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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion proposed by NinaGreen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [5]

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

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

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

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

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)

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 [6]. He posted the merge discussion on March 15. ScienceApologist closed in on March 16. By the way - could you please keep you edits a bit shorter? You are now challenging Nishidani for the "longest post" award! Although I am not of the opinion that posting huge amounts of text is actually an actionable offense, trying to read thru all this stuff becomes tiring. Smatprt (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

Motion proposed by Smatprt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I propose is twofold:

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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 [14]. 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)

Template

3) Request For Clarification Of The Case Against Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:NinaGreen

Proposed remedies

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

Moratorium and administrator supervision order

The stated purpose of arbitration is to "break the back of the dispute". I'd like to suggest that the arbitrators impose a three-month moratorium on editing of the SAQ article and all other articles related to the authorship controversy as a cooling-off period, and that they appoint a very experienced and unbiased administrator (or administrators) to look over the proliferation of articles on the authorship controversy with a view to recommending which ones should be deleted. Many articles have been hived off from the SAQ article as it grew like Topsy, and are now independent main articles in their own right. However, instead of dropping coverage of the topics contained in those independent main articles as they were hived off, the editors of the SAQ article have duplicated and expanded the coverage of those topics, and have also put links to the independent articles in the SAQ article, referring to them in each case as the Main Article. At present, the SAQ article duplicates coverage of, and contains links to, seven of these independent main articles. For example, there is a lengthy section on the history of the authorship controversy in the SAQ article which duplicates the coverage in the independent main article devoted to the History of the Shakespeare Authorship. Similarly, coverage of individual authorship candidates such as Bacon and Oxford in the SAQ article duplicates coverage of those authorship candidates in the separate main articles devoted them. There is thus an overwhelming amount of duplication and confusion in Wikipedia coverage of the authorship controversy. I tried to bring this duplication, proliferation of articles and confusion up as a matter of discussion on the SAQ Talk page, but was shut down by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Tom Reedy is bending every effort (see the SAQ Talk page) to take the SAQ article to FA status at the earliest possible opportunity, apparently with the ultimate intention of deleting all the other independent main articles once he has accomplished that objective, despite the fact that it is the SAQ article itself which is redundant because at present it duplicates the coverage in at least seven other independent main articles on the authorship controversy.

I would also second the suggestion made by one editor on the Request for Arbitration page that there are WP:BATTLE aspects to the current situation because of a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. With respect to the former, WP:NPOV, what needs to be clarified by the arbitrators or the independent administrators appointed by them is whether editors who have overtly expressed bias on Wikipedia with respect to the authorship controversy should be able to WP:OWN own the SAQ article, and prevent any edits from taking place without their express sanction. I've already mentioned Tom Reedy and Nishidani's ownership of the article and their overt expressions of bias ('a crank theory'[16], 'this ideological mania'[17]) 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')[18]. 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:

Comment by others:

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

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 [•] 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 [19]. 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 [20], 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) [21].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 [22] and [23]. 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 [24], the addition of Nelson as a reference for three facts already in the article [25], [26], [27], and the addition of May as a reference for a fact already in the article [28]. 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 [29]. 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 [30]. 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: [31], [32]. And let's look at that private e-mail you posted and let others determine what my tone was: [33]. 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: [34]. 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'[35],'a crank theory' [36], 'this ideological mania'[37]). 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'[38])", 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)

Proposals by Fut.Perf.

Academic state of the art (FPaS, principle)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)

Support A reasonable interpretation of how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE influence WP:CONSENSUS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 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)

"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:

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)

Support, 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:

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)

Support 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)

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)

Zweigenbaum (FPaS, finding)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

Comment by others:

Zweigenbaum (FPaS, remedy)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

Comment 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 confirm 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:

Proposals by Tom Reedy

Proposed principles

Responsibility of Wikipedia editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I might reword this a little, otherwise I'm fine with it. MoreThings (talk) 12:37, 28 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Purpose of Wikipedia. Assume the ArbCom is going to start from that as Principle #1, and see where it ought to lead you in moving from principles, through findings, to remedies (and I hope you'll note that your principle above effectively strays into remedy). It's better to build your ideas for Proposed Decision in a step-by-step way; and looking at other recent closed ArbCom cases may help you do that. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Status of the Shakespeare authorship question and its related topics

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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 [39]. 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 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 [40]. 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)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: