Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Shakespeare authorship question		14 January 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shakespeare authorship question

Initiated by LessHeard vanU (talk) at 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Tom Reedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NinaGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moonraker2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poujeaux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charles Darnay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warshy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MoreThings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zweigenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Bishonen
• Tom Reedy
• Nishidani
• Paul Barlow
• Johnuniq
• NinaGreen
• Moonraker2
• Poujeaux
• Charles Darnay
• Warshy
• Xover
• Smatprt
• Zweigenbaum
• MoreThings
• Diff. 15

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• SAQ/Smatprt-Tom Reedy&Nishidani RfC
• Ongoing discussion at User talk:NinaGreen
• Currently ongoing ANI thread:[1]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this.
However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article.

Examples;

• Tendentious editing - First four of six talkpage sections, over a few days, started by User:Nina Green, over different "issues" with the article construction, 500 talkpage edits in just under 10 days (help in linking to revision history page appreciated)
• Wikilawyering - Demand by Nina Green for link to policy when requested to stop outdenting. Needling comment by User:Moonraker2, with mild pa
• Disruptive editing - Note edit summary
• Personal attacks/harassment - User:Charles Darney making a pa while contesting his outing another editor User:Warshy upon Bishonen and some other admin who have attempted to resolve issues.
• Attempted outing - Viewable only to persons with Oversight privileges.

Attempts to resolve these issues by the editors and uninvolved admins has not been successful, in part because new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw. These new accounts, quoting Wiki policy ("Consensus can change" is often cited), require existing editors to concentrate upon making the same good faith responses to the usual points, lest there are claims that process is being flouted or that the points are not able to be countered and that consensus should reflect the presented POV. Other attempts to address concerns regarding behaviour and attitudes of various editors have been met with stonewalling, allegations of (admin) bias, and counter claims upon other editors; there is an almost complete absence of any attempt to engage upon or mitigate inappropriate interaction.
There is a small (and diminishing) core of dedicated contributors trying to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view within a subject against a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers - there needs to be a proper evaluation by ArbCom and the provision of restrictions which will enable editors to concentrate upon improving the article and deprecate efforts to promote viewpoints. 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing Newyorkbrad's request; The article exhibits WP:BATTLE tendencies, possibly owing to a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, with resultant violations of various policies and guidelines as noted above. Appropriate methods of conduct and dispute resolution need to be affirmed, provisions put in place for continuing violations to be dealt with, and only as a last resort some editors may need to be warned or sanctioned, to ensure a properly encyclopedic editing environment going forward. 11:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Moonraker2

Looking at the statement by LessHeard vanU, it is not clear exactly what is complained of nor who is considered to be answerable. I think what is at the heart of this is the suggestion of "a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians" ", but I am not aware of any such a thing and certainly would not be associated with it if it existed. If anyone believes there is such a campaign, then I suggest that further details of how that view was arrived at are needed here at an early stage.

Specific comments

First bullet point "Tendentious editing": this is no more than an assertion, as no detail is provided.

Second bullet point, "Wikilawyering": this offers two astonishingly weak instances and fails to take account of the contexts.

Third bullet point, "Disruptive editing": this refers only to a single edit, by an anonymous user, 67.189.124.240, whose contributions show only that one edit. In my view this cannot be relevant here.

Fourth bullet point, "Personal attacks/harassment": this is highly selective in the "personal attacks" referred to. Those made by the users referred to later as a "core of dedicated contributors" are also at issue.

Fifth bullet point, "Attempted outing": I am unable to comment on this, as one or both of the revisions has been deleted.

In reply to "new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw... a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers", this seems to me to allege serious misconduct by one or more users, but no detail is provided of which accounts are complained of, nor indeed any details of any pov pushing, so more detail is needed to substantiate these sweeping statements. If LessHeard vanU can identify all users and accounts concerned, it will be clear whether there is a case for individual accounts to be referred for investigation. If not, these remarks may need to be withdrawn.

