, the central point I made above is the same: the Wikipedia community has not granted the arbitrators power to meddle with the Wikipedia community policy on administrators, whether under the context of writing procedures for the conduct of arbitrations, or the imposition of remedies in their decision at the end of an arbitration.

This brings up another key point concerning the mandate given to arbitrators by the Wikipedia community, which is found here: [34]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.

The key phrase is 'to impose binding solutions to 'disputes between editors'. In other words the Wikipedia community has not granted ArbCom the power to impose remedies which have to do with future conduct. ArbCom is limited to imposing remedies on the editors whose conduct is the subject of the arbitration. Clearly, DS are ultra vires on this ground as well since the essence of DS is to grant arbitrator-like powers to administrators to govern editor conduct which has not yet occurred and which may never occur.

How, then, does the Wikipedia community intend future conduct on conflict-ridden pages to be handled? The policies I've quoted make that very clear. After an arbitration, the ball is handed back to the administrators, and if future conduct occurs which is deemed in violation of specific Wikipedia policies, the administrators have all their usual powers at their disposal (see again the Wikipedia community policy defining the powers of administrators quoted elsewhere on this page), and if the future conduct again becomes intractable, the administrators can send whichever editors are causing the problem to arbitration (and presumably, they're going to be different editors this time because in the earlier arbitration the arbitrators will likely have imposed long-term sanctions on the individual editors who were the subject of that earlier arbitration).

If it's allowed to work the way the Wikipedia community has set out in policy, the system is a beautifully balanced and effective one in which the Wikipedia community, the administrators, and the arbitrators all have their defined roles. It's only fallen apart, and become subject to administrator abuse, because of DS. The solution to the problem is clearly to get rid of DS because DS violate the policies written by the Wikipedia community and destroy the system which the Wikipedia community has mandated for Wikipedia's governance. NinaGreen (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman Thank you for your further clarifications of the block here. IMO the "spam" explanation isn't enough, but the ANI peer review comments did provide some useful context, although I was disappointed by the lack of diffs.

I have been trying to follow the discretionary sanctions discussion from a distance, and it has been quite frustrating. The archiving practices have been impossible to follow, whole sections have been blanked, discussions are started in the middle of the page, or refactored into oblivion, and reasonable questions have gone unanswered. The draft proposal itself has no numbering system, and it is impossible to refer to a specific section for orderly discussion.

It doesn't help any that no one seems to be able to say why the discretionary sanctions are being reviewed at this time, after just having been approved two years ago, or why the proposal departs so drastically from current policy and practice, instead of offering incremental, tested changes. There have been some rather negative and provoking comments about non-admins as well, which no one has bothered to object to, although at least one admin has also been snarled at. I don't believe it serves either the Arbcom or the Project to have the subject of discretionary sanctions decided entirely by the arbitration enforcement admins--sort of like having the police make the laws.

In all fairness to Nina, my impression--without having read all the discussions, which are long--is that she has been given some mixed signals about her editing. In some cases her suggestions have been incorporated into the draft text after some convoluted discussion; in other cases her repeated questions, some of which were answered very cordially and I thought succinctly, were removed. She was asked by one editor to post less frequently, and wait for someone else to comment, but when someone else did comment and she responded to their direct question, she was blocked. It won't help Nina any if no one gives her any straight answers. —Neotarf (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing all the arbs' talk pages with a 5k wall of text was the final straw. Previously she made a lot of inflammatory comments. The word "illegal" is especially problematic because she suggests that named people broke the law, which is clearly not the case. She's been posting walls of text, derailing the conversation, making it hard for anybody else to follow, yourself included. I would unblock her if she agrees to stop that particular crusade on all pages of Wikipedia. She's made her point, had well more than her fair share of attention in the discussion, and now needs to leave it to others to get their chance to speak. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, calling my message on the arbitrators' Talk pages 'a 5k wall of text' isn't helpful. My message dealt with the very issue which has been raised here, i.e. the arbitrators' powers, and with Roger Davies' inaccurate statement which led up to my being blocked, as anyone can see who cares to read my message here [35]). There is no Wikipedia policy which states that a member of the Wikipedia community cannot post a message to the arbitrators' Talk pages, yet you blocked me for doing so without giving me the slightest warning or citing any Wikipedia policy which prevents a member of the Wikipedia community from posting a message to the arbitrators' Talk pages.

Calling it 'the final straw' is also not helpful. You were asked earlier on this page by another editor to provide diffs for any contraventions of Wikipedia policy on my part which might justify your calling it the 'final straw', but you refused to provide the diffs, and I'm unaware of any diffs you could provide which would justify the block. Just before you blocked me, Roger Davies (also without providing diffs) had inaccurately stated that I was monopolizing the conversation and preventing other members of the Wikipedia community from commenting in the DS review, but one has only to look at the DS review pages to see the hundreds of comments made in the review (mostly by Roger Davies and a few administrators), none of which I commented on, much less interfered with, in the slightest. Moreover after you blocked me, only a very few comments have been made in the DS review, and it thus appears that, far from getting in the way of the 'conversation', I was one of the few members of the Wikipedia community introducing fresh ideas! What Roger Davies, AGK and Salvio objected to was that I raised questions in the DS review about the definition of the powers of arbitrators and administrators, and in the view of these three arbitrators such questions in a community review are off-limits to community members! That's the real reason why Roger Davies ordered me to 'step back', and that's the real reason I was blocked. I've now quoted Wikipedia policy (see above) which proves that the arbitrators are acting ultra vires (i.e. beyond their powers) in granting administrators 'arbitrator-like powers', and that administrators are acting ultra vires in exercising those 'arbitrator-like powers' in enforcing DS. I've asked you, the arbitrators, and/or any administrator to quote a Wikipedia policy which grants the arbitrators the power to meddle with administrators powers, and neither you, nor any arbitrator or administrator has been able to quote such a policy. It thus seems beyond question that there is no Wikipedia policy which grants the arbitrators power to meddle with the Wikipedia community's policy on the powers of administrators. Now that I've proved that the arbitrators are acting ultra vires you state that I must 'drop the point' as a condition of being unblocked. Can you explain to me why the point should be dropped if the arbitrators are indeed (as I've proved) acting ultra vires (i.e. beyond the powers granted to them by the Wikipedia community), and that administrators are unwittingly acting ultra views in enforcing DS because no-one will undertake to inform them of the situation? Isn't the only proper solution for the arbitrators to lift DS (or at least the part of it which meddles with administrators' powers), for administrators to be informed of the reason why they cannot henceforth enforce DS, and for the members of the Wikipedia community who have already been sanctioned under DS in the ultra vires exercise of arbitrators' and administrators' powers to have their cases reviewed? The problem needs to be fixed, doesn't it? NinaGreen (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nina, could you try to limit your comments to what's most essential. When you post longs screeds, people just ignore them. Why did you post 5k of text to >10 arbitrators' talk pages? There was a page already dedicated for the discussion. Why were you spreading your vituperative comments to over 10 additional pages? Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, your question, 'loaded' with the word 'vituperative' isn't helpful. I stated my reason at the head of the message [see, for example User:Newyorkbrad's Talk page at [36]. The fact that you ask for my reason for posting a message to the arbitrators' Talk pages suggests that you didn't read the message I posted there before blocking me, and that you still haven't read it carefully. Anyone can read what I posted there. It is a polite and factual message, and the unhelpful word you've applied to it ('vituperative') is a complete misnomer. Posting a message to the arbitrators' Talk pages is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy, and I should not have been blocked for it. Since you can't produce any authority for the block, you should lift it. NinaGreen (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, complicated matters can hardly ever be expressed in a sentence or two. As you correctly say, most people pass over "long screeds", but those who are directly involved in a subtle dispute like this one need to be willing to do justice to it by reading and responding to detailed reasoning of those they are sanctioning. If you are suggesting that the English-language Wikipedia has some policy which limits the number of words we are allowed to use on talk pages, would you mind giving us a link to it? If there is one, then in my view it needs to be revisited. For you to seek to limit the scope of the responses of the "accused" does not give the impression of confidence in your own position. Also, when an arbitrator is exercising a judicious function, as you are in this matter, it does not give a terribly good impression for you to use words like "vituperative". My Chambers Dictionary defines that as "uttering, or prone to utter, abuse", and I see no sign of abuse being aimed at you, merely disagreement. All concerned need to play the ball and not the woman, please. Moonraker (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about, and your interference is derailing the conversation, thus preventing any chance of Nine getting unblocked. That's unfortunate. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, I am surprised by your comment above. Would you please be kind enough to clarify a few things for me? (1) What exactly is it that I have said that you disagree with? (2) Why does something said by me here amount to "interference"? (3) Why do you believe that anything I say can be used as a reason to continue a sanction on Nina? Moonraker (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a conversation with Nina. When I ask her a question, please sit on your hands so you don't answer for her. That's not helpful. I want to hear what she has to say. At the moment, on this page, I don't need to hear from you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm very happy to hear from Moonraker, Kumioko (whom you've now again blocked), and all other editors who care to post to my Talk page, and as I understand Wikipedia policy, they are entitled to post here. Can you cite any policy which authorizes you to forbid members of the Wikipedia community from posting to my Talk page? NinaGreen (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First you hand out a ludicrous make-it-up-as-you-go-along block. Then you make an out-of-process demand that NE Ent prove that an IP isn't a sock. Next you go out of your way to trump a charge that Nina is guilty of slander. Then you tell her that you can't be bothered to read her response to your block, and that she will remain blocked unless she writes in a style more to your liking. Finally you declare that because of what Moonraker has written, Nina will remain blocked.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're writing an encyclopaedia here. It's not MTV. It's not a tabloid. We're not obliged to write in sound bites. If you have difficulty reading paragraphs which contain more than three sentences, you shouldn't have become involved here in the first place. 92.40.113.70 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to Nina

