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

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&mdash;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.

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. 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 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:


 * 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 .


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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” referenced by Jimbo, Tom and Nina, it’s premature close, and the resulting decision made by ScienceApologist, who is now indef banned.

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, 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.


 * Allow this group of named parties - editors and administrators - to examine both versions and  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)


 * 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)
 * I agree. All of this is tangent to the behavioral issues, which are why the case was accepted. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Smatprt, I think you posted your comment to NYBrad in the wrong section. Shouldn't it be here? In any case, just for the record, I dissented from the terms of ScienceApologist's merge, as shown by the diff on my page. But I just went on working. I might add that I could well have dissented from your unilateral move to fork the SAQ1 sandbox page into 2 and more or less arrogate the former for your own use while directing Tom and myself to work on the other. By what authority? I just went on working. I remember the October shift of that page well. I woke up, found the shift had been made, and just kept working. I never checked the authority for ScienceApologist's move, nor your fork, nor the October move. Perhaps I should have. But, the only purpose for my wasting time on wikipedia is to see articles written, not endlessly dithered with. Our article's history shows 5 months of intensive work on it. The one you kept for yourself shows no significant work. You dithered and tinkered for 5 months, and keep appealing for a return to the status quo ante. Where is the evidence from your record that you are sufficiently committed to the goals of wikipedia to actually work to articles, towards their completion. You had 4 years to manage with others some sort of finished page, then 5 months of total liberty to work a competing page up, without Tom or me present, and the result in either case has been a page (pre Dec 2009) that shows no coherence in format, total indifference to quality sources, and no respect for logical construction of an historical argument, but which, to gather from the testimony of many highly dedicated wikipedian editors with an interest in Shakespeare, drove off many editors as unworkable long before Reedy or myself entered the picture.Nishidani (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Moved and bolded: Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brad - is 3 months more recent? The result of the merge discussion was an agreement that was broken in October, when in a "bold" edit, the work of dozens, if not hundreds of editors was completely deleted, replaced by a version by two like-minded editors. Neither Tom nor Nishidani objected, or even noted that the agreement brokered by ScienceApologist, to which we all agreed, was being broken. I believe this is recent enough conduct to be considered here. Smatprt (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . Poujeaux (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "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)


 * No, you didn't follow SA's directive. You allowed your version to become the "default" article, in spite of the agreement you made with all of us.Smatprt (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion to clarify or dismiss the case against NinaGreen
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'. 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.
 * You're right that attempting to involve other administrators in anything is regarded as especially heinous. But as for requesting LessHeard to act, I was merely going by WP:BIGANDSTRONG, the policy that big and strong admins have to be treated with special deference. I'm surprised you don't know it. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

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)


 * 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)


 * 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:




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

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)


 * 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  [&bull; ] 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * As I explained to you at the beginning of the case, 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)


 * Shell, again thank you for your comments. I do not need anyone to 'provide me things'. I need to know what the alleged 'issue' you've mentioned is, what the 'certain disputes' you've mentioned are, and what the case is against me personally in relation to that alleged 'issue' (whatever it is) and those 'certain disputes' (whatever they are). Many many individuals have been dragged into this arbitration. The 'evidence' is all over the place, and much of it relates to events which occurred long before I began editing on 23 October 2010. It is not even clear whether the arbitration involves editing of the Edward de Vere article. All the arbitration pages are headed 'Shakespeare Authorship Question', indicating clearly that the arbitration only involves editing of the SAQ article. However many irrelevant statements have been made on this Workshop page, particularly by Nishidani, which relate to the Edward de Vere article. The arbitrators obviously need to clarify which article the arbitration refers to. However in any event I can see absolutely no case against me in the 'Evidence'. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and there has been no evidence produced which indicates that I have violated any Wikipedia policy. The arbitrators have a responsibility to provide due process to me as an individual editor by clarifying which Wikipedia articles the arbitration concerns, the alleged 'issue' you have mentioned, the 'certain disputes' you have mentioned, and the way in which all these relate to me as an individual editor who only began editing recently and who is therefore entirely uninvolved in the earlier disputes which have obviously been going on for years so that I can put in my evidence accordingly. Failing that, the arbitrators should immediately dismiss the case against me.NinaGreen (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The "issue" would be the inability of a group of editors to resolve various content disputes on articles ("certain disputes") related to the topic of Shakespeare's works and personage; Xover wrote a more thorough summary of the focus which might be helpful. The case against you personally includes evidence which claims that your account is here for a single purpose only, that this purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint on a single subject and that while following this purpose, you have disrupted the ability of other editors to work on the article(s) in a normal fashion.  I believe it was also suggested in evidence that you fail to follow core Wikipedia policies in regards to article content (WP:NPOV for example) and that your method of discussion on talk pages and elsewhere is, in itself, disruptive.  I'm starting to find this line of inquiry a bit difficult to understand - certainly you must be aware of some of these concerns as you've commented on both findings related to you (here and here). Shell   babelfish 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This posting from the Google group Forest of Arden has just been brought to my attention. This arbitration was begun by Bishonen and LessHeard vanU on the basis of a false allegation that there was a co-ordinated campaign by Oxfordians to push an Oxfordian POV on the SAQ article. In this posting Tom Reedy states that he initiated an 'attempted recruitment of Ardenites to edit Wikipedia Shakespeare articles'. It is clear that the co-ordinated campaign to push a particular POV on the SAQ article and related articles on the Shakespeare authorship was on Tom Reedy's part, not on the part of Oxfordians.

http://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/browse_thread/thread/3e060d0e48ce58e7/35dadabc036917d6?lnk=gst&q=recruitment#35dadabc036917d6

NinaGreen (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This would be something you would want to present in evidence or make an appropriate proposal in a section below. Not sure how this relates to my reply just above. Shell   babelfish 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, it relates in this way. The arbitrators have defined the 'issue' to exclude the fact that there has been a sustained and co-ordinated campaign on Tom Reedy's part to push his particular POV on the article, and that Tom's organization of a faction to push his particular anti-Oxfordian POV ('I am their sworn nemesis') is the root of all the problems with the SAQ article. I have provided ample evidence on this Workshop page of Tom Reedy's admitted bias on the Shakespeare authorship question, and the arbitrators have completely eliminated it from consideration in the way in which they have framed the issue. This arbitration IS about the pushing of a particular POV, but it is not me who is doing so (see my suggested lede for the SAQ article as evidence of that). It is Tom Reedy who is pushing his personal anti-Oxfordian POV on the SAQ article and who has organized a faction to do so, and the arbitrators are turning a blind eye to it, and are not providing me with due process.NinaGreen (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually canvassing on Wikipedia or elsewhere is against policy and so would fall under the "issue" which includes any behavior that has made this dispute unresolvable by normal means. Shell  babelfish 22:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, I'm an inexperienced editor, but it seems to me that Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits what Tom Reedy did, since Forest of Arden, the blog on which Tom Reedy posted his recruitment notice, was originally set up, as I understand it, by David Kathman (with whom Tom Reedy is associated on Kathman's website) and Terry Ross, and the membership consists of like-minded individuals, i.e. strongly-biased anti-Oxfordians. It was among this biased group that Tom Reedy was canvassing for Wikipedia editors late last September. Tom has added to the evidence against him on this point by posting a message below in which he states that 'the WikiProject Shakespeare is looking for editors', and that most of the current Wikipedia articles on the subject are 'terrible', and need help from editors recruited from this biased Kathman/Ross/Reedy blog. Is there any evidence that Wikipedia itself was looking for editors at all? I doubt that such evidence can be found. And would Wikipedia have sanctioned looking for editors on a biased anti-Oxfordian blog? Again, I doubt it. Although Tom Reedy phrased his request carefully to imply that the request for editors originated from Wikipedia itself and he was merely the messenger, it seems clear that it was Tom Reedy himself who was canvassing on a biased blog for editors in order to organize a faction, in contravention of . Here's what seems to me to be the relevant section of the policy:


 * In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.


 * However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.


 * Other forms of inappropriate consensus-building


 * For other types of action which are inappropriate in the consensus-building process, see the policy on Consensus. Apart from canvassing, these include forum shopping (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), sock puppetry and meat puppetry (bringing real or fictional outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and tendentious editing.


 * I covered this point in some detail below on this Workshop page (see below, and see .), showing that when he first came to Wikipedia in 2007 and was using an IP address, Tom Reedy declared his bias, stated that he was 'alerting' other individuals to organize a faction (including, it would seem, Hardy Cook, moderator of the Shaksper list which has a worldwide membership), outed one Oxfordian editor and attempted to out another, and inserted as a source in the SAQ article the website on which is associated with David Kathman.


 * In other words, nothing has changed. Tom Reedy was organizing, demonstrating bias against Oxfordians, and violating Wikipedia policies when he first came to Wikipedia in 2007, and last September he was doing the same thing, i.e. canvassing on a biased anti-Oxfordian blog for additional editors to build a consensus for his own POV. Moreover Tom Reedy's bias has remained unchanged. In 2007 he declared himself the 'sworn nemesis' of Oxfordians, and in recent weeks, since I started editing, he made a personal attack on me, contrary to WP:NPA, stating that 'You believe in a crank theory with nothing to support it but your own imagination'. He also stated while this arbitration was in process that he would 'like to talk to some sane Oxfordians', thus implying that I am 'insane'. Earlier, he had used the word 'fanatic' in connection with me.


 * I would respectfully suggest that Tom Reedy's canvassing, organizing of a faction, overt bias, and personal attacks should be the first issue dealt with by the arbitrators, because if that issue is found to be substantiated, that would explain very clearly why it has been difficult for editors to reach agreement on content issues.NinaGreen (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NinaGreen (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, where is this 'faction' Tom recruited? Where are all those new names or IPs listed who, after his appeal, suddenly registered and made life a concerted hell for Oxfordians, stormtrooping in with all of their academic nonsense since early last year?Nishidani (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nina, you should link to the actual "recruiting" post here:, which states:

This post, dated 14 Sep 2010, is related to this conversation here: Recruitment and drive?

How you can get a "sustained and co-ordinated campaign on Tom Reedy's part to push his particular POV on the article" and "Tom's organization of a faction to push his particular anti-Oxfordian POV" out of that, I don't know, but I realise that watching a finger slowly write Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin would induce desperation in anybody. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


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


 * Shell, I'm putting this comment here at the end because there have been several interjections and I'd like to keep the sequence of the discussion as clear as possible. You referred me to Xover's comments, who said:


 * 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.


 * The three points mentioned by Xover have not been established in the 'evidence' presented insofar as they concern me. There are no diffs cited in the 'evidence' which establish that I have pushed the Oxfordian POV, and my suggested lede paragraph for the SAQ article is definitive evidence of the neutral POV I have maintained throughout my editing. I have not engaged in persistent edit-warring, and that is established by the fact that I only edited the entire Edward de Vere article after Tom Reedy had given me permission to do so in a private e-mail and there was no objection by other editors on the Edward de Vere Talk page, and by the fact that the end result of my editing of the SAQ article was that Tom Reedy only allowed me to add 4 additional sources for facts already in the article and to tidy up one other source. There would have to be very considerable evidence provided by the other side to establish that I've engaged in edit-warring when I've essentially only been allowed to edit when I have Tom Reedy's personal permission (the Edward de Vere article), and that I was essentially not allowed to edit at all on the SAQ article because Tom Reedy didn't allow me to. As for Xover's statement that there has been 'incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources', that has not been established in evidence concerning me. The debate over whether the academic peer-reviewed journal Brief Chronicles (on which there is a Wikipedia article) began long before my time editing, and when Tom Reedy tried to drag me into a second debate on Brief Chronicles on a dispute resolution page I declined to become involved because the first debate had proved inconclusive and I felt the second debate would prove the same. Instead I simply agreed to delete Brief Chronicles from the sources I had cited in the Edward de Vere article. It is this sort of thing which has made it impossible for me to know the case against me and to put in my evidence. General statements are made which are untrue and which are unsupported by diffs, and I can't prove, and should not have to prove, a negative.NinaGreen (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, I'm reproducing your comments here because so much discussion has intervened:


 * The "issue" would be the inability of a group of editors to resolve various content disputes on articles ("certain disputes") related to the topic of Shakespeare's works and personage; Xover wrote a more thorough summary of the focus which might be helpful. The case against you personally includes evidence which claims that your account is here for a single purpose only, that this purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint on a single subject and that while following this purpose, you have disrupted the ability of other editors to work on the article(s) in a normal fashion. I believe it was also suggested in evidence that you fail to follow core Wikipedia policies in regards to article content (WP:NPOV for example) and that your method of discussion on talk pages and elsewhere is, in itself, disruptive. I'm starting to find this line of inquiry a bit difficult to understand - certainly you must be aware of some of these concerns as you've commented on both findings related to you (here and here). Shell babelfish 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with Xover's summary above. I'll now deal with the what you've stated to be the 'evidence' against me.


 * evidence which claims that your account is here for a single purpose only


 * This 'evidence' has troubled me from the beginning of this arbitration because it is the first piece of 'evidence' submitted, and it was submitted by someone using an IP address. Tom Reedy then contacted the User page for that IP address and advised that person that before I opened a User account I had edited for a time under an IP address (I signed most of those postings with my own name, however), and thanks to Tom's intervention, the person using the IP address then posted my edits under the IP address. My question is this. How did someone editing under an IP address know about this arbitration and decide to submit, as the very first piece of evidence in the arbitration, a log of my edits? I don't fully understand sockpuppetry, but it seems clear that this IP address is a sockpuppet whose purpose was to make the arbitration appear to be all about me. However leaving the sockpuppetry issue aside, the logs themselves establish that I am not a single purpose user. The logs establish that I have edited a number of different articles, and I would have edited more had I not spent several weeks fully occupied with editing the entire Edward de Vere article. In summary, this 'evidence' appears to have been put in by a sockpuppet, and it establishes that I am NOT a single purpose user.


 * this purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint on a single subject


 * This statement is not true, and no diffs have been provided in evidence to support it. I cannot be required to prove a negative in an arbitration. And in fact there is ample evidence on the SAQ Talk page, including my suggested lede for the SAQ article, which definitively establishes that I have promoted a neutral point of view.


 * you have disrupted the ability of other editors to work on the article(s) in a normal fashion


 * Again, this statement is not true, and no diffs have been provided in evidence to support it. I cannot be required to prove a negative in an arbitration. Moreover the facts speak for themselves. Tom Reedy and other editors have made dozens of edits to the SAQ article during the time I have been editing. I have obviously not disrupted their work in the slightest. However they have completely disrupted any attempts by me to edit the article. As I've said many times (and no-one has denied it because the Edit History confirms it), Tom Reedy only permitted me to add to the SAQ article additional sources for 4 facts already in the article, and to tidy up one additional source. That's it. So although my ability to work on the SAQ article in a normal fashion was entirely and utterly disrupted by Tom Reedy, the ability of Tom Reedy and others to edit the article was not disrupted in the slightest. They made as many edits as they wished to make.


 * I believe it was also suggested in evidence that you fail to follow core Wikipedia policies in regards to article content (WP:NPOV for example)


 * This statement is not true, and no diffs have been provided in evidence to support it. I cannot be required to prove a negative in an arbitration. For NPOV in particular, see my comment above.


 * your method of discussion on talk pages and elsewhere is, in itself, disruptive


 * This statement is not true, and no diffs have been provided in evidence to support it. I cannot be required to prove a negative in an arbitration. And as I have mentioned many times, the form discussions on the SAQ Talk page have followed is clearly demonstrated by the example on this Workshop page. I put forward a suggestion concerning merger which would have moved the dispute forward and which Tom Reedy had himself recently suggested on the SAQ Talk page. Tom Reedy and Nishidani completely ignored my proposal, and turned the discussion into an extended personal attack on my qualifications, a false statement that I had been 'welcomed' when I first began editing on Wikipedia, and a host of other irrelevant points. This has happened time and time again on the SAQ Talk page with every substantive point I have raised. Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow have derailed my substantive points in each and every instance into endless irrelevancies and personal attacks on me.


 * In summary, the examples above demonstrate that I am being denied due process because the case I have to meet has not been defined. There are no diffs in the evidence to support any of the allegations, and I cannot be required in an arbitration to prove a negative. If there is a single diff which the arbitrators can cite which demonstrates that I have violated any Wikipedia policy, please cite it and I will put in my evidence. Otherwise, justice and equity require that the arbitrators dismiss the case against me forthwith, and I am again requesting that that be done.NinaGreen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't agree with what everyone has said doesn't mean the case isn't defined or you're being denied something here. Last time this is going to be said - the case will not be dismissed. Period. Shell   babelfish 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, this is precisely the sort of comment which causes me grave concern about the Wikipedia arbitration process (which as I've demonstrated below does not in the slightest resemble a real-world arbitration process, and the word arbitration is obviously a misnomer for what is actually an ad hoc tribunal with the potential to damage editors' personal reputations by making the arbitration process open to the entire internet). The issue in a real-world arbitration would not be 'just because you don't agree with what everyone has said doesn't mean the case isn't defined'. The issue would be 'what everyone has said does not meet the standards of evidence for an arbitration, and therefore that evidence cannot be used in the arbitrators' decision'. In this case, event though Wikipedia arbitrations are obviously not arbitrations, there has to be some standard by which the evidence which can be used by the arbitrators in their decision can be judged. The minimal standard has to be (1) that the statement was put in as one of the statements of evidence, (2) that the statement refers to the violation of a specific Wikipedia policy, and (3) that the statement contains diffs which demonstrate violation of that specific Wikipedia policy. Otherwise Wikipedia arbitrations are merely ad hoc free-for-alls in which the arbitrators are at complete liberty to make up their own grounds for their decisions, and impose whatever sanctions and penalties they please on editors in a forum which is open to the entire internet universe.