Moonraker2 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I am of the opinion that there has been a long-term attempt to make Wikipedia treat the fringe view that Shakepseare did not write his own plays with more respect than it deserves. I have occasionally quoted sources such as the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare in which the fringe view is treated with robust contempt. However I shall confine myself here to quoting the Literary Review in which the adherents of one form of the fringe theory have been described as "currently carpet-bombing Wikpedia". I hope that Arbcom will see fit to take steps to defend the encyclopedia from said carpet-bombing.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nina Green

LessHeard should have opened this with this statement:

However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to defame, demean, disparage and discourage all anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article and drive them away so that Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who have both admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article (Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'), can continue to own the article contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:OWN, and prevent any substantive edit being made to the article other than one which Reedy and Nishidani either make themselves or personally sanction. This bias on the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article which are so numerous that it would be impossible to list the literally hundreds of them found on the SAQ Talk page and elsewhere in recent weeks. Not one of these defamatory attacks on anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article has been commented on by any administrator monitoring the SAQ article, although the most minor technical infraction by anti-Stratfordian editors has been instantly jumped on by administrators monitoring the SAQ page. Moreover Nishidani and Tom Reedy's relentless ridiculing of any suggested substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors and their instant reversion of any substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors despite those edits being put up for discussion on the SAQ Talk page either before or immediately after such edits were made has resulted in NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE EDIT BY AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN EDITOR BEING ALLOWED BY TOM REEDY AND NISHIDANI IN THE SAQ ARTICLE DURING THE PAST MONTH, a situation which is clearly untenable and in clear violation of WP:OWN. Wikipedia administrators monitoring the SAQ article have likewise ignored all complaints by anti-Stratfordian editors that the SAQ article has been exclusively 'owned' by Tom Reedy and Nishidani in violation of WP:OWN.

Had LessHeard framed the arbitration request in that way, there would have been something to it. Moreover LessHeard should also have mentioned in his framing of the arbitration request that Nishidani has already been banned from numerous Wikipedia pages for personal attacks. Nishidani himself posted this on my Talk page confirming that he is known for his personal attacks on other editors:

Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I can't help but point out the extraordinarily close parallels with the topic of another recent Arbcom case: "That there is this viewpoint is accepted by...scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants"; the existence of "a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the [minority view], providing [them] an enhanced (preferably equal) standing"; the sustained activity in this regard by "ip's or throwaway accounts" (in which category we could include sockpuppets); the need to address "new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - [requiring] existing editors to concentrate upon making the same good faith responses to the usual points, lest there are claims that process is being flouted or that the points are not able to be countered"; the observation that "there is a small (and diminishing) core of dedicated contributors trying to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view within a subject against a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers." Thus Arbcom should accept the case just as it did that previous one. Comparing—and especially, contrasting—the outcomes of the two cases will be... very interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I don't know how Tom Reedy manages to add any content to Shakespeare authorship question in the aggressive barrage from Nina Green and to some extent her helpers Warshy, Moonraker2, Zweigenbaum, and MoreThings on the talkpage. Nina herself is by far the most productive of text, rendering the talkpage intolerably long and repetitious. Here are some examples of her recent edits:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• Accusation of editing an archive (Tom was attempting to remove an inadvertent outing). No information about how editing this archive is supposed to harm Wikipedia, but Nina believes she has found a "direct violation of Wikipedia policy", so she posts, and posts again.[6] [7]

Note some repeated mannerisms in the diffs above:

1. References to what Wikipedia policy allows/does not allow. As a user of seven months, Nina is understandably ignorant of policy, but pronounces on it as if she were an expert. At first, I attempted to help her understand policy and the spirit of it, but her combative responses made me feel so much like mr K in The Trial that I have given up this project. I no longer believe she wants to know.
2. Accusations without evidence or example, against Tom and Nishidani of wikilawyering (I wish I hadn't taught her that word; it was inadvertent), bad faith, dishonesty, insults, POV, attempts to push other editors off Wikipedia, and, the new favorite, of being "defamatory", as in "personal attacks on me which are not only personal but which go far beyond that and are defamatory."[8]. She provides no diffs, and I have upbraided other editors for asking her for them, since she obviously has trouble with diffs. I have attempted to counsel Nina as to why diffs are helpful, and suggested a simple way of producing them, but this effort was ignored.[9]
3. Rhetorical questions about when "administrators" are going to do something about Tom's and Nishidani's alleged abuse. Despite the plural form, I guess these administrators are me, since I'm the only admin who'll go near the page. (Excepting always LHvU, but he merely lurks.)
4. Repetition. Ooooow, yes.

