Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:01, 2 February 2011

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion proposed by NinaGreen

1) As we drill deeper, it seems clear that one of the primary causes of the dispute is the failure to carry out the merge order and Tom Reedy's attempt to take the SAQ article to FA status without carrying out the merge order and while the SAQ article, by his own admission, contained brief articles on four authorship candidates which were 'not very good'. I knew nothing of the merge order, and independently came to the conclusion that there was considerable duplication and confusion among the SAQ article and several other main articles on the authorship controversy. I brought the matter up on the SAQ Talk page, to no effect.[1] I have now proposed on this Workshop page that two significant steps be taken to implement the merge order (delete the lengthy history section in the SAQ article and merge it into the main article on the History of the Shakespeare Authorship, and delete the four 'not very good' sections on the four authorship candidates in the SAQ article and replace them with links to the four existing main articles on those candidates). Objections to my proposal to merge were raised by both Nishidani and Johnuniq on this Workshop page, and Tom Reedy then initiated this discussion [2] on my Talk page suggesting that I am confused about the nature of the merge order:

I think you are confused about the nature of the merge order. The order was intended to write one comprehensive SAQ article and then delete the Oxfordian article and eventually all the candidate articles, leaving only one article to cover all the candidates and the associated arguments for them. It was primarily to counter all the satellite articles springing up around the Oxfordian article, such as the Oxfordian chronology and biographical parallels articles.

And you never edited the SAQ article or talk page until 15 Dec, after I listed the page for peer review, where your first SAQ-associated edit appeared. Until then, neither you, Zweigenbaum, not any of the other editors supporting you at ArbCom had ever evinced the slightest interest in the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, since I knew nothing about the merge order until the other day, it's quite possible that I'm confused about its contents. I came to my own conclusion independently several weeks ago that there was duplication in the articles concerning the authorship controversy and brought the matter up on the SAQ Talk page.

Today I came across this comment on the Talk page for the Oxfordian authorship article:[3]

Is this a joke? You've deleted 12,617 words and claim the content has been merged into another article, where a total of 355 words have been written on it (including the link "Main article: Oxfordian theory") backstage by two editors who's sole purpose in life seems to be to ridicule the authorship question. Even if you agree with them that authorship doubt is a fringe job akin to holocaust denial, wp:fringe theories guides us that "sufficiently notable" theories warrant a dedicated article. The number of books, high profile supporters, dissertations, papers, websites, and even a forthcoming (probably silly) movie should make the Oxfordian theory fit that bill. Afasmit (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about Afasmit and had never heard of him/her until today, but his/her point seems well taken that replacing a 12,617-word main article on the Oxfordian authorship with a 355-word section in the SAQ article raises a very large question mark as to why that would happen, and if that was what the merge decision actually stipulated, then it doesn't seem surprising that Jimmy Wales has stated on the Evidence page in the arbitration that the merge decision was prematurely foreclosed [4].

In any event, the merge decision was not carried out, and we now have an opportunity to reach agreement on your recent suggestion that the main authorship articles on the alternative candidates should be retained, and that the sections on the authorship candidates in the SAQ article should be deleted, and links provided to the main articles. Can we reach agreement on that point? I'm sure the arbitrators would be pleased if agreement could be reached on something to move the dispute forward and serve the project, as per the stated purposes of arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I likely am confused about the specifics of the merge order. Neither its existence nor the reasons for Tom Reedy's failure to carry it out while working on the SAQ article and bringing the SAQ article forward as a candidate for FA status were brought to my attention when I recently raised the topic of duplication and confusion between the SAQ article and other articles on the authorship controversy on the SAQ Talk page.

I am therefore requesting the arbitrators to clarify several points for all of us so that evidence can be brought forward accurately in this arbitration and we can move the dispute forward and serve the project. Firstly, who requested the merge order? Secondly, what are its precise contents? Thirdly, would the result of the merge order have been to replace the 12,617-word main article on the Oxfordian authorship with a 355-word section in the SAQ article which by Tom Reedy's own admission is 'not very good', as Afasmit has suggested above?

It will be up to the arbitrators to determine whether there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the Oxfordian authorship theory or not, but the request for the merge order, the failure to carry it out, and the attempt to secure FA status for the SAQ article suggest to me that the purpose was to eventually delete all other articles on the authorship controversy, leaving a brief and 'not very good' 355-word article on the SAQ as the sole source of information on the Oxfordian authorship theory.NinaGreen (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked above for clarification from the arbitrators on three questions, and in light of the apparently brand-new information provided by Smatprt below that Science Apologist was not an administrator and is now permanently banned, I would request clarification from the arbitrators on three additional questions. Firstly, how did Science Apologist become involved with the merge order dispute (I read somewhere that it was through an Administrator Noticeboard, but can't find any record of the interaction)? Secondly, how did Science Apologist manage to pass himself off as an administrator in that dispute? Thirdly, when did Tom Reedy and Nishidani learn that Science Apologist was not an administrator and that he had been permanently banned? All of this has considerable bearing on whether Tom Reedy and Nishidani were acting in good faith towards me, a question which clearly arises from the fact that when I brought up the issue of the obvious duplication among the SAQ article and related articles on the authorship controversy, Tom Reedy and Nishidani failed to advise me of the merge order by Science Apologist, and instead treated my question as an example of alleged 'disruptive behaviour' on my part. I can't put in my evidence until I know what actually went on.

On a separate matter, it seems clear that the merge order should be immediately voided since it was made by someone who had no authority to make it.NinaGreen (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reedy appears to have responded on behalf of the arbitrators below, but I trust the arbitrators will respond themselves to my questions. Moreover Tom Reedy's statement that I will 'have to do my own digging' is a clear example of Tendentious Editing on his part [5]

You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.

I have searched for the information as to who initiated the request for the merge and cannot locate it. It was apparently not initiated on the SAQ Talk page. I saw a mention somewhere indicating that it might have been initiated on an Administrator Noticeboard but I cannot find that either. There is only a very unusual archive of the decision on the SAQ Talk page which Tom Reedy has referenced below. I can find nothing anywhere concerning who initiated the merge request, where it was initiated, or how Science Apologist rendered a decision on the merge request by passing himself off as an administrator. Nor has there been any explanation as to why Tom Reedy and Nishidani failed to advise me of the merge decision when I independently, knowing nothing of the merge decision, raised the issue on the SAQ Talk page that there is a great deal of the duplication among the SAQ articles and other articles on the authorship controversy. Were Tom Reedy and Nishidani and other editors and administrators on the SAQ Talk page acting in good faith towards me in withholding this crucial information from me and characterizing my raising of the question as 'disruptive behaviour'? We are all entitled to this information.

There is also the issue of voiding the merge decision, which should be dealt with forthwith once it has conclusively been established that Science Apologist was never an administrator and had no authority to render the decision.NinaGreen (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on what I've read so far, I do not believe that a disputed merge discussion from a year ago, which someone has located in the archives, will receive much if any attention in our decision. The primary focus of the case, as of most arbitration cases, will be on recent editor behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is needed from the arbitrators on these two points.

(1) Now that it's been definitively established that the merge decision was rendered by someone (Science Apologist) who had no authority to make it, is it a nullity so far as the arbitrators and everyone else on Wikipedia are concerned?

(2) In terms of recent editor behaviour, were Tom Reedy and Nishidani and other editors and administrators on the SAQ Talk page obliged to inform me of the merge decision since I obviously wasn't aware of it when I independently raised the issue of duplication among the SAQ article and other articles on the authorship controversy on the SAQ Talk page, rather than characterizing my raising of the issue as 'disruptive behaviour'? I'm sufficiently new to Wikipedia that I don't know the answer to this question. I don't know which Wikipedia policy was violated by other editors and administrators who deliberately withheld relevant information from me on that point, and then characterized my raising of the point as 'disruptive behaviour'. I need assistance from the arbitrators with this so that I can present my evidence by referring to the correct Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a few things: anyone can close a merge discussion based on the consensus reached in that discussion and there is no policy that requires editors to inform newer participants in page discussions of all previous discussion (that's why the archives are available). I don't believe that the considerably older merge discussion has much bearing on the current case. Shell ^babelfish 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See this. That should be good for another couple of hundred thousand words. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina you're going to have to do your own digging in the archives for your answers. Why you think you should have been furnished with a detailed history of the page when you made your first contribution (at the peer review page) in December is beyond me. As to when I learned SA wasn't an admin, that would be a few days ago on the evidence page of this case. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina - the merge discussion was initiated by PeterCohen, the same Peter Cohen who offers evidence here, and made a number of unsubstantiated allegations on Jimbo's page. Here is the link [6]. He posted the merge discussion on March 15. ScienceApologist closed in on March 16. By the way - could you please keep you edits a bit shorter? You are now challenging Nishidani for the "longest post" award! Although I am not of the opinion that posting huge amounts of text is actually an actionable offense, trying to read thru all this stuff becomes tiring. Smatprt (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom - actually, you heard about ScienceApologist on Jan 25 on Jimbo's page here:[7]. It's not on the evidence page.Smatprt (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion proposed by Smatprt

2) I would like to offer a proposal. Before I get into the specifics, allow me to provide some context –

I am of the belief that the current uproar, as well as much of the fury directed at the present article, is due to the infamous “merge discussion”[8] referenced by Jimbo, Tom and Nina, it’s premature close, and the resulting decision made by ScienceApologist, who is now indef banned [9].

A quick perusal of that discussion shows many of the same participants, and gives a pretty good preview of the strong emotions, anger, battle tactics, accusations, etc. as those being evoked on these pages, as well as the SAQ talk pages, most of which have been archived by now.

It is also worth noting that up until January of 2010, with the exception of a few minor skirmishes, and certainly not including the whole sock-puppet explosion involving user:Barryispuzzled, the page was relatively stable and the talk was generally civil. During the previous several years, numerous editors were involved with the primary anti-Strat editor being myself, and the main Strat editor being OldMoonraker. He and I rarely saw eye to eye, but we were generally able to work out our differences as we both strived to maintain a neutral POV.

Now let me return to the merge discussion and the problems it created:

The close – less than 48 hours. Thus the accusations of premature closing.

The consensus – there was none. Not even approaching one. The closer, ScienceApologist, claimed there was and acted accordingly. It appeared to many of us that SA was an administrator. Even Jimbo thought he was. He was referred to as an admin on several pages that he participated in and he never corrected anyone. Unfortunately, that was a deception that we all bought into. Had we known that he was not an admin, as was only recently disclosed,[10] I for one would not have agreed to his close or his various dictates. As was also pointed out - no administrators participated in the merge discussion. Regardless, I too believe that SA's reading of consensus was flawed.

The decision – was contradictory from the start. He announced a merge was appropriate, but then, once sandboxing began, never encouraged an actual merge to take place. Instead, he supported a complete rewrite of the article (actually 2 versions) and promised that these versions would receive a fair and impartial hearing from the community. This never happened. Instead, Tom and Nishidani’s version was simply posted as the chosen one. This was such a bad faith move that the anti-strats have been attacking the article with such vehemence that many have been blocked or banned.

Due process was not followed and the agreement was broken. It appeared to the anti-strats, and some neutral strats as well, that a fait accompli had been performed.

This series of events has led to much bad blood, much anger, feelings of betrayal and worse. And here we all are today. Frankly, I can't say that I am surprised, as this was an explosion waiting to happen.

What I propose is twofold:

Restore the article to the pre-merge discussion version.[11]

Allow this group of named parties - editors and administrators - to examine both versions [12] and [13] in a fair and open exchange of comments and suggestions.

Examine the strengths and weaknesses of both versions and merge the two versions together – keeping their strengths and improving their weaknesses, with a goal of a truly neutral version that all can live with.

In a way, this would be tantamount to what Jimbo had originally suggested – no merge, no immediate change and… “those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?-“

The bottom line is that the present article by Tom and Nishidani has no consensus for acceptance. I don’t see how it ever will. It is permeated with negativity and ridicule, from the choice of pejorative words to the insult-filled footnotes. And so much so, that several mainstream Sratfordian editors have come out against it. SamuelTheGhost and Bertaut, for example, are both declared Stratfordians (see evidence page), but both are arguing against Tom and Nishidani. This should be a major indicator that its not completely an 'us against them' situation, and that we need to step back in time, do some damage control, and begin fresh.Smatprt (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on what I've read so far, I do not believe that a disputed merge discussion from a year ago, which someone has located in the archives, will receive much if any attention in our decision. The primary focus of the case, as of most arbitration cases, will be on recent editor behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Smatprt, you are confusing Old Moonraker with Moonraker2. They are not the same person, so saying that your old co-editor is now your ally is not correct. So much for that "major indicator".

And the article move is not what instigated the situation you describe: "anti-strats have been attacking the article with such vehemence that many have been banned", unless you count your topic ban as "many". The page was very stable after you were banned from the topic and progress was being made as old and new editors began trickling in. What instigated the attacks was soliciting WP:PR with the stated intention to take the article to FA. Their subsequent behaviour resulted in their blocks (not bans).

Lastly, I don't think there's anything prohibiting editors from comparing the old version you link to with the current version, which has received input from many more editors than the old one ever did. It is distressingly evident to all but the most blinkered which version is superior in terms of coverage and neutrality. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I didn't realize we had two different Moonrakers involved with the SAQ. Who'd a thunk it? Thanks for the info. I have refactored my comments accordingly - deleting Moonraker2 and replacing with two other Stratfordian editors who are arguing against both Tom and Nishidani. My point remains the same - its not strictly an 'us and them' argument. Sorry for the ID error, Moonrakers! (And I count 4 anti-Strat blocks or bans) Smatprt (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

By Wrad I think going back to the pre-merge version simply isn't feasible. Way too much excellent research and negotiation has taken place since that point. Also, I think that it is a mistake to think that this all goes back to that merge. That merge may be the point at which the article became less Oxfordian and more "Stratfordian," but it is not the point at which the bad blood started. The bad blood has been there far, far longer than that, as Smatpart indicates at the beginning of his own evidence section.

Also, ScienceApologist wasn't the only shady figure in that discussion. The "vote" was tainted by SPA accounts, as Xover indicates in his evidence. The whole debate is an especially dark spot in SAQ history on Wikipedia for both sides. Let's admit that right now.

The fact is, it happened, and we can't change that. We can't turn back the clock and go back to the way it was before. We need a solution that allows us to move forward with what we have. Progress has been made since that debate, and we can't ignore that. Wrad (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misquote me like that. I didn't say the bad blood started at the merge discussion. I said "I am of the belief that the current uproar, as well as much of the fury directed at the present article, is due to the infamous merge discussion". And I'm not saying throw away the current work. Far from it. I said "Examine the strengths and weaknesses of both versions and merge the two versions together – keeping their strengths and improving their weaknesses, with a goal of a truly neutral version that all can live with." Please at least try to see where I am coming from. I, too, am making a heartfelt suggestion. Please take it in good faith. Smatprt (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking abut this. Let's look at the calendar and see how likely you're right about the cause of the "current uproar" and "fury directed at the present article":

Merge order—March 16, 2010

"Current uproar" began—Dec. 15, 2010

That's a nine-month difference. Given that it's moot anyway, I doubt the merge order had anything to do with it, especially since Nina is complaining she only ever heard about it a few days ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt, I didn't misquote you at all. You want to do all of that, but you want to start by "Restor[ing] the article to the pre-merge discussion version." That just isn't going to happen. It won't work. I know that the present version makes you mad. I know that that discussion has led to a lot of "fury" on the part of Oxfordians such as yourself, but it is a mistake to think that it was only a "Stratfordian" evil. It is a mistake to think that we can just go back to that point and talk about the merge again. The problems are so much deeper than that! I recognize that what you are saying is heartfelt and that you are mad about that merge and you have all kinds of justifiable reasons to feel that, but I just really don't think this is the way to fix it. Something better might be more watchfulness. Double-check the admin status of everyone claiming to be an admin or acting as an admin in these matters. Make sure admins are truly uninvolved. Double-check the SPA status of any "voters" in SAQ debates and make that status clear from the get-go. These are basic, simple things we can do to make things a little more right. Wrad (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, Im not mad. At this point, I'm still rather detached. But I absolutely do feel betrayed. And I imagine that anyone who realizes what actually happened with the broken agreement feels betrayed as well. The agreed to process was not followed. Not by SA, not by Tom and not by Nishidani. The result is this article that has created all this friction and is filled with insults and belittling statements and sections. I mean really, a whole section on grave robbers but no section on the legitimate work of Diana Price (RS)? Two entire sections on "The Trials", but no section on the university programs or the Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre at Concordia University? That's what you call a complete and neutral history section? Really?Smatprt (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just don't agree with the "too late now, it is what it is" approach. One can indeed step back and reexamine a situation with fresh eyes. Also, I am not proposing starting the same merge discussion all over again. I am proposing returning to the agreement that we all made. Look at the two newer versions. Compare, comment, suggest - and then merge the best parts of both of them. You have not explained why that would be such a bad thing.Smatprt (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with step one. So you are no longer saying that we should revert to the pre-merge version? Honestly, that is my biggest issue with this proposal. Wrad (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your biggest problem with my proposal, and would prevent you from supporting it, then I would certainly be willing to compromise. Perhaps someone has an idea on how we could meet half way on Step 1. In any case, I am open to suggestions. Smatprt (talk)

I cannot see any case for going back to a version of last October. I have looked at that version and it is badly biased. I think we need to work from the current version, and if it is "permeated with negativity and ridicule" (I think there is at least a grain of truth in Smatprt's comment), then identify these parts and change them. I have already started to do this [14]. Poujeaux (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The agreed to process was not followed. Not by SA, not by Tom and not by Nishidani.

For the nth time, I'm not Tom's Jerry. I said little of the process, disagreed with the merge, and simply followed orders. I was told to go to a sandbox. I went there. You disliked our work in that sandbox, and created a sandbox 2 page for both Tom and I to write, which became the default article. In all of this I simply wrote on whatever page I was supplied with, followinf SA's directive. I don't question decisions made by arbitrators, I just accept what has been decided and either work on, or walk away.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) Request For Clarification Of The Case Against Me

January 30 is the final day for submission of statements of evidence, as I understand it, and I would like clarification from the arbitrators concerning the case I have to meet, if any.