Nina, can you agree to the following:

1. Keep conversations on the single designated page. Please don't cross post the same argument to multiple venues.
2. Keep comments to the average length of the comments being posted by other people. Excessively long comments are not welcome.
3. Avoid commenting more frequently than the average discussion participant. Let everybody have a chance to have their comments seen and read.
4. Once a point is made, you do not need to repeat it. Accept that sometimes people aren't going to agree with you and that you probably won't get your way most of the time. That's how things are in a collaborative environment.
5. If somebody suggests that you are violating any of points 1-4, please back away, even if you think they are nuts. You would be welcome to ask me or any other administrator for a second opinion if you get such a request.
6. I want you to archive your talk page threads periodically. This page is extremely long, which could interfere with people being able to leave you a message. Not everybody has a high speed internet connection.

Do you agree with these terms? I'm looking for an answer by Nina. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, see my comment above. You have not produced any authority for the indefinite block. You should lift it, in accordance with Wikipedia policy concerning blocks, i.e. they are not to be imposed when the administrator cannot produce any violation of Wikipedia policy as a justification for the block. Wikipedia cannot function if administrators block at whim, and cannot, when requested to do so, produce, in justification of the block, a Wikipedia policy which has been violated. NinaGreen (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think I would not be the only one who might wonder whether the condition that I archive my Talk page is an attempt to 'bury' what has gone on here in an archive. I think it would benefit the Wikipedia community of editors not to 'bury' it, and to let it remain easily accessible to all members of the Wikipedia community who might want to apprise themselves of what has gone on, and form their own judgments on it. NinaGreen (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion to archive is to be courteous to people who try to read this page. Flooding them with a huge amount of content slows or prevents the page from loading on slow Internet connections. Anybody can wade through your talk page archives just as easily as wading through your talk page content. Please be polite to your peers and archive what's done. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, that's your interpretation of it. Others might think differently, and see your demand as an attempt to 'bury' what's gone on here.

Your conditions above set me up perfectly for future blocks. All an administrator has to do is say one of my messages exceeds some undefined 'average length', or that I haven't heeded an order from any one of the 26,000 Wikipedia editors to 'step back', or that I 'repeated myself', or that I haven't archived my Talk page, and that administrator could then block me, not for violating any Wikipedia policy, but merely for violating 'conditions' which don't apply to any of the other 26,000 Wikipedia editors.

You haven't produced any evidence that I violated any Wikipedia policy, and since no administrator has the right to impose an indefinite block without warning and without citing any violation of Wikipedia policy, you should just lift the indefinite block. NinaGreen (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to set you up for future blocks. You are already blocked, and going to stay that way until you agree to try to get along with your peers. Please stop being paranoid. I'm trying to help you, but an coming to the end of my patience. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. You haven't produced a scrap of evidence that I don't 'get along with my peers', just as you haven't produced a scrap of evidence to justify your imposition of an indefinite block. Where is the evidence that I don't get along with my peers, and precisely which peers are you referring to (usernames, please), and which Wikipedia policies have I violated to justify your allegation that I don't 'get along' with them? NinaGreen (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, here's how you yourself 'get along with your peers'. On this Talk page, without providing an iota of proof, you have accused me of (and I quote): 'spamming', of being 'disruptive' (twice), of misinteracting, of having 'long ago crossed the boundary between reasonable appeal and abuse of process', of using a 'method of discussion' which is 'unacceptable', of 'problematic behaviour', of 'trying to win an argument by burying all other participants in walls of text', of 'slandering people', of 'inflammatory comments', of 'posting walls of text', of conducting a 'crusade', of trying to 'get well more than my fair share of attention', of making 'vituperative comments' and of being 'paranoid'. All of this without producing a shred of proof that any of your allegations are true. In addition, you have suggested that my 28,000 edits on hundreds of Wikipedia articles have created 'a walled garden of pseudo-history that some day will need to be cleaned up'. On top of that, you have told a very valuable and experienced Wikipedia editor, Moonraker, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and have instructed him to 'sit on his hands' when you're asking questions, and have told him that you 'don't need to hear from' him. Is it not legitimate to ask whether you should be presuming to advise others how to 'get along' with their peers? NinaGreen (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for evidence re DS

Jehochman, I see you asked on the DS review page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review] that 'people post their impressions of discretionary sanctions that worked well, and those that worked badly'. It might interest you to know that I earlier raised that very question on the DS review page, i.e. what statistical or anecdotal evidence, or any sort of evidence, exists to prove that DS are working, and did not get an answer. It will be interesting to see whether you get one. NinaGreen (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good point, and that if we both wait, we will see what others have to say. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, see [37], where under the heading 'A Review Can't Take Place in a Vacuum' I asked for 'statistical or anecdotal evidence which demonstrates how the process or procedure has worked in practice'. An administrator, User:Gatoclass, then said:

Certainly, the question of "how [the process] is working" is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

One of the arbitrators conducting the DS review, User:Roger Davies, then said:

For the purpose for which they are intended, there is not much doubt that DS are effective.

Recently on the DS review page, another administrator, User:Johnuniq, who also failed to provide a scrap of evidence, stated flatly that the 'overwhelming majority' of Wikipedia editors support DS, whereas the reality seems to be that most of the 26,000 members of the Wikipedia community who know anything about DS actively dislike and distrust it.

For raising questions such as this I was eventually ordered by Roger Davies to 'step right back', and then you imposed an indefinite block on me. Now you've raised anew a question which I raised weeks ago. I was not only told by an administrator that the question you've now raised anew is 'well beyond the scope' of the DS review', but an arbitrator stated that 'there is not much doubt that DS are effective', without providing a scrap of statistical, anecdotal, or other evidence that his statement is true. So not only did not I get an answer when I raised this question, but I was flatly told that my question was outside the scope of the review, and that anyway, there's not much doubt that DS are effective', and there's thus no need to provide a scrap of evidence that they actually are effective.

So the question now is: Will you be treated differently from me? Will you be told by Gatoclass, or some other administrator, that your question is 'well beyond the scope of the DS review'? Will you be told flatly by an arbitrator that 'there is not much doubt that DS are effective', and that therefore you should consider yourself 'answered'. Will you eventually have some administrator swoop down and impose an indefinite block on you for raising a question which the arbitrators and some administrators don't want to have raised?

I suspect you will be treated differently, and that you will not find yourself indefinitely blocked for raising questions such as: Is there any statistical, anecdotal or other evidence that DS actually work? NinaGreen (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nina. I am not an admin—I just have a bad habit of hanging around offering opinions. Ever since this blew up I have been trying to think of something helpful to say here, but nothing comes to mind. However, to address what is immediately above, the reason that Jehochman will be treated differently is that he is not repeatedly posting long commentary into complex discussions. Further, I imagine that Jehochman is sufficiently experienced that, if he were to express a strong opinion somewhere, he would be able to tell when his opinion was not getting support, and that therefore he should withdraw. On one occasion I saw a good editor who had got into a battle with a group of like-minded people who were pushing a certain line across multiple articles. At ANI, the editor claimed that the others were pushing a particular agenda (I'm not saying what because it is not relevant and is a bit sensitive). I supported the editor as I was (and am) sure that his assessment was correct—the others were pushing the agenda. Several commentators then rejected my opinion. I could have explained to them how wrong they were, and how they had fallen for a politically correct approach, but it was obvious that my explanations—despite their undoubted correctness—would not be accepted. Accordingly, I withdrew and did not push it.

I am not going to get involved in a discussion about how to fix Wikipedia's procedures because such a discussion would be unproductive. The system has evolved to where it is in order to cope with the extraordinarily difficult task of providing some order in an open group of collaborative editors. It is simply impossible to design a system that would provide true justice, or which would satisfy everyone. Of course there will be less-than-perfect results and dissatisfied contributors, but the community is self-run by volunteers. If an admin sees trouble, they need to take action to allow others to go about their business in reasonable calm. The admin can be questioned, and their action can be reviewed at WP:ANI. It may be that only one person responds to such a review, and they might just say "looks ok". However, there are hundreds of others who will have seen the report and who did not think the admin action to be incorrect and so did not bother commenting, or who did not think the admin action to be sufficiently incorrect that a remedy was required. That's all that can be achieved in a self-run community of volunteers.

A long time ago I think I suggested to you that some experience watching noticeboards would be useful because it is eye-opening to see how many disputes arise here, and how passionately they are fought. I am confident that anyone who spent some time seeing what happens in a variety of hot spots would soon recognize that the system of governance at Wikipedia is remarkably successful, and how difficult it would be to devise something better. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, is this a 'wall of text' I see above me? :-)

Apologies for my ignorance; I thought you were an admin.

But to the main point. I don't subscribe to the defeatist attitude that Wikipedia's problems can't be fixed. They can be fixed, and easily, once the arbitrators and administrators stop shooting the messengers (and I'm only one of them) who have pointed out that DS are not only ultra vires, but they don't work and have given rise to an immense bureaucracy of punishment of Wikipedia editors, which is not the way you build an encyclopedia.

As for WP:ANI, forgive me for being sceptical that anything other than rubber-stamping goes on there. Jehochman has been unable to produce any grounds for indefinitely blocking me, yet a large number of administrators simply applauded and rubber-stamped his action when User:Neotarf asked that it be reviewed at WP:ANI. Not a single administrator asked for evidence of the Wikipedia policy I had allegedly violated to justify the indefinite block, or whether I had been warned of the existence of any such policy before being indefinitely blocked. Not one. See here. This is the sort of thing that needs to be changed, and can be changed in a flash. The Wikipedia community policy that no editor can be indefinitely blocked without evidence that the editor has violated a specific Wikipedia policy just needs to be enforced, and no review at WP:ANI should ever rubber-stamp a block by an administrator who hasn't done that. That's the first question WP:ANI needs to ask when it reviews an administrator's action(s): What violation of Wikipedia policy by the editor in question was the basis for the administrator's block? If the administrator can't produce one, WP:ANI should immediately unblock the editor. NinaGreen (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I plonked a wall-of-text above, but it's only one. Examining your contributions from 1 Jan 2014 to 12 Feb 2014 (the time of the block) shows that you made 98 edits to the DS review talk, adding a total of 70,445 bytes, and that you posted the same 4,781-byte message on each of 13 arbitrator talk pages. There is no policy against that, just as there is no policy against lots of undesirable things. Nevertheless, the silence surrounding the block indicates that it has wide support. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Getting unblocked would be easy, although it would involve a commitment to drop the DS matter for now, and it looks as if that would be hard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'll bet two arbitrators, Roger Davies and AGK, made more edits that I did. Did you count theirs up? And (see the new sections below), I was offering fresh analysis and suggestions for fixing serious Wikipedia structural flaws, and as Moonraker pointed out, that sort of analysis can't be done via soundbites. Even you can't discuss complicated matters in soundbites, as your wall of text :-) above demonstrates. And in any event, as you admit, there's no Wikipedia policy against 'walls of text' (an unnecessily pejorative term), and if administrators try to 'enforce' things which aren't violations of Wikipedia policy, the whole system breaks down. There's no excuse for an administrator enforcing anything but Wikipedia policy. As for your claim that the 'silence surrounding the block indicates that it has wide support', consider the link I provided to WP:AIN, which proves that administrators rubber-stamp the actions of their fellow administrators without even requiring evidence that any Wikipedia policy has been violated, and that the rest of the 26,000 Wikipedia editors are running scared. Can you imagine any Wikipedia editors stepping up to support me after the treatment Moonraker received? Or Kumioko received, who has now been blocked for six months? Let's be realistic. The atmosphere of fear which has been created is so pervasive that no editor wants to find him/herself in the arbitrators or administrators' gunsights. Silence is not consent. NinaGreen (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring governance by the Wikipedia community

As I've proved by quoting policy earlier on this page, it is 'the Wikipedia editors as a community' who govern Wikipedia and 'write and revise the website's policies and guidelines'. The Wikipedia community has defined administrators as merely a group of 'privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing', but they 'are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making'. For the quoted statements see [38].

The limited powers granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators in policy are defined at [39] as 'the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools'. According to the Wikipedia community, those powers give administrators sufficient powers to handle conflict-ridden pages by blocking users and blocking pages. And if that doesn't work, the Wikipedia community has provided that individual users can be taken to arbitration (see [40]).

User:Johnuniq and others imply through their messages that a system of governance by the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators has been de facto substituted for governance by the Wikipedia community because a system of governance by arbitrators and administrators is more practical. If that's the case, governance by the Wikipedia community has to be restored.

I made several suggestions in the DS review as to how governance by the Wikipedia community can be restored, and I'll recap and add to them here. The result of restoring governance by the Wikipedia community would be that administrator abuse (which is known to the Wikimedia Foundation and which is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and will eventually cause major donors such as Google to reconsider their donations) would be substantially eliminated.

First, eliminate discretionary sanctions (DS) as they don't work (no evidence has ever been provided that they do work), and are ultra vires in two ways because (1) under DS the arbitrators are acting ultra vires in purporting to grant additional powers to administrators which the arbitrators cannot do in contravention of the Wikipedia community policy limiting the powers of administrators quoted above, and (2) administrators enforcing DS against editors are acting ultra vires as well since they cannot use powers which the arbitrators were acting ultra vires in granting to them.

Second, eliminate all indefinite blocks, whether as a result of arbitrations or elsewhere. All blocks should have a specified date at which they automatically expire. Blocks can be lengthy if necessary, but they need a definite expiry date because otherwise they automatically engender an appeal (or multiple appeals if the first appeal is unsuccessful), or the loss of an editor forever.

Third, eliminate topic bans, whether broadly construed or otherwise. If an editor's conduct is egregious, simply ban that editor from editing anywhere for a definite period of time. There is no logic to saying to an editor: 'Your conduct is egregious, but you can edit here, although not there'.

Fourth, no editor should be blocked, whether in an arbitration or by an administrator, without a specific reference in the block to the specific Wikipedia policy which has been violated, with diffs. Editors are helpless to defend themselves when administrators (as they routinely do) impose blocks (both indefinite and definite) without specifying any Wikipedia policy (with diffs) which the editor has allegedly violated. This applies in particular to administrators' routine use of the term 'disruptive' as an excuse for blocking editors indefinitely, or for lengthy terms, without specifying any Wikipedia policy which the editor has allegedly violated, contrary to WP:DISRUPT, which states that 'Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines'.

Fifth, no 'evidence' should be admitted in an arbitration which does not refer to a specific Wikipedia policy which has allegedly been violated, with diffs. How can it be 'evidence' otherwise?

Sixth, automatically revoke the sysop powers of any administrator who has been inactive for three months. If an administrator isn't active as such, he/she isn't doing the job, so why should he/she continue to have sysop powers? A bot which automatically updates the number of active administrators establishes that more than half the 1400 listed administrators are 'inactive', i.e. basically not editing on Wikipedia at all. The bot identified only 640 administrators as 'active' on 3 March 2014 on the basis that those 640 had made 30 'edits' apiece to Wikipedia in the 2 previous months [41]. But the bot doesn't distinguish between edits related to administrative activity and edits related to Wikipedia content, so the number of administrators out of the 640 who are actually engaging in any administrative activity, i.e. doing the job for which they were granted sysop powers, is likely not more than 300. It is confusing and counterproductive to have 1100 people with sysop powers they're not exercising, thus preventing the Wikipedia community from assessing the track record of the 300 who are actually exercising sysop powers.

Seventh, provide for a review by the Wikipedia community under which every two years the community assesses an active administrator's conduct as an administrator to determine whether it has been helpful to Wikipedia. Alternatively, and this would be far more effective, elect administrators for a two-year term, at the expiry of which their sysop powers would be revoked and they could re-apply for a further two-year term if they wished to. This would provide accountability (which is now entirely lacking).

Eighth, eliminate Arbitration Enforcement WP:AE. There would obviously be no need at all for arbitration enforcement under the foregoing scenario.

This package would restore governance by the Wikipedia community, and would in one fell swoop eliminate virtually all of the massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment which has grown up on Wikipedia through assumption of ultra vires powers by the arbitrators and administrators. That massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment, consisting of appeals, reviews, enforcement, applications for clarification of topic bans, applications for clarification of the term 'broadly construed' etc. etc., all results from discretionary sanctions (DS), from blocks which have no expiry date, from subjective interpretation of whether topic bans have been violated by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, subjective interpretation of the term 'broadly construed' by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, etc. etc., all of which is completely unnecessary, and has resulted in countless injustices, the loss of several thousand editors, damage to Wikipedia's credibility, and the creation of an atmosphere of fear among the 26,000 editors who are actually building the encyclopedia.

Let's fix it! NinaGreen (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

E-mail to Caitlin Cogdill at the Wikimedia Foundation

I received a reply from Caitlin Cogdill at the Wikimedia Foundation a few days ago, and am copying my reply to her of today's date (4 March 2014) below. It is self-explanatory.

Dear Caitlin Cogdill,

Thank you for your reply. You wrote:

Wikipedia and the other websites the Wikimedia Foundation hosts are almost entirely self-governing.Administrators and arbitrators are chosen by the body of volunteers themselves, who also craft the policies and procedures on the site within the boundaries set by the Terms of Use.

I've explained in my previous messages to the Wikimedia Foundation that the problem is that self-government by the Wikipedia community has been usurped, and that it is the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators who are now de facto governing Wikipedia and imposing policies on the 26,000 editors who constitute the Wikipedia community.

As a result, it is impossible to deal with the situation unless the Wikimedia Foundation suspends funding until the arbitrators and administrators allow governance by the Wikipedia community to be restored.

I raised the foregoing issue in what purported to be a review by the Wikipedia community of Discretionary Sanctions (DS). As a result, at the instigation of one of the arbitrators who was conducting the review, Roger Davies, and with the support of another arbitrator heavily involved in the review, AGK, I was indefinitely blocked by an administrator, Jehochman, who has since adamantly refused to justify the indefinite block by providing evidence that I violated any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, and has also adamantly refused to lift it. Jehochan has also made many slanderous comments about me on my Talk page which he has refused to substantiate in any way (and cannot substantiate, since they are untrue). Another editor, Kumioko, who raised similar issues concerning the DS review was also recently blocked for six months. Other members of the Wikipedia community who have ventured to comment have been told that they have no right to speak up by Jehochman, on my Talk page, and by an arbitrator, AGK (who on the AIN noticeboard told another editor, Neotarf, that he also had been ordered 'to back away' from the DS review). Moreover Jehochman has also blocked all IP editors from editing on my Talk page from now until next August, contrary to Wikipedia policy, which allows editors to edit anywhere on Wikipedia using IPs.