Nina attempts to learn more about Nishidani's real life identity, and shares her efforts with the talkpage, with strange hints which I do not understand: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15](Here "Administrators" are instructed to tell Nishidani to shut up about his qualifications.)

The diffs I have offered above are all from the last two days only, unless I've made a mistake somewhere. This has been going on unremittingly for months! I hope Tom is going to post about the sheer mass of text, the frequency with which the page needs archiving now, etc, as I'm not well up on these figures. I have, however, tried in various ways, all equally ineffective, to contain Nina's excesses. I've suggested a voluntary ban to Nina on the amount of posting,[16] something which offended her (understandably, no doubt) and brought Moonraker to the fore as her champion. Nina claimed that "Tom Reedy has posted at least as many times on the SAQ Talk page as I have, and I would be willing to wager that his total word count exceeds mine" (I'd win that wager). I have warned her about "commenting on the editor", as is her habit, directed her to WP:NPA (but I don't have the impression she clicks on these things) and even mentioned blocking.[17] This last threw her helpers into a state of great indignation, suggesting I needed to "recuse myself"(?) since my impartiality was "in doubt",(Moonraker2) I was playing a baffling "game" (MoreThings) and I probably had rabies (Warshy). Here, also, is a post from me, giving an example of Nina's repetitiousness (showing more or less the same (erroneous) post eleven times). Please accept this case. It's impossible to get the community to touch it (see my ANI thread about Zweigenbaum with its minimal and frankly useless input[18]) because the talkpage is so repulsive and life is so short. But you arbs get paid, don't you..? Bishonen | talk 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Darn, this statement is already some 660 words long, and I wanted to respond to Newyorkbrad's request. OK, I've put that response in my userspace, here. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Breaking news ;-) : I moved all my commentary out here because Moonraker2 had the everloving effrontery to disrupt my statement and userspace. I'm truly sorry the whole is now so long and boring, but, well. A clerk is deleting MR's contribution from my space as we speak—no doubt it will turn up here instead, name-calling and all. And here is my response to Newyorkbrad:

Response to Newyorkbrad: I think Nina Green needs to be banned for at least a year, either from Wikipedia or from Shakespeare pages broadly construed; it comes to the same thing, as de Vere's authorship of Shakespeare's plays is her only interest on Wikipedia. She daily violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXHAUST, WP:AGF, and—I'm sorry to have to say this—WP:COMPETENCE as well, thereby wasting the time and energies of Shakespeare scholars and other competent editors. Whether or not she's here to build an encyclopedia, her actual impact is negative. In my efforts to help her become a useful Wikipedia editor I have found her quite unreasonable (as in, impossible to reason with) and in active flight from any learning process about how to contribute appropriately. There is a small selection of my efforts on the RfAR page. Naturally others have tried too, especially the unflappable User:Johnuniq.

However, a ban of Nina Green is not IMO the main matter before the committee. It is absolutely necessary to find some way of durably restricting the WP:EXHAUST and WP:FRINGE problems which are now — and usually — rampant on some Shakespeare pages. These pages should be the jewels in Wikipedia's crown, which is impossible if they're produced on a battlefield where every word is contested by aggressive SPAs who live only for seeing their pet authorship theory receive Justice. It took 3 or 4 years to liberate the "authorship question" from the cold dead hand of the civil POV-pusher Smatprt, something that the joined forces of the community and LHvU have now finally accomplished (for one year only, though; S will be back): [19] (Warning: huge ANI thread, may cause dehydration or insanity.) After a short, idyllic interlude in November 2010 where Tom Reedy and Nishidani prepared Shakespeare authorship question for FAC, Nina Green appeared and all was soon as before: the lawyering, the delaying tactics, the extended WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the 5 or 10 posts about each tiniest detail, the insistence on answers, the disinterest in them when they came (see Pestering), in sum: the wearing down of good-faith and highly-skilled editors by attrition. The only difference from the era of Smatprt was that the "civil" part of "civil POV-pusher" was missing this time, as Nina's method for disrupting the page included hassling, harassment, and far-fetched accusations. I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of "Oxfordians" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA. Please protect the articles from the fanatics, not only now, but systematically and ongoingly.