This arbitration came about because Bishonen first canvassed the Administrator' Noticeboard in an attempt to involve other administrators, and then personally requested LessHeard vanU to act because 'you're so big and strong'[15]. I'm a new editor, so I don't even know whether these actions on Bishonen's part comply with Wikipedia policy for administrators. I would hope not.

LessHeard vanU then brought the matter directly to arbitration without having taken any intermediate dispute resolution steps, on the false ground that there is a 'co-ordinated campaign' among Oxfordians to push their own POV on the authorship controversy articles. One of the arbitrators has stated somewhere that the arbitrators will not be looking at evidence for this 'co-ordinated campaign', so I'm assuming that that issue is off the table.

In any event, there has not been any evidence introduced that I am part of any 'co-ordinated campaign', which I most certainly am not. Nor has there been any evidence introduced that I have pushed any POV, which again I most certainly have not (the evidence introduced establishes that I have consistently maintained a neutral POV and that I have consistently said that the authorship controversy articles must unequivocally state that the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment is that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon). There has been no evidence introduced that I have engaged in any personal attacks, although there is much evidence that I have been the consistent victim of them. There are some specious and unsupported allegations that I have engaged in Tendentious Editing. I believe those allegations are amply answered by the example on this very Workshop page of how the substance of a point made by me concerning merger to advance the project was entirely ignored by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Instead of dealing with the substantive point involving merger, Tom Reedy and Nishidani engaged in a lengthy series of untrue allegations, snide remarks, ad hominem personal attacks and revelation of personal information which comes close to violating Wikipedia policy on 'outing'. In this way, my raising of a substantive point concerning merger on this Workshop page was turned by Tom Reedy and Nishidani into yet another opportunity for them to force me to defend myself against a series of false allegations and personal attacks which steadily became more and more irrelevant. As I pointed out in that section of the Workshop page, this is what has happened time and time again during the month or so I edited on Wikipedia, unchecked by any administrator. I have been constantly forced to defend myself against Tom Reedy and Nishidani's false allegations and personal attacks because Wikipedia is a public forum which can be accessed by anyone on the internet. It is clear that it is Tom Reedy and Nishidani who are involved in Tendentious Editing and 'disruptive behaviour', unchecked by any administrator. There are many many examples on the Edward de Vere and SAQ article Talk pages for the arbitrators to see if they require further evidence.

Since no other allegations have been made against me in the statements of evidence, so far as I can see, I do not know what case I have to answer, if any, and I would request clarification from the arbitrators on this. If there is anything the arbitrators would like me to answer, please specify it and I will do my best to answer it.

I'm a new editor, and in my first month of editing I contributed one full-length article to Wikipedia which is thoroughly sourced to WP:RS reliable sources and fully linked to dozens of other Wikipedia articles (the Edward de Vere article). Thereafter I was only permitted by Tom Reedy to add 4 references to the SAQ article for facts which were already in the article and to tidy up one other reference already in the SAQ article. Every other edit I either made to the SAQ article or placed for discussion on the SAQ Talk page was either instantly reverted by Tom Reedy, later silently deleted from the article, or the Talk page discussion of my proposed edit was turned by Tom Reedy and Nishidani into an extended and irrelevant personal attack on me as per the example on this Workshop page.

Bishonen has stated that she wants me banned from Wikipedia editing for a year, and it seems clear that that was almost the sole reason for bringing this arbitration, to subject me to a very lengthy ban, thus eliminating almost the only remaining Oxfordian editor contributing to the authorship controversy pages. I do not wish to be banned, and I do not think it is a healthy thing for Wikipedia to ban me. I have a great deal to offer in terms of background knowledge, and I am committed to a neutral point of view and to working with editors and administrators who do not engage in personal attacks and who do not turn every substantive proposal I make into an excuse for yet another endless digression into personal attacks and false allegations.

In summary, my question to the arbitrators is: Is there any case against me which I have to meet? I can't see one, but if there is one, what is it? What do the arbitrators feel they need to hear from me on before the statements of evidence are closed?NinaGreen (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard nothing from the arbitrators concerning the above, and the final date for submission of evidence has passed. It is therefore clear that there is no case against me, and I am therefore requesting the arbitrators to dismiss the case against me forthwith, as justice and equity require.NinaGreen (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received no reply from any of the arbitrators to my request that they clarify the case against me before the final date for submission of evidence had passed. Having received no clarification, and the final date for submission of evidence (January 30) having passed, I then requested the arbitrators in the statement above to dismiss the case against me, as justice and equity require. I again received no reply. Yesterday I wrote to the arbitration clerks requesting that they inform all the arbitrators of my request, in case any of the arbitrators had not seen it. The arbitration clerks declined to do so. However arbitration clerk AGK today forwarded a blind copy of my e-mail to arbitrator Newyorkbrad. I replied to AGK that I still required assurance that all the arbitrators had seen my request. I received this reply from AGK on my Talk page:

== Your request for the arbitration case to be dismissed ==

In relation to your recent e-mail, I've contacted the first drafting Arbitrator of the case (User:Newyorkbrad) and made him aware of your request for the case to be dismissed. His response was this:

her request for dismissal will be reviewed along with the evidence as we prepare the final decision. We hope to have a proposed decision posted within the next few days.

This should I think conclude our earlier e-mail discussion. AGK [•] 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfair and inequitable. At the beginning of the case, the arbitrators stated that they wanted me to put in my evidence first so that others could respond to it. This was clearly prejudicial to me since the arbitration was brought on grounds (see above) of a 'co-ordinate campaign' which had nothing to do with me, so there was clearly no case for me to meet. I stated at that time that I could not put in my evidence first because I did not know what the case was against me. As stated above, two weeks later, with all the evidence now in except for mine, I still do not know what the case is against me. Despite my request to the arbitrators, I have not been told by them what Wikipedia policies I have allegedly violated, and in fact I have not violated any. The case against me has therefore not been clarified in any way, despite my request that the arbitrators do so, and as a result I have been denied the opportunity to submit evidence because I do not know what I am supposed to submit evidence on. It is unjust and inequitable that I should be required to continue as party to an arbitration in which the arbitrators will not clarify the case against me at my request, thus denying me the opportunity to submit evidence on my behalf. I am requesting that all the arbitrators, not merely the drafting arbitrators, deal immediately with my request that the case against me be dismissed.NinaGreen (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been advised before that the desire for your evidence to be submitted earlier than that of the others was strictly informal; and indeed, that desire was explicitly rescinded in response to your repeated objections. If you want to, assert repeatedly that there is in your view no case for you to answer, but please do not continue to misrepresent things. AGK [•] 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, informal or not, the making of that suggestion was extremely prejudicial to me, particularly since I am a new editor. I am not imputing any fault to you in making it. I assume you were merely the messenger relaying a request by the arbitrators that I put in my evidence first so that others could rebut it.

To clarify your second point, I am not merely asserting that there is no case for me to answer. I am asserting (and it is true) that I have never understood what case I have to answer because the arbitration was brought on the basis of a 'co-ordinated campaign' that has nothing to do with me, that on 29 January I requested clarification from the arbitrators on the specifics of the case to be answered by me, if there was one, before the final date for submission of evidence on 30 January passed, and the arbitrators ignored my request. I have therefore been prevented by the arbitrators from presenting evidence in the case, and it is unjust and inequitable for the arbitrators not to dismiss the case against me forthwith. I am therefore requesting that the arbitrators dismiss the case against me forthwith.

Moreover I still have not received assurance that all the arbitrators are aware of my request.NinaGreen (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The arbitrators are aware of NinaGreen's request for dismissal (although it was very difficult for me to locate in the context of the excess verbiage all over this page). The request will be considered in connection with all the other evidence as we prepare the decision in the case, which will be forthcoming within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, thank you for the reply. That is not acceptable. The arbitrators have refused to clarify the case against me and have thereby prevented me from putting in evidence to meet whatever case they consider there is for me to meet. That is contrary to the basic principles of any arbitration, and I feel certain that it is against the principles of Wikipedia arbitration even though Wikipedia arbitrations obviously operate under very different rules than other arbitrations. No arbitration can impose a decision on a party whom the arbitrators themselves have deliberately prevented from putting in evidence. I am therefore requesting once again that all the arbitrators, not merely the drafting arbitrators, immediately dismiss the case against me on the ground that the arbitrators have refused to clarify the case against me and have prevented me from putting in evidence.

I would also like to be assured that by 'the arbitrators' in your statement above you mean that every arbitrator is aware of my request, not merely the two drafting arbitrators.NinaGreen (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you find it not acceptable, Nina, however, that has no bearing on this case. And as for your other point, once the proposed decision for this case is posted (hopefully this weekend), all the arbitrators will vote seperately on whether to support or oppose the decision/. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, your last comment is unclear. Are you saying that all the arbitrators who will eventually vote do not yet know that on 29 January, before the final date for submission of evidence had passed, I requested that the case against me be clarified by the arbitrators so that I could present evidence if there was any case for me to meet, and that when the arbitrators ignored that request and the final date for submission of evidence had passed (30 January), I requested that the case against me be dismissed because the arbitrators had refused to clarify the case and had thus prevented me from presenting evidence? It sounds as though that is what you are saying, i.e. that you and Newyorkbrad, the two drafting arbitrators, are the only two arbitrators who are in the know concerning these matters, and that all the other arbitrators know nothing about them. To remove any ambiguity, could you please clarify by their Wikipedia names which arbitrators are aware of my two requests. This Workshop page provides for motions and requests to be submitted to the arbitrators, not merely to the two drafting arbitrators, and I clearly submitted my requests for clarification of the case against me and for dismissal of the case against me to all the arbitrators.

Your statement that the arbitrators' failure to clarify the case against me 'has no bearing on this case', is clearly wrong. In every normal and usual arbitration in the real world, the issues are clearly defined and the parties present their positions to the arbitrators based on those clearly-defined issues. If Wikipedia arbitrations do not permit parties to present their evidence based on clearly-defined issues, then Wikipedia arbitrations are by definition not arbitrations, but rather are ad hoc tribunals which permit minor functionaries (administrators) to drag whomever they please through a process in which the parties are subjected to sanctions and loss of rights without being permitted to know the case they have to meet or to present evidence on their own behalf. I am certain that this is not what was intended when arbitrations were provided for in Wikipedia. NinaGreen (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of active Arbiters for a case is available on the proposed decision talk page; these are the Arbiters who are actively reviewing the material presented at the case and will ultimately be voting on the decision. The issue being addressed with this case is the behavior of editors involved in the topic area and whether or not that behavior has been a cause of the inability to resolve certain disputes and edit in the topic area normally. Arbiters use the evidence provided by other contributors as well as their own reviews of editing in the topic area; the evidence and workshop pages are usually good indications of the types of behaviors that editors have listed as a concern. It is the responsibility of editors involved in the case to familiarize themselves with what other parties have presented and any applicable Wikipedia policies and to consider whether or not their own behavior meets the appropriate standards. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, thank you for your comments. You wrote:

The issue being addressed with this case is the behavior of editors involved in the topic area and whether or not that behavior has been a cause of the inability to resolve certain disputes and edit in the topic area normally.

That is NOT the issue on which all the parties involved were dragged into this arbitration. The issue on which Bishonen and LessHeard vanU dragged all the parties into this arbitration was an alleged co-ordinated campaign to push the Oxfordian point of view. No evidence has been provided of any such co-ordinated campaign to push the Oxfordian POV, and instead of dismissing the arbitration because it was brought on a false allegation the arbitrators have now changed the issue to some vague issue of their own invention concerning 'certain disputes' without even identifying the 'disputes' in question. The fact that the arbitrators have changed the alleged issue in the course of the arbitration is precisely why I requested that the arbitrators clarify the case AGAINST ME SPECIFICALLY, which the arbitrators have refused to do, thus denying me due process and turning what is supposed to be an arbitration on a clearly-defined issue into an ad hoc tribunal in which I do not know the case against me and cannot put in evidence on it. I ask again. Exactly what is the case against me? Which Wikipedia policies have I allegedly violated? I know of none. What evidence is there on the Evidence page or on this Workshop page that I have violated any Wikipedia policy which would constitute a case I have to meet and on which I should put in my own evidence in order to meet it?NinaGreen (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you at the beginning of the case[16], even if the claim of coordination didn't turn out to be supported, the case was accepted because there is obviously a problem here that hasn't been resolved through the usual means. Several Arbiters and clerks have also tried to help explain the process and the reason for Arbitration cases. The idea that other people should provide you things seems to be a common theme - it is your responsibility to know Wikipedia policy and follow it if you are to contribute here; it is also your responsibility to read the evidence and workshop suggestions to see what evidence has been presented about your behavior. Shell ^babelfish 19:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing was "there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign". The accusation of co-ordination was not crucial. The point is that many editors with strong, and often emotional, anti-Stratfordian views have campaigned to get the A-S position in a prominent position. I cannot speak for LessHeard, but I read the phrase "sustained campaign" here simply to mean something similar to "persistent project" - that is to say various people have campaigned for a point of view over the years and this has been going on for some time. The suggestion that there is some co-ordination derives from the fact that inactive or new editors suddenly appear at such technical pages as deletion debates and policy fora when policy regarding SAQ is being discussed. They vote, but do not contribute to Wikipedia is other ways. That's an aspect of the behaviour issue here, but not central. The suggestion of co-ordination is periphoral, not central, to this issue. What we want is a resolution of this problem so we can see a way forward. This is not a trial with someone in the dock accused of conspiracy against the Wikipedia State. Having said that, my understanding is that sanctions might be applied to individual editors if their behaviour is considered detrimental to the project. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought the abuse of due process in this regard to the attention of Jimmy Wales on his Talk page [17].NinaGreen (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:NinaGreen

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Moratorium and administrator supervision order

The stated purpose of arbitration is to "break the back of the dispute". I'd like to suggest that the arbitrators impose a three-month moratorium on editing of the SAQ article and all other articles related to the authorship controversy as a cooling-off period, and that they appoint a very experienced and unbiased administrator (or administrators) to look over the proliferation of articles on the authorship controversy with a view to recommending which ones should be deleted. Many articles have been hived off from the SAQ article as it grew like Topsy, and are now independent main articles in their own right. However, instead of dropping coverage of the topics contained in those independent main articles as they were hived off, the editors of the SAQ article have duplicated and expanded the coverage of those topics, and have also put links to the independent articles in the SAQ article, referring to them in each case as the Main Article. At present, the SAQ article duplicates coverage of, and contains links to, seven of these independent main articles. For example, there is a lengthy section on the history of the authorship controversy in the SAQ article which duplicates the coverage in the independent main article devoted to the History of the Shakespeare Authorship. Similarly, coverage of individual authorship candidates such as Bacon and Oxford in the SAQ article duplicates coverage of those authorship candidates in the separate main articles devoted them. There is thus an overwhelming amount of duplication and confusion in Wikipedia coverage of the authorship controversy. I tried to bring this duplication, proliferation of articles and confusion up as a matter of discussion on the SAQ Talk page, but was shut down by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Tom Reedy is bending every effort (see the SAQ Talk page) to take the SAQ article to FA status at the earliest possible opportunity, apparently with the ultimate intention of deleting all the other independent main articles once he has accomplished that objective, despite the fact that it is the SAQ article itself which is redundant because at present it duplicates the coverage in at least seven other independent main articles on the authorship controversy.
I would also second the suggestion made by one editor on the Request for Arbitration page that there are WP:BATTLE aspects to the current situation because of a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. With respect to the former, WP:NPOV, what needs to be clarified by the arbitrators or the independent administrators appointed by them is whether editors who have overtly expressed bias on Wikipedia with respect to the authorship controversy should be able to WP:OWN own the SAQ article, and prevent any edits from taking place without their express sanction. I've already mentioned Tom Reedy and Nishidani's ownership of the article and their overt expressions of bias ('a crank theory'[18], 'this ideological mania'[19]) in my statement on the Request for Arbitration page, bias which Tom continues to display on the SAQ Talk page without any intervention by administrators even as this arbitration is ongoing ('I'd like to hear from some sane Oxfordians')[20]. With respect to the latter issue, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, it is clear that Oxfordian editors are vastly outnumbered at all times by Stratfordian editors, and thus consensus is always against any edit proposed by an Oxfordian editor, and no substantive proposed edits by Oxfordian editors are ever accepted. Moreover as soon as an Oxfordian editor appears on the scene, that editor is denigrated and subjected to personal attacks (contrary to WP:NPA,) and there is an immediate attempt to find him/her in infraction of any number of Wikipedia policies and rules (often due to inexperience), and a case is immediately built against that Oxfordian editor with the intention of having him/her banned, with the two administrators who are involved with the SAQ article playing an active role in building that case, as is evident from statements on the Request for Arbitration page.
To summarize, I think the arbitrators could "break the back of the case" by imposing a three-month moratorium on editing as a cooling-off period, by appointing an experienced and unbiased administrator to assess the proliferation of articles which has taken place and the redundancy of the SAQ article itself in light of its duplicate coverage of topics already covered in at least seven other independent main articles, and by addressing the issue of whether editors who have openly admitted bias on Wikipedia with respect to the authorship controversy (as opposed to disagreement, which is an entirely different thing) should be permitted to own the SAQ article and other articles concerning the authorship controversy, and whether administrators who openly favour one side against the other should be replaced by administrators who are willing to deal with each side impartially.
NinaGreen (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

A "three-month moratorium" on editing this article (or any article other than perhaps a repeatedly-deleted non-notable BLP) is not going to happen. Attention from more administrators and other experienced editors, on the other hand, would be a fine thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Smatprt participating on the case pages, as long as he or she abides by the same rules governing all other participants. If Smatprt misuses these pages or engages in any unseemly activity on them, this privilege will be withdrawn, but I sincerely hope that will not happen. Smatprt should understand that he or she will be bound by the outcome of the case, to the same extent as everyone else, but that the existing community sanctions against him remain in full effect except to the extent that they are specifically modified (as by this paragraph) and must continue to be complied with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Good grief - why not follow established procedure, in this instance the ArbCom process, rather than suggest novel methods by which your preferred models of resolution may be incorporated? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clerk note: Posted here on behalf of, and by e-mail request from, NinaGreen. The section header was formed by myself, not by Nina; all other content is an exact copy of her proposal. AGK [•] 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to clerk: AGK, there are diff notes in that proposal, mainly giving the provenance of quotes and such. The manner of copypasting the proposal here has killed those notes, which seems disadvantageous to Nina. Even if you received the proposal exactly like that by e-mail, you could perhaps keep the diffs clickable by using the edit mode version of the copy on her talkpage instead? (I'm assuming the wording is the same.) Bishonen | talk 01:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised that there were diffs to be included; they (obviously) weren't part of the e-mail version that Nina sent me. I've added the diffs in. AGK [•] 14:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I hadn't realised that two out of three of them aren't useful (pointing to respectively a whole archive and a whole talkpage). Still, the effort was made. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note to clerk: AGK, did you ask Nina if you could change her official statement? Cleaning up the diffs was one thing, but I see you added excerpts from her (longer) talk page posting as well. Her official posting looked to me like an edited version that she had cleaned up herself. I think it would be appropriate to check with Nina on this. It's a shame she can't edit herself. I too find it odd that she was blocked from editing as soon as the case was announced. LessHeard had the same thought and he was the case filer. Smatprt (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt? You're topic banned from this stuff, what are you doing here? I do see AGK sent you the usual template about contributing to the workshop and such, but I suppose he just sent those to all the people on the "Involved parties" list. (Well, not to me, actually... where's the justice?) Anyway. Have you requested an unban from ArbCom for the purpose of taking part in this case? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This should explain the matter [21]. Smatprt (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:the assumption above (I'm assuming the wording is the same) is incorrect. Nina's statement on her talk page is not the same as what she had posted at the workshop page. In fact, it appears quite differentSmatprt (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Arbitrator note) Smatprt, please present useful evidence or proposals for our consideration; bickering with other participants such as in this thread does not help us move toward a decision of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(resp to Bishonen) I am pretty sure the wording of the topic ban allows Smatprt to participate in related ArbCom cases - I wrote it - although it should (per NYB) be understood that the issues addressed are those in respect of the case. Since Smatprt is a named party, and his actions are being noted, it would seem improper not to allow him to participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't... but I think it is understood that ArbCom pages do not fall under the provisions of topic bans, since it is not the topic being discussed rather than the editing of the topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: We're in discussion with Nina about this via Email, and are clarifying which version is intended. (X! · talk) · @204 · 03:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup Clerk note: As per discussion and clarification with Nina, I've restored the proposal to her desired version. (X! · talk) · @258 · 05:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind (1) that the purpose of arbitration is to move the dispute forward and to serve the project, and (2) that there was an earlier merge decision which was not carried out (referred to in his statement on the Evidence page by Jimmy Wales), I would like to add these suggestions to my proposal above. Firstly, that the history of the authorship section be deleted from the SAQ article and its content merged into the current main article entitled History of the Shakespeare Authorship. Secondly, that the current sections on the four authorship candidates, which Tom Reedy has himself recently stated are not very good [22], be deleted from the SAQ article, and replaced by links to the main articles on the authorship for each of those four candidates. Thirdly, that the purpose of the SAQ article be reviewed in order to determine what the objective of the article should be. Wikipedia readers presumably come to the SAQ article wanting to find out what the authorship controversy is all about, what the arguments are for and against the various candidates, and which candidate is currently the frontrunner and why. What Wikipedia readers find in the SAQ article is a section containing some dubious generalizations which lump all the authorship theories together and which appear to constitute original research (contrary to WP:OR), a section which makes four general points against Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship, a much longer section which presents evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship, a very lengthy history of the authorship section which duplicates the main article entitled History of the Shakespeare Authorship and which draws detailed attention to every bizarre thing ever done by the Baconians decades ago, and sections on four authorship candidates which the principal editor, Tom Reedy, has himself said are not very good and which do not present in any detail the evidence for and against those candidates which has given rise to the authorship controversy in the first place. The SAQ article thus presents the authorship controversy in a negative manner, and fails to meet the needs of the Wikipedia reader who has come to the article hoping to find out why there is an authorship controversy. I want to stress that I do not make the suggestion that the purpose of the SAQ article be reviewed because I want the SAQ article to reflect the Oxfordian POV. On the contrary, I drafted a proposed lede for the SAQ article which states unequivocally that the majority view, the view of the Shakespeare establishment, is that the true author of the Shakespeare canon is William Shakespeare of Stratford, and I am firmly of the view that the SAQ article should always and everywhere reflect that that is the majority view. But at the same time, Wikipedia readers don't come to the SAQ article to find out whether Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon. They come to the SAQ article to find out what the authorship controversy is about, and what evidence there is for and against alternative candidates, and the SAQ article doesn't deliver that information well. In summary, I would suggest that the dispute could be moved forward by (1) merging the history section from the SAQ article into the existing main article on the History of the Shakespeare Authorship, by (2) deleting the four sections on the authorship candidates which Tom Reedy has admitted are not very good and replacing them with links to the main authorship articles on those four candidates, and (3) reviewing the purpose of the SAQ article so that the SAQ article can continue to clearly present the majority view that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the Shakespeare canon while at the same time do a much better job of explaining for Wikipedia readers why there is an authorship controversy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am wrong but you appear, after two months of intensive argufying with most longterm editors, in which your primary interlocutors were dismissed repeatedly, without evidence, as people who engage in defamatory diatribes, to be going over everyone's heads to appeal to Arbcom to revise the article to your personal liking. I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that.I may be wrong.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to move the dispute forward and serve the project. It's difficult to see how Tom Reedy, the principal editor of the SAQ article, could disagree with my suggestions above since he was one of the first to support the merge decision, which went his way, in favour of merger, and since he recently said (see diff above) that the four authorship candidate articles should be deleted from the SAQ article since they weren't very good. Let's try to find agreement.NinaGreen (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it is unlikely ArbCom would want to engage with the details of what is or is not in an article when those details do not clearly conflict with policies. Re the suggestion that readers visit SAQ to find out "what evidence there is for and against alternative candidates": while naturally that topic should be explored, the content policies require that an article presents information that is verifiable by reliable sources, with a preference for sources published by acknowledged subject authorities and which have been reviewed by those in the profession. The issue concerns how editors can collaborate to move towards that objective. Possibly these comments should be elsewhere—the talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the arbitrators would be happy to consider any proposal on which editors from both sides could agree. Tom Reedy was one of the first to vote in favour of the merger several months ago, and Tom Reedy suggested recently that the sections on the four authorship candidates should be deleted from the SAQ article, and linked to the main article for each candidate, because the sections on the four authorship candidates in the SAQ article, in his words, 'aren't very good'. Why can there not be agreement, then, among editors from both sides that the lengthy history section in the SAQ article should be merged into the main article on the History of the Shakespeare Authorship, and why can there not be agreement among editors from both sides that the sections on the four authorship candidates should be deleted from the SAQ article and replaced by links to the existing main articles for each authorship candidate? Let's try to find agreement here. It's not that difficult.NinaGreen (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate not being referred to as "the principal editor" of the SAQ article. I believe my editing history demonstrates that I work cooperatively with other editors who, like me, try to edit in accordance to Wikipedia policy. When you first began editing Wikipedia, Nishidani and I welcomed your participation and encouraged you to improve the Edward de Vere article, and several times I urged other editors to be patient with you as a new editor. It was only after several weeks that the present situation began to emerge. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, if you have some diffs to present to the arbitrators establishing that you are not the 'principal editor of the SAQ article', and that you and Nishidani 'welcomed my participation' and 'urged other editors to be patient with me', could you please place them on the Evidence page? In order to move the dispute forward and serve the project, the stated purposes of arbitration, let's confine ourselves here to trying to reach agreement on the merge issues mentioned above (on which you also initiated discussion earlier today on my Talk page) [23].NinaGreen (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't use my evidence space for that, but I'll drop these here: This and this certainly support my statement. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tom and Nishidani are the principal editors, although Nishidani has said quite often that he deferred to Tom on a regular basis. See [24] and [25]. Tom 908 edits; Nishidani 937 edits, Nearest editor - Nina at 71 edits (31 deleted). As you noted Nina, your deleted edits were when you tried to make substantive changes. They kept your minor edits, though! :) Smatprt (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for a discussion of my edits, but since people are discussing my edits here, the fact is that I did not make a fraction of that number of 71 distinct edits. I'm a new editor, and it usually takes me several tries to get an edit right, particularly one involving the citation of references. More importantly, I've looked over the article and the edit history just now, and the only edits of mine which were not reverted or deleted were the tidying up of a reference to Gail Kern Paster already in the article [26], the addition of Nelson as a reference for three facts already in the article [27], [28], [29], and the addition of May as a reference for a fact already in the article [30]. That's it. The sum total of the editing I was allowed to do on the SAQ article was to add 4 references for facts already in the article and to tidy up a fifth reference. That's the reality of how I was 'welcomed' and 'encouraged' to edit the SAQ article by Tom Reedy and Nishidani.NinaGreen (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, just one of a good many instances of why communication, particularly with you, breaks down so frequently here. Tom Reedy wrote above:-

'When you first began editing Wikipedia, Nishidani and I welcomed your participation and encouraged you to improve the Edward de Vere article,

You cite this out of context, in writing, using diffs from a different page,

'That's the reality of how I was 'welcomed' and 'encouraged' to edit the SAQ article by Tom Reedy and Nishidani.'

Tom instanced your arrival on the Edward de Vere page, and you take it that he is referring to the Shakespeare Authorship Question page. Secondly, our relations on the de Vere article were amicable despite difficulties. I left editing Wikipedia on the 6th of November, and wasn't present when you first began editing the SAQ article. I popped back in, when an opportunity presented itself to me to access the internet on Dec 23, 8 days and 253 edits after your appearance on the Talk page of SAQ. You are once more confusing evidence.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, this is not the place for this discussion, but since you and Tom insist on discussing it here, I will respond for the information of the arbitrators. Firstly, you and Tom have made statements above concerning the Edward de Vere article. According to the title of this page and the title of all the arbitration pages, the arbitration concerns the SAQ article, not the Edward de Vere article.

Secondly, even if the arbitration did concern the Edward de Vere article, although Tom stated above that 'Nishidani and I welcomed your participation and encouraged you to improve the Edward de Vere article', neither you nor Tom has produced a single diff from the Edward de Vere Talk page or my own Talk page establishing that you either welcomed my participation or encouraged me to improve the Edward de Vere article. In fact, the sole reason I started editing the Edward de Vere article last fall was because I discovered at that time that you had recently deleted every single contribution I had made to the Edward de Vere article several months earlier [31]. Later, in a private e-mail, without advising any other editor or administrator, Tom Reedy told me to go ahead and write the entire article, which I did over a period of several weeks. In my view, I did a very creditable job of editing the Edward de Vere article, although there is of course still room for improvement. Tom then made a remark, which he has since equivocated on, suggesting that the Edward de Vere article might be put up for FA status. When you returned, you stated that you were going to start in again on rewriting the Edward de Vere article. If any of this represents good faith on either your part or Tom's, I fail to see it.

Thirdly, regarding my editing of the SAQ article, do you and Tom Reedy accept that all that remains of any editing I did, or tried to do, on the SAQ article is what I have mentioned above, i.e. 4 references I supplied for facts already in the article and the tidying up of 1 additional reference? I do not wish to mislead the arbitrators in any way, and if you or Tom Reedy can find anything else which currently remains in the SAQ article other than what I have just stated, please put the diffs on this page because this is obviously a matter which needs to be cleared up for the information of the arbitrators and all editors and administrators of the SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina - I just supplied the info you requested and the link above [32]. I agree, Tom could have been more helpful, but I am happy to help you dig thru the files when necessary. Smatprt (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the two diffs above which you failed to acknowledge (This and this), here are two more: [33], [34]. And let's look at that private e-mail you posted and let others determine what my tone was: [35]. And while we're at it, let's take a look at your reaction when I followed your lead and alluded to an e-mail you had sent: [36]. If you ever find the diff where I say anything about taking the Oxford article to FA, we'd all appreciate seeing it. You can save your time, though, because I never did. That's just another one of your misconceptions. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I made a proposal above in an attempt to move the arbitration on the SAQ article forward by suggesting that you agree to two merge decisions, one of which you had already supported indirectly and one of which you had recently made yourself on the SAQ Talk page. Instead of dealing with my proposal, you went off on irrelevant tangents about whether you are the principal editor of the SAQ Talk page (with 907 edits it can hardly be denied that you are one of the principal editors) and about whether you and Nishidani welcomed me to the Edward de Vere article and encouraged me to edit the Edward de Vere article, thereby forcing me to respond, since the only reason I began editing the Edward de Vere article on October 23 was because Nishidani had recently deleted all the contributions I had made to the Edward de Vere article several months earlier. Although nothing could have been more hostile, you and Nishidani are trying to turn that into 'welcome' and 'encouragement'. After being proven wrong by me on a point concerning whether the Calendar of Patent Rolls was a primary source, you then went behind the backs of all the other editors and administrators on the Edward de Vere article and privately urged me to rewrite the entire article and just 'drop it in' (that private e-mail is printed in entirety in Archive 19 but I couldn't locate the diff because the Archive has somehow been compressed and I'm not technically adept enough to figure out how to get at the relevant section). Whether that was a trap or not, I don't know. I suspect there would have been utter outrage from other editors and administrators of the Edward de Vere article had I rewritten the entire article and just 'dropped it in', as you urged me by private e-mail behind their backs to do. Instead, I put my suggested edits to the Edward de Vere article up for discussion on the Talk page, and only began editing in earnest when there were no objections raised to anything I was doing. In that way, I rewrote the entire Edward de Vere article. You then made a comment which clearly indicated that you thought the Edward de Vere article was good enough to be put up for FA status at some point. Later, you equivocated on that point and pretended you hadn't meant that. However the entire record of your comment about FA status for the Edward de Vere article and the later discussion of it is found in the same place as the private e-mail in Archive 19 of the SAQ Talk page, and the arbitrators can locate it there even though I don't know how to get the diff for it. Later, Nishidani stated that he intends to start rewriting the Edward de Vere article all over again. I read all this as extreme bad faith on your part and on Nishidani's part, and I feel that I have been deliberately set up by both of you, as have other editors and administrators who had no idea that you had given me your blessing behind their backs to rewrite the entire Edward de Vere article.

If the arbitrators wish to see in miniature what has happened over and over again on the SAQ Talk page, and the conduct on your and Nishidani's part which has resulted in this arbitration, they need only look at this section in which I made a serious proposal regarding merger, and have ended up, thanks to the introduction of irrelevancy after irrelevancy by you and Nishidani, talking about whether you and Nishidani 'welcomed' me to the Edward de Vere article. Every serious point and substantive edit I raised on the SAQ Talk page was treated in exactly the same way. The substantive point was never discussed, but was sidelined by you and Nishidani into irrelevancy after irrelevancy, just as has happened right here under the arbitrators' very noses. And having sidelined every serious point and substantive edit I tried to make on the SAQ Talk page with irrelevancies, unchecked by any administrator, you and Nishidani reverted or deleted every edit to the SAQ article I either made or proposed, with the result that the sum total of edits left is as I stated above, 4 references supplied for facts already in the SAQ article and 1 additional reference tidied up.NinaGreen (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If the arbitrators wish to see in miniature what has happened over and over again on the SAQ Talk page ..." Oh, I think this section is quite sufficient for them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered at that time that you (Nishidani) had recently deleted every single contribution I had made to the Edward de Vere article several months earlier

The undramatic form of what you say is this. I was told by an anonymous IP that I was butchering the article. I gave a detailed list of patent violations of wiki protocols in the article, as I found it, and I explained why I was compelled to revert the edits which challenged my revision. I did not delete 'every single revision'. What had been done was refer a large volume of notes to your personal transcriptions of archival documents available only on your website, though you have apparently no formal qualifications as an Elizabethan historian. I rewrote the sources by reference to the most recent academic book on de Vere, where they are readily available, in compliance with WP:RS. You yourself, once policy on this was explained, then adopted that procedure in your own revision. Nishidani (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, very interesting admission that an IP told you that you were 'butchering the article' at the time that you were deleting all the work I had put into it months earlier as well as the work other editors had put into it, and planning, by your own admission, to rewrite the entire article to your own satisfaction. Your claim that 'What had been done was refer a large volume of notes to your personal transcriptions of archival documents available only on your website' is completely untrue. The references were to primary sources available in the National Archives and other archival repositories and to my article in Brief Chronicles, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal. An earlier administrator had commented on my references to primary source documents at the time I added them and had not objected to them, and they had been in place for months until you came along and deleted every single one of them along with the reference to my article in Brief Chronicles. You and Tom Reedy then tried to tell me, a new editor, that use of primary sources is forbidden by Wikipedia, which is untrue. Wikipedia policy states that primary sources must be used with caution, not that they are forbidden. You and Tom thus deliberately misinformed me, a new editor, concerning Wikipedia policy, and you personally deleted all my material without referencing it to other reliable sources. And now you and Tom are trying to spin these hostile actions on your part into what Tom terms 'welcome' and encouragement'. Shortly therefter you left Wikipedia stating that you would be 'incommunicado' for three months, and Tom, behind your back and behind the back of all other editors and administrators working on the Edward de Vere article, gave me his personal permission in a private e-mail to rewrite the entire Edward de Vere article, which I did, but not, as Tom had suggested, by rewriting the entire article and just dropping it into place, which would have infuriated other editors and administrators and would likely have gotten me banned. Instead, I placed my edits on the Talk page and did not proceed to extensive editing until it was clear that no-one objected to what I was doing. Now that I have rewritten the entire Edward de Vere article and it has been sitting there for several weeks with other editors making various improvements to it, you have threatened to rewrite the entire Edward de Vere article all over again to your own personal satisfaction.