It seems clear that members of the Wikipedia community who oppose the ultra vires usurpation of governance of Wikipedia by the arbitrators and administrators are threatened, slandered, silenced and blocked by the arbitrators and administrators, and that they will not be unblocked unless they agree to drop the issue. See my Talk page at [42]. Your suggestion that the issue be raised at Meta (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is thus clearly impossible to carry out, as blocked editors cannot edit at Meta, and the treatment which the arbitrators and administrators have already meted out to any member of the Wikipedia community who has dared to raise the issue has undoubtedly struck fear into any other member of the Wikipedia community who might be concerned about the topic, and has persuaded such editors that it would be foolhardy indeed to raise the issue at Meta, or anywhere on Wikipedia, including the very DS review itself, which would be the most appropriate forum for raising it were the arbitrators and administrators conducting the review not determined to crush all dissent by blocking editors who express an opinion concerning their ultra vires assumption of governance of Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation cannot continue to fund Wikipedia when members of the Wikipedia community are intimidated, slandered, silenced, and rendered powerless in this way by the arbitrators and administrators, who clearly hold all the tools of power, and exercise them against members of the Wikipedia community who dare to raise the issue that they are acting ultra vires. Major donors such as Google would be shocked if they were made aware of this information.

I've copied below suggestions I made on my Talk page which would restore governance by the Wikipedia community. Please forward this e-mail, the suggestions, and all my earlier e-mails to your supervisor. It's important that those at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation be made aware of the current situation.

Incidentally I was told by Maggie Dennis that she had passed my earlier e-mails on to Philippe Beaudette. Accordingly, I'm forwarding a copy of this message to both Maggie Dennis and Philippe Beaudette in order to inform everyone at the Wikimedia Foundation who has been involved so far.

Sincerely,

Nina Green

[I copied the immediately preceding section 'Restoring governance by the Wikipedia community' at the end of my e-mail to Caitlin Cogdill, but won't re-copy it here, as it's unnecessary to do so.]

AGK (who on the AIN noticeboard told another editor, Neotarf, that he also had been ordered 'to back away' from the DS review). I have never stated I was ordered (who exactly would order me?) to step away from the DS Review. AGK [•] 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators pushing ahead with alleged 'community' DS review after having silenced community editors and after having been made aware that DS are ultra vires

See this [43] today at the alleged community review of DS in which the arbitrators have silenced all community editors who disagree with DS, and who hold that DS are ultra vires the powers of both the arbitrators to impose and administrators to enforce:

That probably goes a bit too far in the opposite direction but if you can bump this up in a week or so (I've got my hands full at the moment), we can look at the alert text once DSR v3 has been posted. User:Roger Davies 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia governed by the community of 26,000 editors? It would appear not. Community editors who challenged the ultra vires actions of the arbitrators and administrators in imposing and enforcing DS have been silenced and blocked for no other reason than that they raised the ultra vires issue, and any other community editor who holds that view has been put in fear of being indefinitely blocked without any reason being given by the blocking administrator, and Roger Davies then pushes ahead with an alleged 'community' review of DS as though the review had any legitimacy as a community review, when it fact it is a review dominated by three arbitrators and a handful of administrators who like, and routinely enforce, DS, and all views from community editors with whose views these arbitrators and administrators disagree are silenced. NinaGreen (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement re evidence of administrator abuse on Wikipedia was deleted

Earlier on this page I quoted this paragraph as evidence that the Wikimedia Foundation had to be aware of complaints within Wikipedia of abuse of editors by administrators:

Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."

I provided a link to this page entitled Criticisms of Wikipedia so that anyone interested, including the Wikimedia Foundation, could see the foregoing paragraph for themselves: [44]. However anyone now clicking on that link can no longer find a paragraph entitled 'Complaints about administrator abuse'. On 25 February the first statements in the paragraph concerning administrator abuse were entirely deleted, and the balance of the paragraph was given the completely misleading title 'Assessment that content is not widely generated by lots of users', as though it had to do with content, rather than administrator abuse (see [45] and [46]).

There is a disturbing pattern here. In the alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), comments by community editors which were in any way critical of DS were buried in archives by the arbitrators, and the community editors making them were silenced by arbitrators and administrators. Now the foregoing paragraph stating that there is widespread concern, both within Wikipedia and among the general public, about administrator abuse in Wikipedia has been deleted. NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Jehochman repeatedly blocking IP address

On what authority, and for what purpose, is User:Jehochman, an administrator, repeatedly blocking an IP address from which no-one is attempting to do anything contrary to Wikipedia's policies? I noticed that there was a block on the IP address set to expire close to midnight on 11 March, and it has now expired, and Jehochman has immediately replaced it with a new block on the IP address which states that 'This block has been set to expire: 03:36, 13 March 2014. The block ID is: 5024526'. Is anyone (which certainly wouldn't be me!) who attempts to edit from this IP address going to be blocked ad infinitum by Jehochman, with a series of blocks which are immediately replaced as soon as one expires, and if so, under what authority? NinaGreen (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)NOt

Not so, you can see Jehochman's blocking activity here.

If this is all about challenging your editing restrictions under the Shakespeare authorship question case, changing the discretionary sanctions procedures would not change anything that has already happened. Check the wording of the "continuity" section of the proposal: "All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier iterations of this process remain in force." It is not meant to be retroactive. You would still have to file some kind of appeal. —Neotarf (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, I don't see the ad infinitum block of the IP address listed at the first link you provided above. Are you confusing it with Jehochman's block of my Talk page, which he put in place solely to prevent Kumioko from 'IP-hopping', and which prevents anyone with an IP address from editing on my Talk page? (And where's the authority for that block, incidentally?) The block I'm talking about above is identified as '5024526', and it prevents anyone using that IP address from editing anywhere on Wikipedia. Under what authority did Jehochman impose it?

Re your second paragraph. The objection to discretionary sanctions (DS) has nothing to do with me personally. It has to do with the fact that DS are ultra vires, that is, beyond the powers of the arbitrators to impose, and beyond the powers of administrators to enforce, as per the Wikipedia policies enacted by the community which I've explained in detail above, and as a result of being ultra vires, DS have led to the widespread problem of administrator abuse which is currently plaguing Wikipedia and causing a drain in good editors and disrupting the governance of Wikipedia. The arbitrators were elected by the Wikipedia community to serve the community in a specific way, not to govern the community or to write policy. The essence of DS is that the arbitrators have given the administrators powers the community has not granted the administrators in policy. That's ultra vires'. The question is whether the arbitrators are 'big' enough to collectively admit that they (and their predecessor arbitrators) have made a mistake in going beyond the powers granted to them by the community, and to lift DS and inform all administrators that they have no power to enforce DS, and that the administrators must limit themselves to using the powers granted to them in policy by the Wikipedia community, which are sufficiently ample to get the job done. So far the arbitrators have given no sign that they are 'big' enough to admit their mistake, and back down. Instead, on 8 March, an arbitrator, User:Roger Davies, indicated that he was preparing to push on to DS version 3, which, if past practice is any indication, would involve 'burying' User:IvanStambuk's comments in an archive. IvanStambuk's wide-ranging critique of DS, which includes the fact that they are ultra vires has not been dealt with. Doubtless any community editor is now afraid to speak up in support of IvanStambuk's critique, considering that all of the community editors who have dared to speak up in the alleged 'community' review of DS were blocked and silenced. Doubtless IvanStambuk himself is afraid to speak up further for the same reason.