How? I don't know. I guess this is as good a time as any to throw the new arbs in the deep end and have good old ArbCom Discussion? If this and this are working well, then perhaps..? It should at least be easier to find uninvolved admins for Shakespeare than Climate Change, I imagine. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Despite the fact that I am recused from acting on a clerk on this case, I believe I fully meet the criteria of WP:UNINVOLVED. I have reviewed all the the evidence put forth here, as well as the recent history of the article and its talk page. It is my opinion that the bulk of the recent problems can be attributed to Nina Green, though others are not free of fault either. I am highly considering blocking her for a lengthy amount of time for violations of WP:NPOV and tendentious editing, given that a topic ban is probably out of the question (administrators aren't allowed to do them unilaterally, and the last time SAQ was brought up at ANI, it turned into a 100k+ mess of a thread). If administrators think that is a terrible idea, please do inform me on my talk page.

Regardless of whether you choose to accept this case or not, I encourage you to authorize discretionary sanctions by motion, as waiting another couple of months for ArbCom to come up with a decision probably isn't the best idea for this case. NW (Talk) 08:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Coming to this situation without any prior involvement, not having observed it prior to this request. I have reviewed some of the recent activities and the statements above. Finding myself in agreement with Bishonen and NuclearWarfare, I have imposed a 10-days block on NinaGreen as a first measure. (Of course I envisage she will need to be unblocked to take part in this case.)

A case resulting in topic bans and discretionary sanction rules will probably still be necessary. In the event of a case, I strongly urge that measures be taken that the wikilawyering doesn't bog down the case pages and make them just as toxic as it has made the article pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by MoreThings

Bishonen has informed me that I'm involved in this case. She's also listed me as one of Nina Green's "helpers". I've made no edits the article, no edits to the talk page, and two edits to Nina's talk page. For the record, I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare--William Shakespeare of Stratford Upon Avon, the upstart crow. I'd never heard of Nina Green until she started posting on the SAQ page. I'm not unduly exercised by the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Has a prima facie case been established here? Which of the diffs point to "a possibly coordinated campaign"? Where are these legions of ips and throwaway accounts engaging in it? What have been their contributions? Here is the edit history since smatprt was banned. LHVU apprises us that there is a small, dedicated group valiantly defending NPOV. I think it's incumbent upon on him to name those happy few, and likewise to identify the miserable conspirators. As to the other charges, is there anything among those diffs that you couldn't see on a hundred thousand other talk pages? Any egregious personal attacks? Any clear violations of policy?

It should be noted that no article was harmed in the making of this arbcom case. The SAQ article has been relatively stable. No one has violated or gamed 3RR. Everyone is using the talk page. The discussion there has centred on whether it's reasonable to use the term "fringe", what constitutes scholarly consensus, and so on. Those kinds of discussion serve to strengthen the cause of NPOV within the project, not to weaken it.

That said, things have got out of hand in recent days and something needs to be done. All of the evidence that you've been presented with so far points the finger at one side, and at one editor in particular. If you decide to accept this case, you'll see that in truth it's been the usual Punch and Judy kind of stuff, with each side giving as good as it gets before all parties agree to shake each other warmly by the throat, but none of it really requiring your arbships' attention.

The real problem is that discussion about content has now degenerated into discussion about editors. I suggest that some kind of special sanction be implemented which authorises admins to issue escalating blocks for any whiff of ad hominem argument. My own view is that it would be better to cap the block at, say, 4 weeks. If an editor knows that one way to remove an opponent from an article is to incite him to ad hominem argument, then there's a temptation to do precisely that. If all editors know that they're stuck with one another until they eventually roll up their sleeves and reach a compromise, then that's what they'll do. A cap would also help mitigate any idiosyncratic adminning of the sanction.