 * I quite understand that the arbitrators are not going to dismiss the case against me before they have rendered their decision on the entire case. You have made that quite clear. But you have not made it clear that the case against me has been defined. It has not. You have not identified a single allegation in the statements of evidence which alleges that I have violated a specific Wikipedia policy and which is supported by diffs which demonstrate the violation of that specific Wikipedia policy. Yet you continue to maintain that the case against me has been defined. It has not, and because it has not, I have been denied the opportunity to put in my evidence.NinaGreen (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nina, there is no such thing as the "real world". Arbitration processes operate according to the requirements of whatever the institution in question is. Wikipedia is real. Other organisations are also real. All operate according to their needs. Please do not imply that Wikipedia is somehow transgressing the norms of some wholly imaginary "real" world.Paul B (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have retitled the heading of this request from "Template." I hope NinaGreen does not mind. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool Hand Luke, thanks very much for doing that. I wanted to do it myself but couldn't figure out how.NinaGreen (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators response to NinaGreen's request
The Arbitration process is not a court of law. The Arbitrators do not make formal charges against individuals, and those involved are not required to enter a plea to the committee. The purpose of an Arbitration case is to allow all those who feel they have an involvement - and indeed those who wish to express an outside view - to make comments on their view as to events. At the end of this, the Arbitrators sift through the evidence to decide what, if any, action needs to be taken. Possible action includes reminding people of the groundrules for editing and admonishing editors to generally behave better in future, as well as the more well publicised sanctions. There is accordingly no "case" to answer at this stage. If NinaGreen is correct that other editors have failed to identify problematic behaviour on the part of NinaGreen, then ultimately one finding of this case must be that other editors have failed to identify problematic behaviour on the part of NinaGreen. It is up to NinaGreen (or indeed any participant) to determine what has been said against them, and to rebut it if they desire to do so and are able to do so.

Accordingly, Arbcom cannot accede to a request to "dismiss" the "case" against NinaGreen. Like all the other parties, NinaGreen will have to wait until the proposed decision is published, to see whether the Arbitrators have identified any problematic behaviour, and whether a sanction is proposed. No further discussion on this request on the part of NinaGreen will be entered into at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC) for Arbitration Committee


 * I agree with my colleagues. Additionally, Wikipedia arbitration is different from real-world arbitration, which sometimes has some of the attributes mentioned by NinaGreen. When ArbCom takes a case, the behaviors of all parties are examined; this has been try for a very long time, nearly from the beginning of ArbCom.
 * Anyhow, all decisions are based on Wikipedia's evolving "policies," and the principles guiding the decision will be identified and passed by the committee. I have no intention of voting for any proposal not based on an existing policy. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Elen of the Roads, thank you for your reply on behalf of Arbcom. A Wikipedia arbitration is not a court of law. But Wikipedia does state that it is an arbitration. In a real-world arbitration, personal conduct is never the ground of an arbitration, the process by which parties are brought into an arbitration is clearly defined (arbitrations occur either under a contract to which the parties have agreed, or via an agreement between the parties to submit an issue to arbitration), the issue being arbitrated is clearly defined, the parties to the arbitration are clearly defined, the submissions considered by the arbitrators are confined to submissions by or on behalf of the parties which are clearly relevant and material to the issue being arbitrated, there is usually only a single arbitrator and that arbitrator hears all the evidence submitted because he/she is present in the room during the submissions, the arbitrators render their decision based on facts which have been clearly substantiated in the arbitration, the arbitrators can only render their decision within clearly-defined parameters, the arbitration process, the arbitrators have no discretionary penalties or sanctions, and access to the arbitration proceedings is strictly limited. In a Wikipedia arbitration, in contrast, personal conduct is the primary ground of arbitration, the process by which parties are brought into an arbitration is completely undefined and random, the issue being arbitrated is not clearly defined, how people came to be parties to the arbitration is not clearly defined, anyone in the world who chooses to do so can make a statement of 'evidence' which can be accepted as evidence by the arbitrators (most of these statement being made anonymously, and some even using IP addresses), there can be a dozen or more arbitrators and there is no assurance that all of them have even read the statements of evidence as they are put in (much of the work of doing so being delegated to two 'drafting arbitrators'), there is no requirement that general statements of opinion in the 'evidence' be factually supported, there are no parameters which govern the arbitrators' decision, the arbitrators are allowed to administer discretionary penalties and sanctions, and the arbitration proceedings can be accessed by the entire world on the internet with no safeguards against damage to the personal reputations of the parties who have been dragged into the arbitration. As someone who is new to Wikipedia, I think it can be understood why I am shocked at this procedure which, although it is termed an arbitration by Wikipedia, does not resemble a real-world arbitration in any way. A Wikipedia arbitration is clearly more akin to an ad hoc tribunal in which there is no guarantee of any sort of due process for good-faith editors who have been dragged into it. It is not only courts of law which require due process.


 * Given this situation, it is only natural that I am concerned that there has been no evidence (in this case no 'diffs') presented which establishes that I have violated any specific Wikipedia policy, and that I have therefore been unable to present my evidence because I do not know the case I have to meet and because one cannot prove a negative and should not be required to in any administrative proceeding, including an arbitration.


 * You have stated that I will have to 'see whether the Arbitrators have identified any problematic behaviour'. This statement shocks me because what I would have expected to hear from Arbcom was 'to see whether the Arbitrators have identified IN THE STATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE ANY VIOLATIONS OF SPECIFIC WIKIPEDIA POLICY SUPPORTED BY DIFFS IN THE STATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE'. If Wikipedia arbitrators can administer penalties and sanctions based merely on what they identify in their own minds as 'problematic behaviour' without grounding it on violations of specific Wikipedia policies which have been identified by diffs in the statements of evidence, then a Wikipedia arbitration is indeed an ad hoc tribunal, not an arbitration.


 * I therefore trust that any decision by the arbitrators with respect to me will be confined to alleged violations of specific Wikipedia policies supported by diffs in the statements of evidence. As I have said before, I can find none, and it has never been my intention to violate any specific Wikipedia policy in the slightest. On the contrary, I have been careful to adhere to Wikipedia policies.NinaGreen (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another difference between Wikipedia and the real world is that sanctions here only involve protecting the encyclopedia: no one is fined or locked up. Accordingly, principles are followed, rather than precise rules with all their attendant loopholes that are exploited in real life.
 * Re "factually supported": As previously requested, would you please strike out your false claim regarding me, or provide evidence to support it (see talk). Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way arbitration is done here on Wikipedia rather than continue your barrage of how things are done elsewhere. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're a "new editor"? You've been here since 16 May 2010 and been citing "policy" since 18 May, and you're bringing up stuff against me from the first few days I was here. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to NinaGreen's comments at 17:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) - Uh huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since she is a new editor, maybe someone should point her in the direction of wp:butt. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Question For The Arbitrators Re Peer Review Of SAQ Article While Arbitration Ongoing
Could the arbitrators please clarify this statement on the Peer Review page:


 * This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * I've listed this article for peer review because it has been almost totally rewritten from a neutral POV using scholarly reliable sources only. In the past it has been a very contentious page and a POV battleground, and I want to try to take it to FA status, which I think would help stabilise it to keep its neutral POV.


 * Thanks, Tom Reedy (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Could the arbitrators please clarify whether peer review of the SAQ article has in fact been closed while an arbitration concerned with the lack of a neutral POV in the SAQ article and the exclusion of Oxfordian editors from doing any editing on the SAQ article has been in process? Bishonen was actively canvassing other administrators on 29 December for someone to bring the matter to arbitration (see ). Could the arbitrators also please clarify the effect of closure of the peer review process? What does this mean for the SAQ article going forward? Thanks.NinaGreen (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is astounding. While an arbitration is ongoing concerning the lack of a neutral POV in the SAQ article and concerning the fact that Oxfordian editors have not been allowed to edit the SAQ article, Tom Reedy has 'pinged Nikkimaria' (who collapsed all my substantive comments concerning the SAQ article on the peer review page) 'for a ref formatting review before we take it to SP:FAC'. I don't know much about Wikipedia's policy concerning gaming the system, but this certainly seems like gaming the system.


 * From Tom Reedy on the SAQ Talk page on 4 February:


 * The road to FA


 * Although I've been over this thing a hundred times, I still find little errors every now and then, but fewer and fewer, and I really don't think there's anything substantial left to do. I've pinged Nikkimaria for a ref formatting review before we take it to WP:FAC as soon as the arbitration is over (unless I'm permabanned from Wikipedia, but then I won't care anymore). I personally think this is the best short article about the SAQ I've ever read anywhere, and it will be a good resource for people looking for a reasonably concise explanation about the topic. Thanks to all for the hard work and input, and by all means bring up any problems you see in the article. I'm not gonna look at it for a few days so I can read it with fresh eyes next week. Cheers all! Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NinaGreen (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to learn how to read the edit history (although it appears from other posts that you already know how); that's the little tab at the top of the page that says "View history". The peer review was closed on 10 January, the arbitration was opened on 16 January.
 * Now that I've freed up the arbitrators' time, I'd like them to come shovel the snow out of my driveway. I'll view it as an unfair personal attack against Wikipedia policy if my demand is not met. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bishonen was actively canvassing.. " We've heard that before; what's it doing here at this point? But it's time to free up some of my own time. I have nothing to say in reply to Nina, now or ongoingly, except a pertinent word I've picked up on IRC: lolwut. It comes with a question mark, like this: Canvassing: lolwut? Bring the matter to arbitration: lolwut? Bishonen | talk 18:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Tom: That's not really a violation of Wikipedia policies. Per WP:SNOW, your driveway's resilience to infernal fires means the ice defaults to keep. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrad (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My heart is even colder. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the sort of comment which causes me grave concern about the Wikipedia snow-removal process (which does not in the slightest resemble a real-world snow-removal process, in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies) and is exactly the type of behaviour Jimmy Wales had in mind when he invented the Code of Hammurabi and the Napoleonic code, and is evidence of a sustained and organised attempt to defame the character of my driveway in violation of policy, which I, on my own, and by myself, at the off-line suggestion of my wife (who told me, against all known policies, to just go ahead and go out in the cold and shovel the damn snow with no consultation with any other snow-shovelers, in explicit violation of numerous policies), have improved enough so that it could easily pass FD (featured driveway), all this while this arbitration has been going on, in violation of numerous, numerous, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. How long are administrators and operators going to stand by while these policy violations go on, aided and abetted by some toy dinosaur? If they're not going to do their job of enforcing policy, they might as well be shovelling snow from my driveway. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Toy? Lolwut? Bishonen | talk 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:

Please note that the Arbitration Committee plays no role in peer review processes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad, thank you for that information. But that was not my question. My question was whether it is not gaming the system or some other violation of Wikipedia policy for Tom Reedy to be attempting to rush the SAQ article to FA status while an arbitration is in process in which the neutral POV of the SAQ article is an issue and in which it is clear that Oxfordian editors have been entirely excluded from editing the article.NinaGreen (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, we aren't peer review. It's up to the FAC participants to decide whether the Arb case compromises the stability of the article; I'd say it probably does, but as I'm an involved arb I obviously can't make any neutral point to that effect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * David Fuchs, thanks very much for that clarification ('It's up to the FAC participants to decide whether the Arb case compromises the stability of the article'). I'm looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, and perhaps I haven't made it very clear because I'm really unfamiliar with all these aspects of Wikipedia policy and procedure, and learning as I go along. What troubles me is this. Bishonen has stated on the Evidence page that 'These pages [i.e. the SAQ article] should be the jewels in the English Wikipedia's crown', a statement which certainly makes Bishonen's position on the SAQ article as currently written by Tom Reedy and Nishidani crystal clear. On 29 December Bishonen was actively canvassing for an administrator to bring the SAQ article to arbitration. On 10 January peer review of the SAQ article was closed (by whom, I don't know), thus setting the stage for the SAQ article to head to FA status (I don't understand how the next steps work, but as I understand it, clearing peer review was a major hurdle). On 14 January, LessHeard vanU, at Bishonen's urging, took the SAQ article to arbitration, alleged a sustained and co-ordinated campaign by Oxfordians to push their POV on the SAQ article, but providing no evidence of that sustained and co-ordinated campaign. This sequence of events seems to involve gaming the system, something I would think the arbitrators could take into consideration. The object seems to have been to close the peer review, bring an arbitration which would end up with all Oxfordian editors banned, take the SAQ article to FA status immediately after the arbitration decision, and then move on to the other related articles on the authorship controversy and delete the lot of them on the ground that everything in them was now merged into the SAQ article which had been granted FA status. Thus all work done on those other articles over the past 4 years by Oxfordians (which doesn't include me; I wasn't involved with any of those articles) would be eliminated in one fell swoop. It's difficult to see what else could have been envisioned by bringing an arbitration on the SAQ article alleging a sustained and co-ordinated campaign by Oxfordians 4 days after peer review of the SAQ article had been closed. It thus seems that there was gaming of the system here.NinaGreen (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For there to have been a conspiracy would have required fairly rigid timing. The peer review was archived by a bot as it had run it's course; it was of customary length, so there's not that much surprising about that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * David Fuchs, thanks very much for that information. It's amazing to learn that a bot can close a peer review without any kind of consensus having been reached on whether the article should go forward to FA status. I had raised a number of substantive points on the peer review page concerning the non-neutral POV of the SAQ article and the duplication among the SAQ article and the other authorship controversy articles. My points were ignored both on the peer review page and on the SAQ Talk page, and when I tried to bring up the duplication issue on the Things To Do list Tom had posted on the SAQ Talk page, Tom deleted my point from the To Do list and moved it to a new section with a derogatory title. During all of this no-one advised me on either the peer review page or the SAQ Talk page of the merge decision by Science Apologist, which now turns out to be a nullity. My substantive points about the non-neutral POV of the article and the duplication among the authorship controversy articles were all ignored, no editor or administrator informed me of the merge decision which supported my point about duplication, and all my comments on the peer review page were collapsed by Nikkimaria. It's astonishing to learn that Wikipedia treats the ignoring of substantive points, the failure of other editors and administrators to bring a vital point (the merge decision) to the attention of a new editor when it supports that editor's position, and the collapsing of comments on substantive points on a peer review page as 'consensus', and that a bot then closes off the peer review. But as you and other arbitrators have said, arbitration doesn't deal with peer review so I won't press that point further. However my point concerning the gaming of the system, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and the object of that gaming remains valid. It seems clear that the object of bringing the arbitration was to get all Oxfordian editors banned so that the SAQ article could proceed unimpeded to FA status, after which, relying on the merge decision by Science Apologist and without any possible opposition from Oxfordian editors because they would all be banned, Tom Reedy and Nishidani intend to delete all the remaining authorship articles on the ground that they had all been merged into the SAQ article which has FA status. Thus all the work done over 4 years by Oxfordian editors on those article (not by me, as I've pointed out, since I wasn't editing at the time) will be lost, and only Tom Reedy and Nishidani's view of the authorship controversy will remain for Wikipedia readers who wished to inform themselves. Tom Reedy and Nishidani's view is clearly not a neutral POV. I have provided numerous instances of their clear expressions of bias, beginning with Tom's statement when he came to Wikipedia in 2007 that he was the 'sworn nemesis' of Oxfordians and continuing even while this arbitration was going on with his statement on the SAQ Talk page that he would 'like to talk to some sane Oxfordians'. Moreover both Tom Reedy and Nishidani have made it clear that they intend to get rid of all the other authorship controversy articles once the SAQ article is granted FA status. When he was attempting to recruit editors last October from the Forest of Arden listserv started by David Kathman with whom Tom is associated on his website, Tom said that the other authorship articles were 'terrible' (see above), and Nishidani recently called the History of the Shakespeare article 'trashy' (see Archive 19; I can't get the diff because again the archive is full). It seems clear that Tom Reedy and Nishidani's objective is to get all Oxfordians banned via the arbitration, thus eliminating any possible opposition, and then to take the SAQ article to FA status and delete all the other authorship controversy articles, claiming that they are 'terrible' and 'trashy' and that they have been merged into the SAQ article, which has FA status and therefore cannot be touched.NinaGreen (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the point of peer review; it's often done for articles whose authors want to prep them for FAC, yes, but it is also often done before other audited processes or after large rewrites. They are for soliciting review of all kinds, not just in regards to FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * David Fuchs, you are undoubtedly right that I don't fully understand peer review. I'm a new editor and I'm learning as I go along. But as far as Tom Reedy is concerned peer review was a major hurdle on the way to FA (see his comment 'The Road to FA' from the SAQ Talk page quoted above). However I've accepted the point made by you and other arbitrators that peer review is outside the arbitrators' purview. My point is that the scenario I've sketched immediately above clearly appears to be the plan Tom Reedy and Nishidani have in mind -- get all Oxfordian editors banned via the arbitration, take the SAQ article to FA status, then delete all the work done by Oxfordian and other editors on the other authorship controversy articles by claiming those articles have now been merged in the SAQ article, which can't be touched because it has FA status, leaving Tom Reedy and Nishidani's SAQ article as the sole source of information on the authorship controversy on Wikipedia. I feel sure this gaming of the system by Tom Reedy and Nishidani is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and can be taken into consideration by the arbitrators.NinaGreen (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to Nina - Tom asked me to check whether the references in the article were correctly and consistently formatted. I perform those kinds of checks frequently on other articles. If the fact that I did so on this article is evidence of a terrible conspiracy, then by all means propose that I be blocked for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina, Tom and I in our respective rewrites used the article that summed up 4 years of Oxfordian editors' work, we did not, as has been relentlessly repeated, write the article ex novo. The initial work page was created by Smatprt (SAQ sandbox2) by simplying pasting the article that summed up 4 years of effort. Apart from rereading all the existing sources, and researching the available literature on the problem, the essential task we set ourselves was to get that page to conform to best wiki practice, and much of what we elided, rephrased, or reformatted, was not a matter of subjective whim or personal preference, but rather obeisance to stringent GA or FA criteria. We certainly did not write with any sense of liberty, to the contrary: we wrote under severe self-imposed policy restraints from April to October, and often this meant casting out material which, under another regimen of writing, would have been both perfectly acceptable, and favourable to the 'establishment case'. Secondly we had a dual system of editing, with myself working the page for two months, and then Tom systematically revising the version I came up with, with a much sharper eye on policy requirements than I had. Had we asserted a right to expunge 4 years of previous work, to create a fresh SAQ article, you would have a case. As I showed to Smatprt when he raised this issue, there is a substantial continuity of emphasis, content and design between the old article and the one we produced. The difference is, that Tom and I insisted that the whole article be edited from go to woe with GA/FA criteria in mind, whereas before, policy debates over word choice, lines, paragraphs raged, often by editors who never troubled to look at the whole page. I expect, as it goes to FA with so many excellent editors happy to step in and rehaul our work over the coals of policy, that substantial changes will continue to take place, effectively removing the ostensible stigma of this being just the handiwork of two editors. Whatever the defects of our contribution, the fact is that, since October, the article is now thriving under the editorial scrutiny of many old and new hands who have pitched in to guide the page through to FA quality. No such energetic curiosity and willingness to chip in by external editors existed earlier, and I for one feel that it's at a point where 'the old schools' can entrust to the wider community the tasks of polishing and maintaining it as an article of which Wikipedia can be proud. It is no longer owned by partisans of either camp.Nishidani (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop characterizing my sandbox version as simply "pasting" the previous article into my sandbox version. Here's the facts - the old article was 152,000+ bytes. My sandbox version came in at 82K. The most consistent complaint, from both sides of the debate, about the old article was its length. In response, I cut it by almost 50%, while adding in the mainstream view and addressing neutrality issues. To continue with these charges that I did nothing but "paste up" the old article and then make 50 minor edits, is a huge mischaracterization. And to minimize the major changes and large deletions of referenced material between the old article and your version is another mischaracterization. I ask once again for you to please refrain from this. As with Nina, you keep repeating the same charges again, and again, and again, dating back to September of last year. Long posts, walls of texts, all with no new information. Could both you and Nina please cease this endless parade? It's not a contest for most verbiage, for goodness sake. These endless exchanges are not helping any of us and have made this "workshop" page anything but a workshop. Am I the only one who is having trouble following these conversations? Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Question Re Outing
I notice that in Tom Reedy's statement on the Evidence page he claims that a certain editor has been 'self-identified' as such and such a real-life individual. I had no knowledge of this, and this editor has been 'outed' by Tom Reedy insofar as my knowledge of his identity is concerned. I suspect others had no idea as well, and that this editor has been 'outed' to them as well. How do we know, other than taking Tom Reedy's word for it, that this editor 'self-identified' himself as a particular real-life individual? Considering how carefully Wikipedia protects users from outing, I think this is a fair question. Another question is why Tom Reedy felt it necessary to put this individual's real name on the Evidence page since he is not a party to the arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would provide a diff or a least a link to the section where this was said. I would suggest that you try asking Tom Reedy this first, since we have no way of knowing what he was thinking or why he did it - he's likely to be able to answer those questions for you.  If you're confused about what "self-identification" means on Wikipedia or how it relates to outing, you may wish to read WP:OUT and related guidelines. Shell   babelfish 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, the reason I didn't provide a diff is because I was afraid it would somehow be interpreted as ME having 'outed' this individual merely by posting the diff on this Workshop page. Stranger things have happened to me around here. I'm not confused about what 'self-identification' means on Wikipedia. I'm just asking how we know, other than taking Tom Reedy's word for it, that this individual 'self-identified'. I was certainly unaware of his identity. I'm sure others here were unaware as well. Until Tom Reedy posted this alleged 'self-identification' on the Evidence page, that is. It's very easy to locate the statement by Tom to which I'm referring. It's the only one which uses the wording 'self-identified as'. 'Outing' is something for the arbitrators to look into, not me. I'm asking the arbitrators to look into the matter.NinaGreen (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, you have a responsibility to do some due diligence here. Try asking Tom for evidence of the self identification first before reporting outing. You'll find that if you are willing to put in the effort and present your concerns in a clear, concise manner, you will be much more likely to have your concerns reviewed.  These constant demands that someone else do things for you and walls of argumentative text are really unhelpful to resolving anything. Shell   babelfish 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, it strikes me as very strange that an arbitrator would ask a Wikipedia editor to do anything beyond raising the question of whether there has been an outing by another editor. The whole matter of 'outing' is a very treacherous business with the possibility of immediate blocks as a penalty. To demand that one Wikipedia editor involve him/herself in another Wikipedia editor's possible outing of someone is to ask the former editor to put him/herself in serious danger of also being blocked for the 'outing'.NinaGreen (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To save others some time, the following is what I have found. At a peer review here, we see "Comments from Ironhand41"; those comments end with "Earl Showerman" which could be interpreted as a signature. The section was started by Ironhand41 (without the signature) in this, and was completed 18 hours later (with the signature) by 24.216.233.108 in this . In Tom Reedy's evidence here we see "Ironhand41 self-identified as Earl Showerman" which is probably justified, but not fully proven, as shown in the preceding diffs. This page shows the presumed link to the Shakespeare Fellowship. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose she forgot, since above she says "I had no knowledge of this ... insofar as my knowledge of his identity is concerned", as indeed you can see here that Nina referred to his comment and to him by name on 17 December several weeks before I did, strangely untroubled by any fear of it being interpreted as outing then. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johnuniq that the identification is 'not' fully proven', and this therefore seems to me to be a clear case of 'outing' by Tom Reedy, for which Wikipedia policy mandates an immediate block, particularly given Tom Reedy's earlier history of outing Oxfordian editors as documented elsewhere on this Workshop page. I recall seeing the comments by Earl Showerman, but I have no knowledge of when the heading 'Comments by Ironhand 41' was added above them, or by whom.NinaGreen (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All editors are urged to avoid unnecessary references concerning the real-world identities of their fellow editors, unless the editors have clearly and unambiguously noted their identities on-wiki. In borderline or unclear cases, using usernames is always the safest course. However, I don't find evidence of a violation here, much less any basis for an "immediate block" of anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's see, Newyorkbrad. Tom Reedy, on questionable evidence, has 'outed' an editor, claiming that that editor has 'self-identified', which has not been proved. Yet without investigating the circumstances, you have decided that Tom Reedy has not 'outed' anyone, and that there is 'no evidence of a violation here'.NinaGreen (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see this issue getting an open airing. As I was outed by Tom and Paul, after Tom had been an editor for over 2 months, this was recently explained as being the mistake of a newbie. Paul was a far more experienced and long-term editor, so he certainly knew better, and Paul was in the position to advise Tom during these 2 months, yet he did not. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on Paul's participation in all this. Regarding Tom, my concern has to do with these two diffs, far more recent, that I had left on the evidence page:
 * 12/27/2010 In Edit summary, Reedy making an implied threat to embarrass and out a fellow editor.
 * 1/10/2011 In Edit Summary, Reedy threatened another editor with "embarrassment" if his true identity were known.
 * In all fairness to Tom, it would be nice to hear what he was thinking when he made these statements. Smatprt (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first of those diffs is particularly troubling and I would ask Tom Reedy to comment on it, including whether he agrees not to repeat that sort of behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My heart is warmed by Smatprt's concern for fairness.
 * It was a smart-ass remark calling attention to the fact that the person made an anonymous two-shot edit, nothing more. Since I don't know who that person is, I could not have outed him had I wanted to. And yes, I agree I will not repeat that error in judgement. It's no excuse, but frayed nerves are an occupational hazard of editing these articles.
 * As to Paul's behaviour, IIRC either he or someone else, possibly Andy Jones, (it's been so long ago) sent me an e-mail explaining that what I had done was not acceptable on Wikipedia, and he deleted it.
 * As to the supposed "outing" on Andy Jones's talkpage Smatprt refers to in his evidence, if you dig a little deeper and read the SAQ talkpage at that time (ironically in a section which discusses Smatprt's edit warring in the middle of an FAC for the Shakespeare page) you will see that it was Felsommerfeld (a sockpuppet of Barry Clarke) who did the outing, and Andy was merely commenting about it to him. It was not because of anything I or Paul did or wrote, as Smatprt presents it in his evidence.
 * Regarding the mention on Nunh-uh's talkpage, it was deleted within 5 minutes and refactored immediately afterward.
 * Why Smatprt is bringing up this ancient history is beyond me, especially as he has since outed himself almost two years ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, its impossible to out oneself when one has been outed already (and repeatedly on several occasions by YOU.) The rules pertaining to outing are there to protect you and I and everyone here. For example, first I, then Xover was threatened with physical harm by Barryispuzzled. Of course, you know this and watched it all happen, even participating in the discovery of his latest batch of sockpuppets last January. In any case, you have now stated "Since I don't know who that person is, I could not have outed him had I wanted to." I take it that is your final statement on the matter?Smatprt (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with anything concerning Barry Clarke except for the incident last summer and a few times we've corrsponded through e-mail, so no, I was not aware of his long-distant threats. I certainly hope he doesn't find out who I am. And I don't know if that's my last word or not, since your question sounds like a set-up. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I said above,you know this and watched it all happen, even participating in the discovery and reverts of his latest batch of sockpuppets last January. You now say you are not familiar with anything concerning Barry. That's odd as these diffs seem to indicate otherwise: . Especially this one, where I directed you to the full SP cases at that time..Smatprt (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I bring up this history is to determine whether you are repeating a pattern of attempted outing, one of the most severe types of PA. But, yes, let us leave it in the past. Regarding the Charles Darnay matter, you state "Since I don't know who that person is, I could not have outed him had I wanted to." I'd like to believe that, but you still appear to be threatening to out him. It's the threat that is troublesome. Smatprt (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Will you please pay attention to what I wrote? "I am not familiar with anything concerning Barry Clarke except for the incident last summer and a few times we've corresponded through e-mail" is my statement. Those diffs you provided prove my ignorance of the matter, and they are a year and a half later (17 January 2010) than the long-distance threats you linked (31 July 2008), so your statement that I "know this and watched it all happen" has no substance, as you know, or you would have provided better evidence than those 2010 links. In fact, between 16 June and 3 August 2008 I made no edits and IIRC I was on holiday. That I didn't tattoo your explanations on my arm is no policy violation nor sin nor evidence that I am lying, as you imply ("You now say ... That's odd ...")

And speaking of patterns, you are repeating your habit of trying to frame the argument to your liking. I don't care what you are "trying to determine", and I doubt you're troubled by anything other than attempting to truncate your topic ban; your only purpose is to try to shift the focus of this arbitration. As to Charles Darney, the diff I was asked to explain was not by him. Your attempt to conflate the two diffs (one of which neither I nor you can see), then raise your suspicion that I "still appear to be threatening to out him" and hardening that into a certainty ("It's the threat that is troublesome."), and then try to associate them with Clarke's "threats" while using your patented passive-aggressive technique to shift the blame ("I'd like to believe that ...") is one of the reasons why trying to edit with you was so maddening and frustrating, because it is not good-faith communication. Any editor here who has tried to work with you can attest to your communication strategies that appear to be culled from Neuro-linguistic programming rhetorical techniques, along with your use of attrition, and this little exchange is a prime example. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now wait a minute - I just noticed your comment above. So you brought my name to another editor who was opposing my edits, then 5 minutes later you took it out?? So you did know that it was wrong at the time then..., and so your "newbie" excuse was what? incorrect? Otherwise, why would you have rushed to remove it so quickly? Tom, you seem to be explaining yourself into a hole here. Smatprt (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to bed. See if you can figure it out by tomorrow. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Smatprt's claims of outing are really rather ridiculous, since he outs himself by his actions (just type "smatprt" into google for heaven's sake ). He repeatedly brings up events that happened nearly four years ago and which were never in any way used to intimidate or threaten him. The "outing" was wholly innocent in the belief that Smatprt was not hiding his identity. As I have already stated it only got discussed in the context of an attempt to help Smatprt when there was a claim that he and another editor were sockpuppets. The fact that Smatprt continues to use a nominal but largely fictional "anonymity" to try to "get" other editors seems the real issue here to me. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, while I appreciate that you're here to a degree “defending” yourself from allegations made previously, I think Newyorkbrad's point is well made: no matter that the anonymity in this case is very thin, there is really no actual need to refer to editors by real-world identity when the username will suffice. There are some very few instances (such as related to WP:COI on an AfD or similar on an article about the editor, etc.) where it would be relevant, but mostly it is not. My suggestion would be to admit fault in this instance (qualified, as you deem necessary, of course), apologize, and move on. Particularly I think it would be wise to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future by thinking twice on whether it is absolutely necessary to refer to an editor's real-world identity. You and Tom edit here under your real names, so I'm assuming you don't particularly see the big deal, but others (myself included) do not particularly wish to divulge our real-life identities here for various reasons. Wikipedia's policies provide (for good and bad) protection for this, and it is mere common courtesy to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of this policy. In particular, I suspect Smatprt sees it as rather unfair to be accused of various things (right or wrong) while others are unwilling to admit fault in this instance. It would, IMO, be worthwhile to test whether an olive branch might not be accepted here… --Xover (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xover, I only ever refer to Smatprt by his user name, and have done for years, precisely because he is disingenuously making an issue of this in order to win points. I do not see that I have anything to apologise for since Smatprt was not using a user identity to protect his real identity. He has freely provided that information on Wikipedia and elsewhere. If one wishes to protect one's identity it is very, very easy to do so. There are a million unidentifiable usernames to choose from. Smatprt created one that readily identifies him, and even talks about his real life activities as an actor/director. But then he asserts a technical claim on anonymity, in effect laying a trap for any user who simply does not realise there is a problem. And one only need make one slip, which will be remembered and used forever. Smatprt's behaviour in this thread indicates that he is unrelentingly pursuing what is in reality a non-issue. He has not been threatened with anything by me or by Tom. By bringing up long lost edits to user talk pages he is even drawing attention to his off-Wiki identity. You say there is "really no actual need to refer to editors by real-world identity when the username will suffice". Generally that is true, but in the context I was describing, the usage was precisely in defence of Smatprt on the charge of sockpuppetry. What I find deeply offensive is the fact that Smatprt will use a good faith attempt to help him as a weapon against those very people who came to his defence. It is when technicalities like this are used that Wikipedia becomes a bureaucracy and sincerity is punished. I "moved on" years ago. I do not scour Smatprt's edits to drag up comments made made years ago to use against him. If Smatprt refuses to "move on", then I have little choice but to respond. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement By Nina Green Posted On Jimmy Wales' Talk Page

 * Jimmy Wales, it seems clear that the arbitrators are going to continue to refuse to clarify the case against me, and that they have deliberately changed the 'rules' to allow new evidence to be submitted against me more than a week after the date for final submission of statements of evidence has passed in order to CREATE a case against me where none existed. A Wikipedia arbitration does not resemble in the slightest a real-world arbitration, and the term 'arbitration' as applied to a Wikipedia arbitration is a complete misnomer. The injustice and inequity of the Wikipedia arbitration process has caused me to reflect on why I would wish to be associated with Wikipedia and to devote my time, energy and background knowledge to editing on Wikipedia, and I have decided that under these circumstances I do not wish to be associated with Wikipedia any longer or to devote my time, energy and background knowledge to editing on Wikipedia. Please close my Wikipedia account.NinaGreen (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting that taking your ball and going home doesn't actually stop the Arbitration nor prevents sanctions against you being proposed or voted on. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something I've been thinking of is that perhaps we ought to warn new users, before they open an account, that that account can't ever (well, "ever" in Wikipedia time) be closed? You can go home, but your ball stays until the heat death of the universe. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * I am intending to wait a couple of days, in case NinaGreen has a change of mind, and then email them about "retirement", deletion of userpage, and blanking of user talkpage - I will also likely make a couple of suggestions when the drafting arbs post an initial proposed decision. Until then I am not going to make further reference to this matter. I hope that other parties will follow suit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) My mistake, the grand staircase was in fact a two way escalator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-uh. Did you have time for a cup of coffee while you didn't make further reference? Bishonen | talk 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC).


 * LessHeard van, it's unnecessary to strike out your offer. I wouldn't have accepted it. I requested in my comment on Jimmy Wales' Talk page that my user account be closed because I thought it was the appropriate thing to do since I have no intention of editing further on Wikipedia. It turns out that user accounts on Wikipedia can't be closed, and endure until the end of time. Fine with me. And as I said in response to this same offer when you made it on my Talk page, I hope since you've been so assiduous in pursuing alleged violations of Wikipedia policy on my part, even to the extent of adding new evidence against me more than a week after the submission of evidence statements were closed, that you'll support an immediate block against Tom Reedy for the attempted outing of Ironhand41 on the Evidence page of this arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a party to this case, and as such am not in a position to take sysop actions. Indeed, I would suggest that few admins would since the issue is not contemporaneous and sanctions are designed to stop disruption going forward and are not punitive - even if there was acknowledgement that there is a violation. Arbs may or may not decide that there was a violation, and then may or may not decide to take action to ensure the reduction for potential disruption going forward. You continue to make demands and requests and to comment without understanding the culture and its practices and rules in which you find yourself; this lays at the heart of the issue as it relates to you - but then, this case is not about you but the problems found in resolving disputes relating to the SAQ article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts can be renamed, upon request; we can try to facilitate that if you wish to leave Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very kind. I intend to stay around for a bit longer... under this name, too! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * LessHeard vanU, don't use sophistry. No-one asked you to take administrative action. I merely asked you to lend your support to the block of Tom Reedy mandated by Wikipedia policy but of course not being imposed in this case because it's Tom Reedy, and Wikipedia doesn't block Tom Reedy. And as for blocks not being punitive, that's nonsense. Both your 3-day block against me when I first began editing late last October after I reverted to an earlier version of the Edward de Vere page because Nishidani had vandalized all my earlier contributions to the page, and Future Perfect's 10-day block against me at the beginning of this arbitration when I hadn't even edited for three days were punitive. And if Bishonen's 10-day block against any editing whatsoever of the SAQ article during 10 days over the Christmas holiday season since she simply didn't want to bother with monitoring the page over the holidays wasn't punitive, it was merely a personal whim. Wikipedia blocks are as totally ungoverned by rules as Wikipedia arbitrations.NinaGreen (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am astonished that you have the nerve to comment upon rules, as regards Wikipedia, given your inability in or indifference to following any to a meaningful degree. Indeed, were you to put such evidence/allegation/proposal regarding Tom Reedy in the appropriate pages of the case then I might make a comment. Presently, I am not inclined to indulge your apparently wilful disregard of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices (or, if you will, "rules") by responding . LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that last sentence; it took me ages looking through my blocks log for October and November for the 72 hour (or 55 hour - since that often blocks an editor for 3 sessions on consecutive days) block of your ip. When I at last found the sanction, it was for 31 hours only - and the rationale was WP:NPA; as your usual unique reading of "the rules" apparently allows you to term a single revert of your edits as "vandalism" - rather than the 3 days noted by you above... Words fail me, so I shall not waste any more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement By Nina Green Re Tom Reedy's Attemped Outing Of Ironhand41
I have not changed my position re my continued participation on Wikipedia. However I think it is important to advise that I contacted Earl Showerman by e-mail today, and he advised me that he is NOT Ironhand41. Tom Reedy therefore attempted to 'out' Ironhand41 on the Evidence page, which is clear grounds for an immediate block by Wikipedia against Tom Reedy.NinaGreen (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina. If Earl would like those edits from quite some time ago deleted, that may be an option.  Since you also referred to Ironhand41 as Earl Showerman, I assume you believe it would be appropriate to place an immediate indefinite block on your account as well? Shell   babelfish 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the peer review edit history, it is evident that he posted underneath Ironhand41's comment using an IP address. I'll adjust my evidence to show that he posted from an IP address instead of as Ironhand41. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, I most emphatically did NOT link Earl Showerman with Ironhand41. I merely referred to signed comments by Earl Showerman. Get real. I think it must have been Nikkimaria who added the heading 'Comments by Ironhand41' when she collapsed the section (and why Nikkimaria collapsed the comments of everyone who had criticism of the SAQ article during the peer review is a whole other question), but I'm not conversant enough with deciphering obscure editing history to know whether that's the case.


 * There is something very very peculiar about this 'Comments from Ironhand41' thing, as indicated by Johnuniq in his earlier comment:


 * To save others some time, the following is what I have found. At a peer review here, we see "Comments from Ironhand41"; those comments end with "Earl Showerman" which could be interpreted as a signature. The section was started by Ironhand41 (without the signature) in this diff, and was completed 18 hours later (with the signature) by 24.216.233.108 in this diff. In Tom Reedy's evidence here we see "Ironhand41 self-identified as Earl Showerman" which is probably justified, but not fully proven, as shown in the preceding diffs. This page shows the presumed link to the Shakespeare Fellowship. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who starts a section 'by Ironhand 41 (without the signature), and then completes it 18 hours later, with the signature by 24.216.233.108? Totally bizarre. It's clear that Tom Reedy attempted to 'out' Ironhand41 on the Evidence page, and should be immediately blocked.NinaGreen (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We now have what I think is all of the related evidence about this outing claim and can consider it with all the rest. It's very unlikely that anyone is going to be issued a block at this point; doing so is not likely to prevent something that occurred quite some time ago (blocks on Wikipedia are never meant to be punishments), but we will consider everything surrounding this issue as part of the case. Shell   babelfish 22:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other relevant point is that has made only two edits; while  has made only one edit. It is possible to construct a scenario where a new user (Ironhand41) made a comment and failed to sign it, and on the same day another user (IP 24.216.233.108) commented immediately below and signed it 'Earl Showerman'. Nevertheless, I think that anyone viewing the archive who drew the conclusion that 'Ironhold41' had signed himself 'Earl Showerman' need not be pilloried, as that is also a perfectly reasonable scenario, and the obvious one at first glance. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RexxS, yes, Tom Reedy is a very inexperienced editor, with only four years under his belt and an absolute grasp of the intricacies of deciphering edit histories (see this posting above). How could Tom possibly have noticed that the two statements were made 18 hours apart and were posted by two different individuals, or that Nikkimaria had added an erroneous heading to the section when she collapsed every negative comment made about the SAQ article (a whole other issue in itself)? And of course Tom's motive in stating that Ironhand41 had 'self-identified' as Earl Showerman on the Evidence page was very laudable, was it not? Tom was trying to score a point against Oxfordians, and in the process he took the risk, without doing any due diligence whatsoever, of 'outing' an editor whom he took to be an Oxfordian editor merely because that editor had said something negative about the SAQ article. Tom Reedy should be immediately blocked for attempted outing, as Wikipedia policy mandates.NinaGreen (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Nina, It doesn't matter how experienced you are, if you see those two posts are they are presented in the PR, you assume they are a single post. Tom didn't edit the PR at all on 16 Dec 2010, so there's no reason to assume he saw the first without the second; therefore we need to AGF (or just pick the simplest explanation per Occam). The evidence also fits the alternative scenario that 'Earl Showerman' returned as an IP to make a further point and sign his previous post made as Ironhand41. You'll notice that Ironhand41 started his comment with "Comments from Ironhand41" and it was rather inept for the IP/Earl to stick their comment on the end of an unsigned post (although perfectly possible for newcomers). Given that unfortunate ineptitude, I'm sure you can see that when Nikkimaria spotted sections inconsistently labelled "Comments from ..." and "====Comments from ...====", she genuinely was housekeeping when she collapsed those sections and regularised the heading levels. There surely isn't anything nefarious about such tidying-up, and Nikki is an admin of enormous integrity, who goes out of her way to be helpful. If you could just kerb your tendency to read the worst possible motives into such innocuous actions, you'd find that folks like Nikki would be defending your right to express your views reasonably. Even at this eleventh hour, you have the opportunity to make a sea-change: examine what common ground you have with the other parties (it exists, I assure you), and consider how best you could work with them to improve that common ground. Whatever methods ArbCom uses to ensure that the articles can be improved in a collegiate atmosphere, some of them will apply to all; and it will be necessary for every editor to be seeking commonalities. --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell, Tom Reedy has a documented history of 'outing' Oxfordian editors since he first came to Wikipedia in 2007. Tom Reedy outed one prominent Oxfordian editor in 2007 and attempted to out another at the same time, naming two prominent Oxfordians as possibilities. Tom Reedy also outed Smatprt.  Moreover this latest attempted 'outing' of Ironhand41 (who may not even be an Oxfordian editor) didn't occur 'quite some time ago'. It happened very recently, when Tom Reedy put his statement on the Evidence page of this arbitration. Tom Reedy should be immediately blocked for the attempted 'outing' of yet another Oxfordian editor, as Wikipedia policy mandates. I've documented the bias, injustice and unfairness of Wikipedia arbitrations in other instances, which is why I want nothing further to do with editing on Wikipedia. This refusal by the arbitrators to immediately block Tom Reedy for an attempted 'outing' only a short time ago, and in the course of an arbitration to boot, is simply another example of what's inherently wrong with Wikipedia arbitrations, which are not in the least arbitrations and which should be called something else because unlike real-world arbitrations, Wikipedia arbitrations have absolutely no rules whatsoever. The rules are whatever the Wikipedia arbitrators decide they want them to be in relation to whether they favour, or don't favour, a particular party in the arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And let's get one other thing straight about Tom Reedy's deceptive and misleading 'evidence'. Not only did Tom attempt to out Ironhand41 (whoever Ironhand41 is; I certainly have no idea and I doubt he's an Oxfordian) without doing any due diligence, but Tom has now amended his statement of evidence in a deceptive and misleading manner, claiming that Earl Showerman's statement was intended to support points made by me on the Peer Review page ('one edit, supporting Nina's charges of NPOV at the SAQ peer review'). In fact, Earl Showerman's statement on the Peer Review page has nothing to do with anything I said. Tom Reedy is still deceptively trying to score a point with the arbitrators by claiming that Earl Showerman's comment on the Peer Review page had something to do with me. Other than e-mailing Earl Showerman today (and I had to get his e-mail address from an associate), I have not had any contact with Earl Showerman, either directly or indirectly, for so many months that I can't recall when the last occasion was. Is it any wonder I asked the arbitrators to clarify the case against me with this sort of thing going on? It would take a book on my part to disprove all the specious allegations brought forward in the so-called 'Evidence' statements by Tom Reedy, Bishonen, LessHeard vanU etc. No-one has time for this sort of nonsense, certainly not me. Since the arbitrators have persistently refused to clarify the case against me, it can only be that that's how they like their evidence.NinaGreen (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One other point that needs straightening out. I just now received a second e-mail from Earl Showerman confirming that he wrote only the second of the two paragraphs on the Peer Review page which appear under the heading 'Comments From Ironhand41', i.e. the paragraph he signed as Earl Showerman. Ironhand41 must have written the first one. Pity Tom Reedy couldn't have done a little due diligence before attempting to 'out' Ironhand41 as having been self-identified as Earl Showerman.NinaGreen (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This message from SirFozzie appeared just now on my Talk page. Why am I not surprised?


 * == Ok, enough. ==


 * Nina: We've received several complaints about your behavior recently, enough so, that would it be any one other then someone in the final stage of an arbitration case, it would be likely that you would already have been blocked. So, I'm giving you this warning. I've instructed the clerks to monitor your behavior, and they have the ok to block you again, should you step over the line. Please do not make it necessary to do so. Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie, I'm sure you've received several complaints about my behaviour recently. It must be unpleasant for the arbitrators to have to face the fact that Tom Reedy attempted to 'out' an editor right in a statement of 'Evidence' during an ongoing arbitration, and that the arbitrators are not going to block Tom Reedy for that. Instead, why not block Nina Green for having exposed Tom Reedy's attempted 'outing'? We've already blocked her twice for nothing. Why not keep the tradition going?NinaGreen (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina, like Tom’s 2007 edits, made from ignorance, you twice inadvertently wrote in a way that appeared to ‘out’ me here and here, where you addressed me as Clive (Clive Willingham) instead of ‘Nishidani’. I noted to you that this was a WP:OUTING violation. You brushed it all off with a dismissive remark that I was imitating Clive (whom I don’t know from a bar of soap). One sees a large number of remarks that are reportable in a strict technical sense, which one simply ignores in the best interests of the encyclopedia, where the remarks are inadvertent, based on misunderstood policy or simply neither here nor there, and a waste of time bothering arbitrators about (of course wikiwarriors think this stuff is money for jam and pounce). Why all of this late fuss?Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * .. "already blocked her twice for nothing".. for nothing, right. Have you read the policy WP:BLOCK, Nina? Your conduct here on Wikipedia has been a good fit for the "Disruption" section: "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." Among the disruptive practices that may necessitate a block, WP:BLOCK lists gross incivility and harassment.


 * Don't bother to spit in my face for giving you policy information. I'm not trying to provoke you into blockable behaviour, and I ask the clerks not to block you for anything you may say to me. If you make a boorish and mendacious reply, I'll simply remove it. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

The arbitrators have all the information we need on this allegation. No further posts should be made to this section. There will be a proposed decision posted this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nina Green Re Arbitrators' Proposed Decison
I see the proposed decision is as follows:


 * NinaGreen banned


 * 2) NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed.


 * Support:


 * 1. I note that within the past few days, NinaGreen has requested to "close her Wikipedia account." Although this is not the wording that we use, if NinaGreen is prepared to disengage from Wikipedia permanently, I would support facilitating her departure through deletion of her userpage, renaming of her account, and other appropriate means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing on Wikipedia again. I have never met with such a dysfunctional organizational environment. However don't touch my userpage or rename my account or take any other measures to erase the record of my participation on Wikipedia. The record of my participation will be very instructive for unwary editors who might be tempted to venture into the bizarre Wikipedia universe.NinaGreen (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nina Green re Arbitrators' Refusal to Define the Case Against Me
Once the arbitrators' decision is in, I will likely not have an opportunity to make this point so I have to take the opportunity to make it now. I repeatedly requested the arbitrators to define the case against me because, although this arbitration was brought on the pretext of a 'sustained and co-ordinated campaign' by a large group of Oxfordians to push a particular point of view, it was clear from the outset that no such campaign existed and that the arbitration had been brought solely for the purpose of banning me, a new editor who had only begun using Talk pages in late October of last year and who had contributed a full-length article to Wikipedia after that time.

Twenty-three parties were involved in the arbitration, and the mass of 'evidence' was confused and unfocussed. Nonetheless, even though the arbitration was obviously specifically solely and only about me, the arbitrators repeatedly refused to define the case against me. Just how simple it would have been for them to do so is demonstrated by the fact that the drafting arbitrators defined the case against me in this simple one-sentence statement on the Decision page:


 * NinaGreen


 * 3) NinaGreen (talk · contribs), who has focused virtually all of her editing on the Oxfordian hypothesis (evidence), has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself. (Sample evidence here, here, here.)

Had the arbitrators acceded to my request that they define the case against me, and had they defined it as it has been defined above for purposes of their decision, I could easily have put in conclusive evidence to refute it. Against all justice and equity, I was denied that opportunity.

There is no reference in the above finding of fact of a single named Wikipedia policy which I violated. There is not a single diff which supports the claim that I did not edit neutrally, and in fact on the Workshop page there is evidence that I did edit neutrally throughout my editing on Wikipedia. There is not a single diff which indicates that it was I who monopolized Talk pages to the point of rendering them useless, and in fact there is ample evidence on the Workshop page that it was Tom Reedy and Nishidani who rendered the Talk pages useless, firstly by requiring that I, and I alone, had to put every suggested edit on the Talk page for discussion (otherwise it was instantly reverted) while every other editor was free to edit without doing so, and secondly, by refusing to deal with any substantive point I made, and instead forcing the discussion into irrelevant points which had to do with me personally rather than the substantive issue I had raised. It is also clear that what went on on the Talk pages did not disrupt the editing of the SAQ article because all other editors edited at will. I was the only editor who could not edit at all. Further evidence of what actually happened on the Talk pages is found on my own Talk page, which is filled with a mass of material put there by other editors and administrators, not by me. There is not a single diff which supports the allegation that I made 'repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors'. On the contrary, I supported every allegation I made concerning Tom Reedy and Nishidani's bias and ownership of the SAQ article, and that evidence is amply demonstrated on the Workshop page as well in my speific quotations from Tom Reedy and Nishidani's statements of bias against Oxfordians in general and me in particular, and with evidence that Tom Reedy and Nishidani each made almost 1000 edits to the SAQ article while the only editing I was only permitted to do was to add additional references for 4 facts already in the SAQ article and tidy up one additional reference. Those are facts, and to claim that I did not support my allegations of Tom Reedy and Nishidani's bias and ownership of the SAQ article and their adamant refusal to allow me to edit it at all is patently unjust and inequitable. The diffs also fail to support the false allegation that I 'failed to improve my behaviour after being repeatedly counselled in the past'. There is ample evidence on the Workshop page on that specific point. And in any case, a new editor should never have been the target of an arbitration brought under a false pretext. There are many intermediate steps of dispute resolution before arbitration, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, not one of those steps was taken by the administrators who brought this arbitration. They simply brought the matter straight to arbitration under a pretext solely for the purpose of having me banned. Moreover I did not 'continue disruptive behaviour during the arbitration case itself'. On the contrary, although continually baited with sarcastic personal remarks by Tom Reedy and Nishidani on the Workshop page, I remained courteous and did not respond, and the Talk pages demonstrate as well that I never responded to their provocative personal remarks on the Talk pages throughout the time I have been editing since last October. I defended myself during the arbitration, as I had every right to do in an arbitration which had been brought under a pretext solely for the purpose of banning me. But I have not been allowed by the arbitrators to defend myself properly because the arbitrators, against all justice and equity, refused to define the case against me so that I could put in my evidence, and yet now, for purposes of the arbitration decision, the drafting arbitrators have not only defined the case very succinctly in a single sentence, showing just how easy it would have been for them to do so earlier, but have incorporated into it false statements about me which are not supported by the diffs. None of this is any credit to Wikipedia or to the arbitration process.NinaGreen (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

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', 'this ideological mania') 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'). 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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  [&bull; ] 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * 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  [&bull; ] 14:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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).


 * 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)


 * 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).


 * This should explain the matter . Smatprt (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * (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)
 * (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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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) .NinaGreen (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Actually, Tom and Nishidani are the principal editors, although Nishidani has said quite often that he deferred to Tom on a regular basis. See and . 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)


 * 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, the addition of Nelson as a reference for three facts already in the article , , , and the addition of May as a reference for a fact already in the article . 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)

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)


 * 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 . 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)
 * Nina - I just supplied the info you requested and the link above . 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)
 * Besides the two diffs above which you failed to acknowledge (This and this), here are two more:, . And let's look at that private e-mail you posted and let others determine what my tone was: . 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: . 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)


 * 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)

"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)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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','a crank theory', 'I'd like to hear from some sane Oxfordians', 'this ideological mania'). 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)

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


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


 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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, 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 .NinaGreen (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuiq has tried to move this discussion onto my Talk page, 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 , 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)

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 (Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II being the most recent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * A reasonable interpretation of how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE influence WP:CONSENSUS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The problem is that "minority" is just as problematic a term in this controversy... Wrad (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II 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)
 * 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)
 * The problem I have is "should then be summarized fairly and dispassionately" - this is certainly not the case with the present article and Tom and Nishidani seem unable to accomplish this given their passionate stance. Who decides what is "fair and dispassionate"? In even their most recent edits, they merely defend their hard work, making consensus on even minor points, near impossible. As far as major points, such as giving a fair and dispassionate assessment of the SAQ history, they have adopted a "no compromise" attitude., , . Reliable sources to academics all deleted because they do not conform with Tom's chosen version of "history". Smatprt (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have to spend 25 hours a day trying to correct the misrepresentations of you and Nina if I didn't have the confidence that whoever checks your diffs has a working knowledge of the English language and knows how to read an edit summary. This is one of the problems I have run into again and again trying to work with proselytizing Oxfordians: any means are justifiable as long as it advances the case for Lord Oxford. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"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)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Glad to see this concern. Smatprt (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * I agree with both of the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know where to put this, so please excuse me if I'm putting it in the wrong place. However I think this point needs clarification. Two arbitrators requested diffs for the generalized allegations because no-one had provided them. The arbitrators obviously felt they could not make the suggested finding of fact in the absence of diffs or they wouldn't have asked for them to be provided. Moreover these two requests for diffs took place AFTER the date for statements of evidence in the arbitration had passed (30 January), and when the evidence against all parties was supposed to be complete. Now, a week later, a third arbitrator says he 'agrees with both', a statement I don't understand, and would like further clarified. Does the third arbitrator mean that he is still urging editors to put in diffs, i.e. to put in evidence against me a week after the final date for putting in statements of evidence has passed? Is this how Wikipedia arbitrations work? Where exactly is the justice and equity in this? And how can Wikipedia call such a proceeding an arbitration? No arbitration in the world proceeds in this manner. Can anyone imagine arbitrators in a real-world arbitration requesting one party to put in evidence against the other party!? And not only doing that, but doing it after the time for putting in evidence by both parties had passed? And may I also politely remind the arbitrators that this suggested finding of fact involves no violation of any identified Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * An allegation that a professional and educated individual 'has difficulties communicating effectively' is a very serious one which goes directly to reputation. I've not received a reply to the above, and I must therefore once again request that the arbitrators clarify the case against me before proceeding further with the arbitration. Elsewhere on this Workshop page the arbitrators refused my request to clarify the case against me before the date for putting in evidence had passed so that I could put in my evidence in response to whatever case the arbitrators considered required an answer from me. I could see no case against me since not a single allegation on the Evidence page cites a Wikipedia policy which I have allegedly violated backed up with relevant diffs which establish the allegation. Having refused to clarify the case against me, in this section three arbitrators, including the two drafting arbitrators, are now attempting to CREATE a case against me after the fact by requesting that diffs be put by editors AFTER the final date for submission of evidence has closed (30 January). Have the arbitrators considered how this looks to the outside world? Anyone on the internet who wishes to can view these arbitration pages and see arbitrators refusing to clarify a case against a party who has been dragged into a Wikipedia arbitration, and then actively trying to create a case against that party. What does that do to the reputation of Wikipedia?NinaGreen (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've placed this foregoing section on Jimmy Wales' Talk page . Arbitrators cannot refuse to clarify the case against an editor, and then be allowed to create a case of their own devising against that editor.NinaGreen (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina - you posted to an Archive. If you would have read the instruction there, it clearly says not to edit an archive . But, now that I think on it - you know this, because you once accused Tom of editing an archive against policy. How did you miss this - right at the top of the archive you just edited. (And Jimmy Wales archive at that!) ???