So, to summarize. What is the authority for Jehochman's block of the IP address which prevents anyone using that address from editing anywhere on Wikipeda? And secondly, are the arbitrators 'big' enough to admit that DS are ultra vires, and lift DS throughout Wikipedia? NinaGreen (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not afraid - I was just busy with other things elsewhere :-) But I agree with much of NinaGreen's conclusions. Perhaps the proper way to dismantle DS would be to systematically quantify its negative impact, history, and suggest remedies:

1. inspect how many editors have been blocked and by which admins. I suspect that the number of admins enforcing DS is quite small - another reason to abolish it as a project-wide policy (or as a procedure in ArbCom's parlance). Something handled by 10-20 admins can easily be handled by ArbCom itself.
2. inspect how do warnings and AE blocks negatively impact editor productivity (articles or edits per time period), and lead to departure. I suspect there is a strong correlation. This can easily be automated.
3. gather testimonies from editors who were blocked under DS. What do they think of DS as a dispute resolution "process". In many cases good-faith editors promoting NPOV were blocked simply because they were outnumbered by POV-pushers who submitted AE case.
4. document the cases leading to the evolution of DS as we have them now - applying to hundreds of topic areas, to editors and articles which were not a subject of an ArbCom case. I.e., from "Editors A, B and C can't reach a consensus on an article X" to "We [admins] need a carte blanche to block whomever we want, whenever we want." In linear timeline with timestamps so that everyone can have a bird's eye view of the history of DS.
5. Suggest remedies through decentralization, encoding limitations (such as 3RR) into MediaWiki, community referendum on the limits of ArbCom's power which are currently unchecked and above policies, and other stuff that has been suggested.

Perhaps the proper venue would be a Request for Comment at Meta because many of the interested parties are blocked on English Wikipedia (and keep getting blocked apparently, judging by the title of this section). Everyone who has ever been blocked under DS should be notified. Considering that ArbCom is Jimbo's brainchild, he should be notified with a brief summary of the main arguments if the discussion gains traction. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nina, my apologies, there is indeed an account creation block on your account here.

Ivan, well spoken. I would certainly support an RFC on Meta. And I would welcome whatever metrics are available for further evaluation.

The current discretionary sanctions conversation is not meant to address the broader issue of how DS procedures are working; it is a narrowly tailored discussion, and is taking place on ArbCom subpages, which is hardly a neutral space for proper community discussion.

By the same token, the two arbs undertaking the review, Roger Davies and Anthony (AGK), are doing exactly what we elected them to do, and I publicly supported both of them for re-election. They have both been involved in previous work with developing discretionary sanctions procedures and should be given some leeway in making their investigation. Anthony in particular I believe was "present at the creation" and possibly knows more about the history of DS than anyone on the Wikipedia.

Perhaps there could be parallel discussions.

With regards to your first point, I believe there are only 2 or 3 admins currently working with Arbitration Enforcement, rather than 10-20, but I seem to recall a lot more than that a year or two ago. The AE admins seem to be the only ones whose input is being accepted in the present conversation and incorporated into the document.

I also ran into a comment the other day about a "bill of rights for content builders" [47]. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time and was startled to see someone else articulate it. I would like to see some community discussion about that one. —Neotarf (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, thanks for finding User:Jehochman's block of the IP address, which appears to have been done secretly, and without authority.

One point for the moment re your comments above. The arbitrators were not elected by the Wikipedia community to act ultra vires, and irrespective of how narrow the intended scope of the DS review, the review itself is ultra vires because DS are ultra vires. All the arbitrators must by now be well aware that discretionary sanctions (DS) are ultra vires, and if the current arbitrators cannot act within the powers granted to them by the Wikipedia community they should resign, and replacement arbitrators can then be elected by the Wikipedia community who will act within the powers granted to them by the Wikipedia community. Ditto for administrators who are enforcing DS, knowing they are ultra vires. They, too, should resign if they cannot limit themselves to acting within the powers granted to them by the Wikipedia community in the policy quoted above and many times referred to in this discussion. Community editors are routinely blocked and banned by arbitrators and administrators for not adhering to Wikipedia policy. Is there a double standard for arbitrators and administrators, whereby they can openly flout Wikipedia policy, even when repeatedly made aware that their actions are ultra vires? NinaGreen (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, User:Jehochman has renewed the above-mentioned block which prevents anyone using a particular IP address from editing on Wikipedia. The renewal says: 'This block has been set to expire: 18:40, 15 March 2014. The block ID is: 5026593.' This block also appears to have been put on in secret, and without authority, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. NinaGreen (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

NinaGreen, what's happening here is called an WP:Autoblock. It's an automatic feature, it is suppoded to work like this, there is nothing "secret" or "unauthorized" about it, and Jehochman didn't in fact actively "renew" anything. It's a standard Mediawiki software function. If a block is placed on a named account, then the software will automatically also block any IPs that have recently been used by that account, once somebody tries to edit from them again. Most blocks are configured to trigger this effect, to stop blocked editors from sockpuppeting. Now, the question is, who edited from your IP(s)? If it was somebody other than you, who just happened to share the same IP, and they were prevented from making some otherwise legitimate edits by it, then it would be a case of regrettable "collateral damage". In that case, that person would be welcome to contact an administrator to work out a technical workaround that would allow them to edit. If, however, that person was you, and you yourself triggered that autoblock, then I can only say the autoblock is doing exactly what it is meant to do: stop you from editing, because you are not supposed to be editing. From the fact that you actually know about these autoblocks, I conclude that this is the more likely scenario (because if it was somebody else who was hit by them, how would you ever find about about it?) So, just to be clear, can I ask you: were you in fact trying to edit? If not, what happened, and how did you come to know about the autoblocks? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., of course I haven't tried to edit using that IP address. Give me credit for not being an idiot. And the block was put on secretly by User:Jehochman; no-one was advised of it, least of all me. And it is contrary to Wikipedia policy (see WP:BLOCK). NinaGreen (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So how exactly did you become aware of the autoblock? As far as I'm aware, the software doesn't actually notify you of the existence of a block, until the moment you try to edit. (And no, the autoblock was not "put on secretly" by Jehochman; you haven't been listening to what I explained to you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I've told you I did not attempt to edit from that IP address. I'm not an idiot; I know full well how many administrators are watching me like a hawk just hoping I'll trip up and do something stupid like try to edit from my IP address. And the autoblock was put on secretly by User:Jehochman because no-one was advised of it. User:Neotarf had to search to even find that it existed (see above). And the block is contrary to Wikipedia policy because no-one is doing any editing from that IP address which is in any way harmful to Wikipedia, so the block is merely preventing any legitimate editors at that IP address from editing Wikipedia. If you're not going to remove it, why are you wasting time here? NinaGreen (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that does it for me. You are evidently not in a mood for listening to what other people tell you and for communicating constructively. I asked you a simple, direct question; you refuse to answer it. I gave you a clear and simple explanation about how that autoblock comes about; you choose to roundly ignore it. Moreover, I see that you opted to post yet another lengthy restatement of your gripe with DS policy underneath this thread, instead of answering my question. You were blocked for your lengthy and repetitive belabouring of this same point, because it was disrupting discussion in other fora, and you are now about to disrupt even this discussion, by again drowning the whole page in walls of text.