There are many very knowledgeable editors listed in this case. They are the people who should be writing our SAQ article. Removing any or all of them from the project, or from that topic, would be much to the detriment of encyclopedia. MoreThings (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by warshy

I completely agree with everything MoreThings said above. Let me just emphasize that the opening statement of the case made by LessHeard vanU is completely wrong and biased in my view, pointing fingers directly at one side to begin with, which happens to be the minority skeptic view side on this debate, and which happens to be the side that did NOT initiate this official request for arbitration. Let me also emphasize, as I have already declared elsewhere, that there is an open, declared and concerted effort by the majority mainstream side to steamroll this article to FA status no matter what, on the face of any opposition by the minority skeptic view side that may appear on their path. This request here and this arbitration case, as far as I understand it is just another step towards that avowed relentless effort/goal. In fact, this is pretty much a repetition of a very similar case that was also arbitrated by LH vU and which ended with the unfair (in my view) ban of Smatprt. That case was started by the same people that have started this one, and toward the same goal. warshy^talk 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

Placeholder for now. It appears arbcom will accept the case so I plan to give a very brief rundown of my experiences with the SAQ on the reliable sources noticeboard as it has come up a few times. A clerk can/should delete this without warning if I don't get back to it in about 24 hours. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Kittybrewster

Uninvolved. I suggest the 12 month topic ban on User:Smatprt be reviewed as part of this process. It seems to me at least 6 months too long. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Further statement by Moonraker2

I am copying this material here at the suggestion of Bishonen on my talk page.

Bishonen wrote at User:Bishonen/Further RfAR statement:

I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of "Oxfordians" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA.

The further exchange went like this:

Bishonen, would you kindly control your fantasies? You say "I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of "Oxfordians" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2..." That clearly imputes to me some undesirable role in a concerted campaign by "Oxfordians", and I am not even an Oxfordian myself. It appears to me that you have a completely paranoid perception of anyone who does not share your animosity towards NinaGreen. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How dare you come here with your name-calling? What the hell are you doing in my statement and my userspace? Aren't you an established editor? Do you really not know any better? Kindly peruse the instructions on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page (they come up in edit mode) and apply them here as well, as this is part of the Case Request. Remove your bloody interference immediately. Bishonen | talk 03:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Why is it that I am not surprised by your choice of words? I "dare" to reply here because I see nowhere else to reply. If you can suggest a better place, I have no objection to using it. You can hardly expect to make such unfounded personal criticisms of me without my having a right of reply. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse. NW (Talk) 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/1/1)

• Awaiting statements, but tentatively leaning toward acceptance. It is evident that the collaborative environment on this topic is in a bad state. Those commenting on the request who favor acceptance are invited to opine on the potential scope of any case. Those favoring our declining the case should suggest what other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ditto - leaning accept but awaiting responses from other involved parties. Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• I was involved with mediating this dispute, so I'll recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept On a quick read through, the conduct issues appear to be sufficiently serious and multiparty that a case seems be the best way to sort it all out. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, but noting that any decision would focus on conduct, not content. SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, seems like this isn't something easily sorted. Shell ^babelfish 16:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, being clear that Arbcom is not qualified to decide on who wrote the plays. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare authorship doubters - I nominated this article for deletion because it was in my opinion an OR coatrack of people who had at one time or another offered an opinion at a cocktail party, but withdrew the nom when the article was rewritten to Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, which I consider to be a notable topic. I have no particular interest in who wrote the plays, other than to note that a girl from my school (in the early 1970's) once proved by textual analysis that the junior English mistress wrote all the comedies. If persons from any side would prefer I recuse because of this, please just let me know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Risker (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have asked Bishonen to move her response to arbitrator Newyorkbrad's question into her statement proper, despite the fact that it takes the sum of her commentary over the word limit. All participants are reminded of the instructions for response to the statements of others, which requires that you comment only in your own statement section and not elsewhere; threaded discussion is not permitted in either the RFAR statements or in the evidence pages. Any further inappropriately placed discussion will be removed without notice. Repeated violations may result in additional sanctions or restrictions. Risker (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The issue here is not who wrote the plays but whether those debating it are doing so within policy. This is because prolonged disruption usually renders the topic toxic and thwarts the consensus model on which content decisions are made.

  Disclosure: I was heavily in taking Hamlet to featured article and, while the authorship question has largely passed me by and I have no particular views on it, I will recuse if requested to by any of the parties.  Roger ^talk 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Accept. As everyone is offering recusal rationales, I should point out that I (like many others) was handed a good number of works purported to be written by Shakespeare in high school (which may have coloured my impression of the good bard). –xeno^talk 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)