*"This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."


 * Cutting and pasting comments - as you have for the last week or two is also infuriating everyone. That's what links are for. Also - this is the space for "arbitrators" - not you (or me - clerk, please move all this, but I figured if I didn't put it here, Nina would never see it). Ok, now I too am done trying to show you how much time you are wasting, how you don't read instructions and how you are being disruptive - the very things that everyone has told you - and the very issue that you keep accusing everyone of not telling you. Jeesch. Smatprt (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Those who have been editing for years have forgotten what a steep learning curve it is for new editors. If people want to help out with putting links in where I've pasted comments, I'd appreciate the help. I've tried over and over again to locate diffs for specific things, and have been unable to do so because almost every archive on the SAQ Talk page says 'Archive Full', and I can't figure out how to get the diffs when the archive is full. As for editing Jimmy Wales archive, that was inadvertent and the problem has been resolved. It was certainly not my intention to edit the archive. I thought it was the current page. Apparently there is no leeway for new editors on Wikipedia.NinaGreen (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained about finding diffs for material in archives at your talk here undefined on 30 January 2011. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, it doesn't work when the archive is labelled Archive Full.NinaGreen (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a further explanation at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to one of the comments above: The arbitrators are certainly allowed to review the parties' editing histories on our own and reach our own conclusions. Editor behavior on the arbitration pages themselves, while not usually dispositive because we understand that tensions and emotions can run high here, can certainly also be considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added examples of NinaGreen's non observance of Talk page guidelines to my evidence, per Newyorkbrad's noting that "new" evidence will continue to be accepted, to demonstrate that the communication difficulties alleged of NinaGreen's interaction is the result of ignorance of or indifference to the standard methods used and expected of contributors to the project. I am noting this in FPaS's finding, as it is the locus of that particular dispute.


 * This is truly unbelievable. Statements of evidence closed more than a week ago, the arbitrators refused my request to clarify the case against me, the arbitrators then tried to get other editors to add diffs on this Workshop page to CREATE a case against me when one didn't exist on the Evidence page, and now the arbitrators have arbitrarily extended the date for putting in statements of Evidence, and LessHeard vanU had added to his statement of Evidence in order to CREATE a case against me which didn't exist on the Evidence page when the statements of evidence closed on 30 January. How must this look to the outside world, and what sort of damage will this kind of thing ultimately do to Wikipedia's reputation?NinaGreen (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 is 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)
 * One wonders why Nina's walls of text are so offensive when Nishidani's or Xover's  walls of texts are not. Smatprt (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does one wonder that, really? Even though it's so glaringly obvious? Is that a good faith comment, Smatprt? Nina's posts are full of rerererepetitions of things she has already already already said on this page, and of flagrant untruths, see my examples below, in this very thread. Nishidani's are not. Simple, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 00:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, Yes, knowing Nishidani's previous and current behavior better than most of the parties here, I do believe it was a good faith comment. Look, I'm not trying to defend Nina, here. Every post she makes gets longer and more confrontational. I truly think she has dug her own grave here with these ongoing diatribes. I am on record here asking her to limit the length of her posts, but my requests (and everyone else's) have had no effect. But I do see the mirror image of Nishidani. How many times on these and other pages, for example, has he characterized my sandbox version as simply a "paste" work with no significant change? Endlessly repeating this mischaracterization does no good. Does that make since, Bish? Also - Can you take a look at this one representative section, just look at this with an open mind, and see where I am coming from? SamueltheGhost asked a simple one-line question - Nishidani responded with walls of text, went off topic, avoided the question, and then changed the subject. This is exactly the approach Nina has taken here and on her talk page, and has been (rightfully) condemned accordingly. The both need to stop this, imo. Smatprt (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read the "representative section", Smatprt. No, even though I was surprised at Nish's "Princess and the Pea" theme, I fail to see how you can mention that in the same post as you mention Nina. Heck, mention it within lightyears of Nina. I draw your attention also to his interlocutor's response: "Thank you for your lengthy and amusing reply. I am flattered at your willingness to write at such length." I agree with that remark. It's lengthy and also amusing. Now try to imagine somebody, anybody, even one of her helpers, making such a remark to Nina. Careful, may cause internal organs to explode. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Perhaps because my 'wall of text' was a personal communication on my own page, to an editor convinced I regarded him with hostility, and not a repetitive exposition before arbitrators.Nishidani (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go to the page in question then: or . Plenty more if any arbitrator requests. Plenty. (By the way - this wall contains one of the biggest deceptions ever posted. Just noticed it. Smatprt (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain my deception comment: Nishidani states at the link directly above:
 * "The lead took almost a year of intensive negotiation to get to the formulation we now have. Every single word and then phrasing and sentence was subject to extensive review, as one can see in the archives."
 * I am sorry to be so blunt here, but enough is enough - This is outrageous behavior. Tom and Nishidani wrote this all by themselves - no one else participated. "A year of intensive negotiation"??? With who??? Each other??? If this is allowed to stand unchallenged, this entire process will be forever tainted. I'm sure this is the wrong place for this - but where does this kind of deception get placed? Smatprt (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I think it on - this is a good place for this info. Everyone is beating up on Nina, and believe me, I believe she has brought a lot of this on herself, but to deceive a new-to-the-article editor with this kind of statement should not be tolerated. Both Tom and Nishidani misled, misquoted and misinformed Nina in respect to the history of the article, as well as wiki policy, on numerous occasions. I can provide more diffs if requested. To say the current lead is anything like the old one, or the other draft that was proposed, is yet another attempt in a similar vein. Changing "debate" to "argument", rewriting history by changing "18th century" to "19th century", adding in the entire "Fringe belief" language, omitting the reasons why the four candidates listed are even mentioned (which several new editors have commented on in the last week or two), etc., etc. - these are substantial changes that are not in keeping with the neutral phrasing of the old (admittedly problematic) lead or the one proposed in this draft, which was promised a fair hearing before the wiki community - an agreement that was broken by ScienceApologist, Tom and Nishidani - any of whom could have made sure the agreement was followed. Less Heard of Bishonen could also have stepped up and enforced the agreement, or at the very least - the spirit of the agreement, but did not. Arbs - please let me know if you require more diffs concerning any of my statements. Smatprt (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not my intention to make fun of a typo—typos are perfectly cromulent on talkpages—but "Less Heard of Bishonen" is just so sweet. Let's all call LHvU that from now on! Sounds like somebody who ought to sit in the House of Lords, doesn't it? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * This is not the appropriate section to rekindle comments on the article. I've removed my comment to the relevant section where you accuse me of acting in accordance with a strategy of grand deception. If only the real life of the mind was as theatrical as the humongous panorama of wikidramatics.Nishidani (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is precisely why I requested the arbitrators to clarify the case against me, which the arbitrators refused to do, thus preventing me from putting in my evidence. I've already specified in detail the ways in which a Wikipedia arbitration is completely different from a real-world arbitration, and this is a prime example. There is nothing on the Evidence page concerning 'a problematic pattern of talkpage behaviour which shows that she has difficulties communicating effectively', yet this pops up here as a suggested 'finding of fact'. This could never happen in a real-world arbitration, and establishes my point that Wikipedia arbitrations are ad hoc tribunals in which there are no rules as to how and where 'evidence' is submitted, with the result that it is impossible for a party to know the case he/she has to meet. Moreover even leaving aside the fact that this 'finding of fact' is not supported by any statement on the Evidence page, even here it is merely an allegation unsupported by diffs and there is no reference to any specific Wikipedia policy which has been violated. And to find myself accused of 'having difficulties communicating effectively' is nothing short of astonishing. I wrote and published 65 issues of the Edward de Vere Newsletter, a modern-spelling edition of Martin Marprelate's Epistle, and a modern-spelling edition of The Langham Letter, all of which are catalogued in the libraries of a number of major universities in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain. I've moderated the Oxfordian research group Phaeton since 1996. I've had two articles published in the academic peer-reviewed journal Brief Chronicles and several other articles published in Oxfordian journals. I have a webpage which contains summaries prepared by me providing the context of hundreds of Elizabethan documents. I edited the entire Edward de Vere article on Wikipedia. Yet on Wikipedia talkpages I have 'difficulties in communicating effectively'? Please, let's get real.NinaGreen (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of what they mean by "difficulties communicating effectively". (And just FYI, the fact that editors choose to not continue posting on a topic or complaint does not mean it has been "dropped".) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom Reedy has edited his remarks above to remove what he termed an 'inappropriate joke'. I do not believe Tom should be permitted to delete the 'inappropriate joke'. It should be restored, and if Tom now considers it inappropriate, struck through. Tom Reedy's 'inappropriate joke' is not an isolated instance. It is typical of the snide remarks involving ridicule, scorn and sarcasm which Tom Reedy has directed against me throughout my editing on Wikipedia, unchecked by any administrator.NinaGreen (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Try reading my evidence section "NinaGreen's talkpage editing". Nothing concerning a problematic pattern of talkpage behaviour? Not supported by any statement on the evidence page?? Unsupported by diffs??? Come on, click on my blue words "NinaGreen's talkpage editing"—those are links, the idea is you click on them—and read what somebody else wrote for once. It won't kill you. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
 * I looked at one of Bishonen's diffs at random (number 101) allegedly showing Nina's problematic behaviour. What it showed was a personal attack on Nina by Paul B and her response. Poujeaux (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assisting the arbitrators with your interpretation of some of my evidence, Poujeaux. I hope they find your close reading helpful. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

I read out the entire section. It is a prime example of the "difficulties" Nina has had in communicating effectively. Communication is not a one-way street; it also involves listening. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bishonen's Evidence statement and diffs do not in the least support a finding that I have 'difficulties communicating effectively', nor does Bishonen identify any Wikipedia policy I have allegedly violated. For example, here is the first of Bishonen's statements on the Evidence page under her heading 'NinaGreen's Talk Page Editing':


 * Accusations without evidence or example, especially against Tom and Nishidani, of wikilawyering, owning, bad faith, dishonesty, insults, bias, attempts to get "Oxfordian" editors banned as soon as they set eyes on them,[92], lying, and the new favorite "defamation"/"defamatory", as in these brief posts which each repeat "defamatory" five or six times. (Note added 10:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC): This pattern has not ameliorated any during the arbitration itself, as demonstrated by this recent very comprehensive analysis of my own character.)NinaGreen (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, gee, that's not even a complete sentence, are you trying to ruin my grammatical reputation? Nina, kindly do not sign my words as if they were your own. Please remove that signature, or make it otherwise clear who is speaking; I would very much dislike any confusion on that point. Dear reader, there were 4 links to various examples in the little bit Nina quotes. Nina's method of copypasting has annihilated them, so please peruse the original rather than Nina's quote of it, if you're interested in the claims she makes here. Big if, I guess, but still. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC).


 * These are merely generalized allegations by Bishonen for which she supplies NO EVIDENCE. Click on the diffs she provides. They have nothing to do with 'accusations without evidence or example, especially against Tom and Nishidani, of wikilawyering, owning, bad faith, dishonesty, insults, bias, lying 'etc. Bishonen's diffs do not even support her own allegations, much less provide support for this proposed finding of fact that I have 'difficulties communicating effectively'. This is precisely why I asked the arbitrators to clarify the case against me. I cannot be expected to prove a negative, or to respond to completely unsupported allegations which do not even identify the Wikipedia policy allegedly being violated or the statements allegedly made by me.NinaGreen (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thank you for the reminder Nina; I must admit I had quite forgotten about your bona fides in this area. I wonder if could you perhaps clarify for me: have you discussed this present matter with the participants on the Phaeton email forum, and, if I may be so bold as to ask, what was their general consensus on it and the arguments presented by both sides here? --Xover (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Xover, not just Phaeton members but the ENTIRE WORLD has access to this arbitration through the internet (as I complained earlier when I was distinguishing Wikipedia arbirtrations from real-world arbitrations, which are private and confined to the parties concerned). In fact I ran across a website on Google before this arbitration started in which someone I'd never heard of stated that he had been following a point Nishidani was debating with me on the SAQ or Edward de Vere Talk page (can't recall which), and voiced his opinion that Nishidani was getting the worst of it. This Wikipedia debate on the authorship controversy is apparently of interest in circles beyond what one would have expected.NinaGreen (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The whole world is closely watching these pages, the destiny of nations hangs thereto, and historical questions of great weight, enterprises of great pith or pitch and moment, the attention of everyone from Yale to Cambridge. Suffice it to check the bookmarking in wikipedia for this controversy. These pages are watched by some 30 people of the 7al billion on the planet.Nishidani (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added some evidence regarding NinaGreen's style of commenting here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)

glaringly

Zweigenbaum (FPaS, finding)
1) 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment by others:
 * To Shell: relevant diffs are in the related evidence section, see ../Evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment by others:

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I might reword this a little, otherwise I'm fine with it. MoreThings (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "When in Rome..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. 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)

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)


 * 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 .  Shapiro is most definitely part of academe, and 'mainstream' is hardly fringe.NinaGreen (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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, 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 . 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard and appropriate here. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wrad (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The editorial process
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard and again, quite appropriate here. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wrad (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
3) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Use of the best quality sources available is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial. With limited exceptions, reliance upon self-published sources is discouraged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again, standard and relevant. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support (As if that adds anything :P) Wrad (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Editors must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have studied the matter. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Relevant, but I think I prefer the wording by FPaS just below. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that several editors refuse any attempts at consensus - forcing dispute resolution, which typically remain unresolved, or so open to interpretation, that the resolution is in the eye of the beholder. this leads to edit wars with the ruling party always "winning". (And so much for asking parties not to bold their "support" or "oppose" voting habits, as requested by one of the arbitrators above.) Smatprt (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the version in the section below applies slightly better to this situation. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic opinion (adapted from FPaS)
5) Editors working on Wikipedia articles on scholarly and scientific topics must strive to provide a fair reflection of academic opinion 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, editors must ensure that Wikipedia articles 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 editors should then summarize them fairly and dispassionately. However, editors 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 that they had equal credibility or acceptance with the established academic consensus view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A good point to make in this case; I also like LessHeard vanU's copyedit. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than changing "competing scholarly opinions" to "differing... etc." (as the opinion may or may not be such a minority one as to challenge the status quo) I fully support this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The related problem here is the consistant claim of "scholarly consensus" or "scholars hold that" or "academics say", all which imply scholarly consensus when there is none. How is this problem remedied? The policy of is being consistently ignored. ("The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.") For example does this  really support this: "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence,"? Smatprt (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now. We have over several months adduced a large number of quotations on this, which are not preserved on the page, most recently: 'Fantasies about faked deaths and undercover noblemen certainly make for an exciting story, but there's nothing to them (=no hard evidence). Virtually no professional student of literature (even wider than Shakespearean scholars) takes any of this seriously.' (Jack Lynch (Rutgers Uni), Becoming Shakespeare 2007 p.5) One simply cannot wikilawyer away an impressive body of evidence from the highest quarters which is unanimous on this by querulous pettifogging. Perhaps the experts are wrong, unfair, mongrels, whatever. But that is, unfortunately, what they, almost tediously, repeat. Nishidani (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. re: ""all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence," - show me one RS that "directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view: ie: that directly says that "all but a few" consider it a "fringe belief with no hard evidence" - This is a combination of WP:OR and WP:ORIGINAL SYN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smaprt (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from FPaS --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Smatprt: It seems quite probable that a disinterested observer reading Shakespeare authorship question would feel that it supports the article text ("the man on the Clapham omnibus" test, perhaps?). We know the difficulties of proving beyond doubt what is the scholarly consensus on almost any topic, as it is rare that a source will take the time to spell out axioms which they take for granted. Your interpretation of WP:RS/AC has merit however, since that guideline sets the sourcing bar far higher than for almost any other statement outside of BLP. If the crux of the dispute lies on the strict interpretation of the guideline ("directly says"), then this principle becomes even more important, since it covers how to deal with minority opinions that are more than WP:FRINGE, and presumably that is your contention. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement to be supported is: "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.
 * These two sources by themselves are sufficient to source that statement:
 * Kathman, David (2003). "The Question of Authorship". In Wells, Stanley; Orlin, Lena Cowen. Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide. Oxford Guides. Oxford University Press. pp. 620–32.: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it"
 * Gibson, H. N. (2005) [1962]. The Shakespeare Claimants. Routledge Library Editions: p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp; but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing. Their chief concerns are textual criticism, interpretation, and the internal problems of the plays, and they accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox. The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side."
 * Both of these are reliable sources and really all that is necessary, even meeting the WP:RS/AC standard.


 * I think that the bar is set so high at WP:RS/AC because as noted at other policy pages - "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing". The claim of academic consensus is indeed an exceptional claim. Thus the high bar, which I completely agree with. This also addresses the disinterested observer's view of "fringe" (lunatic fringe, fringe extremists, etc.) as opposed to the WP definition of Fringe which is much more broad and is truly a wiki term unto itself. I would agree with "most academics consider the SAQ a theory with no hard evidence", which is supported by Question 18 at this NYTimes survey,, where it appears that 32% might consider it fringe, but 61% are far less harsh, simply calling it a "theory without convincing evidence". But to add in the exceptional claim that "most academics" consider it a "fringe belief with no hard evidence" would require that most academics have actually weighed in on the subject, which they have not. The cites that use personal anecdotes such as "no one I know believes this stuff" simply do not approach a verifiable claim that "all" or "most" have labeled the issue as fringe, especially given the problem of using that word and its various connotations.Smatprt (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wrad (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Defending the mainstream
6) 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 the academic consensus view against such 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:
 * Still like the underlying point and I think this wording may be a bit better. Shell  babelfish 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 23:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from FPaS --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (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)


 * Comment by others:
 * (Second choice) from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * support Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * First choice, as it addresses a major issue in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, willing to take in alms against a siege of troubles and die for this.Nishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)


 * Comment by others:
 * from Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * Support Wrad (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support, behaviour is all that can be measured. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportNishidani (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once they had been properly advised and warned, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I think this especially applies in this case. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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).