Please be advised that when you are blocked, your entitlement to use your own talkpage is limited. It should normally be used only for discussing any unblock requests you might have and similar related matter. What it should definitely not be used for is excessive soapboxing over the matters you have been in disputes about.

I will therefore remove that latest posting of yours, and revoke your talkpage access. From now on you can make any further unblock requests only by e-mail to the Arbcom ban appeals committee. I'm sure they will unblock you if and when you are willing to give a credible commitment to (a) respect your existing sanctions in the Shakespeare matter, and (b) stop beating the dead horse about the DS policy issue. Until then, good bye. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Future Perfect's action, while unusual, is appropriate in this particular situation. For some time Nina has ignored my suggestions that she agree to reasonable limits on behavior and politely request an unblock. She has repeatedly posted my name on this page, to repeatedly and annoyingly draw my attention when there's nothing new to look at. Many features of Wikipedia can be abused to annoy other editors, including the little red notification square. (As an administrator I am prepared to endure such annoyances indefinitely, but of course if somebody else spontaneously decides to end them, I welcome that.) Nina, Future Perfect has given you good advice on how to file a successful appeal. Please consider it. If you want to publish complaints about Wikipedia, please consider using Blogspot, Wordpress or some other site where such personal commentary is welcomed. For the record I did not request Future Perfect take this action, nor did I correspond with him at all about this. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing unusual about Future Perfect's blocking of talk page access is the amount patience shown. NinaGreen made no attempt to address the reason for their block and instead used their talk page to continue the problematic behavior that led to the block in the first place. In the majority of cases, this would have led to removal of talk page access in a week or less, instead of over a month. The amount of patience shown towards NinaGreen is extraordinary. Edward321 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for NinaGreen to be unblocked from access to this page

Fut.Perf., in all of the above it seems to be overlooked that NinaGreen is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia in the field of English history. As I see it, we need to take a step back from the surely not very significant forms of "disruption" which have been suggested recently and see if the matter can be resolved amicably. I should like to see what can now be sorted out, and to assist in that I should be grateful if you would unblock NinaGreen's access to this talk page. I do not see that there can be much harm in it, and it would improve the transparency of how this matter is resolved. Moonraker (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't in the end get around to carrying out what I said I would, so the talkpage access did not in fact get blocked. If NinaGreen wants to get back to constructive editing in fields other than Shakespeare, she knows what she has to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fut.Perf., I'm glad to hear that. NinaGreen is an outstanding editor, and not one of us is without faults. "Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, alii leviora, alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi aut aliena nequitia ablati... nec deliquimus tantum, sed usque ad extremum aevi delinquemus." Moonraker (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonraker, for getting this block issue cleared up. Without your message here, I likely would have gone on forever thinking Future Perfect actually had blocked my access to my Talk page. As it was, I did so for two weeks. NinaGreen (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect, you say 'I didn't in the end get around to carrying out what I said I would'. The fact is that you did entirely remove my last comment on this Talk page, which is one of the things you said you would do. You should restore it. And the fact also is that everyone, including me, thought I was blocked from my Talk page for the past two weeks, and neither you, nor two administrators Jehochman and Edward321, nor an arbitrator, AGK, all of whom posted comments on my Talk page after you said you'd blocked me from it, did a thing about the block they all assumed you had put in place, despite the fact that I had clearly not violated any Wikipedia policy (Jehochman and Edward321 even applauded your block!). This is what Discretionary Sanctions (DS) have done to Wikipedia; through DS the 1400 administrators have been given licence to block content editors for anything they (the administrators) consider 'disruptive' or 'misbehaviour', in other words, to block content editors at personal whim. Content editors like me would prefer to do what we do best, i.e. add new content sourced to reliable sources to Wikipedia. But with DS running rampant, content editors cannot feel safe from blocks at whim by the 1400 administrators, so why would they risk editing? I'm still blocked indefinitely from editing by Jehochman, who has never provided evidence that I violated any Wikipedia policy in order to justify the indefinite block, yet Jehochman adamantly refuses to lift it unless I agree to conditions he has no right to impose on me because he has never provided a justification for the block. There should be a firm rule on Wikipedia that content editors cannot be blocked by administrators unless evidence, with diffs, is provided which clearly demonstrates that the editor in question has violated a specific Wikipedia policy. Someone has to take a stand on this or the situation, which is already bad, will deteriorate further. It appears that I've been put in the position of having to take that stand. I would prefer to edit, but I'm indefinitely blocked from editing, not because I violated any Wikipedia policy, but merely because Jehochman felt like blocking me indefinitely from editing. NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, NinaGreen, I said you knew what you would have to do if you want to get back to editing. Jumping back into the same kind of rant is most certainly not that thing. It seems you are still not willing to comply, so there is nothing else this talkpage could be good for at this moment. I left things as they stood the other day when I realized I had forgotten to actually perform the talpage block, because I felt that as long as you had at least gone quiet there was no need, but seeing we are back at the same situation again, I'll just do the block now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on the wiki

Nina, I was forwarded an email thread by you, which suggests that you have emailed a half-dozen WMF staff and tried to email every WMF trustee some of your lengthy comments above, many times over the past week. This is not helpful.

Please keep any discussion about this on the wiki (this one and Meta). These sorts of wiki governance and policy issues are owned and run by the community, and any disputes are resolved within the community. The WMF and its board are not a court of appeals.

Writing as a community member, it seems to me that you have gotten good advice above, and are frustrating your audience. Angry text-rich manifestos are not likely to gain support in the broader community. A concise, neutral proposal for change might stimulate a useful meta-discussion. – SJ + 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled, can someone please answer this for me? On 29 March, Fut.Perf. said in the thread above that NinaGreen's talk page access had been blocked, and on 1 April SJ advised her to "Please keep any discussion about this on the wiki (this one and Meta)." NinaGreen's supposed offences still strike me as terribly trivial, and she is a useful contributor in the field of English history, so I am hoping that she can be reinstated, but does she have any medium for saying anything now? And where can I and other community members take part in discussion of the matter? Moonraker (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to unblock the account. As far as I can tell, she was blocked for using her user space to write messages about her belief that the English Wikipedia ArbCom exceeds its authority in its rulings. It's not the kind of thing for which she should apologize, or from which she should promise forever to refrain, to be unblocked. Italick (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It could be brought to WP:AN. That is how somebody got this editor unblocked. [48] [49] But first you might discuss unblocking NinaGreen with Jehochman. Italick (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly easy: if NinaGreen wishes to be unblocked, she just needs to make an unblock request, through the usual channels. For it to be a convincing unblock request and likely to succeed, the only thing it should not be is a continuation of the pattern of behaviour that was felt to be disruptive. NinaGreen was blocked for excessive, repetitive walls of text about perceived grievances, which in the eyes of pretty much everybody else was very much beating dead horses. The problem with Nina's behavior so far has been that every reaction from her since that block, here on her talkpage or off-wiki in those various e-mails mentioned above, was a continuation of the precise same repetitive walls of text. So it would be a great step forward if her next unblock request contained, not necessarily an apology or a promise to "never" do it again, but simply something other than yet another re-statement of those old grievances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Italick, I'm happy to agree with you that it's time to unblock the account. And thank you, Fut.Perf., you go almost as far. NinaGreen is such a valuable contributor here that I am trying to ease the way for a return, so would you agree that the following request would serve the purpose: "Fut. Perf., would you please be kind enough to unblock my account?" You say "through the usual channels", should we give NinaGreen access to this talk page, so that she can make the request here, or did you have something else in mind? I say this with my fingers crossed, because until now I have had no contact with her away from Wikipedia. No doubt sooner or later she will take a look at this page. Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding mention by User:Paul Barlow. The thread is Abuse of Talk Page ownership. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Nina, I put a barnstar on your user page. It got whited out, so I thought I'd tell you here. I hope you get the account block taken back one day. Italick (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal at Administrator's Noticeboard to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing

Hello Nina. I am proposing at WP:AN that you be unblocked. Italick (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the idea sold itself like igloos in Egypt, but it was worth a try. Italick (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Italick, would you mind proposing this again? Nina is a great editor and is sorely missed in the English history pages. Moonraker (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Italick, this blocking was the most amazing fuss over nothing. I'm still anxious to get Nina unblocked. How can we go about it? Moonraker (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

25 DYK CE Award

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		belatedly awarded for 25+ DYK creations/expansion DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access

Future Perfect at Sunrise, could you please answer this, is NinaGreen able to edit her talk page now? Moonraker (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The talkpage block is still in place. We could lift it now, of course, to see if she wishes to submit a new unblock appeal. Of course, she could have done that all the time, via WP:UTRS. Do you have some information she wishes to return at this point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(watching) @Moonraker: According to the log, Fut.Perf. removed talk page access in 2014. Punitively, I assume, since they had apparently "forgotten to originally do so", or something, and then did so after only one innocuous message had been posted. It would be good for the community of 2021 to be given the opportunity to discuss the affair—coincidentally, third-party block reviews have recently been codified ([50])—including Jehochman's slight vacant block reasoning.

Mind you, I might advise that, while I think seven years is long enough a block for anyone (excluding those with real-life implications), discretionary sanctions are even more of a thing now than they were in 2014. Concomitantly, they are even more of a pointless hill to have an OK Corral on than in 2014. (Indeed, they are still being expanded: so if you can't live in a world alongside 'em, don't appeal.) ——Serial 08:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I don’t have any new information at all. You say the talk page block is still in place and we could lift it now, to see if NinaGreen wishes to say anything, so I’d be grateful if you would do that. WP:UTRS is all very well, but the community can’t see what happens with wmflabs.org or comment on it. It seems to me there is a good chance an open discussion would now be in favour of inviting NinaGreen to come back. Her contributions to the early modern history pages were outstanding and are much missed. Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to unblock the account. This could have been resolved immediately after the block if the NinaGreen had simply requested unblock and agreed to stop the various negative behaviors documented in their block log. Let's see what happens. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense, fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any active restrictions or whatever? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know the topic ban from Shakespeare per WP:ARBSAQ is still in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone kindly informed me via email today that I've been 'unblocked'. I'd like some official clarification from the arbitrators as to what 'unblocked' actually means, and what the status of the topic ban is after 10 years or whatever amount of time it's been since the Wikipedia arbitration. Nina Green

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jehochman, earn your pay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

You are unblocked for now. You can edit constructively, or not. The choice is yours. The topic ban imposed by ArbCom is indefinite length. [51]. It appears to still be in effect. My unblock has no effect either way on that. If you want to know for sure, ask an arbitration clerk . Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

One of these: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

An arbitration clerk can't rule on this. The arbitrators need to rule on it. The topic ban has been in effect for ten years, and is vast (anything connected to Shakespeare or Edward de Vere). Shakespeare and Edward de Vere, and people, literary works and historical events connected to them, are my area of expertise (see my website, which has hundreds of transcriptions of original documents from the period). What would be the point of attempting to edit? It would be impossible to avoid infringing the topic ban. Nina Green

The lengthy and thoroughly sourced Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere I wrote a decade ago is essentially as it was when I wrote it. In short, the author of the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere has been indefinitely topic-banned by Wikipedia for 10 years and counting from editing on Edward de Vere. It's difficult to overstate the irony of this, don't you think? Nina Green

Hello Nina Green. Welcome back! I believe the ban issue was not connected at all to scholarly issues. If I remember correctly, after some time working on DYK articles, you started questioning the whole authority and role of administrators, and the whole hierarchy of Wikipedia. Even though I admired your scholarly contributions to Wikipedia since the beginning, I could never begin to understand that other, later part. I'm still here for the simple reason that I learn a lot here, always, and I enjoy learning. It is a huge project and I don't understand many parts of it. I don't get into stuff I don't understand. As long as I keep learning and enjoying the new knowledge I acquire, I keep reading. I think if you get too involved in the larger stuff you start not enjoying the little work and the learning it brings. Wikipedia for me is just a little hobby that I enjoy on the side. On the moment I feel it is starting to maybe become more than that, I will stop and disengage. Just a thought. Be well. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that scenario. In any event, it's incorrect. Check the arbitration. Frankly, I think it's best not to speculate, and just let the arbitrators rule on this. It's their call as to whether they want to lift the topic ban after 10 plus years, or whether they just want to keep on keeping on. Nina Green

I am sorry, Nina. I think I understand now. I confused the arbitration with the later ban, which was now lifted, thankfully. As I said, I really don't understand very well administrative issues. They are too confusing, and I simply choose not the expend any of the very rare and precious (for me) gray matter on them. I'd certainly hope they'd lift the topic ban, but chances of it happening do look slim to me, unfortunately. Good luck! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be actively appealed at WP:ARCA; that means you filing an appeal, not waiting for the committee to do anything off its own back. (It won't.) ——Serial 18:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not filing an appeal. Ten years and counting is long enough for any topic ban, and the arbitrators can lift the ban on their own initiative if they choose to do so. Nina Green

This decision just in the news today re Facebook:

>“It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored,” the board said.<

Why should Wikipedia be able to do what is impermissible for Facebook? Wikipedia blocked me indefinitely (a block which has only just now been lifted after many years), and imposed an indefinite topic ban (which has not yet been lifted, and for which no criteria were stated in the arbitration as to when it would be lifted). Impermissible, according to today's news story quoted above. The arbitrators should life the topic ban of their own accord. Nina Green

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi NinaGreen! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)