You also wrote:

you have apparently no formal qualifications as an Elizabethan historian

And you do? And Tom Reedy does? And Paul Barlow does? And Johnuniq does? And Bishonen does? And LessHeard vanU does? The fact of the matter is that no editor or administrator working either on the Edward de Vere article or the SAQ article has formal qualifications as an Elizabethan historian. And I will also wager that of the editors and administrators I have just named, not one can read Elizabethan scripts and has transcribed hundreds of Elizabethan documents. I can read Elizabethan scripts and I have transcribed hundreds of Elizabethan documents (see my website).NinaGreen (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, you, unlike Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, myself or anyone else editing here, formally challenged several RS like the work of a professor emeritus of English studies, Alan Nelson, who wrote the modern biography of de Vere and has a distinguished curriculum vitae and publishing record, on the grounds that (a) he doesn't know Latin (b) he transcribed documents incorrectly (c) he is not an historian of the period (d) and is generally incompetent. You did this to defend your own translations from Latin, your own transcriptions from the Elizabethan archives, as they are given on your copyrighted website. You were therefore asking other editors, who have no presumption to question sources if they fulfil the conditions of a strict reading of WP:RS, to negotiate with you over the true and correct version, namely what is on your webpage, and ignore the corruptions of texts produced by scholars who have gone through the Phd mill, published intensively, and been peer-reviewed by colleagues for decades. It was therefore only natural for me to ask you if, in addition to your qualifications in law and in educational administration, you had troubled yourself to acquire formal qualifications in the discipline whose 'mainstream' representatives' work you ridiculed at length on the de Vere talk page. You were asking us to suspend wiki protocols on RS in order to push your own private research in primary documents as a superior source for the article. I though we had negotiated this point with some delicacy. Apparently not. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least give the address of your web site: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, there you go again with false statements. Alan Nelson has no formal qualifications as an Elizabethan historian. Elizabethan history is not his area of expertise, and his book was not reviewed by a single historian of the Elizabethan period. As the record on the Edward de Vere Talk page amply demonstrates, I have documented many errors of fact in Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary, and as the record on the Edward de Vere Talk page also amply demonstrates, none of those errors of fact which have to do with translations have anything to do with my translations on my website (as you have falsely stated above), but instead relate to inconsistencies between Alan's statements in his book and Alan's own translations on his own website.

You wrote:

It was therefore only natural for me to ask you if, in addition to your qualifications in law and in educational administration, you had troubled yourself to acquire formal qualifications in the discipline whose 'mainstream' representatives' work you ridiculed at length on the de Vere talk page.

There you go yet again with false statements. I am not a professionally trained historian of the Elizabethan period, nor are you, nor is Tom Reedy, nor is Paul Barlow, nor is Johnuniq, nor is Bishonen, nor is LessHeard vanU, nor is Dr. Alan Nelson. I have not 'ridiculed' Dr. Nelson. I have merely pointed out certain factual errors in his book, some of which are contradicted by his own transcripts on his own website. It was highly impertinent, rude and improper of you to suggest, as you have several times in the past and as you are doing now, that I should acquire formal qualifications as a historian of the Elizabethan period when neither you nor any other editor or administrator of the Edward de Vere article or the SAQ article, or Dr. Alan Nelson himself, has those qualifications. What you are really saying is 'You don't have a Ph.D. in Elizabethan history so you are not qualified to edit either the Edward de Vere article or the SAQ article'. If every other editor and administrator involved with the Edward de Vere article and the SAQ article who does not have a Ph.D. in Elizabethan history agrees to cease editing on Wikipedia forever because he/she lacks that specialist degree, I'll withdraw also on that ground. I have no idea whether you will be one of those leaving, Nishidani, because your qualifications are unknown.

You also wrote:

You were asking us to suspend wiki protocols on RS in order to push your own private research in primary documents as a superior source for the article.

I most certainly was not, and you have not produced a single diff to support this egregiously false allegation. My transcripts are available free on my website for all those who wish to avail themselves of them. However I did not cite the transcripts on my website as sources in the Edward de Vere article at any time. What I cited was the reference numbers for the documents in question in the National Archives and other archives (I trust you understand the difference, although your comment suggests that you do not). These were references to primary source documents, and in my first edits of the Edward de Vere article, as a new editor, I was not aware of Wikipedia policy with respect to primary sources. A Wikipedia administrator sent me a note about the use of primary sources at the time, but did not ask me to remove them, and they remained there for months until you deleted them all. As I've mentioned many times already, Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of primary sources. It merely states that they are to be used with caution. I did use them with caution at the time, and I did absolutely nothing wrong and nothing in any way contradictory to Wikipedia policy when I made those first edits. Since then I've learned more about Wikipedia policy concerning primary sources, and I have not cited a single primary source for anything. Moreover despite the many errors in Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary, I cited it almost exclusively throughout my edit of the entire Edward de Vere article because it is almost the only WP:RS reliable source available on Oxford's life (Ward is the other, but much of it is out of date). Far from 'pushing my own private research', a charge which is completely false, I cited primary source documents from the National Archives and other archives before I was fully aware of Wikipedia policy on primary sources, I stopped citing primary sources completely after that, and I cited Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary, despite its many factual errors, throughout my entire edit of the Edward de Vere article.

I trust the arbitrators will take note of the false allegations which continue to be made against me by Nishidani and Tom Reedy even on this Workshop page under the arbitrators' very noses. I also trust the arbitrators will take note of how Tom Reedy and Nishidani have turned a substantive proposal of mine involving merger which could have moved the dispute forward because of the clear duplication among the SAQ article and the other articles on the authorship controversy into a series of false allegations against me to which I am forced to respond because Wikipedia is a public forum and if I do not respond these false allegations will be taken as 'facts' and used against me later by Tom Reedy and Nishidani, as has happened in the past with anything to which I have not responded. This discussion is a microcosm of what has happened time and again on the Edward de Vere and SAQ Talk pages, completely unchecked by intervention by administrators, in which every substantive point I tried to make has been turned by Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow into a personal attack on me to which I was forced to respond in order to defend myself, and if I did respond, was used against me by Tom Reedy, Nishidani, Paul Barlow, Johnuniq and Bishonen as an example of alleged Tendentious Editing and/or 'disruptive behaviour' on my part. It is clear whose behaviour is disruptive, and it is not mine. NinaGreen (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the wikilawyering equivocation, based on the Oxfordian quibble that a historian has to have a Phd in history, exploiting a very modern nuance of the word. See Historian ('Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline. Some historians, though, are recognized by equivalent training and experience in the field.') For example, Jules Michelet with his mere Agrégation de lettres modernes;Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff with a degree in Classical Philology,but known also for his history of that discipline (Geschichte der Philologie,1921); Theodor Mommsen a classicist whose university qualifications were in law, much as those of Daniel J. Boorstin;Arnaldo Momigliano whose degree consisted mainly in classical languages, (as were Ronald Syme's) and philosophy, the last of which was what earned the historian Golo Mann his doctoral degree: Joseph Needham, the outstanding historian of Chinese science, qualified as a biochemist, and had no degree in history or Chinese: Samuel Schoenbaum, who wrote an historical account of the Lives of Shakespeare. Historian is as historian does. Nelson's webpage which has scandalized no one in the history department nextdoor runs as follows:Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley. My specializations are paleography, bibliography, and the reconstruction of the literary life and times of medieval and Renaissance England from documentary sources. I.e. he writes history, as witness his austere publications

You have a a Bachelor of Law degree, and challenge Nelson's competence as an historian who has reconstructed the literary life and times of de Vere from documentary sources. You may do this, but not on wikipedia, where he fits WP:RS, and your private studies do not. Were this not wikipedia I could write in extenso on your errors of method, in the very moment that you were challenging Nelson's capacity as an historian, but this example will suffice.Nishidani (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Christ this is Wikipedia so you can't write in extenso. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I invite the arbitrators to see Tom Reedy and Nishidani's disruptive behaviour engaged in right under the arbitrators' very noses on this Workshop page. This is what has happened time and again both on the Edward de Vere Talk page and the SAQ Talk page, unchecked by any administrator intervention. In instance after instance on the Edward de Vere Talk page and the SAQ Talk page I have raised substantive points (in this case the substantive point I raised was a suggested merger which Tom Reedy had himself suggested on the SAQ Talk page and on which it therefore seemed possible agreement could be reached by both sides, thus moving the dispute forward and serving the project, the stated aims of arbitration). In instance after instance over the course of the month or so in which I was editing, Tom Reedy and Nishidani have either heaped scorn on the substantive points I have raised or ignored the substantive points altogether (in the current instance they have simply ignored my substantive point concerning the proposed merge altogether), and Tom Reedy and Nishidani (often aided by Paul Barlow) have then immediately diverted the discussion into a personal attack on me (as they have done here), to which I am forced to respond because Wikipedia is a public forum which can be accessed by anyone on the internet, and if I do not respond to these personal attacks and false allegations they are accepted as 'facts' by my silence. Then, having forced me to respond to their relentless personal attacks on me, Tom Reedy and Nishidani allege that I am engaging in Tendentious Editing and 'disruptive behaviour', and Bishonen supports them. The arbitrators must put a stop to this. Tom Reedy and Nishidani have both declared overt bias with respect to the authorship controversy ('I am their sworn nemesis'[37],'a crank theory' [38], 'I'd like to hear from some sane Oxfordians'[39], 'this ideological mania'[40]). It is time Tom Reedy and Nishidani withdrew from editing articles on the authorship controversy. Their clear objective is to drive away any Oxfordian editor who poses a challenge to their ownership of all articles related to the authorship controversy, an ownership which is amply demonstrated by Tom Reedy's 'permission' to me in a private e-mail, behind the backs of every other editor and administrator, to rewrite the entire Edward de Vere article and just 'drop it into' the article page, an action which would surely have gotten me banned had I taken Tom's advice, and an ownership which is amply demonstrated by Nishidani's recent statement that he intends to edit the Edward de Vere article all over again after I recently rewrote it without any objection by other editors and administrators on the Edward de Vere Talk page, and an ownership which is amply demonstrated by the fact that my participation in the SAQ article, where Tom Reedy and Nishidani clearly did not want me to edit (as opposed to the Edward de Vere article, where Tom Reedy instructed me to rewrite the entire article) has been limited to adding 4 references for facts already in the SAQ article and the tidying up of a fifth reference. Tom Reedy and Nishidani's actions do not serve the project. They are in constant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Tom Reedy and Nishidani are the chief obstacle in the way of moving the project forward.NinaGreen (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One hesitates to explain a joke, so I won't bother. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, you wrote "(often aided by Paul Barlow 'I am their sworn nemesis'[41])", as if that phrase were written by me. It wasn't. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the statement appears on your Talk page. Can you clarify who made it and the context in which it was made so that I can change it.205.172.16.103 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by "71.164.246.248", an IP. According to Smatprt's evidence, that was Tom, which I think is probably correct. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Tom Reedy is using an IP address. Thanks for the correction. I'll change it.NinaGreen (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, it's clear from your comment that you haven't even read the evidence pages. Tom used an IP for his first few edits here on Wikipedia. Just like you did. It's nothing sinister. Smatprt (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was sinister. Can you direct me to where it says on the Evidence page that Tom Reedy used an IP address? I must have missed it. There's a lot of material on the Evidence page.NinaGreen (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The User Page for Tom Reedy when he was using the aforementioned IP address appears to contain two instances of 'outing', contrary to Wikipedia policy, an instance of bias indicating anything but a neutral POV, and evidence of the organization of a faction [42], contrary to Wikipedia policy. I'm not sufficiently adept at following these archival threads to put all this together, but it seems to me the arbitrators need to have a look at it. See [43].NinaGreen (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuiq has tried to move this discussion onto my Talk page [44], but I don't think that's appropriate. The arbitrators need to see it. Someone doesn't come to Wikipedia (1) declaring that Oxfordians know him to be their 'sworn nemesis', (2) outing Oxfordian editors, (3) stating that he has 'alerted' other individuals in order to gather a faction [45], and (4) editing the SAQ article to declare that the website on which he is associated with David Kathman is 'the most-cited authorship page on the internet', and then change his spots.NinaGreen (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Proposals by Fut.Perf.

Academic state of the art (FPaS, principle)

Wikipedia articles on scholarly and scientific topics must strive to provide a fair reflection of the academic state of the art in the relevant fields of scholarship, based on reliable sources, giving competing scholarly opinions an appropriate share of coverage. Where a stable consensus demonstrably exists in the relevant academic literature on a topic, Wikipedia articles must clearly reflect this. Minority opinions that are expressed on the margins of the relevant field may become the object of encyclopedic coverage, provided that they are notable, and should then be summarized fairly and dispassionately. However, Wikipedia must not give such opinions exaggerated weight, in terms either of the manner of their presentation or the quantity of their coverage, so as to make it appear as if they had equal credibility and acceptance with an established consensus view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is generally a fair summary of our policies and guidelines, as reflected both on the relevant policy pages and in the Principles contained in prior arbitration decisions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II being the most recent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good summary of several policies and guidelines that seem to be central to the dispute in this case. Shell ^babelfish 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Arbcom has no business penning principles about what articles must and must not do. Matters of content are wholly outwith its remit. Could be replaced by "Editors are bound by WP:DUE and should be cognizent of WP:NOTE.". MoreThings (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable interpretation of how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE influence WP:CONSENSUS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject here (outside my section, I know), I think it would be useful if we nipped in the bud the habit of marking these contributions with bolded "opposes" and "supports". I've seen workshop pages in other cases degenerate into useless "voting" rituals, which of course these pages ought to be even less than other "!voting" processes elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I've deliberately worded this without reference to the loaded terms "fringe" and "mainstream". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "minority" is just as problematic a term in this controversy... Wrad (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is spot-on, except for its anthropomorphism – articles can't 'strive'; editors of those articles can. Perhaps it could be re-written a little less concisely, e.g. "Editors writing Wikipedia articles on scholarly and scientific topics must strive ...", "... Wikipedia articles must be written to clearly reflect this", and so on. In this fashion, it makes clearer that the principle is to be applied to editors (i.e. behaviourally), rather than confusing commentators who get it mixed up with content issues. --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the principle is spot-on is irrelevant. Arbcom is appointed to deal with interpersonal disputes. It's not appointed to tell editors how to write articles or to provide explication of the core principles. Having arbcom endorse this kind of principle and then refer back to it in future cases is tantamount to having arbcom write policy. MoreThings (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is stating that editors must follow policy "writing policy"? Isn't the dispute about following policy (or not following policy, to be more accurate)? I don't think we're here because of any personal issues, at least, I'm not. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That editors must follow policy is a given. All that's needed to refer to a specific policy is a link. I don't think you're alone in wondering exactly why we're here, but arbcom's raison d'être is the investigation of interpersonal disputes MoreThings (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I read is: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." I also read before that: "The Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion. The following are general guidelines which will apply to most cases, but the Committee may make exceptions." Where do you get the idea that "primarily" means "only"?

Reading further: "During deliberations, the Committee will construct a consensus opinion made out of principles (general statements about policy), [my emphasis] findings of fact (findings specific to the case), remedies (binding decrees on what should be done), and enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met)." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that primarily doesn't mean only, also that arbcom has the authority to hear any case that takes its fancy. I don't accept that a policy that states "[Arbocm] will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." is intended to give arbcom the latitude to rule on content disputes or to assert principles which relate entirely to content. This proposed principle is all about content. The content policies have been shaped and honed by the community over many years. Wiki-blood has been spilled. Wiki-wars have been fought. Some editors were actually born on the site of those pages, and died there too. Arbcom shouldn't be messin' with 'em.

Arbcom is about cracking heads together. It's not about content and it's not about making precedent-setting decisions. If editors have failed to abide by policy, then nine times of ten that will be obvious. If it's not obvious and arbcom needs to explain why it has read a policy in particular way, then fine, but that's not what is happening here. MoreThings (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is what has happened here and it's not your place to tell ArbCom what they can and cannot do. They take on the thankless task of solving disputes that the community has failed to solve, and in order to accomplish that, ArbCom has to be allowed to work within the spirit of fundamental principles of our encyclopedia (including IAR). The very definition of wikilawyering is to insist on the letter, rather than the spirit of those principles, and you need to move away from that. Specifically, I would expect that ArbCom would wish to at least warn multiple parties against over-jealous defence of their positions, and it is in the spirit of this proposed principle that any such warning could be framed. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately nothing yet has happened here. And I'm now clear that it's not my place to tell arbcom what its place is but it's your place to tell me what my place is not. If I want to assert what arbcom can and cannot do, so I will. And if arbcom wants to ignore every word I say, I'm sure it will. When editors run dry of reasoned argument they invariably take a nip of either IAR or "It doesn't matter what the policies say; it's the spirit that counts". I see that you're partial to dram a of both. MoreThings (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your good-humoured admonishment and I promise I won't remind you of your place again. You have every right to assert what ArbCom can and can't do, but I'd still suggest you might want to ramble through some previous cases to see the flexibility that the community has granted ArbCom in practice, rather than bind it to its theoretical remit. I'd go so far as to say that the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Final decision was a case where editor behaviour could only be accurately judged once the status of a minority/fringe view was established. Such is the nature of WP:UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only arbcom case I followed closely was this one, and I never did regain my wits. I concluded then that there must surely be a quicker way to the same end, and I have absolutely no idea how I became embroiled in the current round of merrymaking. So while I appreciate your kind suggestion that I might like to go peruse a few more fascinating examples, I really do need to keep a pressing engagement with a buzz saw.