 * 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: . 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).


 * 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)
 * I think we do often see users encourage others to violate policies; reminiscent of street gang warfare. I think this is a useful corollary. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I made a comment here which arbitrator Shell Kinney has removed. I have nothing further to add. MoreThings (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In many ways, this behaviour is more disruptive than the problems that uninformed new users may cause. (Note to clerk: Unless Bishonen decides to create her own set of proposals, I'm happy to adopt this proposed principle and suggest it is retained here because of its direct connection to the preceding proposal). --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
1) Canvassing, whether on or off-wiki, is inappropriate on Wikipedia as it skews the results of the debate and makes it more difficult to reach an honest consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While there was some mention of canvassing, I'm not certain that this is well proved by the evidence or that it is integral to the problems in this dispute. Shell  babelfish 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking of Nina's mention of it, I believe she has the impression that "to canvass" means "to post to WP:ANI": "This arbitration came about because Bishonen first canvassed the Administrator' Noticeboard in an attempt to involve other administrators [oh, fie upon't!], and then personally requested LessHeard vanU to act." Bishonen | talk 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard, but evidenced in this matter? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to provide evidence of off-wiki canvassing, but Xover's evidence, I think, suggests the need for something like this. Wrad (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry
1) Since sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are known to have occurred in the past in Shakespeare Authorship Question and related articles, causing a more deeply-ingrained lack of trust between editors of both sides and poisoning assumption of good faith, Checkusers, Admins, and other editors are advised to be on the watch for these rule violations, especially among SPA accounts. As the article has also been subject to users falsely posing as admins, another gross violation of good faith principles, all editors are encouraged to, in good faith, check the status of alleged admins new to the page here.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Administrators have no special standing in editorial discussions, though they do tend to be more experienced with Wikipedia's policies. Shell  babelfish 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. I would add FYI that ScienceApologist never represented himself as an administrator, and he made some comments to the effect that he wasn't, but he did not explicitly deny it when he was referred to as an admin, which is a serious omission. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I want to add something about how one checks admin status, but I don't actually know how to check that. I also don't know how well I like the simplistic "be on the watch" bit, but feel free to offer suggestions here. Wrad (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, Wrad, do you usually just go by how pompous they sound? Check admin status here. If you incorporate my link in your proposal, there's no need to preserve this post of mine in amber. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
 * No, I just assume good faith. :) Wrad (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy (Xover, principle)
1) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view.  While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good point in this case. Shell  babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal adopted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts (Xover, principle)
2) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard and relevant to this case. Shell  babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal adopted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Decorum (Xover, principle)
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. Shell  babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal adopted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

NinaGreen (Xover, finding)
1) Despite repeated attempts (

) to get to engage in dispute resolution the editor has actively refused to do so (

). 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 (

).


 * 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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Concur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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, 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)


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


 * 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).


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * Gee, I'm becoming sorry I answered it at all. I suppose you'll just have to dock my pay for my slowness. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC).


 * 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 . 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, Paul B (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NinaGreen (Xover, remedy)
1) 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think an indef ban is overdoing it. Something shorter would be better. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal adapted from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Reasonable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

SPA accounts (Xover, remedy)
3.1) 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.




 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This may be a bit extreme. Shell  babelfish 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * On re-examination I agree in general with Tom's assessment, and believe I was too hasty in listing in my proposal to block. I also take '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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment by others:

SPA accounts, alternate (Xover, remedy)
3.2) The listed SPA editors are cautioned to avoid gaming/vote-stacking and other tendentious or disruptive behavior, and are placed on probation for issues related to these policies. The editors are subject to standard discretionary sanctions on all articles, talk-pages, noticeboards, etc. related to the Shakespeare authorship question, broadly construed.




 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Attempt at amended proposed remedy to take into account comments made by Shell and Tom on remedy 3.1 above. For either of the proposals I would support removing from the list of sanctioned editors. While he does fall within the scope by my stated criteria, I believe Tom is correct that this editor is an exception to the rule in that he has exhibited a willingness to work within, and understanding of, the policies; and apart from what I for lack of a better term would call de jure vote-stacking has done so in good faith and does not merit this level of sanctions. --Xover (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been commented, and as per policy, just being an SPA is not an offense. No diffs have been offered to indicate that Schoenbaum, Peter Farey or Alexpope have engaged in disruptive behavior of any kind. I have witnessed all three make usable contributions and/or suggestions. This kind of guilt by association really disturbs me. It looks more like an attempted banning of anyone who has ever disagreed with Tom, Xover or Nishidani. Please provide diffs to backup the notion that these are disruptive editors. (I am not familiar enough with the three M's to comment on them. But to bite the newbies this way is bad policy. If there are any sockpuppets, of course, they should be drawn and quartered - and then removed! Smatprt (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Since these might be new users who are just unaware of the rules, I don't know about this. I think it would be a good idea to run a checkuser to verify that they are not socks of each other or of other users involved in the vote, though. If they really were new, however, a warning might be all we should do. If the checkuser reveals that anyone currently editing was involved in sockpuppetry, that would be a different story. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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 (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)
 * Comment by others:
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes, necessary to finding the focus of this case. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Nice. Bishonen | talk 06:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * That seems self-evident SOP to me. Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oh, nonsense, Rex. Take it up with the darwinbish! Look at Nina's "diffs", which usually, and uselessly, point at whole talkpages. Now look at my attempt to help her, as nicely and painlessly as possible, to "gain competence in the use of standard methods of linking to matters they wish to raise". Completely ignored. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Oh, nonsense, Rex. Take it up with the darwinbish! Look at Nina's "diffs", which usually, and uselessly, point at whole talkpages. Now look at my attempt to help her, as nicely and painlessly as possible, to "gain competence in the use of standard methods of linking to matters they wish to raise". Completely ignored. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

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)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Those are problem editors: WP:CRUSH. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many decimals, Nishidani? Bear in mind that 2+2=5 for large values of 2! :-) Bishonen | talk 01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * My goodness, that statement has generated a lot of comment. Let me be clear ARBCOM DOES NOT RULE ON CONTENT and therefore ARBCOM WILL NOT PRONOUNCE X THEORY TO BE FRINGE.


 * As for the rest, the scientific community does have an agreed process by which one theory is selected in preference to another, involving factors such as empirical observation, experimental evidence, reproducibility of results, and predictive capacity; and even they get into situations where one is waiting for the old guard to retire and cause a paradigm shift. There is also a general belief that the process is universal - a good scientist should be able to verify the process in the development of scientific theory in other fields, should they choose to direct their attention there, and scientists in one field are not precluded from commenting about activities in another field. Where we see a significant closing ranks against a view (as with Linus Pauling and Vitamin C) is where the scientist is considered to have stepped outside of the scientific process, and entered pseudoscience or fringe territory.


 * In arts/humanities disputes of this kind (who wrote the plays, who was Jack the Ripper, was there a historical Jesus), customary practice is necessarily that the evidence is scoured to support a theory (it being frequently impossible to even visualise, let alone conduct any kind of experimental or predictive process), and there is not always an agreed process by which one theory can be selected over another - the aspect crucial to identifying fringe theories in science. If the dispute is in a field with a significant academic background, one sees the phenomenon where proponents of one side dismiss the findings of anyone not in the profession, while proponents of the other side charge that the profession is a closed shop which it is impossible to enter while holding an alternate view.


 * This phenomenon (in my opinion) can generate a great deal of bad feeling, and merely exhorting editors to follow Wikipedia policy on NPOV and UNDUE may not get to the heart of the matter. Editors supportive of theory A reject source X because source X's background is in XX and theory A is proposed by professionals in AA. Editors supportive of theory B support X, argue that XX is a relevant discipline to bring to bear on the matter, or that X's substantial academic qualifications mean that he can bring the appropriate weight to bear on the topic. Theory A supporters argue that it is UNDUE to give weight to X, theory B supporters that it is POV to brand X as fringe.  And off we go, with bad feeling escalating into bad behaviour.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you RexxS below. Yes, I am not trying to argue that the National Enquirer has the same status as Scientific American.  I am trying to say that Wikipedia does not confine the definition of reliable source to tenured professors. Tom and Nishidani's comments about approach methodology are however very pertinent.  The more one moves away from an established methodology for evaluating the evidence, the more one moves into fringe territory and the easier it becomes to find independent sources supporting a consensus that the conclusions reached are fringe(for example, it is not necessary to have a specialised knowledge of auto-immune diseases to understand that those who advocate that AIDS is caused by anything except the HIV virus are balking a methodology in place since the time of Pasteur, and hence it is possible to find scientists from all fields ready to dismiss the notion on the same grounds).  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I would add to Fut. Perf.'s remarks that it is not the academic background of the anti-Stratfordians that causes the academy to dismiss their claims; it is their methodology. In fact Irvin Leigh Matus, who wrote one of the best refutations of the Oxfordians, did not have a college degree, and his work is well-respected in the academic community, while some anti-Stratfordians have been well-respected in other academic fields but their anti-Stratfordian beliefs have not been (one such example would be William Rubinstein, a very respected historian whose theory that Shakespeare was actually Sir Henry Neville has gained zero acceptance in the scholarly community). The methodology used by literary historians to determine Shakespeare's authorship is the same that they use to determine the authorship of any other playwright or poet of the time, while Oxfordians use different standards to attribute the works to Oxford than they do for any other writer. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Nishidani (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * @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 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)
 * @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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This seems reasonable to me. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * More in answer to Elen's reply above: Your description "Theory A supporters argue that it is UNDUE to give weight to X, theory B supporters that it is POV to brand X as fringe. And off we go, with bad feeling escalating into bad behaviour" is of course spot on. However, where we seem to differ is whether the correct answer to this type of dispute is an agnostic one, of pretending that the two positions are inherently of equal value and undecideable. They are not. There are situations where, in terms of Wikipedia policy, side A is demonstrably and objectively right, and side B is demonstrably and objectively wrong, or vice versa. (The objective and testable criterion is whether A or B have reliable sources to support them; and what is or isn't a reliable source is testable, especially where, as here, there is really no dispute about "professional field AA", i.e. literary history, being the primary and privileged academic field pertinent to this issue. What methods the professionals of field AA use to come to their judgments is of no concern whatsoever – that, really, is not for any of us to judge.) No, it is indeed not Arbcom's task to make a judgment whether "X is in fact fringe". However, Arbcom ought to firmly point users to the correct methods of how to find out if it is. Contrary to the prejudice you express, these methods exist, they do often lead to testable objective results, applying them is policy, ignoring them is disruptive, and it is within the remit of Arbcom to judge on whether editors have been making a good-faith effort to apply them or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ellen writes "In arts/humanities disputes of this kind (who wrote the plays, who was Jack the Ripper, was there a historical Jesus), customary practice is necessarily that the evidence is scoured to support a theory." Frankly, this is wholly untrue. The very fact that Elen lists "who was Jack the Ripper" indicates an odd view of what professional historians discuss. I find it deeply troubling that she comments with such dogmatism about something of which she is evidently unfamiliar. Historians of the "Jack the Ripper" phenomenon do not typuically speculate about who he was. There is no reliable evidence. To suggest that professional historians typically or customarily "scour" evidence to support a pet theory is just false: wholly so. As for the claim that such methods do not occur in science, I can only believe that she has not looked at the example I provided - Homo floresiensis, in which scientists on both side of the divide will clearly have egg on their faces if proven wrong and have certainly "scoured" the evidence to support of their preferred therory ("it's a diseased human"; "no, it's a new species of 'homo'"). In respect of Shakespeare, the Don Foster debate about attribution of the Funeral Elegy was resolved by the evidence, which both sides accepted. I suggest that Elen looks at that example. There is no difference between the humanities and the sciences in this regard. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say that scientists also found themselves in these situations, but there is one agreed process for testing scientific theory. Professional historians have abandoned the "who was Jack the Ripper" question because they fear they would be associated with cranks - there are a number of areas of study where the wise have abandoned the field to others for this very reason. And of course they don't have the full set of tools necessary - indeed, it is arguable whether an ex-copper with forensic proclivities and an interest in history is not better equipped to answer the question that a professional historian who knows nothing about the criminal mind.  That becomes the problems with these cases - other disciplines are brought to bear, and there is no agreed method of evaluating what these disciplines have to offer.  So it is perfectly possible to say in good faith "X should be treated as a reliable source because he is a respected ex-copper and understands the criminal mind."  The point I am making is not anything to do with the validity of any theory, is that while it does not help to edit in a tendentious and disruptive manner in support of one's theory, it doesn't help to view the other side as cranks and villains either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is really getting alarming now. "X should be treated as a reliable source because he is a respected ex-copper and understands the criminal mind" is so utterly beyond the pale in terms of Wikipedia policy I am honestly shocked at hearing it from an arbitrator. It is diametrically opposed to everything our WP:RS principles stand for. Yes, of course it is possible to defend such a position "in good faith", in the sense that a misguided newbie unfamiliar with our policies can be forgiven for defending it, but from an arbitrator I expect better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I'm talking about "who was Jack the Ripper". Lots of books on that topic are written by ex-coppers. I bet if you go look at the Jack the Ripper article, several of them are quoted as sources.  In the case of Jack the Ripper, the view is that one's insight in interpreting the evidence through the eyes of a copper may make one a reliable source about a serial killer. All the other examples are based on discussions about Jesus and the Jesus myth theory as here, where an editor is arguing that a talmudic scholar could never be a reliable source for anything related to Jesus. I have never made any comments relating directly to sources in this case, as I've never read any of them, and I have no view on any of them on any side. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't misunderstand you were talking about the Jack the Ripper case. But in that case too, "X is a reliable source because he is a respected ex-copper" is simply wrong. Per WP:RS, X is a reliable source because the mode of the work's publication (in reviewed, reputable outlets) and its reception among his peers in the field demonstrate people in the relevant field take it seriously. No matter what his (or their) academic or non-academic biography is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect FPaS, I don't read Elen's comment in the way that you have, and I'd suggest you may have been missing the underlying context. Consider two competing theories, both published in quality journals or by highly respected publishing houses (with all the associated editorial oversight). One is written by an acknowledged professional historian, and the other by the 'respected ex-copper and understands the criminal mind'. Both could be considered reliable sources in this context; WP:RS does not suggest that we rank reliably published sources on the basis of the author's credentials (we are asked to apply that razor to self-published sources). From that perspective, I don't find any problem with the statement "it is perfectly possible to say in good faith 'X should be treated as a reliable source because he is a respected ex-copper and understands the criminal mind'", if it is understood that we are talking about reliably published works. To put it another way: when editors are debating the weight that sources deserve in an article, it is not a behavioural issue per se for one editor to assert that the work authored by the ex-copper is a reliable source, if there is evidence that the publishing process meets WP:RS. This has to be resolved by pursuing our methods for reaching consensus (WP:RSN is useful), or failing that by dispute resolution. Obviously, failure to observe a consensus once it has been established is a behavioural issue, but AGF requires us to side with Elen's view until then. Hopefully looking at it from that view may help to reduce your level of alarm. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't disagree about the case of the "ex-copper who publishes in a quality journal". If he publishes in a quality journal, then, by definition, he is already part of the academic mainstream. But what Elen was apparently arguing was that we shouldn't bother about mainstream and fringe at all, because the academic discourse of the humanities has inherent defects that make its own definitions of what it accepts as mainstream or fringe fundamentally unreliable. Therefore, according to Elen, Wikipedia editors who happen to disagree with an academic mainstream consensus are apparently welcome to press for whatever alternative views they find personally more convincing. Elen has apparently been mixing up two levels of method here: the methods by which an academic field determines what ideas it deems or doesn't deem worthy of consideration, and the methods by which we as Wikipedians determine what ideas need to be presented as part of the State of the Art. Since Elen fundamentally distrusts the reliability of the former, she appears to conclude that we should also give up on the latter. And this is against our policy. Policy demands that we should follow the academic State of the Art, no matter if we consider it flawed or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re the comments above by Elen of the Roads: There is very little independent evidence regarding the life of Jesus, and there is no evidence regarding the identity of Jack the Ripper. These two examples are not at all representative of the SAQ issue where there is hard evidence regarding Shakespeare's authorship ("hard" in the sense that the evidence consists of physical material that can be analyzed by appropriate academic research). The academics have performed an analysis, and their results need to be reported in articles. Yes, there are conflicting points of view, and they also need to be reported in a due manner. If WP:FRINGE does not apply to SAQ, then it does not apply to any contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I.e. by the standard historical methods of source evaluation and documentary proof, Shakespeare of Stratford is Shakespeare. What has been done by the conspiracy literature is (a) say the evidence is distorted,(b) exploit the consequent and ostensible lack of proof to propose other candidates, for whom there is also no proof or evidence, as viable authors of the canon and (c) apply exceptional methods of Pyrrhic scepticism to all contemporary evidence, later historical documents and modern secondary literature on the Elizabethan-Jacobean era and specifically on this issue (d) while suspending scepticism with all arguments related to the evidential requirements for their chosen alternative candidate. Were the same methods adopted exclusively to question the standard documentary evidence on Shakespeare applied to all historical figures of his period and before and even to modern times, the whole logic of attribution, customary and analytical, would turn histories of literature into a total mess. This critical method is restricted however to the special instance of Shakespeare, an unwittingly reflex of bardolatry's premise that he is an instance of exceptionalism.
 * DeVereans are very practiced in lawyering what academics say, but if you read their literature, that analytical hostility is wholly absent from their own works. This means that the SAQ theorists tend to think the normal methods of historical analysis must be refined towards total scepticism for anything confirming Shakespeare, while being suspended or dropped for their candidates. They are thus hamstrung by a double methodology, nihilistic with positive evidence, credulous with unevidenced counter-theory. That is why the argument from Kuhn (seismic shifts in an empirically-grounded science) doesn't work, while the vast sociological literature on fringe beliefs, or ideological systems is more pertinent, since the SAQ theories have proven impermeable to any evidence for 160 years, as a huge amount of circumstantial evidence has accumulated strengthening what tradition always asserted as a fact. Pick a hole in any of these arguments, and you just get an epicycle added to account for it,or cover the fault-line, if I may mix metaphors as my computer time allowance expires.Nishidani (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus regarding the neutral point of view relating to the subject of the SAQ article (b)
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:
 * Consensus is established by agreement between editors. Since there is evidently no overall agreement between editors (even the two editors from the same party commenting here don't quite agree with each other) it is hard to see how there can be said to be consensus. It is not the role of Arbcom to impose a definition of consensus based on sources, however good or poor they are. It is not the role of Arbcom to identify what the neutral position is. It is not the role of Arbcom to decide which sources are reliable. It is the role of Arbcom to facilitate editors reaching consensus by sanctioning disruptive and tendentious editing that prevents collegial working. That's the framework in which we operate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to RexxS - it should be possible to find sources for the statement that the academic consensus among professional Shakespeare scholars is that William Shakespeare wrote the plays (I believe this statement to be one of fact). That being the case, the tendentious should certainly be prevented from editing the statement out or seeking to represent it as a minority view, and it may well be that Arbcom will impose sanctions upon those who would do so. However, this is not the same as the statement that William Shakespeare wrote the plays, a statement that rightly or wrongly, is contested by many in the wider field of interest. Accordingly, it is beyond the scope of Arbcom to rule that the neutral point of view is is to "maintain that William Shakespeare wrote the plays".  Do you see the difference? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Resp to EotR; I am not asking you (or any other arb) to determine what the consensus is - I am telling you what the consensus is; every referral do content dispute resolution has, by reference to the best RS available, resulted in that determination. The point is to affirm where consensus has been determined it is germane to note that consensus in any article, including that which details theories that oppose the literary (and therefore WP) consensus. Respectfully, consensus is not about getting people to agree on a matter, since anyone disagreeing on whatever grounds would then deprecate consensus, but weighing the arguments based on policy and reference to reliable sources and coming to a decision and not then allowing that consensus to be disregarded by any means other than by which it was arrived at. My thrust in my raft of principles and fof's is that once you remove the disruptive and tendentious editing - and civil POV pushing also - and rely upon discussion of sources and use of content dispute resolution processes the consensus is apparent. There is only this infernal debate, and subsequent case, because a few editors refuse to abide by the WP processes and practices which have resulted in a consensus for W. Shakespeare as being noted as prime author being the NPOV, since that is not in keeping with these editors preferred conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was scratching my head over that comment earlier also. Wikipedia editors don't--or at least shouldn't--come to a consensus about what the scholarly consensus is; that (the scholarly consensus) is evident. It is in matters of weight and sourcing that most of the problems lie--that and the misunderstanding of neutrality by the--let us say--advocates of the non-consensus view.
 * Look at the Oxfordian theory article, and you will see how a cursory nod to the academic consensus serves as a disclaimer, much like that printed in a tiny font at the bottom of the prospectus when you buy into a stock offering or the disclaimer you sign when buying a used car that nothing the salesman said can be relied upon as the truth: it's only there because policy mandates something in the article to recognise the accepted mainstream view. The rest of the article is written in a promotional manner, stating opinion and speculation as fact, "Oxfordian researcher X points out that ...", "Oxfordians note that ...", "Authorship researcher Y paraphrases the cryptic poem ...", and more of the same. This passes for neutrality among Oxfordians because it treats speculation and special pleading just like facts.
 * One of the most repeated criticisms of the current SAQ article by Oxfordians is that "it treats opinions like they were facts", their point being that the historical record is a fraud and therefore when it is cited there should be an accompanying mention that anti-Stratfordians have an explanation that involves a campaign to alter the historical record--both views, in other words, should be mentioned, otherwise the statement is biased. That's neutrality to them. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia editors don't--or at least shouldn't--come to a consensus about what the scholarly consensus is; that is evident."—if that really is your understanding, Tom, and there isn't a typo in there somewhere, then I'm not surprised there has been so much hassle at the SAQ article. MoreThings (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding. If that is not yours, then you misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The scholarly consensus is evident to anyone who can read, and it is the task of the Wikipedia editor to reflect that, not to change or modify it. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is the process by which the academic consensus is assessed and put into a WP article, if not the establishment a consensus among WP editors? MoreThings (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a thousand other things about which editors need arrive at a consensus, such as POV, weight, sourcing, external links, formatting, etc. Their ideas about what the scholarly consensus is are irrelevant; that is determined by the academy and can be readily discerned by reading the peer-reviewed literature. In areas where there is no consensus or where the consensus is challenged, all views should be covered, giving proportional weight as covered in peer-reviewed sources. All this is WP Policy 101; I'm surprised you don't know it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. then again, I just now looked at your editing history and see that you have made relatively few content edits, with most of your edits being in WP, WP talk, and talk. It takes a long time to learn all the ins and outs of WP policy, or at least it did for me. I'm still learning new things every day, and have yet to gain the confidence to jump into editing and discussing WP policy pages as you have. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed WP Policy 101, Tom, and I'm genuinely surprised that you don't understand it. That you don't probably accounts for much of the heat at SAQ. WP Policy 101: Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia.


 * You didn't answer my question. If not by consensus among WP editors about exactly what it is, then how does the "scholarly consensus which is determined by the academy and readily discerned by reading the peer-reviewed literature" get into a WP article? MoreThings (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Elen and FP - can you review the related posts I have just added at the bottom of this thread: starting at 16:11 today? Currently it starts about halfway down with "I believe this issue is one of the most important parts of the debate" Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The FoF is sound, but the commentary is telling. You have here the dispute in a nutshell: some assert that academic consensus is a verifiable fact; others believe that it is subject to consensus between Wikipedia editors. The latter position couldn't be more wrong, and reflects the kind of intellectual arrogance that wants to substitute the editor's own 'expert' opinion for the authority of reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Elen: Yes of course. The text "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the principal author of the plays attributed to him" is one view (the majority one, and mine) and is subject to WP:DUE where we are required to assess the relative prominence of significant viewpoints in the reliable sources. The text "The academic consensus is that William Shakespeare of ..." is merely required to meet WP:RS/AC i.e. finding "sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view"; it doesn't need any editorial consensus or debate: it's either stated in reliable sources or it isn't. Regarding the SAQ, I'm personally convinced by Shakespeare authorship question. You, Tom, Nish, LessHeard, I, and others all seem to agree that is the case. I'm simply warning you that Smatprt, Nina, and others don't accept those sources as "directly saying" (and dispute Kathman (2003)'s reliability). So you're going to have to make a judgement whether they can hold those views in good faith (which I believe they can), and then whether or not they should be sanctioned for behaviour arising from that. Or you could put all that on one side, impose discretionary sanctions, warn the parties, and give them a firm prod in the direction of searching for common ground. Good luck! --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rexx and Elen for focusing on this. I did want to clarify a few things. First, while this has often been alledged, I have never doubted or challenged the statement that the academic consensus is that William Shakespeare is the primary author. No diffs have ever been provided that I have. I do not recall (and I could be wrong) seeing any diffs where any other editors challenged that statement. In fact, in this edit - I say "I agree that there is general consensus about the overall issue - the mainstream attribution is that the plays were written by Shakespeare of Stratford. But to say there is general consensus on each and every rebuttal is outlandish." Also, I have never said that any of these theories deserve equal weight on Wikipedia, or that the case for Stratford is equal to the case for Oxford. These have been alleged by LessHeard, Tom and Nishidani, but no diffs have been provided. I sincerely hope the arbitrators take note of these accusations, the lack of diffs, and my proof (quote and diff above) provided. Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * 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)
 * @Wrad - yes, such important detail would fall under "better worded". LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Nishidani (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

"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)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse.Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment by others:
 * 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)
 * Standard agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

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)


 * 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". (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, 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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).
 * 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)


 * 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)

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).
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * In truth, I had not... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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  (note edit summary). Poujeaux (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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." 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,( 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).

Proposed enforcement
1) None.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * "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).
 * 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)
 * '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     ROA R R! !    19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * "...while being permitted to remain as an editor"; you have to include the disclaimer... Even the case of Requests for arbitration/R. fiend mentioned elsewhere by Newyorkbrad had other instances of alleged poor admin conduct, and was settled by a voluntary resignation "under a cloud". LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Highly excessive for a single incident, even if we determined that the block was problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * From FPaS's notice to Nina Green:
 * "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 . 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)

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)


 * 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:
 * This was tried at Climate Change Probation (I have scoured the link from my mind, sorry) and it was a glorious failure - any admin is only uninvolved until they make their first action... Adherence to policy and referral to ArbCom Enforcement for violations is apparently the only sustainable method of ensuring compliance in hotly disputed topic areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am of the opinion that WP:PARITY would militate against it. From the paragraph on independent sources: Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse; and from Parity itself: The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To my mind, this second sentence cuts both ways - one clearly cannot limit comment only to the proponents of one view, but one should ensure that one is not limiting it to a subset of the encompassing field with the other view either! This is an area where "The Truth"(TM) is accessible only to Dr Who. The rest of us have to go by what history left us, and the exegisis of those who study that history, and I for one would not be willing to restrict the use of sources independent of the specialist scholar for the purpose of determining the relative positions of the various views. (Note NOT for deciding who wrote the plays, something which is quite beyond the scope of Wikipedia).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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: . 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)
 * Indeed they are, but are they by professional, peer-reviewed scholars of that subject 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this issue is one of the most important parts of the debate, indeed it may be THE most important, as the limiting of sources has become one of the key objections to the way the current article has been formulated. Limiting RS, or "raising the bar" has had a stifling effect on the anti-argument. We have been told by Tom and Nidhidani, repeatedly, that so and so can't be used because they are not a Shakespearean Scholar. As a result, articles and surveys in the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, WS Journel, etc., etc., "can't" be used because they are not written by Shakespearean specialists. Books published by respected publishing houses with oversight and fact-checking policies such as those by Anderson (Penguin Group) and Ogburn (Cardinal/Penguin), Sobran (Simon and Schuster) have been labeled as non-RS, again because they are not "Shakespearean Scholars", and have been banned from the article.
 * Even Price (Greenwood Press) has been relegated to citing mundane facts that are not even in contention, but her most important contributions have not been allowed to be properly represented. These limits have been universally dictated by Tom and Nishidani, forcing their anti-argument to be restated by "Shakespeare specialists" who reframe their arguments, often focussing on minor issues concerning their most "fringy" beliefs, and ignoring the contributions that are based on accepted research standards and methodology. Even when the RS board weighs in and says the New York Times can be used, Tom and Nishidani ignore these directives and play the "not Shakespeare Specialists" card, which has been used to trump the anti-argument at every turn. We really need the arbitrators to weigh in on the issue of limiting RS to those researchers that the mainstream editors deem acceptable.
 * This is precisely why several recent uninvolved editors have questioned why the anti-arguments seem so outlandish or unsupported. It's because Shakespeare Specialists invariably focus on the things that are most easy to make fun of, and traditionally turn a blind eye to the arguments that are more difficult to denigrate. For example, compare this summary of the Oxfordian case bogged down by the sillier aspects of "secret codes" and the extreme fringe "Prince Tudor" theory, both of which belong in the Oxfordian article but not the SAQ overview, with this version, a shorter and more accurate summary of the case as actually put forth by the RS publications I have just mentioned above. This cherry picking of RS sources needs to be addressed if we are ever to clear this major hurdle. Smatprt (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The NYT article is far from banned. It is cited in the article at this very moment and has been for awhile. Wrad (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The NY Times Survey has been attacked through-out this very workshop page as not representing "Shakespeare Specialists" and outside of "Academic consensus" on the premise that University Professors who teach Shakespeare are not proper specialists, as defined by Tom and Nishidani. But even given your objection, how do you respond to the other 99% of my comments?Smatprt (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm primarily referring to the many articles in the NY Times that have summarized the anti-case far more completely than the present Wiki article does. Please address that, if you would. These NY Times articles, , , and and  (which cast doubt on the computer analysis and title page attributions that the mainstream editors find so important), or this Atlantic Monthly article  summarize the Oxfordian case mcuh better than the Wiki article. And why has this research  been completely excised from the article?  Smatprt (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Side note on the all important "title page" attributions that the SAQ article maintains is definitive proof. Why no ackhowledgement of this opinion from one of thier own:
 * "Professor Foster, too, now sees the evidence of the initials W. S. -- and title page attributions generally -- in a new, dimmer light compared to internal evidence, including, he said, language and prosody and spelling and borrowings and so forth that we associate with a particular writer..
 * Again, this is telling only half the story and is an example of a mainstream specialist not being represented when it presents an inconvenient mainstream opinion. Smatprt (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your summary of the reasons why some sources are preferred over others is specious and self-serving. The sources used in the article meet both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, as you have been told again and again. Those that are excluded do not meet those standards in that they are not independent reliable sources according to WP:FRINGE, but instead are promotional in nature. We also prefer the best sources, not just any source, and a newspaper poll of university teachers is not on a par with the opinions of the specialists in the field. That you consider them of equal weight is an indication of the promotional nature of the Oxfordian movement, which prefers popular media over academic scholarship simply because of its almost universal rejection by professional Shakespeareans. I hardly think this is the place for you to resume your campaign for Oxford and for Oxfordian sources.

And apparently you haven't been keeping up with the cutting edge of Oxfordian scholarship: the Prince Tudor theory and decrypting the Sonnets is all the rage now, as a cursory perusal of any Oxfordian newsgroup will show. Even your much-vaunted Dr. Michael Delahoyde is on board with the theory in its extremest form(PDF file) as well as ciphers.Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean where Dr. Delahoyde says "I may inform my students that some Oxfordians subscribe to what is called the Prince Tudor theory." and "Maintaining an agnostic stance on Prince Tudor (PT), I tell my students that there are three versions or hypotheses"? Notice Dr. Delahoyde says "some" not "all" or even "most". This stuff should be in the Oxfordian article, sure. But it has been inserted in the SAQ article as a way of eliciting the "ew" factor that Dr. Delahoyde precisely discusses. Smatprt (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the entire article? I’m talking about when he states, "Hesitancies or dreads notwithstanding, I must say that each Prince Tudor component in Beauclerk’s reconstruction of 'The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth' (as the subtitle has it) is disturbingly convincing” (239), and “Charles Beauclerk’s book is the most successful to date in proposing a nucleus to the Shakespeare phenomenon and accounting for the preoccupations found in the works" (243). And it is "inserted" into the SAQ article because it belongs there. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the link on cyphers - which is more of a discussion about Shakespeare using cyphers - Malvolio trying to decypher the M.O.A.I. code in Twelfth Night, for example. But again - kind of off-topic. No Oxfordian summaries that I am aware of focus so much on "secret codes" and the various incest theories that you have inserted in to the article. Only the present Wiki article does - and that is why it is suspect. The present article makes the worst case for Oxfrod that I have ever encountered. And the one uninvolved editor (at the time) who responded to the RFC noted the same. "Seventh, while I can see why "Alternative candidates" and the reasons for their candidacy deserve discussion, the current material is a mess. It looks nothing like a usual WP article, and the part on "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" is particularly bad, lacking citations altogether, it is not in sentence form, it does not use the evidence to properly make the argument, etc." You have incorporated his other suggestions - but not this one. Odd. Smatprt (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here’s an example of "Shakespeare using ciphers" from the very first post on that page:


 * Here comes Romeo...." "Without his roe" (II.iv.36-37), which leaves "Me-O" (Ogburn and Ogburn 393-394). Romeo enters and Mercutio exercises his wit, declaring of Romeo's own, "O, here's a wit of cheverel, that stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad!" (II.iv.83-84). "'Cheveril' in the original ('First Folio') is spelt 'cheverell,' and 'inch' in Elizabethan spelling is either 'inche' or 'ynche.' It will be noticed, therefore, that the word, 'cheverell' ends with an 'ell' and it commences with a 'che.' 'Che' is three fifths of the word 'inche' and is therefore 'an inche narrow.' ... We find the word 'ver' stretching from the 'inch narrow' to 'ell broad.' Vere, or Ver, is the Earl of Oxford's own name, and thus no doubt is left as to whom the line refers" (Holland, qtd. in Clark 474; cf. Ogburn and Ogburn 394).

As to your other complaint, do you think that people don’t look at the links you provide? Because your characterisation of them is deceptive, at the very least. Your cherry-picked comment is from 18 Oct 2010, when the article looked like this:  and the Oxford section looked like this:, vastly different than the way it looks now. The specific suggestion you quoted has been incorporated, as anyone can see, contrary to your statement. Have you not looked at the article since then? And by the way, that reviewer, Hamiltonstone, also wrote, "First, clearly the prevailing scholarly view is that Shakespeare wrote most or all works attributed to him. This should be mentioned in the first para of the lead; we should not wait until the third para to be told it is a fringe view." That's the suggestion we didn't incorporate, because we slavishly followed the WP:FRINGE guideline.