I'm encouraged to see, BTW, that your ignorance of the facts pertaining to this case hasn't dissuaded you from bestowing umpteen principles upon it. Can't beat a top-down approach, I guess, although in my naïveté I'd kind of expected the principles to be concomitant with the facts. I hadn't realised that we just lob out a few random ones. I'm really looking forward to see what you come up with should you ever find the time to read the case thoroughly. MoreThings (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research" and advocacy (FPaS, principle)

Wikipedia editors should not attempt to skew Wikipedia's coverage away from a fair representation of the relevant state of the art, as expressed in reliable sources, by giving exaggerated coverage to opinions and arguments of their own preference that are directed against an established consensus in the field. Extended advocacy in favour of such coverage may be disruptive to the consensus process of article development.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the general point here is reasonable, but I'm not certain about this particular wording. Advocacy or an unwillingness to stay within various Wikipedia policies because of a particular point of view does seem to be an issue in this case. Shell ^babelfish 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Could be rewritten as "Editors are bound by WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.". MoreThings (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, with note of the suggestions made by User:RexxS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be firmer: "Wikipedia editors must not attempt ..." - there's no 'should' about it; "Extended advocacy ... is disruptive to the consensus process ..." - no maybe's either. The title could be reversed: advocacy is the problem here; the OR is just a by-product. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the "mainstream" (FPaS, principle)

Editors who are concerned about a perceived problem of a marginal view receiving an exaggerated amount of coverage in Wikipedia, and who wish to secure a fair representation of an academic consensus view against such a marginal opinion, should be aware of the danger of falling into the opposite extreme by giving undue weight to its refutation. Wikipedia articles should not be seen as engaging in polemics or an overly argumentative style of presentation either for or against the consensus view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A good rule to follow. Articles should present any notable information about the subject and avoid arguing against any particular information. Shell ^babelfish 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The title is redolent of battle. The first sentence could be rewritten as "Editors are bound by WP:DUE.". The second sentence relates to content, which is no concern of arbcom's. MoreThings (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adherence to policy, and especially the timely use of dispute resolution and intervention of uninvolved third parties, is the only manner by which concerns should be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tentatively proposed, as the "other side of the coin", might be worth a reminder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly supported. Not only is it helpful to give a fuller view of the issues that have arisen in this case, it is a useful – albeit previously unstated – principle: that editors who defend the mainstream view must also not overstate their case. At some point, it would be helpful to weave this into our guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NinaGreen (FPaS, finding)

NinaGreen has displayed a problematic pattern of talkpage behaviour which shows that she has difficulties communicating effectively. Her talkpage participation is frequently characterized by misunderstandings, accusations, imputations of bad faith, and overly wordy "walls of text". This has contributed to the deterioration of the editing environment on the SAQ pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs are always useful (selected diffs, no need to bury us with 9,000,000 different ones, just enough to give the reading arbs the "flavor of the situation". SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has become clear, but SirFozzie is correct, a few diffs that display this particular behavior are helpful with findings. Even during participation in this case, the posts by Nina Green have been incredibly lengthy and argumentative; this method of communicating is not conducive to resolving issues. Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example on this Workshop page of the Talk page editing style of Tom Reedy and Nishidani demonstrates that Tom Reedy and Nishidani are the cause of the deterioration of the editing environment on the SAQ Talk page. I made a concrete proposal on this Workshop page for both sides to try to reach agreement on a merge which Tom Reedy himself had proposed on the SAQ Talk page. My concrete proposal was entirely ignored by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Instead, they engaged in an extended and entirely irrelevant series of false allegations and personal ad hominem attacks on me, contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:NPA on this very Workshop page, including the revelation of personal information which comes very close to violating the Wikipedia policy on 'outing'. Examples of precisely this sort of behaviour on the part of Tom Reedy and Nishidani, often aided by Paul Barlow, can be found everywhere on the Edward de Vere Talk page and the SAQ Talk page. This type of behaviour is Tom Reedy and Nishidani's modus operandi, and it has the clear objective of discouraging any Oxfordian editor who attempts to edit the SAQ article and driving them all away, which has been effectively accomplished. While I was attempting to edit both the Edward de Vere article and the SAQ article, for almost the entire time, so far as I am aware, I was the only Oxfordian editor doing so. Every other Oxfordian editor appears to have been driven away by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Moreover, as I've established elsewhere on this Workshop page, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, during the entire time I attempted to edit the SAQ article, only permitted me, contrary to WP:OWN, to make 5 very minor edits (4 edits providing sources for facts already in the article, and the tidying up of 1 other source for a fact already in the article). That is the sum total of the contribution Tom Reedy and Nishidani allowed me to make to the SAQ article over a period of several weeks, contrary to WP:OWN. Every other edit I made or put up for discussion on the SAQ Talk page was either immediately reverted by Tom Reedy or Nishidani or later silently deleted by them and was subjected to a barrage of ridicule and the usual digression by them into personal attacks on me and false allegations against me which have been demonstrated in the example already referred to on this Workshop page. It is Tom Reedy and Nishidani who are the cause of the problem on the SAQ Talk page. And the root cause of the problem is their acknowledged bias, which I had amply documented elsewhere on this Workshop page, although I note this morning that the diffs I provided for Tom Reedy's most extreme demonstration of bias and his attempt to organize a faction contrary to Wikipedia policy have been deleted. I trust that the arbitrators will take into consideration that I did provide those diffs establishing that from the first moment he came to Wikipedia Tom Reedy boasted that Oxfordians knew him to be their 'sworn nemesis', that in his first moments on Wikipedia Tom Reedy outed one Oxfordian editor and attempted to out a second, that in his first moments on Wikipedia Tom Reedy advised other editors that he had alerted 'Hardy and AndyRush', thus attempting to organize a faction contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that in his first moments on Wikipedia Tom Reedy inserted into the SAQ article a statement that the website in which he is personally involved with David Kathman was the most visited website on the authorship controversy on the internet. Tom Reedy's recent statements of bias ('a crank theory', 'I'd like to talk to some sane Oxfordians', 'fanatic') make it clear that nothing has changed. Tom Reedy in irrevocably biased against Oxfordians. Nishidani's recent statement ('this ideological mania') makes it clear that Nishidani is equally biased.

I have asked the arbitrators elsewhere on this page to clarify the case against me, if any, so that I can present evidence on any issue on which the arbitrators feel that it is necessary for me to do so.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as per the evidence submitted by Bishonen, and the immediate evidence of N.G.'s own behaviour during these proceedings. Arbs, please let me know if you need more concrete diffs yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: about the offer and request related to more diffs, I apologize for not finding the time to collect any systematically, but by now I think arbitrators will have enough first-hand material from their own dealings with N.G. during this case. This [46] seems quite illustrative, and as far as I can see it's representative of what was going on in N.G.'s dealings with other editors elsewhere earlier too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zweigenbaum (FPaS, finding)

1) Zweigenbaum (talk · contribs) has shown disruptive conduct on the SAQ topic by persistent soapboxing in favour of his own POV. He has displayed a deep-seated and persistent unwillingness to heed Wikipedia's content policies, by arguing that articles should reflect his own POV when he was fully aware that his views were in opposition to the established state of the art in the relevant academic field.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A few diffs would be helpful with this finding as well; it's always helpful to getting the big picture to see what diffs outside contributors found important to determining that behavior was a problem. I also agree that Zweigenbaum's conduct in discussions hasn't been helpful to resolving these disputes. Shell ^babelfish 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I concur, I am concerned that only one editor has been exampled as being unwilling to engage in proper WP process, and to remain indifferent to attempts to have them do so; I assume other parties will be exampled in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my aim to provide an exhaustive list. I've just been making more or less random notes of what I was seeing, as a newcomer to the whole problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To Shell: relevant diffs are in the related evidence section, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence#Zweigenbaum soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zweigenbaum (FPaS, remedy)

1) Zweigenbaum is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Shakespeare authorship question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A ban like this may be helpful for several of the case participants. Usually we include something about being able to have it lifted by appeal after a certain amount of time. Shell ^babelfish 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per FoF proposed above. Zweigenbaum's soapboxing appears to be not just a matter of being occasionally carried away in the heat of discussion (happens to many of us), but a fundamental and deep-rooted problem with his stance towards Wikipedia's content policies. He evidently doesn't want to work within the confines of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, when Bishonen falsely referred to four independent editors as my 'helpers', I stated that I had had no knowledge whatsoever of three of them until we encountered each other in recent weeks on Wikipedia (a fact which all three of them have confirmed). I also stated, based on something I had interpreted erroneously, that I had guessed the identity of the fourth (Zweigenbaum). I have today learned that my guess was mistaken. I do not know who Zwiegenbaum is, and if he/she is an Oxfordian, or if he/she and I have ever had any prior contact with one another, I am entirely unaware of it. So much for LessHeard vanU's alleged co-ordinated campaign among Oxfordians.NinaGreen (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban of Zweigenbaum should they not immediately confirm their acceptance of the need for them to conform to WP guidelines and practice; this arbcom case is, in part, to reaffirm the correct manner in which articles should be edited - parties should be given the opportunity to comply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by Tom Reedy

Proposed principles

Responsibility of Wikipedia editors

1) All Wikipedia editors are responsible for editing in a manner consistent with the principles, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and by editing Wikipedia articles or participating in talk page discussions, they knowingly agree to comply with those rules to the best of their ability and knowledge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely, but as RexxS says below, usually we word this more from the viewpoint of "This is what the website is here to for and how it works". Shell ^babelfish 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I might reword this a little, otherwise I'm fine with it. MoreThings (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When in Rome..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The problem is that I've never come across any editor who claims to know all the 'rules'. We do try to treat new editors more leniently than experienced ones who should know better (leaving aside the specifics of this case!). I'd suggest, Tom, that you look at the "standard" ArbCom principle #1: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors ...", etc. for example at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Purpose of Wikipedia. Assume the ArbCom is going to start from that as Principle #1, and see where it ought to lead you in moving from principles, through findings, to remedies (and I hope you'll note that your principle above effectively strays into remedy). It's better to build your ideas for Proposed Decision in a step-by-step way; and looking at other recent closed ArbCom cases may help you do that. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Status of the Shakespeare authorship question and its related topics

1) The Shakespeare authorship question and its related topics, such as Baconian, Oxfordian and Marlovian theories of Shakespeare authorship, are considered to be fringe theories in academe, and as such must comply with the guidelines of WP:FRINGE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not likely to be a decision made by ArbCom. Whether or not a particular viewpoint is minor and how much weight to give it in an article is something that can be handled by the editorial community. Shell ^babelfish 18:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In an article in the LA Times on 11 April 2010 James Shapiro states that the authorship theory has 'gone mainstream' ('Emmerich's film is one more sign that conspiracy theories about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays have gone mainstream.'). See [47]. Shapiro is most definitely part of academe, and 'mainstream' is hardly fringe.NinaGreen (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage everyone to actually read the article by James Shapiro that Nina links here, and assess for themselves whether the most appropriate single term from the article to sum it up with is “mainstream” rather than “conspiracy theory” or “fantasy”; and whether Nina's representation of the cited article is neutral, accurate, and evident of a good faith effort towards consensus, collaboration, and collegial editing. --Xover (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt at least had sense enough to withdraw his similar assertion once I pointed out the difference between the mainstream media and mainstream academics. Apparently Nina doesn't read anything here except her own comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Tom, I removed those comments to make space for further evidence - just as you did with most of your preamble. I also removed it because it was about content and not behavior, which is why we are here. I continue to believe that Shapiro himself, saying twice that the SAQ has moved into the mainstream, is in dire t opposition to most of the "Fringe" quotes you supply. I believe what he is saying is that it's the "debate" that has moved into the mainstream, as evidenced by the publication of his own book. Smatprt (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way, Jose. What does this have to do with editors' behaviour? A week ago Sir Fozzie had barely heard of the SAQ. Several of the other arbs have made similar comments. Why would we ask a body created to deal with interpersonal disputes to rule on a content dispute? MoreThings (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, because the behaviour in question is a result of ignoring and/or trying to de facto redefine the guideline? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed finding of fact makes no mention of any editor's behaviour. Arbcom has no business pronouncing on what academe thinks of the SAQ. If you feel that the evidence has shown that an editor ignored and/or tried to "de facto redefine" a guideline, then that should be your proposed finding of fact. MoreThings (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: the proposed finding of fact does not appear to bear on editor behavior. However, one might, if one took a step back, come to the conclusion that the proposed “finding of fact” itself reflects on editor behavior. --Xover (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm under a misapprehension about the purpose of this case. If this is merely about editor behaviour, then that is a relatively simple matter and I certainly didn't need to take this much time preparing my evidence, but I thought most of us had agreed that this was about more than addressing the ephemeral behaviour of a few chronically tendentious editors. I've never been involved in an arbitration before nor have I followed any. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~So what do I do with this, strike it all out or delete it or what? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

This talks a bit about the purpose of the workshop (it also explicitly rules out the kind of thing that smatprt is suggesting). If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to empower a panel of editors to make a content ruling on a subject about which they have no knowledge, and in which they have no interest.MoreThings (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the prep pages before we began, but I thought the purpose of this particular case was to address persistent and repetitive disruptive behaviour from serial fringe advocates, and that the establishment that the topic that draws such editors came under the guidelines of WP:FRINGE was germane to the case, since a lot of their initial defense seems to be denial of that. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if you feel that there is evidence of disruptive behaviour on the part of named editors, then you should put that forward as a FOF. If you feel that there is evidence that SAQ is under seige from disruptive editors, say so and suggest a remedy. ~~I'll leave it there because, as I understand it, we're not supposed to engage in extended debate in this section~~ _{looking at the page, that's probably not true at all}. MoreThings (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the arbitrators cannot make the finding of fact which Tom Reedy has requested above as it would constitute a ruling on content. However Tom Reedy's request that the arbitrators make a finding of fact on this issue is evidence of Tom's conduct in pushing his own particular POV, contrary to WP:NPOV. Tom wants the arbitrators to make the foregoing ruling on content in order to bring into play the stringent rules on citation of sources which apply to fringe theories. By requesting this finding of fact, Tom is thus indirectly requesting the arbitrators to rule on whether the academic peer-reviewed journal, Brief Chronicles [48], about which Tom has initiated endless disputes already, can be cited as a reliable source (without specifically bringing to the arbitrators' attention that that is his objective), and is pushing his own particular POV rather than the neutral POV which articles on the authorship controversy require.

Tom Reedy's request that the arbitrators make a finding of fact on this issue is also evidence of Tom's engaging in original research, contrary to WP:NOR. Tom is engaging in original research in taking a position contrary to Shapiro, who states that the authorship controversy has 'gone mainstream'. There is no doubt that the academic consensus is that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon (although there is no longer any academic consensus about which plays he wrote entirely and which he collaborated on), but Shapiro is not talking about that. Shapiro is talking about the fact that the authorship controversy itself has 'gone mainstream'. Wikipedia readers are therefore interested in knowing about it, and Wikipedia articles must therefore inform them as fully as possible about the authorship controversy while maintaining a neutral POV and fully reflecting the academic consensus that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon, but Tom is pushing his own particular POV, and arguing with Shapiro (thus engaging in original research contrary to WP:NOR), and is attempting to shackle the authorship controversy articles with the restrictions on sources which can be cited under WP:FRINGE.

Tom has engaged in this conduct in many other ways on the SAQ Talk page. For example, he has stated that a New York Times survey 'is not in any way a reliable source about what the academic consensus is about the subject'. If a survey of Shakespeare professors by the New York Times is not a reliable source about what academia thinks, what is? Moreover on 19 December Tom falsely informed editors and administrators on the SAQ Talk page that 'the Shakespeare Association of America, has banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences'. I e-mailed the SAA, and on 20 December received this reply from the President of the SAA:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

For the latter two points, see Archive 17 [49]. I can't provide the precise diffs because this is another instance in which the archive is stated to be full.

In summary, while the arbitrators cannot rule on content, they can rule on Tom Reedy's conduct in putting forward this request for a finding of fact with the objective of pushing his own particular point of view and engaging in original research contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.NinaGreen (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties are correct that ArbCom cannot rule on content issues, although the general point that WP:FRINGE is the relevant policy in regard to viewpoints that are either not shared by any or a very few of the academic mainstream is properly made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Permanent guides should be posted to the SAQ talkpage

1) Text boxes containing a short guide to editing WP:FRINGE articles and WP:RS policies should be permanently posted on the SAQ talkpage. Hidden text in each section should appear in the edit box to warn editors to read the guides before editing the article. An ancillary page should be created that all editors are required to sign before editing stating that they have read and agree to the policies and guidelines as set forth on the talkpage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not likely to be an Arbitration decision, however, it may be helpful to look at some other heavily disputed pages and see the FAQ boxes that editors have put together. This can help educate newer editors (or just editors new to the discussion) about issues that are repeatedly discussed and give them pointers to the appropriate archived discussions or policies. Shell ^babelfish 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by RexxS

I'm having trouble figuring how this might be interpreted, especially the "engaging in polemics or an overly argumentative style" part. Wrad (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would all agree with this paragraph from WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." But for an ArbCom decision, ideally this should be translated into terms of editor behaviour. I believe that this principle is intended to ensure genuine proportionate balance in coverage between the majority and minority views, by cautioning the editors representing the majority view not to overstate their case; the "polemics or an overly argumentative style" refers to our need to report dispassionately any heated disputes, rather than import the external dispute itself into the article (or its talk page perhaps?). --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially tricky because the external dispute exists in plenty of academic, peer-reviewed sources, and to ignore the "heat levels" it has reached in such sources would be to ignore the state of the field. Do you mean that such heat should be reported, just dispassionately, or that such heat should be censored altogether? Wrad (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is tricky indeed. I'm trying (and I think FPaS was as well) to say that even heated disputes can - and must - be reported coolly. The problem arises when editors bring the same heat to their edits or discussions. If you like, it behoves editors to remain detached in their Wikipedia contributions, regardless of positions they may passionately espouse outside of Wikipedia. Please feel free to suggest clearer wording if you can, if you agree that there is a relevant, underlying principle here that's worth expressing. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

7) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Much of the evidence presented here has been a re-arguing of the content dispute, which we will not be deciding. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive or tendentious editing

8.1) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or editing against consensus, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, though I might include something about "even when done in good faith". Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Second choice) I would add the vexatious and querulous misuse of article, and editor and other, talkpages as examples of disruptive behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

(Second choice) from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8.2) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing, editing against consensus, or the vexatious and querulous misuse of article, editor and other, talkpages, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prefer to 8.1; the methods of discussion have been an issue in this case. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

First choice, as it addresses a major issue in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

as an alternative per LHvU's suggestion. First choice for me because of relevance. I had been looking for a previous case involving "wall of text" talkpage editing for just the right principle, but alas my memory isn't what it used to be. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing

9.1) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be directed to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ah - this is the kind of thing I was looking for about good faith not being a reason to act in a manner that disrupts the project. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, willing to take in alms against a siege of troubles and die for this.Nishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than noting that "...directed to refrain" may be reworded more concisely, regardless of its previous application, I support this wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I am not criticising, but rather noting an option for consideration - better than amending the proposal slightly and then presenting it under my own name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LHvU: I was expecting to build upon that very phrase later, if it seemed that discretionary sanctions would be a justifiable remedy in this case. I'm not sure yet. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wrad (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption

9.2) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Both 9.1 and 9.2 are good ways of explaining this. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support, behaviour is all that can be measured. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once they had been properly advised and warned, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I think this especially applies in this case. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inexperienced editors

10.1) Inexperienced editors who behave contrary to accepted community norms should have their attention drawn to the relevant policies and guidelines in the first instance. Nevertheless, such editors who wilfully disregard community norms after they are made aware of them become just as liable to sanction as more experienced editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably covered by the ideas of problematic good faith actions still being problematic. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am going to expand upon this in my own proposals, but noting my support for this wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tom Reedy (talk)

Comment by others:

a companion to (9.2) intended to make explicit LHvU's point about due process. --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping inexperienced editors ignorant

10.2) It is disruptive for established Wikipedians to countermand good advice to new editors, or otherwise encourage them to continue flouting community norms. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

10.2 is intended as a companion piece for 10.1. IMO a good deal of such disruption has taken place in this case—as if the new(-ish) user in question, NinaGreen, didn't have enough difficulty in contributing appropriately. Examples: [50][51]. But, indeed, there's a lot of the same all over Nina's talkpage. Compare also Moonraker2's evidence, the section The root of the problem and my evidence section Nina's helpers. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is something we don't see very often, but it does appear it may have been an aggravating factor - encouraging disruptive behavior is not only a problem to the project, but unfair to newer editors getting these conflicting signals. Shell ^babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings

NinaGreen (Xover, finding)

1) Despite repeated attempts (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13) to get NinaGreen to engage in dispute resolution the editor has actively refused to do so (1 2 3 4). Attempts to engage with the editor to help them contribute effectively and collegially with others have been ineffectual, and the editor appears entirely unwilling to accept advice and suggestions (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is well supported by the evidence. Disputes can either be resolved or dropped; endless argumentation is disruptive. Editors are responsible for how they resolve issues and should not expect or demand that other editors do the work for them. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially since she would not even participate in an opinion request I brought up after a dispute with her about using a fringe journal as a source. Tom Reedy (talk)

Agree. Evidence is overwhelming. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves. If the experienced editors who brought up dispute resolution felt dispute resolution was the appropriate solution, all they had to do was take it dispute resolution themselves. As for my alleged failure to accept suggestions, I've accepted a number of suggestions. After Nishidani deleted the primary sources I had earlier cited in good faith in the Edward de Vere article, thinking they were the most reliable sources available on those points, I have not cited any further primary sources, even though Wikipedia allows the citation of primary sources so long as they are used with caution. I accepted Bishonen's directive that all editors 'knock it off' with respect to taking the issue of WP:FRINGE to arbitration. Tom Reedy, by contrast, has ignored Bishonen's directive and in fact has now brought the WP:FRINGE issue up for determination on this very Workshop page. I was also willing to accept Bishonen's advice concerning my suggested lede paragraph. Bishonen said my lede was not long enough. I asked Bishonen to advise me as to what I could do to make my suggested lede acceptable since it covered all the points required to be covered in WP:LEDE. Bishonen refused to answer my question, thus leaving me unable to accept her advice on a crucial point since she refused to give me her advice. Bishonen also refused to answer another of my questions as to how she became involved in a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December, thus again depriving me of the benefit of her advice which would have assisted me in handling Johnuniq's false allegation.NinaGreen (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment Tom Reedy added above about not participating in the opinion request, as I clearly explained at the time, Tom Reedy had already taken that precise issue to an opinion request earlier (Tom can provide the diff since it was his doing and before my time), and the result had been inconclusive. There thus did not appear to be any point in repeating the process, and in fact the second result was just as inconclusive. In both instances, Tom Reedy was attempting to have an academic peer-reviewed journal, Brief Chronicles,[52] whose board members and peer-reviewers are professors with Ph.Ds in a variety of fields who teach at universities in Great Britain and the United States, declared a non-reliable source and a 'fringe journal'.NinaGreen (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you still haven't read the discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Bishonen to advise me as to what I could do to make my suggested lede acceptable since it covered all the points required to be covered in WP:LEDE. Bishonen refused to answer my question, thus leaving me unable to accept her advice on a crucial point since she refused to give me her advice.

Really? Here is my advice in reply to your rather imperious request, which can be read in the same diff. Mine is fairly short and simple, but perhaps you can nevertheless tell from the type of information that it cost me some time, thought, and careful reading of the article. I was a little disappointed that you didn't acknowledge that effort in any way, but then you often don't. Perhaps you simply missed it?

But yes, indeed, I didn't in fact answer your question about how I became "involved" (?) in a "false allegation". It's ridiculous to expect me to. Now ask me if I've stopped beating LessHeard yet, and you will have the pleasure of seeing me refuse to answer that. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, it was entirely appropriate for me to ask how you became involved in a 'false allegation' against me because you requested me, on my Talk page, to voluntarily limit the number of edits I made to the SAQ Talk page per day on the basis of that false allegation by Johnuniq. Naturally I wanted to know how it came about that on the basis of a false allegation by Johnuniq you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I should enter into a voluntary ban. It was quite clear to me at the time that there was nothing 'voluntary' about the ban you were proposing, and that it was a decision you intended to enforce one way or another. I still want to know how you became involved, as an administrator, in a false allegation made against me by Johnuniq.NinaGreen (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, you wrote above re my request for your advice concerning what was lacking in my suggested lede:

I was a little disappointed that you didn't acknowledge that effort in any way, but then you often don't. Perhaps you simply missed it?

In fact, I did miss it. It appears you didn't respond for two days, and on the SAQ Talk page, with the welter of discussion from everyone, two days is a lifetime, and it's no wonder I didn't see it. However my point remains the same. I was interested in receiving your advice, and would have acted on it had you not responded so slowly that in the end I didn't see your response and even today couldn't locate it although I've just spent the past 20 minutes searching for it on the Edit History page of the SAQ article.

Here's another instance in which you proffered advice and I agreed that I would follow it. I can't provide the diff because once again the archive is full. It's in Archive 20 [53]. Here's my statement:

Bishonen, I can certainly follow your suggestion about putting up a new section in future

Xover's statement above that I am 'entirely unwilling to follow advice and suggestions' is just another of the bogus and false allegations which have been made by those attempting to completely eliminate any Oxfordian editor from the authorship controversy pages. Does one get the impression from this concerted effort by a number of editors and administrators that there is a faction at work here, contrary to Wikipedia policy?NinaGreen (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Recommend rewording and toning down if you want Arbcom to seriously consider this. They don't usually adopt findings worded in such a polemical manner. ~~Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC) – Thanks for the rewording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Locus and focus of dispute (Xover, finding)~~
2) The dispute is focused on articles within the Shakespeare authorship question category and spills over onto the major articles within the William Shakespeare category; particularly the main overview article William Shakespeare and the Works by William Shakespeare category. The core issue is whether William Shakespeare wrote the plays generally attributed to him; whether there exists significant debate on this among the relevant subject-matter experts; whether the alternate authorship theories are significant but minority viewpoints or whether they are Fringe theories subject to the policy on Fringe Theories; and whether the alternate authorship theories are significant controversies that must be discussed in articles not directly related to those theories (such as articles in the category Plays by William Shakespeare). The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This seems to be a good overview and though longer than our usual Locus findings, it makes me think we need to change the usual to something more like this format. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposal adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Paul B (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~NinaGreen (Xover, remedy)~~
~~1) NinaGreen is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Shakespeare authorship question, broadly construed.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
I would likely add in a bit about how appeals would work (and when the first could be) since indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite here. I think indefinite is appropriate here, not because the topic ban should necessarily be long but because I believe it's more helpful to everyone involved if topic bans are removed when appropriate rather than trying to guess an arbitrary amount of time and hope things resolve. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Agree, especially since she's already been blocked twice, with no evidence of any effect. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first block was a 3-day block by LessHeard vanU circa 23 October 2010 when I reverted to the earlier version of the Edward de Vere article before Nishidani had deleted every single contribution I had made to the article several months earlier. That block seems eminently unfair in that Nishidani's actions were not addressed by LessHeard vanU, and all I had tried to do was restore a considerable amount of work which I had contributed to the article and which had been deleted without cause by Nishidani.
The second block was a 10-day block by Future Perfect just as this arbitration started, and since Future Perfect, to my knowledge, had had absolutely nothing to do with either the Edward de Vere article or the SAQ article during my 'tenure' editing both, I have no idea how Future Perfect became involved, nor do I have any idea why he/she imposed a 10-day block. For Wikipedia to be perceived as fair, unbiased and impartial, administrators must treat both sides fairly and there must be some prior involvement before they simply jump in and impose blocks to the detriment of one party.NinaGreen (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition is not an argument, and misrepresentation improper, Nina. Twice above you insinuate an abuse on my part:'After Nishidani deleted the primary sources,'. Would you refactor along the lines: 'After Nishidani replaced my primary sources with WP:RS secondary sources? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. An indefinite one-sided ban is quite inappropriate for the nature of the crime. There has been stubborn refusal to negotiate to a compromise on both sides. She has knowledge of the field and has made valid points. See my evidence. See also comment by Rexss. Poujeaux (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I think an indef ban is overdoing it. Something shorter would be better. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too would expect the arbs would probably go for something shorter. It seems to be the case that N.G. does have some potentially valuable knowledge to offer. It might be feasible to keep her away from the article only for a shorter term, say 6 months, to give the articles time to stabilize, and then see if in a hopefully more peaceful environment afterwards she might be able to work more constructively again, under some suitable "discretionary sanctions" or "probation" arrangement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that “indefinite” is not equal to “infinite”, and the proposal is for a topic-ban and not a site-ban. The phrasing was chosen to allow for the possibility that the editor in question may appeal the ban in the future if they demonstrate a willingness to work within the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community (for instance by contributing to articles outside SAQ-related subjects, a significant indicator of good faith and willingness to reform). Given the block just prior to the ArbCom case, and the offer by the blocking admin to unblock if she agreed to avoid the problematic articles, that she barely acknowledged and certainly didn't accept, I'd say that the mere existence of any future appeal would be indicative of significant forward progress. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, further to my earlier comment referred to by Poujeaux. I would always prefer to see the minimum sanctions imposed, sufficient to avert future behavioural problems. My initial thoughts were that discretionary sanctions ought to be capable of changing editors' approach to the area, without the need for any topic bans for editors who have expertise and the potential to improve the encyclopedia. However, I must express how disappointed I am that Nina Green has still not been able to grasp that collaboration, not confrontation, is required now. Her most recent edits to this very page include a prime example of the wrong approach. Today Nina addressed this to an Arb: "... Future Perfect was a completely uninvolved administrator who parachuted into this arbitration from nowhere (at whose behest, one can't help but wonder, particularly when one sees all the other evidence that a faction has been organized during the past several weeks against one sole Oxfordian editor), and blocked me for 10 days without providing any reason ...". FPaS was a completely uninvolved administrator – that's a good thing; Nina might have cause to complain about being blocked by an involved admin, but FPaS explained in his block notice how he came to make the block and gave his reasons. She must somehow come to realise that using perjorative words like "parachuted" describing an uninvolved admin do her cause no good at all; that unsupported innuendo about an admin (taking action at others' behest) illustrates the very approach that she is being criticised for; and that making allegations about an admin's behaviour ('blocked me ... without providing any reason') - which anyone reading the block notice can see to be untrue – puts her in peril of further sanctions in itself. I suggest it's not too late for Nina to change the way she approaches interactions with other editors, but she must be very close to the point where she will exhaust everyone's patience, and this proposed sanction will then become inevitable. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (Xover, remedy)~~
2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Shakespearean authorship category are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "Shakespeare authorship question" and all related articles, broadly construed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Reasonable for this case. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposal adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The broadness of the scope is intended to allow the discretionary sanctions to apply to articles like William Shakespeare and The Tempest where there have historically been attempts to insert either references to the SAQ or where facts that have bearing on the theories (typically dating and sources of the play)—but where the theory has no bearing on the play—have been disputed in order to advance the alternate authorship theory, and where there has been a perennial coatrack problem. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps some kind of FAQ could be set up with new editors directed to read and agree before they can edit? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
I am increasingly convinced that the problems besetting this area are not fundamentally problems with specific individuals. Rather the very nature of 'an encyclopedia that anyone can edit' will attract into certain areas editors whose viewpoints are so diametrically opposed that they can find no common ground or consensus under "normal" editing conditions. Before we take the drastic step of dispensing with any such editors, I believe that ArbCom should first test the effect of discretionary sanctions in this area. The creation of a modified, restricted editing environment for these articles (and talk pages) has the potential to push the parties away from entrenchment and towards an search for commonality. I don't expect each side to embrace the other's view, but I do expect that they are capable of finding consensuses that both sides can live with. --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the problem goes beyond one or two editors, and I'm wondering what types of restrictions would ensure that policies are followed that don't involve changing the nature of open editing upon which Wikipedia is based. My view is that dispute resolution should resolve disputes, not kick them down the road, which in my experience guarantees that the problem will come up again. LessHeard vanU tried an experiment to get all the parties working together after the failure of ScienceApologist's experiment to get all the parties working together (his did stop the crazy editwarring for a time, but LH eventually imposed a topic ban, which worked until a month and a half ago), which followed the similar efforts of Dougweller, and EdJohnston (funny how those guys disappeared!). At one time I suggested a Citizendium-type set up for problem pages, but it made a big plop right in the middle of the punch bowl and I haven't broached it again for fear of getting splashed. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPA accounts (Xover, remedy)~~
3) The listed SPA accounts are indefinitely blocked and cautioned against gaming/vote-stacking and other tendentious or disruptive behavior, without prejudice to unblocking. Editors may request unblocking using the standard procedure and any uninvolved administrator may review and decide whether to unblock. Editors that are unblocked are subject to standard discretionary sanctions on all articles, talk-pages, noticeboards, etc. related to the Shakespeare authorship question, broadly construed. All enforcement actions or unblocks must be logged.
Methinx (talk · contribs)

Schoenbaum (talk · contribs)

Peter Farey (talk · contribs) / 86.29.85.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Alexpope (talk · contribs)

Wysiwyget (talk · contribs)

Wember (talk · contribs)
Comment by Arbitrators:
This may be a bit extreme. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Note that the listed accounts are all SPAs used for vote stacking and creating a false appearance of consensus in noticeboard discussions etc. (cf. evidence). The intent of the block is to provide a wakeup call for these editors and encourage them to reform; the indefinite period is because I believe most of them are unlikely to actually bother appealing a block (i.e. unrepentant); the low-overhead unblock procedure is to make it easy for them to reform and contribute to building the encyclopedia; the subsequent discretionary sanctions are against the not insignificant probability that they will relapse or request unblocking in bad faith. —Xover (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on blocking Peter Farey. None of his interaction with other editors betrays the same behaviour as the others, and although he is an SPA editor, his edits have been contributed in good faith and without the POV-pushing rancor of the other editors named, and he has shown a progressive awareness of neutral editing of the type that I had hoped Nina would achieve when she first began editing the Edward de Vere page. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On re-examination I agree in general with Tom's assessment, and believe I was too hasty in listing Peter Farey in my proposal to block. I also take Shell_Kinney's point. I will consider whether to reframe the proposal—and if so, how—or make an amended or additional proposal. I will note that excluding Peter would be a double standard; and further that I deliberately framed the proposal such that there was an easy way to be unblocked for editors who do genuinely want to contribute in good faith. The goal behind the proposal is to make the listed editors realize that they need to amend their behavior (the block), and to make an active demonstration of good faith (the easy unblock) because they have generally exhausted my ability to assume it. I would happily accede to any alternate remedy that achieves these goals. I make note of my intent since we're coming up on the deadline. —Xover (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a double standard. Compare his edits and interactions with that of the others on the list. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list is taken from my submitted evidence based on the inclusion criteria of being a singe-purpose account with a disproportionate participation in various !votes. To then exclude him based on other criteria would, at least strictly defined, be a double standard. --Xover (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by LessHeard vanU~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~The nature of Wikipedia~~
1) Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; an immense free access project that has necessarily in place a declaration of major principles (Wikipedia:Five pillars) and various policies and guidelines designed to ensure the orderly building and maintenance of the encyclopedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed, as a pre-amble. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~The nature of contributors~~
2) Any person may contribute, in good faith, to the building of the encyclopedia; they may do so without registering an account, and they may do so by registering an account, they may make one edit or many thousands, they may edit upon almost every page contained in the project, they may have one reason or many reasons for wishing to edit, they may or may not wish to communicate those reasons.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Again, preamble. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by others:~~
~~The nature of the editing community~~
3) The editing community is made up of very many disparate individuals, generally orientated to improving the encyclopedia. The community is voluntarily constrained to participate in the project by the principles provided the Five pillars, and the policies and guidelines that are the result of the consensus of the community toward realising the goals of the project. New editors are expected to conform to the expectations and practices of the editing community, and are provided with guidance and advice where it is found necessary.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Pre-amble. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by others:~~
~~The purpose and application of policies and guidelines~~
4) The provision of policies and guidelines is the embodiment of the consensus of the community on how the encyclopedia is to be built and, although not set in stone, indicate the spirit by which the editing community should approach contributing to the project, and on how disputes may be addressed and resolved. Conformity to the ideals expressed by policies and guidelines is expected of all editors, with guidance provided where necessary, and where disregard of policy and guideline is disruptive, regardless of intent.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Getting to the meat of this raft of principles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Yes, necessary to finding the focus of this case. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Familiarity and adherence to policies and guidelines~~
5) The proper application of policy and guideline is universal; there are no exceptions or deviations permitted, except where policy specifically grants exemption. Editors are expected to familiarise themselves with all relevant policy, to conform to the standard practices in contributing to articles generally and specifically, to seek guidance and act upon advice where there is indications of lack of comprehension of the application of policy, to work in good faith where there are divisions of opinion on the proper application of policy on a matter in order to resolve disputes, to accept previous findings on the application of policy in the absence of new evidence or changes of consensus, to not disregard some policies while invoking others, to not claim exemption from policy or guideline, to not continue editing while remaining indifferent to requests to apply community norms to their methods of interaction, to not claim dispensation on any ground from compliance with community agreed norms of interaction while engaged in discussions. Editors must fully engage with all aspects of the editing environment if they expect to be allowed to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Bishonen | talk 06:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Yes, an admirable exposition of the ideal situation. The extent to which this is taken seriously will determine how grave any breach is viewed. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Upon editors compliance with the standard model of interactions~~
6) It is expected that accounts will seek to comply with standard practices in their dealings with other editors, and to gain competence in the use of standard methods of linking to matters they wish to raise. It is recognised that new accounts may initially be unfamiliar with the way things are done, and that they should be provided with such help as is necessary, but it is their responsibility to conform to the standards of communication that is expected.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems self-evident SOP to me. Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Not sure. It may make too light of experienced editors' shared responsibility to help new editors familiarise themselves with our norms. I wouldn't want the last phrase to be read as "... their (sole) responsibility to conform to the standards ...". --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Findings of Fact~~
~~The Shakespeare Authorship Question article has a history of disputed editing~~
7) From a review of the editing histories of both the article and its talkpage, and even its genesis, it is apparent that the article has been subject to sharply differing viewpoints on what constitutes neutrally worded content.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by others:~~
~~The SAQ article has a high ratio of Single Purpose Account editors~~
8) A review of the contribution histories of many editors with substantial contibutions to the SAQ article shows a majority of edits are to this and related articles, and often with regard to the SAQ subject matter to those other articles. This is also true of many accounts who have contributed to the SAQ with a less substantial contribution history, and where the ratio may be even more pronounced.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~Some editors are not communicating to normal WP standards~~
9) A significant number of the accounts who concentrate significantly upon editing the SAQ and related articles are indifferent or ~~disinterested~~uninterested in conforming to normal standards and models of Wikipedia interactions, are unable or unwilling to review their behaviours, evidence no desire or concern in addressing these issues when notified, and are incapable or disinclined in responding to attempts to provide them with advice and guidance.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how significant the number is; as with anything 80 percent of the problem comes from 20 percent (and probably less) of the editors. I will agree that those problem editors chase off most of the editors who do comply with Wikipedia expectations as far as behaviour goes, and that skews the percentage of problem editors on the page when only a few will go toe-to-toe with them and not be chased off. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but, and it is purely a personal impression, some editors are eminently 'reasonable', mind their p's and q's, and willing to talk the leg off a chair, politely, at forty paces, for an indefinite time, never violate WP:NPA, but even when told 2+2 =4 think there is plenty of time and room to negotiate a compromise of the kind 2+2 = anything between 3.9 to 4.1 and we have to find the right language for the latter ambiguity. Nishidani (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are problem editors: WP:CRUSH. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
From a reading of the evidence presented and the article histories, this appears to be a long-term issue. For FoFs, though, you really need to provide example diffs of recent behaviour to illustrate your proposals. --RexxS (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "disinterested" (which means unbiassed) to "uninterested". This is pedantic, but it is a formal proposal. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dispute resolution problems inherent where there is poor communication~~
10) It is difficult to initiate and conduct dispute resolution, and almost impossible to reach resolution, when any party to a dispute does not follow the standard processes and procedures when communicating.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by others:~~
~~Consensus regarding the neutral point of view relating to the subject of the SAQ article~~
11.a) A review of reliable sources, those written by experts upon the subject and reviewed by their peers, on the matter of the authorship question results in the conclusion that the academic viewpoint is that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon is the sole or prime author of the works ascribed to him. A review of other scholarly sources relating to the authorship question provides an acknowledgement that there is learned debate upon both the fact that Shakespeare was the author and who then might be a candidate for the title. Consensus therefore follows that while the arguments for other claimants to the mantle of author of the Shakespeare canon may be described, the neutral point of view should maintain that William Shakespeare is the author of those works.
Comment by Arbitrators:
To my mind, this is the crux of any content dispute and, as RexxS says, the sticking point. The Arbitrators most certainly do not want to pontificate on who wrote the plays, but the question of whether it is WP:FRINGE or just a minority view has clearly coloured the stance and behaviour of editors on all sides. Being an arts/humanities topic, it also in my opinion suffers more from 'vested viewpoint' on the part of academics (as I have said elsewhere), with a somewhat circular definition of mainstream, which does have an impact on the degree to which FRINGE can be applied. Having said all that, I would have to be persuaded quite hard that it is the role of the Arbitration process to make any kind of statement about where the consensus/NPOV lies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Although addressing content, it is apparent that the question of Shakespeare's authorship is not one that the best reliable sources upon the subject consider worthy of addressing and that other reliable sources that argue otherwise need to be placed in context to the overall consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformulated my proposed FoF, since the comments indicate the original was received differently to how I intended it. I am, however, not withdrawing this one as the discussion may be considered pertinent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I object very strongly to Elen's comments, which I consider to be inapproroprate coming from an arbitrator. Being an "arts/humanities topic" is utterly irrelevant to the applicability of WP:FRINGE. Established scientists have a vested interest in any theory to which they have publicly subscribed (see the conflict over Homo floresiensis). We have no justification for asserting that academics in literature and history are any more or less likely to be swayed by personal "vested viewpoint" than are scientists. There is absolutely no "circular definition of mainstream". It is not for Wikipedia editors to assert their views of a field of expertise which is defined by accredited specialists in academia. Elen should afford the academic specialists in Shakespeare the same respect she presumably does to other academic specialists. To declare that some sort of conflict of interest exists is wrong. Note, some of these points have already been made [54] [55] Academic consensus is academic consensus, and in this matter it is crystal clear. We don't pick and choose which consensus we consider to be more worthy than another. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is this case an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, academic or otherwise. The "vested viewpoint" is the only one arrived at by accepted scholarly process, while all others are the result of ad hoc speculation in lieu of any evidence at all except that in the minds of the advocates. Privileging the first over the second is what WP:RS is all about. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, there are books that use a large amount of the evidence adduced by deVereans to come to the diametrically opposed conclusion, i.e., that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare (the works of Eric Sams, come to mind). Several academics, initially sceptical of the mainstream point of view, affirmed it after some decades of work because the alternative, here Oxfordian counter-theory, can either be shown to be untenable or is methodologically impossible to prove, i.e. it fails or eludes criteria like Karl Popper 's theory of verifiability. In 1920, when that particular theory was advanced, its author thought archival research would in the ensuing decades, establish some documentary basis for its illationary postulates. There was The Ashbourne portrait which inflamed passions and heightened expectations as the long missing 'smoking gun' in the 1940s. There was Allardyce Nicoll in 1930 falling for the forgery attributed to James Wilmot which sowed deep doubts. These blips died a quick death as evidence disposed of them, only to survive in the fringe literature, and on wikipedia. Historically, many explain the lack of evidence as due to a suppression of the truth, i.e. the very probatory elements required to verify the reasonableness of the 'theory' were expunged from the record. Methodologically, therefore, it cannot be proven, but since, it goes, Shakespeare's authorship itself cannot be proven (contrary to what all historians believe), it must stand in parity with the 'mainstream' 'hypothesis'. In historical method, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare because, by the normal criteria for attributing authorship, the contemporary evidence we use to justify attribution confirms this as a fact. You can only undermine this by assuming (a) the method for adducing evidence is wrong because (b) the evidence to controvert this attribution has been removed or suppressed. I.e. nothing can be verified. It is extremely hard to reason with anyone, over an historical issue, who does not accept the standard methods of historiography, or dismisses them as an establishmentarian scam, as is the case here. Nishidani (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nishidani (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
This will be a sticking point. Theories which are: (1) 'mainstream, but minority'; (2) 'minority and not mainstream'; and (3) 'fringe' are treated by our policies rather differently. For illustration, I'd suggest comparing the competing String theories, where all are described (including the less-favoured ones); Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to see how the mainstream 'catastrophic' theories are given prominence over the theories of 'gradual extinction' held by a minority; and the fringe theory Perpetual motion which is concisely dismissed at Laws of thermodynamics as well as within its own article. If all parties had found a firm consensus on which of the three categories the Oxfordian theory fell into, we wouldn't be having this case. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@EotR: Indeed Elen. The alternative is that ArbCom will have the unenviable task of allowing multiple parties to retain their different sincerely-held beliefs on how academia views the theories, and yet crafting a solution to allow the articles to be improved. Sorting just behavioural issues won't solve the underlying problem. You could take a leaf out of WP:ARBDATE#Stability review and push the parties into agreeing to a high-profile RfC to establish the Wikipedia community's view on the content issue, although you'd need someone uninvolved to organise it (like User:Ryan Postlethwaite did for WP:DATEPOLL). --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Paul B above, I must say I find Elen's view that humanities topics inherently "suffer more from 'vested viewpoint' on the part of academics" than other (presumably "hard science") fields, extremely worrisome. Apart from the fact that in this particular case this is quite probably simply wrong (as Nishidani has convincingly argued elsewhere): If an academic field consistently treats a given view as fringe, then for our purposes it is fringe, period. It is not our task to evaluate a whole academic branch and make ourselves judges of how qualified it is to define what is or isn't fringe in it. Making such distinctions would in fact be the worst form of OR, and, if applied to the humanities as a whole, would lay the project open to the worst forms of agenda-pushing. Disclosure: I am writing this as someone who works as an academic in the humanities IRL, and frankly, I find such a generalized suspicion voiced against the reliability of our whole profession insulting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the more general point on how far Arbcom should go in dealing with the content situation: I agree it may not be desirable that Arbcom itself affirm that "anti-Stratfordian views are fringe". That's probably not necessary. However, what it should affirm here is that: "If a firm academic consensus demonstrably exists in the field, then WP:FRINGE must be applied." Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly agree with Futper and Paul. I don't question Elen's good faith, but I do find her comment on the humanities discipline as a whole insulting. The sciences, being a set of professions run by humans, are just as susceptible to human bias as any other profession. Let's not draw a double standard here, at risk of destroying the ability of humanities editors to improve humanities articles on Wikipedia. Whatever the faults of our two disciplines may be, I express respect for the sciences and hope my discipline receives the same respect in return, especially from an arbitrator. Otherwise we come to the impasse of being judged by someone who doesn't believe that any humanities sources are reliable. What a mess that would be! Please allow the reliable sources of the profession as determined by the profession to establish reliability, rather than passing personal judgement on the lot. Wrad (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it insulting, but misinformed. The methods used by mainstream academics and those used by anti-Stratfordians could not be further apart, but I would not expect most people to know that unless they made a point to look further into it, especially since anti-Stratfordians present their theories using a simulacrum of academic methods. Their idea of "circumstantial evidence", for example, is drawn from the legal field and used to describe what academics would call fanciful interpretation that ignores the time period in which the work was created. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11.b) Where a review of reliable sources, those written by experts upon the subject and reviewed by their peers, on the matter of the authorship question results in the conclusion that the academic viewpoint is that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon is the sole or prime author of the works ascribed to him, and a review of other scholarly sources relating to the authorship question provides an acknowledgement that there is learned debate upon both the fact that Shakespeare was the author and who then might be a candidate for the title, consensus therefore follows that while the arguments for other claimants to the mantle of author of the Shakespeare canon may be described, the neutral point of view should maintain that William Shakespeare is the author of those works.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. I find that I was not clear in my first attempt; I am not asking ArbCom (or other parties contributing to this case) to deliberate on the question of who was the author of the Shakespeare canon, but to confirm that where consensus is established - by reference to the best reliable sources - that Shakespeare was sole or prime author of the works bearing his name, then the NPOV is to describe him as such, regardless of the other reliable sources which question that assertion and the article that is devoted to exampling those arguments. Consensus is already apparent, and this FoF addresses how it is germane to note it in an article devoted to those arguments against it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with the understanding that he was the primary, not the sole author. There is no such thing as a dramatic work written solely by the playwright. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV are misunderstood or misrepresented as regards SAQ~~
12) Some contributors to the article talkpage discussions, and the article space, misapply the provisions of Wikipedia policy, potentially resulting in an article which misrepresents the consensus that the neutral point of view is to acknowledge that William Shakespeare is the sole or prime author of the works ascribed to him.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Adherence to WP policy and practice results in "an inconvenient truth"~~
13) In recognising that complying with WP policy and practicing standard models of WP interaction places those who hold a certain viewpoint at a disadvantage in advocating it, certain editors are apparently inclined to disregard those standards and norms - instead appealing to concepts such as "natural justice", invoking conspiracy claims, embarking upon exhaustive discussions upon all points (some which may have been previously addressed), making ad hominem attacks on other editors, and wikilawyering.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Placement of editing restrictions on the SAQ/Shakespeare articles~~
1) That the editing of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, and other Shakespeare related articles in respect of the authorship, be placed under ArbCom restrictions; that no edit that alters the consensus/npov relating to the author of the works may be made without a prior demonstrable consensus for it on the article talkpage, that there is a general 1RR per 24 hours on the SAQ article, that strict adherence to Wikipedia policy will be enforced, and that such notice will be prominently displayed on relevant article talkpages, and within the editing interface of the SAQ article space.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed - although I am quite certain it will be better worded should it be accepted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wrad - yes, such important detail would fall under "better worded". LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nishidani (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Support, though I might add the line "per 24 hours excluding reverts in cases of clear vandalism." Wrad (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"LessHeard vanU's Pitchfork"~~
2) New editors will be expected to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia practice, policy and processes before embarking on major editing of the SAQ article. Established editors will be expected to only use the standard norms of interaction, and demonstrate comprehensive understanding of policy and guideline, while editing the article and talkpage spaces. Those unable to comply with these requirements will have their ability to edit restricted or removed. A notice to this effect may be included in any notice regarding ArbCom restrictions, if adopted, per LHvU's Proposed Remedy 4.7.3.1 .
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~ArbCom Enforcement~~
1) Violations of policy, after appropriate warnings, and ArbCom restrictions to the SAQ article, and other Shakespeare related articles broadly construed in respect of the authorship issue, to be reported to WP:AE for review and action by uninvolved administrators. Such sanctions enacted to be per standard WP practice, or by reference to any wording per the ARBCO/SAQ restrictions. Appeals to be made either to ArbCom Enforcement or ArbCom Appeals only.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:

Proposed - again I am aware more appropriate wordings may be used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsae (on behalf I think of all parties. No one on either side of this dispute would, I believe, challenge this as an effective tool for working the article more efficiently) Nishidani (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~List of bans, sanctions and warnings~~
~~2) All bans, sanctions and warnings to be listed here.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Proposed - standard stuff to close out my proposals. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~Proposal by Bishonen~~
~~Proposed principle: the role of Jimbo Wales in arbitration~~
~~1) It's better that godkings don't offer evidence or other statements in arbitration cases.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Well, this is much more modest offering than in the Mantanmoreland case, where Jimbo offered his inexpert opinion that they were not socks (an opinion he privately doubted months before his statement). The arbitrators generally seem sophisticated enough to take evidence of dubious quality and draw independent interpretations. Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed. As Xover has pointed out in his evidence, Jimbo should know better than to "take the extraordinary step of commenting on this ArbCom case to express his disagreement with the closing admin for closing against consensus citing the majority vote count 13—8, and without—then or now, apparently—noticing that the vote was stacked"[56]. (I'll say it so nobody else is forced to: it has since appeared that the closer, ScienceApologist, wasn't an admin, which some users mistakenly consider a vastly important distinction—actually any experienced user can close a discussion). It's an interesting fact that some of the editors of the "Oxfordian" persuasion seem to have the impression that mentioning Jimbo's evidence in this workshop, however far-fetched and dragged-in-by-the-heels such a mention is,[57][58] [59] will somehow do their cause good. Will plump up and flesh out what they say. Perhaps by sympathetic magic? If they think Jimbo's evidence, purely by virtue of being Jimbo's evidence, will affect the outcome of the case, I hope they're wrong, but I'm afraid they may be right. If Jimbo made a habit of such Deus ex machina descents as the one he has performed in this case, then this one would matter less; but a rare intervention like this one will, naturally, have some effect. It would IMO be better for the arbitration process if Jimbo refrained from all visits to the pages of an ongoing arbitration. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All editors of whatever level of privilege are permitted to be wrong, and the ArbCom are competent to weigh any editors comments against those of others. I find the emphasis on Jimbo's comments to be a distraction, only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate where you're coming from, and am sympathetic to your point, I don't think I agree with this proposed finding. I raised the issue of Jimbo's participation in my evidence submission not to address Jimbo's conduct, but to demonstrate that the editors who brought the matter to Jimbo did so in order to influence the outcome of a community process and that their attempt succeeded in so far as Jimbo's participation here is exceptional and they are citing it in their favour. While I do, personally, think that Jimbo “should know better” that is a primarily subjective expression of opinion that, I do not think, has substance or bearing in this case. In retrospect I also think my “tone” in addressing this point was inappropriately snide (that is, it was needlessly confrontational and mocking in its choice of phrasing) and should have been better focussed on Jimbo's participation as effect rather than as an act in itself. Until the contrary is demonstrated I will assume the Arbitrators can tell the difference between Jimbo's giant pointy hat and his pocket protector. --Xover (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in any of this since it was before my time, but my impression is that had Jimmy Wales not made the statement he did, none of us would ever have found out that Science Apologist was not an administrator and therefore had no right to make the merge decision, and that as a result the merge decision was and is a nullity. Moreover had the discussion not been closed off prematurely after only 48 hours, as Jimmy Wales rightly pointed out, perhaps people would have tumbled to the fact that Science Apologist was not an administrator and he would never have had an opportunity to make the merge decision. I say, 'Good on ya' to Jimmy Wales. Thanks for intervening. It helped move the dispute forward and furthered the project, and those are the stated objectives of arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nina, 1) Anyone who follows Wikipedia dispute resolution in the slightest, knows that SA is not an administrator. 2) Anyone can check the admin status of any other user, with a link like this. If the person's group list doesn't say "administrator", the person is not an admin. 3) SA's non-admin closure may not have been a wise action (I don't remember what happened with it), but in principle non-admins are allowed to make such closures, especially in cases where the outcome is clear. If they make a mistake, then it can be overturned; no big deal unless they make such errors often enough that it gets disruptive. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to close the discussion was a good one, whether Peter cohen did it or ScienceApologist. It stopped a long-standing edit war for almost a year and produced a good article. Though the vote has been quoted as 13-8, it was actually 15-9, but here are the 15 opposition votes in chronological order and their status:

Smatprt

Methinx (meatpuppet)

Schoenbaum (meatpuppet)

86.29.85.121 (meatpuppet)

Mizelmouse (meatpuppet)

Wildhartlivie

GentlemanGhost

BenJonson

Fulstuff (meatpuppet)

Afasmit

Softlavender

Fotoguzzi

Wember (meatpuppet)

Alexpope (meatpuppet)

Wysiwyget (meatpuppet)

As Smatprt said on Jimbo's talk page: "it's fine to support your friends and take on their causes". Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but these labels of meatpuppets are just further personal attacks from the pen of Tom Reedy. And yes, its fine for Tom and Nishidani and Peter Cohen to support each other. They have been doing it for a year now.Smatprt (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean editors who in good faith, under the impression they had been given a directive to rewrite the article and then, apart from one, spent several months of their lives on a daily basis writing a 44 page article, which has been generally well-reviewed by uninvolved experts, are to be told there was an error, 6 months of free time volunteered to the project are thus null, and that, as Smatprt suggests, we should pro forma return to the status quo ante? This diff crucial for demonstrating I attacked people (WP:NPA) was a joke between friends, misinterpreted by an administrator, then overturned by others who knew it was a joke, and, then, all context forgotten, was adduced for my permaban. A mistake. Well, stiff cheddar, Nishi. Take it on the chin. Almost all editors know that, in a vast bureaucracy, 'excrement occurs' to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld. The prime purpose here is not to endlessly discuss the law, but write articles. The function of wikilaw is primarily to that end. If we establish a precedent that any formal error verified in past procedures can be be used to upturn months, years of dedicated labour showing commitment to the aims of this Project - the production of articles rather than the securing of personal rights and sensitivities - then wikipedia will turn out to be a forum for social identities like Facebook, rather than a workplace.Nishidani (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
~~Proposed finding of fact~~
It's rare for Jimbo Wales, founder and godking, to submit evidence or other statements to an arbitration case that he's not personally involved in. Partly because of this very rarity, such material is likely to disproportonately affect the parties and the mood of the proceedings. Jimbo has submitted evidence on a limited, but not insignificant, point in this case, and also offered a suggestion to arbcom, which might in practice be difficult for them to flout. ("On this one very narrow point, I would suggest that this particular point be dropped from the case by ArbCom as being not particularly relevant").
Comment by Arbitrators:
To anyone concerned, I don't feel disproportionately affected, and I'm one of the drafters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Not sure if "disproportionately affect the arbcom" ought to be in there, too, implied or explicit. But while my own experience tells me it's the truth, I can't see any need to open that can here. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that it has been commented elsewhere on this page that the merge discussion issue is a dead matter in respect of this case, so Jimbo's potential for diversion (in both meanings if there are more, I am happy to stay ignorant) in choosing to involve himself is moot. I trust... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As an uninvolved bystander I think Bishonen is overreacting to Jimbo's post. It didn't seem like any big deal to me. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~1) User:Jimbo Wales is politely requested to refrain from offering input in arbitration cases, except where he is himself a party to the case.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
There are plenty of places where Jimbo could more helpfully place any views or facts than on the evidence page of an arbcase. I suggest that the arbcom tell him so. On a related note, what exactly is his submission evidence of? Bishonen | talk 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That would require making Jimbo different from every other editor who contributes in good faith - and regardless on whether it is in the competence of ArbCom to do so and ensure adherence it would set a very bad (IMO) precedent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is already different, that's kind of my point. I don't agree that the "polite request" I propose would further differentiate him so's you'd notice it. There's absolutely no question of ensuring adherence (to a request..?); I didn't have it in mind, and I haven't suggested it. You see where I've written "none" under "Proposed enforcement"? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In truth, I had not... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I don't get this. He was a party to this case, he was brought up in evidence against Smatprt. Everything Jimbo did was transparent, and we have all been free to agree or disagree with any part of it. Would we prefer that he confer with arbs in secret? I wouldn't. That would make it even more difficult to balance his effect. Wrad (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not being a party. This is being a party. Wrad, I note your opinion that if there were any non-transparency, such as discussion on the arbs' + Jimbo's mailing list, you'd know about it. I've always assumed the opposite. Please note that that's not intended as an anti-arbcom or anti-Jimbo jab. The use of the mailing list (again, access is restricted to arbs + Jimbo) is precisely as a venue for arbs + Jimbo to discuss cases in confidence. I consider that a reasonable and honourable use. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is a ridiculous sequence of proposals by Bishonen - the idea that the guy who set wikipedia up should not comment on anything, just because she disagrees with what he says. Unfortunately, Bishonen has become too personally involved in this dispute, and has abandoned the principles of objectivity one would expect to see in an administrator. A nice example of Bishonen's bias is the way she has tried to hide the proposals of Nina Green and Smatprt on this very page. Inappropriate behaviour includes this offensive outburst of swearing [60] (note edit summary). Poujeaux (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is ridiculous is your (and others') use of the most marginal incidents to try to gain some type of traction in lieu of any substantive issues. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poujeaux, you may wish to consult the discussion on the workshop's talkpage about collapsing "that overlong thread that has developed in Nina's proposals section."[61] I came in at a late stage and had no interest in the matter either way, but since everybody seemed worried about the workshop descending into chaos (though I have to say I've seen worse), I carried out their wishes and consensus as a matter of admin responsibility. I pointed out that anybody could freely revert or alter my action. Do you really believe that NinaGreen's and Smatprt's proposals, which the drafting arbitrator has dismissed out of hand,([62] [63]same comment, different proposal, notice the timestamps.) are so golden that these editors' diabolical adversaries would want to hide them from the arbitrators? If I was petty enough to want Nina to look bad, I'd be more likely to make sure every word she's written on this case was perpetually visible to ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~1) None.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by MoreThings~~
~~Proposed principle~~
1) It's a big deal to remove an editor's ability to edit. It's not a big deal to remove an editor's access to the sysop tools.
Editors with access to the sysop tools must use them with consideration and care, especially when using them in a way which directly affects a fellow editor. Editors who use the sysop tools thoughtlessly, capriciously, or recklessly shall have their access to the sysop tools removed.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed Findings of Fact~~
Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked NinaGreen for 10 days. Nina had not edited article space for 3 days. An arbitration case to consider the behaviour of Nina and others was pending.
The community expects that blocks will be based on reviewable evidence...Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. FP did not supply any evidence. He did not supply a clear and specific reason. He did not link to any policy. He mentioned "talk page activities" but provided no link. He mentioned other editors' opinions but provided no link. He linked to an essay. He didn't explain which of the bullet points in that essay he felt described Nina's behaviour. He accused her of "a campaign of agenda-driven tendentious editing" and blocked her for ten days, yet he provided not a scintilla of evidence. He implied that an emergency existed but none of the conditions which define an emergency obtained. He made unblocking conditional on a topic ban, a course of action which is nowhere supported in policy. FP has been active in this arbcom case but has provided no evidence to support the block, nor any to explain why emergency action was required.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The block was reviewed by multiple parties. The fact that NinaGreen chose not to take an unblock that would include a temporary topic ban, instead missing the beginning of the case, is something I'm reviewing in any prospective decision. SirFozzie (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
If I recall correctly, the block was objected to by multiple parties, as well, including LessHeard, the filing administrator.Smatprt (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie, I hope you're also reviewing the fact that Future Perfect was a completely uninvolved administrator who parachuted into this arbitration from nowhere (at whose behest, one can't help but wonder, particularly when one sees all the other evidence that a faction has been organized during the past several weeks against one sole Oxfordian editor), and blocked me for 10 days without providing any reason, and that Tom Reedy has then cited that 10-day block as evidence against me on this very Workshop page, opening up the very real possibility that Future Perfect imposed the block so that the block could be cited as evidence against me in the arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie, which parties are you referring to? LHvU said it was inappropriate. Warshy clearly thought the same, and Nina said it was unfair and prejudicial. Moonraker2 did not agree with it, said that it lacked explanation, and felt it could prejudice this case. Nuclear Warfare offered to increase it. MoreThings (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not desyopped for one instance of alleged misjudgement, but for demonstrating a pattern of misjudgements (or other poor behaviour). For an admin to be desysopped for one contested action, while being permitted to remain as an editor, would require an extraordinarily inept action made in good faith. Although I cannot begin to imagine what such an action would be, I am certain that this instance comes nowhere near even starting to appear as being a possible contender for it.
Plus, a couple of points; First, I did not say the block was inappropriate - I opined that it may be, for reasons given. Secondly, and I may have already had this discussion with MoreThings (certainly someone, somewhere in respect of Bishonens admin activity relating to SAQ), the policy that allows admins to suggest restrictions such as a voluntary topic ban is Wikipedia:Administrator; as experienced contributors admins are permitted to exercise their judgement in finding methods by which disruption is diminished and editing permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bishonen's admin activity", little LittleHeard? ? My god, that sounds like the very quintessence of "abusive". Perhaps you're thinking of this discussion between yourself and Moonraker2 on Nina Green's talkpage? (Though Moonraker2 treated it more as if it was his talkpage, and Nina didn't have that much opportunity for input). Compare a proposal I make above. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Activity is the essence of abuse? Who knew? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC) ps. You initially appeared to be channeling 'zilla. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Zilla working on permanently taking over wienie personality (and admin tools) of little 'shonen! Expand to taking over little LessHeard next, haha ! [Throaty monster laugh rolls over the workshop, reducing it to debris. ] Never mind, not make much difference! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, brave admin You, if even your oceanic imagination is unable to conveive an act of adminnery so heinous as to merit desysopping, then there is clearly no such act. And indeed, who would deny that it is writ in wp:admin that ye mop-tops shall bestride the wiki-orb doling out great blobs of wiki-justice wherever it is needed (and even where it isn't really needed that much, especially if it's a bit of quiet night at an/i, and, well, y' know, there wasn't really that much on the telly. innit.). MoreThings (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Three accurate statements, but clearly of only peripheral relevance to the state of editing at SAQ and related areas. Not a useful FoF for this case --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Proposed remedies~~
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Future Perfect's access to the sysop tools is withdrawn. He may reapply at WP:RFA after a period of no less than three months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Don't see any support for this, other than "Did something I don't like" SirFozzie (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie, do you mean that you don't agree that the Proposed FOF supports this, or that you're weighing proposal based upon the number of support votes that they receive? Do you think it's reasonable to represent this proposed FOF as 'Did something I don't like'? Do you feel that FP provided evidence to support the block? Do you feel there was an emergency? MoreThings (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly excessive for a single incident, even if we determined that the block was problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that no single block ever warrants removal of sysop privileges. It's that argument that is responsible for the mindset that allowed FP to make the block in the first place. Admins know very well that it's highly unlikely that they'll ever appear before arbcom. Remarks like yours confirm them in their knowledge that even if they do somehow end up here—say by making a truly appalling block under the nose of arbcom—then the worst that will happen is that arbcom will wag its finger, say "tut-tut", and send them on their way. Providing of course that the blockee didn't have a mop tucked away somewhere in the cupboard.
Your argument isn't that this block doesn't merit removal of the tools, because you make it clear that you haven't yet decided on the merits of this block. Your argument is that no block of a non-Admin ever merits removal of the tools.
It's embarrassingly obvious from SirFozzie's remarks that he hasn't bothered even to put himself on a nodding acquaintance with facts. He's made up his mind up on a FoF relating to a block without even bothering to read the section in which the block was issued. The block may have been reviewed by multiple parties, but he certainly isn't one of those parties. He doesn't have a clue who said what. MoreThings (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that no single block could ever warrant desysopping; recall the R. fiend case, where the allegation was that an administrator had blocked a user on Wikipedia based entirely on an editing dispute on another website, and when asked to justify the block denied any recollection of it. I do say that this block, whether or not we agree or disagree with it (or make any findings concerning it at all) does not rise to the level of warranting any sanction, much less desysopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you did say that, Brad—highly excessive for a single block, regardless of the merits and demerits the block itself . It was your knee-jerk reaction, and I think that it's a pity that you've got into that way of thinking. I feel that that it actively harms the project, and works against the establishment of a relaxed and collegial working environment. MoreThings (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
From FPaS's notice to Nina Green[64]:
"Reading over some recent talk page activities of yours, and seeing the reports on the Arbcom request of how your editing has been perceived by multiple outside observers, I have become convinced that you have indeed been engaged in a campaign of agenda-driven tendentious editing, which has had a seriously disruptive effect on the overall editing situation at the Shakespeare-related pages. Multiple attempts at getting you to recognize the problem and change your approach have evidently failed."

No matter how you look at it, these are the sort of blocks that the community entrusts our admins to make. If we disagree (and I'm with LHvU on this one) and can't convince the blocking admin to reconsider, we can ask for the block to be reviewed at ANI. It probably helps if Nina doesn't argue the block by claiming that comments on talk pages don't count as edits and therefore talk pages can't be covered by WP:TE [65]. It's a waste of electrons to ask ArbCom to consider de-sysoping an admin over a single block that actually has some support from other admins. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~2) Future Perfect's access to the sysop tools is suspended for three months.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Likewise disproportionate, whether or not we agree with the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed principle~~
~~1) None.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed Findings of Fact~~
Many talented and knowledgeable editors want to edit the SAQ article. They would all rather talk about the article than talk about each other. It would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia to lose any of these editors.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
Uninvolved administrators are requested to patrol the SAQ talk page and to block any editor who makes a derogatory remark about another editor. Definition of derogatory is left to administrator discretion, but don't find yourself blocking Fred for insulting Joe only to learn that Joe didn't consider the remark insulting. Check with the injured party before issuing the block. Block length should start at a day or two and escalate for repeat offences to a maximum of four weeks. If any editor serves two 4 week blocks and continues to offend, refer that editor to arbcom.
Editors are encouraged to double-check every post before hitting save: if the subject of the post is a fellow editor, spike it and start again. Take any grievance concerning the behaviour of fellow editors to the appropriate noticeboard. Keep the SAQ talk page clear for talking about the SAQ article.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by Nishidani~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~High quality sourcing~~
In article areas where conflict among editors is high, or which are prone to POV battles, and which, however, are thoroughly covered by extensive academic work, the bar of WP:RS be raised, in such a way that contributors are required to source the articles to books or articles written by professional, peer-reviewed scholars of that subject.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
As a principle, I do not see how this applies to the SAQ article - since the majority of the content cannot be sourced to publications by professional scholars within the subject field, except to refute the premise. The principle might be applied upon the authorship notion being raised in other Shakespeare related articles, but that suggests the consensus/npov regarding the authorship question remains undecided. The same issues would be apparent if this is proposed as a remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than sufficient independent reliable sources to source the SAQ article, and in fact WP:FRINGE requires that those types of secondary sources be used to describe fringe theories if they exist: [66]. In fact, the great majority of the sources used by the current article are WP:RS sources, with the primary sources only referenced to note their publication. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are, but are they <quote>by professional, peer-reviewed scholars of that subject</quote> as suggested is required by Nishidani? I believe that bar to be too high for even the best RS upon the claims by others for the mantle of author of Shakespeares canon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Comment, are you responding to me or Nishidani's proposal? The indenting tends to favour to me, but your response could be to the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Shakespeare authorship question is "thoroughly covered by extensive academic work", although not nearly in the amount of works advocating alternative authors (the topic doesn't merit a lifetime study or even its own specialty). Schoenbaum, Bate, and Shapiro are all "professional, peer-reviewed scholars of that subject", whether said subject be the SAQ or Shakespeare. That does not necessarily mean that all such scholars are academics (from Oxford or any other university), one of the most notable being Irvin Matus, who never earned a degree but was accorded a high degree of respect by academics and whose publications were all reviewed by Shakespeare scholars. There's really no reason to resort to primary sources except in articles about more obscure fringe theories, and even in those cases it's doubtful they would be notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less has a very good point re the Oxfordian theory article. A lot of that stuff is not attested in recent scholarship precisely because it was essentially disposed of by public intellectuals (Robertson, Lang, etc.) a century ago in dismissing the pretensions of Baconism. The problem is, in writing the Oxfordian page within fringe sources, that it contains a huge amount of, well, rubbish, which of course would require a gigabyte to list thoroughly or comprehensively. I wonder whether a variation could be pondered. Where you have editors sitting over an article for more than 3 years, who edit it regularly, and yet the article remains in a state of disrepair, is patchy, fails elementary test like coherent formatting, etc., whether or not a rule could be appealed to that these editors be given notice that their rights to edit that particular article will be revoked or suspended unless they undertake to at least bring the article up to GA level within 7al months or a year, irrespective of RS questions? I see a huge amount of snippety editing and reverting over many key articles, mainly POV warriors, who however consistently refrain from committing themselves to any serious effort at article improvement. There should be, arguably, some guideline giving dedicated contgent editors a handle to force these articles out of the slough of despond in which they customarily lie, so that real progress is made.Nishidani (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of policy is that scholarship that hasn't had an academic response is not to be covered in Wikipedia articles, so I don't see it as an issue if policy is followed. I think it might be good to have a short WP:RS primer comprised of a list of dos and don'ts to point to for new editors to read. As it is now you have to dig through a lot of prose before coming up with a definitive guideline. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
I'm not sure whether this is a principle or remedy, but a similar process already exists, notably within articles that make health-related claims. See WP:MEDRS for the standards to which sourcing in medical articles is held. Ideally, the quality of a source depends less on the credentials of its author, and more on the peer-review and publishing processes of the journal or book in which it is published. There's no reason why editors within a WikiProject or in a defined topic area cannot reach a consensus to insist on the use of only high-quality sourcing, and that may be a preferable route to take rather than asking ArbCom to impose it. Nevertheless it's a goal worth aiming for. --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by 71.141.88.54~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Obsessive point of view~~
~~1) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Old but memorable.[67] 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of evidence~~
~~Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~General discussion~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

@@ Line 773: / Line 773: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
+::Definitely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinaGreen&diff=405310528&oldid=405300840 This] is how we keep new users ignorant. I can't quite see much of a problem with the second paragraph, though. Maybe it's the first one. Well, oddly enough, RexxS himself has something to say about  the interpretation of policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Workshop&diff=410832608&oldid=410831028 "...ArbCom has to be allowed to work within the spirit of fundamental principles of our encyclopedia (including IAR). The very definition of wikilawyering is to insist on the letter, rather than the spirit of those principles..."]. Hmmm.
-::
+::Now RexxS isn't an  admin, of course, and these are his proposals. But wait! Even though these are RexxS's proposals, whose signature do we espy taking the credit for this little beauty? Step forward admin Bishonen. Yaay!  And who could blame her for wanting to put forward this proposal? After all, every diff is a criticism of her behaviour. I suppose it would be little unseemly for her to make such a proposal in her own section. Much better to slip it in here.
+::Then there's the scurrilous assertion that WP is a  bureaucracy! Who in their right mind would argue that WP is a bureaucracy? Why, one only need cast an eye  across this very page to see that thing is the very epitome of efficiency.
+::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinaGreen&oldid=410257276#Warning This] is the other link, and what a damning piece of evidence it is: three editors with no axe to grind appearing out of the blue to criticise admin Bishonen. All in all, the only slight quibble I might have with this proposal is the wording. How about we recast it like so: ''any good-faith editor who disagrees with an admin's actions, and has the temerity to voice that disagreement, shall be taken outside and shot''?  [[User:MoreThings|MoreThings]] ([[User talk:MoreThings|talk]]) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''