This is getting boring, and I'm not even sure your ban suspension is supposed to encompass the direction that your comments have taken in the past week or so (or it only may be days; time seems to stretch out on these pages). If you continue this line of commentary, you'll have to find somebody else to respond to them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As I wrote somewhere, 650 books are published on Shakespeare every year, 1500 specialized articles. Roughly 30 pages every hour, someone calculated. My concern for sourcing is related to this. When you have industrial level output, how do you cope? By sprinkling the texts with clips from favourable newspaper articles, books written by journalists who write for Rolling Stone, or paleoconservatives who, between defending David Irving, rush to write on Shakespeare, or people with some knowledge of university administration (Diana Price). It seems to be missed here that virtually everything about Shakespeare and his plays is controversial within the mainstream. Large numbers of young scholars make their repute by challenging an orthodoxy. If an outsider makes a useful contribution, based on a clear mastery of the basic tools of historical and textual analysis, and does not belong to that establishment, he or she will find many scholars disposed to incorporate the findings in their work (the woolsack research on the Stratford monument, or Irvin Leigh Matus's brilliantly urbane review of this controversy, for example). I must say that some editors have been remarkably successful in pushing the idea that a fringe view, without any real foothold in literature or scholarship, is a minority view subject to hostile prejudice by an 'establishment'. A political line that plays to our sense of running to succour those subject to discrimination or unfair treatment. That Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare ("Theory A supporters argue that it is UNDUE to give weight to X, theory B supporters that it is POV to brand X as fringe. And off we go, with bad feeling escalating into bad behaviour") is, lastly, not a 'theory', any more than the 2,000 year old tradition that Aeschylus wrote Prometheus Bound was a 'theory'. What is 'theory' here is the challenge to an ascription long never doubted by all authorities. In Shakespeare's case, the theory flopped, continually failing 160 years of close examination, scrutiny, scientific tests by paleographers and computer stylometric analysts. In the case of Aeschylus, the 'theory', proposed in 1857, found a modern advocate (Mark Griffith) and gained ground every since. But that does not mean that now, while writing about PB, scholars rush to say, 'the theory Aeschylus wrote the PB.' A nuance, but this whole conflict is in good part one between those who appreciate books on the article that show a nuanced care for scholarly precision and those who have an extremely refined or pertinancious regard for law or wikipolicy, and pass it under close scrutiny, in order to justify poor sourcing for their fringe POV.Nishidani (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

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:

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:

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:
 * I haven't seen obsessive behaviour (note, I am not a psychoanalyst - nor do I play one at Scrabble), and I am also wary of focusing attention on one or two of the most recent examples of editors whose actions have been disruptive to an area of Wikipedia for some considerable time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Yes, I was thinking of a few specific editors, but I see what you are getting at. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Old but memorable. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by SMATPRT
An editor who practices a grand deception in an attempt to mislead a new article editor should receive severe sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Disagreeing with others is fine, so is posting your side of the story but calling other editors liars is not. I have removed your proposed remedy below as it crossed the line into personal attacks.  If you have some suggestions to make, please try to avoid humor or sarcasm - these generally do not come off well in print. Shell   babelfish 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. Trust me, as a person who uses sarcasm on a regular basis, I have a hard time keeping it out of Wikipedia too but it never ever sounds like you meant it. :) Shell   babelfish 05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's for sure - I spoke at a City Council meeting last night and had them in stitches. Upon reading the written transcript, I sounded like an A**. Note taken. Smatprt (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

To explain my deception comment elsewhere: Nishidani states here:
 * "The lead took almost a year of intensive negotiation to get to the formulation we now have. Every single word and then phrasing and sentence was subject to extensive review, as one can see in the archives."
 * I am sorry to be so blunt here, but enough is enough - This is the simply outrageous behavior. As has already been established, Tom and Nishidani wrote this article (up to October 10, 2010) pretty much all by themselves - no one else that I am aware of even participated (aside perhaps from the odd minor edit..maybe). But "A year of intensive negotiation"??? With who??? Each other??? If this is allowed to stand unchallenged, this entire process will be forever tainted. I'm sure this is the wrong place for this - but where does this kind of deception get placed? Smatprt (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Okay, as usual you win by sheer fatigue inducement and stress of those trying to answer you. My words refer to the date of Reedy's entry in December 2009 (from memory). I entered 14 feb. Compare Jan 31 this lead and Shakespeare authorship question the lead now, and you will observe how much of the old lead's organization, content and even phrasing, subject to intense examination, was preserved in our respective (and distinct) individual revisions (Reedy's revision of my revision was thorough), which became the SAQ page in October and has been intensively edited by many others ever since. But, yes, you win by sheer fatigue. I can't even find, after a half an hour, the revision history for the SAQ sandbox 2 draft to prove my point by showing how different Reedy's revision was to the one I made. I give up. I haven't the patience to keep answering these charges by desperate searches for diffs to prove the obvious, charges based, as I have often argued, on equivocations on what the normal construal of an editor's English would take words to mean. That said I'd almost endorse the sanction suggested. No man in his right mind, with a reading life to live, should have to put up with this for more than a year. Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. Picking the Jan 31 version is completely arbitrary and comes before the actual intensive negotiation between you, Tom, Schoenbaum and myself. What we all came up with and formed a consensus for, is no longer represented. You and Tom's addition of "fringe belief", the changing of the history from 18th century to 19th, and the other changes I have already mentioned, have thrown the NPOV and the consensus completely out of whack. Smatprt (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Nishidani should be topic banned permanently.

Info from Smatprt
I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section above to put it in, or what kind of proposal to make. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence" section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavioral point of view, was an intentional act to prejudice the entire article, thus violating NPOV. The section states that only mainstream researchers use "title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. Both sides use them, and both sides interpret them to bolster their arguments. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Priceextensively using historical records, Ogburnextensive use of contemporary docs, Andersonanalysing historical docs and contemporary references have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. Articles in the Tennessee Law Review (used as an RS by the mainstream editors) also reference historical records And I know of at least one stylometric study that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. I would hope the arbitrators investigate this aspect of the NPOV problems being face. Smatprt (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My guess is that it's too late to amke any difference, and in any case your presentation is misleading. The article states that those records are used by scholars to attribute works to their authors. No one is denying that anti-Strats use them for other purposes, but they don't use them to attribute works to their authors.
 * Now let's all listen to the radio quietly and wait for the arbitrator's proposed decision. Trying to squeeze stuff in at the last minute with no time for rebuttal is bad form. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement



 * 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:

Shakespeare really did write the plays attributed to him (LessHeard vanU/Other discussion)
I am going to refer to the studies of a little known scholar on the matter, namely me, taken from the facts available at Wikipedia and the scholars unreliable memory. To that last part, I studied Macbeth for my GCE 'O' levels some 35 years ago and am now recalling some of the curriculum lead discussion of the play. I shall prove, by my own simple use of logic and fact, that none of the pretenders to the claim of author would have written it - and who likely did.
 * Facts (or commonly held as such);
 * Macbeth, per WP, was written between 1603 and 1607 and performed by 1611.
 * Elizabeth I of England died early in the year 1603, the earliest suggested date of the writing of the play.
 * King James I of England and VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne in 1603 and reigned until 1625.
 * Edward de Vere, died 1604, playwright, lyric poet, sportsman, patron of the arts, and soldier, and "currently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works."
 * Francis Bacon, died 1626, philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author and father of the scientific method.
 * Christopher Marlowe, died 1593, dramatist, poet and translator.
 * William Shakespeare, died 1616, poet and playwright.


 * The play;
 * A tragedy based on the historical 11th Century Scottish kings Duncan, Macbeth, and Malcolm, namely the regicide of Duncan by Macbeth (via Lady Macbeth) and the subsequent consequences leading to the death of Macbeth and the reclamation of the throne by Malcolm. The author took most of the characters from Raphael Holinshed's "The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland" (much of Shakespeare's canon was, in terms of plot and character, unoriginal), although there is one major exception - the character of Banquo (now considered by historians as an imaginary figure). In the chronicle by Holinshed, published during the reign of Elizabeth in 1587, Banquo is a co-conspirator and regicide, while the character in the play performed during the reign of James I of England is the betrayed loyal and honorable friend of Macbeth - and also the ancestor of future kings.


 * The politics of the play and Jamesian England;
 * With the installation of the Protestant King James VI of Scotland as James I of England, the succession issue was settled in the manner favourable to the legacy of Elizabeth. The threat from France and Spain, with the defeat of the Armada and the alliance with Scotland, had receded. However, James was from a different court and followed practices that were foreign or were considered obsolete by the Elizabeth one - which included the laying on of hands (the "Kings touch") as a cure for disease, and claiming descent from historical monarchs and families from Scotland. In the play comment is made of the piety of Duncan, including the curing of ills by the laying on of hands, and that Banquo would sire a dynasty of Kings. James I/VI claimed ancestry from both Duncan/Malcolm and also Banquo. From the references in the play and the change of the nature of Banquo's character it is apparent that the play sought the approval of and championed the new monarch. This simple fact, part of the syllabus for English literature for British schoolchildren of the 1970's and other decades, provides the best proof that it was written by William Shakespeare.


 * The main alternative authors, and the reasons against their candidature.
 * Christopher Marlowe, the only major recognised playwright of the three, had been dead 10 years at the time of James ascension to the English throne and more when the play was first performed. Even if still alive and authoring the plays under Shakespeare's name there are many stylistic differences between those written under his own name and those "by" Shakespeare, contemporaneously and subsequently. Also, under the conspiracy theories put forward by advocates for his authorship, why would he remain presumed dead when the old regime had been replaced by the new and he had written a play which exemplified the new monarchs forebearers? Except for the claim to Shakespeare's authorship there is no other evidence put forward to demonstrate that Marlowe faked his death and continued a life in England (or elsewhere).
 * Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The Earl of Oxford survived Queen Elizabeth's death by only a year, and was in poor health for the last years of his life. However, his fortunes personally and politically had revived under James I after some neglect following his life as a courtier to Elizabeth I. There is no apparent reason for him to also fake his death (a theory devised by advocates for plays written and published after 1604) nor to have them to continue to be published under Shakespeare's name (regarding suggestions that Shakespeare possessed and published the true authors works, even after the death of the writer) if he had found favour with the new court. Further, it is recorded that Oxford had published plays, mostly comedies, under his own name (although none have survived) which raises the question why he did not claim those others now considered to be by Shakespeare. Of all the theories advocates advance for Oxford in not desiring his association to the works to be known, the fact of the ascension of James I and the political bias toward the new monarch contained in the play "Macbeth" makes little sense. In further deprecating Oxford's claim, I would note that the Earl had a little over a year in which to compose the work - having been one of the nobility that had had to find a suitable successor to Elizabeth, her not naming an heir, he could not have written the play in anticipation of James succession. All this while an old, by the standards of the day, and infirm man. Before leaving Edward de Vere I will also make note of his reputation, recorded in many dedications, as a historian. I will return to this later.
 * Prior to Edward de Vere, the most acclaimed proponent as the true author of the Shakespeare canon was Francis Bacon. Although a well known figure in the court of Elizabeth, his fortunes greatly improved when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, being knighted in 1603 (the year of ascension) and being given other great offices in the following years. Before his political disgrace in 1621 Bacon and James I had an excellent relationship - including Bacon acting as Regent on James' behalf for one month. Even if Bacon had used the offices of Shakespeare, a familiar allegation by those who dispute Shakespeare as the true author, for Macbeth and other plays, in the Elizabethan era he had no reason to do so while in James' favour. More even than the Earl of Oxford, Bacon was a statesman and politically astute member of court - if he had written Macbeth, with its positive portrayal of Duncan, Malcolm and Banquo, then he would have ensured James and the court would be aware of it - and it is calamitous to his claim to authorship that he did not. Also, prior to his life in the Elizabethan court, and subsequently to his disgrace and removal from James' one, Bacon was known for his intellect and his approach to science - he developed a school of thought to approaching questions of science to which I will return shortly. He was a learned person, who brought a new vigor to scientific observation and reporting.

Cannons and Macbeth
The issue that settles my mind as to who was not the author of Macbeth is a line taken early in the play, where the battle in which Macbeth and Banquo had fought for King Duncan is described, and which troubled me as a 13 year old. It is the line, "As cannons overcharged with double cracks" (1.2.2), referring to a cannon double loaded with black powder and fired (as a metaphor). This line was written by a person ignorant of the fact that gunpowder was unknown in 11th Century Scotland, and indeed England and the rest of Europe. This error might be ascribed to Marlowe, whose brief life apparently contained no military or historian experience, but who almost certainly dead by the time the play was written. Nor is it at all likely one that Edward de Vere, soldier and historian, or Francis Bacon, intellect and creator of the scientific method, would have made. It is only one line of blank verse, and might have easily been replaced by another metaphor, as part of a description of a battle. Men of status, who could not be persuaded to put their name to a work presented by W. Shakespeare would not have shown such apparent ignorance to confidants and posterity. William Shakespeare, Gentleman, playwright and poet, son of a successful wool merchant from Stratford upon Avon, whose education was only in the classics of antiquity and language very well may have.

And, I suggest, did.


 * Conclusion;
 * See how easy it is to support the literary consensus, even for an aging store clerk? There may be howls of derision at my method and the sources used (and the original research that is the final argument) but... much of the theories on who might have written the Shakespeare canon (double crack'd or not) are based on the same methodology. For all the paucity of contemporary evidence for William of Stratford as the author, there is none for any other person - save those dredged from interpretations of a choice passage or two within a work, or derived from assumptions upon the life and characters of the disputed creator and the proper contender for the title (and the use of reference sources in novel ways). Just like I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Interesting all around, but we're not going to decide this issue, and all of you know it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * "Cry Havoc! And let loose the droogs of lol..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Less. I'd be happy to play with you on this, as I really need a break from "real life". My time is limited, but this should not take me too long, as I'll be doing it off the cuff. As such, I won't be consulting my library, so please forgive the minor mistakes I might make :)

First a few minor notes that are pretty inconsequential, but I'll just throw them out. I'll hold the main argument until the end:
 * I don't mean to be snarky, but the last time I checked, 1604 (Ox's death) comes between your parameters 1603 and 1607. As a theatre man, I could relate numerous instances of authors writing during illness, although the extent of Oxford's "infirmity" has never been determined. Regardless, your date argument simply isn't as strong as you may think.
 * Oxford faking his own death is not endorsed by most Oxfordians. You raise it, but it's a non-issue, as my comment above shows, and as my final comments will explain.
 * Most Oxfordians believe that his pseudonym was an "open secret". Unknown to the masses, known to the court, where they were performed amidst a flurry of knowing winks. Open secrets are common in Government, and in the Elizabethan age of plots and conspiracies, what the court knew and what the masses were told were two very different things. In other words, Eliz, Burghley, and then James would all know what was going on. While this is often made fun of as a far reaching and mass conspiracy, actually, in the closed circles of government, ages past and today, this is hardly a stretch. This particularly applies to the Elizabethan age.
 * Whoever wrote the plays was incredibly prolific and very fast. All the various chronologies confirm this. 38+ plays, all the sonnets and poems in 20 years. The math supports this.
 * Cannons. Let me break this down into three parts, since it is the issue that settled your mind once and for all:
 * Shakespeare wrote anachronistically. This is undisputed. In the theatre world where I reside, we call this writing for effect, not for historical accuracy. Take Julius Caesar, for example, a play I've directed numerous times. "Peace, count the clock" (The conspirators freeze...) "The clocks strikes three" (and they dispurse into the night like the villians they are...) It's a dramatic effect to momentarily stop the action and heighten tension at the close of the conspirators scene. Unlike today, earlier writers were less concerned with precise historical accuracy (as you note with your Banquo material), than overall structure, dramatic tension, elements of comedy and so forth. To quote WP "Anachronisms abound in the works of Raphael and Shakespeare, as well as in those of less celebrated painters and playwrights of earlier times." See Anachronism for more on this. It's quite interesting actually.
 * Finally, and this is the issue that truly negates the Macbeth argument: Scholars agree (I can't believe I just said that) that Macbeth was clearly altered by later hands. The author Thomas Middleton added songs, characters and probably 1 or 2 entire scenes. Now here is the interesting thing - why on earth would Shakespeare, at the height of his prowess, and during a time when he was supposedly writing alone, allow another writer to add songs and a ridiculous character (Hecate - typically cut by modern directors) that was designed in part to flatter the new king?? No one that I know of has even attempted to provide an answer. Except Oxfordians, of course - he couldn't. He died and the play was finished off or adapted by Middleton, who added witches and songs and the all powerful character of Hecate in order to please the masses. Even with these additions, it's one of the shortest plays that has come down to us - another indicator of an unfinished work - or one that was cut and hacked by Middleton for various reasons.
 * the single line about cannons. This is also something that most theatre people don't understand. During performance, then and now, actors are notorious for adding lines, changing lines, adding topical references, adding their favorite bits. Attempting to date a play based on a single line is extremely problematic.
 * I hope this gives you, and our readers, some food for thought. I'm off to pick up my daughter now and take her to All Shook Up - the Elvis rock and roll hit that is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night! So...until "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace...". God I loved saying those lines once upon a time! Smatprt (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * @Smatprt: in my day, the fashion was to assume that many of Shakespeare's plays started in simple form in his early years, and the verse was refined and expanded in chunks for later revivals as the years went by and his craft matured. Surely that's as logical as postulating that a second-rate author revised/completed his work after his death? Of course, the thing that marks Shakespeare out from almost another playwright is his stagecraft – you'll know from directing the plays that every scene has an obvious blocking that strongly suggests that the author was also an actor and director! Macbeth doesn't show any discontinuity in stagecraft between the parts that seem 'non-Shakespearean' in verse and the rest. In fact Styan (Shakespeare's Stagecraft CUP 1967 p.54) uses the opening scenes of Macbeth as a prime example of how Shakespeare was the master of the space in which he was working. Forgive me the use of my library to make the point, but this lean and slipper'd pantaloon's memory is not what it used to be. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Middleton was a second-rate writer? When did that happen? The Changeling is close to as good as it gets. I much prefer him over Marlowe. And if Middleton did revise the play (I don't see any evidence he did much besides add a song and a bit of dialogue), he did a hell of a job, cos Macbeth is considered to be one of Shakespeare's masterpieces and is one of his most--if not the most--popular plays. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew by writing off the cuff I'd make a mistake. My apologies to the Middleton heirs. My feeble brain mixed him up with Wilkins - who WAS a second rate hack who supposedly adapted Pericles sometime after 1604. As a modern theatre producer I was aware that Middleton is rarely performed, except as a "museum piece" as we say in the theatre, and for the most part his work has not paased the test of time. But in his day, he was quite popular. Now if I could only find my tickets to the Middleton Theatre Festival :) Smatprt (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pity. The Changeling is a marvellous piece of work, and (IMHO) can be compared with Shakespeare in emotional intensity and quality of characterisation. But I was never able to work out how to present it properly on-stage, no matter how many times I tried to block it – it's just not Shakespeare! I do remember being impressed with the 1974 BBC TV version, but film is able to deliver a huge variation in framing a scene that the stage just can't. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rexx - Nice :) Well I see your point of course, but regarding the fashion of the day, these things keep being reevaluated. Some commentators believe he started early, some that he knocked them out fresh. Of course, as NewYorkBrad comments above, this is outside of the scope of why we are here. But Less made his points for some reason and I wanted to simply chime in that its never as simple as it seems. Regarding your contention that the playwright was an actor and director, as my lifetime of theatre has taught me, its about being a man-of-the-theatre. Actor-managers, producers, etc., all fall under that category. To have an intimate knowledge of the theatre can be attributed to performers directors, managers and technicians alike - they all can make excellent playwrights and can detail the life of the theatre. That is why Oxford also fits the bill - he produced grand entertainments at court, he held the lease on the first Blackfriars Theatre and worked extensively with playwright John Lyly, who he turned the theatre lease over to. He had several troups of actors, and a company of musicians. He is on record as protecting a troupe of actors who made the Boar's Head their home, he is on record as performing with other Lords at Court. In other words he was a theatre man as well. Of course, very few of these things have been allowed to be included in the current SAQ article, which is the only thing that might be relevant to this ArbCom discussion - this exact material has been deleted (see this earlier version) from the current Oxford section, which is consumed with secret codes and the associated side theories, instead of the main summary points that most Oxfordians, and most independent commentators (Times, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, etc.) always include. P.S. - My most intimate working knowledge of the theatre came from my years as a producer and theatre manager. During my actor years, my focus was not nearly as all inclusive. All right - I've got to go back to my own troupe of actors now! Smatprt (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(template)
(Content of discussion point)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: