User talk:NinaGreen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Nina (otherwise 205.250.205.73), this is just to welcome you on your new user page. Once again, if you need help, please go to the new contributors' help page, the help pages, the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Here are those links again:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• Suggestions on writing an article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Again, welcome! Moonraker2 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N notification

I have posted a request for opinions about Brief Chronicles here. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Libellous remarks

I'd advise you to stop your Personal attacks on me. I will not accept your misplaced allegations of libel regarding my post on the WP:RSN#Brief Chronicles. I will neither accept your unintelligible misrepresentation of my post at the noticeboard. In case you do not withdraw your false statements about me, I will consider seeking help at WP:ANI. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

• Cross-posted on User talk:NinaGreen and Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration. Arbitration is not a Supreme Court of Everything on Wikipedia; it's a rather specialised board exclusively for dealing with conflicts involving conduct. If you consider that the members of the Arbitration Committee are volunteers just like yourselves, I think you'll realise why; there is no way they would have time to deal with all the conflicts involving content, for example. Nor does the ArbCom create policy; they don't have time for that either. Please note the significant fact that most requests for Arbitration are turned down cold; either because they're requests about content, or because they're requests for policy-making, or because the conflict isn't deemed to be ripe for arbitration (which is supposed to be the last stage of dispute resolution, after all other avenues have been tried). All three turn-down reasons would come into play if any of you requested arbitration of the basic conflict on this talkpage. As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Considering how embattled the positions have become, I would suggest, amongst the wide range of possibilities, that you invite outside comment via WP:RFC. But there are plenty of other good ideas at WP:RSN.

There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review"[1] alone, garnered this collection:

1. "Please refer me to the Wikipedia arbitration case which made that determination."
2. "If you want to argue with Shapiro, you can ask Wikipedia to arbitrate the issue."
3. "If you want to turn your personal opinion into Wikipedia policy, you need to take the matter to arbitration. That's the only way you can turn your own personal opinion into Wikipedia policy."
4. "If you and Tom want a determination from Wikipedia that the authorship controversy must be presented on Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you need to take the matter to arbitration to obtain a formal determination to that effect."
5. "If you and Tom wish to hold the personal view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, you have the right to do so, but your personal view is not Wikipedia policy, and you cannot turn your personal view into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
6. "You and Tom are entitled to hold the view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, but you can't turn your personal views into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
7. "Tom and Paul, it's you who are making the assertion that Wikipedia must treat the authorship controversy as a fringe theory, not me. It's therefore your obligation to take it to arbitration if you want to make it Wikipedia policy. You've been making the assertion that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory everywhere on Wikipedia where you could find a forum, but so far it's merely your own personal opinion, albeit repeated endlessly [sic]. If you want to make it Wikipedia policy, take it to arbitration. If you were as sure of the outcome as you've claimed to be in every one of the countless assertions [sic] you've made, you'd be off to arbitration in a flash."
8. "I'm interested in knowing how you would explain to a Wikipedia arbitration board that in your view its only a 'proposition' that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon."
9. "No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour." (What... ? Nina, have you even looked at the page for requesting arbitration ? Here it is.)
10. "The only way to make it Wikipedia policy is for you and Paul and Nishidani to take it to arbitration and obtain a ruling."
11. "And you and Paul and Nishidani are not following Wikipedia rules if you are merely 'deeming' something to be so, and then claiming that what you 'deem' to be so is now Wikipedia policy, and everyone else must abide by what you have 'deemed' to be so. There is a process on Wikipedia by which what you 'deem' to be so can be turned into Wikipedia policy. It's called arbitration."

To address claim number 11; no, it's not called arbitration, and there are no "Wikipedia rules" that have any relevance to the personal attacks and the wikilawyering quoted above. Nina, you are making up these notions of Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. I realise you're a new user, but please make a start on reading the basic policies in good faith, and on listening to more experienced colleagues. Eleven out of the eleven comments above are in error, and haughty and sarcastic with it. The sheer repetition is what troubles me the most. Please read WP:Gaming the system. The nutshell version goes like this:

"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden"

Don't do that. Don't play the IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Only post on this talkpage when you have something to say that is not a copy of what you've said before, in either wording or substance. If I don't see any improvement in this respect, I'm sorry to say you may eventually face a block.

Tom, I see you discussing arbitrating the conflict also: "She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen". (BTW the "she" is rather rude, IMO.) No, I don't think Nina does know that, or even that you do, and I'm trying to explain it as gently as possible to you both. Nothing very alarming would happen; it would merely be useless, and a waste of time and energy, as the case would be briskly ruled unsuitable for arbitration. We all need to aim for not wasting time, our own or other people's. Nina, please reconsider your bad-faith debating style. The other editors are obviously hoping for you to change your approach and become an asset to the article. So am I, as you have a lot of valuable expertise. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC). P.S. On the principle of not wasting time, I won't be re-posting or rewording any of the above unless I see good reason to.

Despite it all the endless back-and-forth . . .

. . . I think your input will make for a more robust and more neutral article, and that is my hope. Oxfordians have made some valuable contributions to Shakespeare studies, one of them bringing a different perspective that causes (or should cause, if they'd pay attention) mainstream scholars to question their assumptions. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary ban on excessive posting

Hi, Nina. Did you notice me addressing you about repeating yourself excessively on Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford in my previous post here, just above Tom's? (Further comments and your replies are on Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford). That applies in spades to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Both the repetitiousness and the generally large volume of your posting is making that page hard to read. Of course I'm not saying it's all your fault that SAQ talk is a mess. (The newest contributor to the page has a lot of trouble both with signing and with posting in the right place, as I expect you've noticed.) However, sheer length and number of posts is certainly part of the problem, as is soapboxing (please click on that link, if you click on nothing else). I've noticed several editors reminding you that talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM; one person pointed out that you posted 21 times on SAQ talk yesterday. See WP:TALK, where the following points are of special relevance to the situation on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." And further: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject."

I frankly haven't seen you pay any heed to your co-editors on this issue, nor to me. It tends to be a point you ignore when/if you post replies. I've got something to suggest, which I think would be good for the page and also good for you, as being time-saving and making people more likely to pay close attention to what you write. Would you consider holding to a voluntary limitation of at most 5 posts, and altogether 600 words, per 24 hours? Conciseness and focus are good, helpful things. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

If I may say so, Bishonen, that suggestion doesn't seem to be based on any policy. There is no offence in having a lot to say, which is just as well from your own point of view. If Nina were to agree to a self-imposed limit of any kind, how long would you wish it to stay in place and what would you ask for next? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but it would be quite tempting to ask you next to limit yourself to addressing stuff you know something about, Moonraker2. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

This appears to suggest that I should say nothing because I do not understand the issues in question. I know enough about freedom of speech to know that people cannot be asked to be silent because someone objects to the quantity of what they say: the notion is an absurdity. Even if I were completely without understanding, which I am not, I should also still have the right to express an opinion. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy is WP:Admin. Those entrusted with the tools are expected to use their abilities to facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia - as long as the methods are within policy there does not need to be a precise definition of how this is done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that WP:Admin can be stretched so far. If it could, then it would give an almost unlimited discretion, which would be very undesirable. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As is your prerogative, although I suspect the reality to be different. I have previously mediated and attempted to resolve disputes (see User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 101 and User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 102) largely based upon admin discretion and initiative, and I have been an admin for over 3.1/2 years and have a reasonable grasp of the flexibility the role allows. Any action, outside of that specifically covered in policy and guideline, is also able to be reviewed by the community and the consensus subsequently derived then followed. I have no issue with specific issues being raised and addressed, upon there being concerns found. Outside of that, like any editor I am permitted to attempt any reasonable course of action to progress the creation of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen started editing one month ago (28 November 2010). Their contributions since then are listed below for background:

Page	Edit count
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford	652
Shakespeare authorship question	50
Talk:Shakespeare authorship question	153
Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford	130
Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2	30

The quantity of talk page posts may be acceptable if something constructive and new were added. However, that is not happening. Bishonen's suggestion is unusual, but something needs to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted this earlier to Bishonen's talk page, but I gather it's better to post it here on my own Talk page. Here's what I said:

Bishonen, I'm not sure how to respond to a message on my Talk page, so I hope this is the way to do it.

Re your proposal. I'm not an unreasonable person, and frankly I have better things to do with my time than post on the SAQ Talk page. But with all due respect, I think you've misidentified the problem. The problem is Tom's stonewalling. I just posted this:

Nishidani, no goalposts are being moved, and no-one is being swept under the carpet, although there's definitely some stonewalling going on on your and Tom's part. As you mention above, I asked that you and Tom whittle the list down so that it didn't include sources more than a decade old and sources who aren't members of the Shakespeare establishment. Tom has stonewalled, and hasn't done anything. You've come up with Peter Milward, but haven't indicated whether that's the sole name left on the list as far as you're concerned. And so far neither of you has even identified the work by Milward which you're citing, nor produced the context of the citation so that it can be confirmed that Milward is endorsing that view and speaking for the Shakespeare establishment. I'm guessing that the quotation is perhaps from the chapter entitled "Catholic Shakespeare" in Milward's unpublished (and unfinished?) online autobiography, Genesis of an Octogenarian, but I have no way of confirming that, or of seeing the quotation in context, because the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter can't be read online. There's a link to it through the Wikipedia article on Peter Milward, but the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter appears in white type, and I can't find the quotation Tom has cited.NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus, Tom posts an alleged list of sources which could be cited to support his claim that the current consensus among the Shakespeare establishment is that those who advocate an author other than William Shakespeare of Stratford are a 'lunatic fringe'. It turns out that virtually every single one of the alleged sources couldn't be cited in a Wikipedia article as a reliable source representing the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment because the sources are either way too old to be representative of the current view of the Shakespeare establishment, or the sources aren't part of the Shakespeare establishment (which Tom deliberately disguised by calling them 'academics' in his list). So I ask Tom to whittle down his list to those who actually can be cited as reliable sources in the SAQ article as representing the Shakespeare establishment on that point, and Tom stonewalls and does nothing. It's been that way with every single significant issue I've raised. That's why the discussion has been so prolix. Tom always responds, but in the end, when the point goes against him, he just stonewalls and fades away, and nothing ever gets resolved, and since Tom controls every edit made to the page, no changes are ever made to the article.NinaGreen (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen answered:

Thanks for answering. That's a perfectly good way of doing it; you can either reply on my page, as you did, or your own (below my post, in that case: just ordinary threaded discussion, as I'm doing here). Whichever you prefer. I don't have quite that impression of the recent discussion on the SAQ talkpage, but never mind about that; what I'm asking for is a reply to my question. Will you agree to the voluntary limitation I propose? Or not? Bishonen | talk 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

Since posting the above to Bishonen's Talk page, I reviewed the History on the Talk page and this statement made by someone on the Talk page, and repeated above by Bishonen, isn't true:

one person pointed out that you posted 21 times on SAQ talk yesterday

I did not post anywhere near 21 times on SAQ yesterday. Not only that, but most of what shows up on the History as individual postings by me are just minor edits I made to the postings. I seem to have trouble catching all my typos and whatnot when I read over my postings before I put them online, and I often go back to a posting several times for minor edits. So the claim about the excessive number of my postings is a red herring. Tom Reedy has posted at least as many times on the SAQ Talk page as I have, and I would be willing to wager that his total word count exceeds mine.NinaGreen (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

my support

For whatever it's worth, I just want to tell you here that I am watching carefully every word that is written on the SAQ controversy on WP over the past two months or so, and I have have been completely swept over by all your arguments so far. What prompts me to come here now and try to express my thoughts directly are your latest replies/arguments to both Less Heard and to Tom Reedy on the SAQ talk page. I just wanted to say "Hear, Hear!." I know this is a tremendously difficult uphill battle and I hope you have the strentgth to keep going as you have been doing for the past 2 or 3 weeks. I hope you don't desist on the face of the established barrier or 'firewall' that exists around the entrenched majority position here in WP. And, again for FWIW, I just want you to know that you can count on me with whatever support I am able to provide, in whatever forum you wish to raise your case going forward. Be strong and courageous! warshy^talk 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, please do stay with us. As I said in the thread above, it is an absurdity for any user to complain that someone else has too much to say, so I hope you will resist going along with any such a notion. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you! Very much appreciated!NinaGreen (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Zweigenbaum As the recent arbitration review appears to concern you, here is my input on the issues on the Shakespeare Authorship Question discussion page. If it about someone else, including me, it may be of interest:

The generalized language of LessHeard's analysis is difficult to grasp, so perhaps I can be most helpful as a newcomer by describing my own experience since beginning to participate in the site in December 2010. My first perception was that Nina Green was being beset with harassments and deprecations, although she seemed to be quoting reputable texts accurately and presenting reasonable objections to the prevailing (Stratfordian) trend of a group centered around Tom Reedy, who is a published advocate against the Oxfordian contention. This a priori bias presents an unbreachable conflict of interest achieving a neutral point of view under the circumstances. I filed a neutrality tag, indicating the conflict between parties regarding content. This resulted in him or another reverting the tag, and I think there were two or three repetitions of filing and reverting, and I decided it was a stonewalling situation. Threats that I was unco-operative followed, shaming, sanctions, warnings I would be banned, sneers, making fun of my name, overfamiliarity with the sense of contempt which that conveys, the like. Ms Green was cursed at, seemingly without sanction against it. A previous Oxford student or scholar, I don't know which, was driven out of the discussion group some months before. Ms Green was accused of representing the mystery man. My substantive contributions were summarily ignored, no exchange whatsover. I became aware that if there is no exchange that after a few days, the issue would be considered closed. Thus, the discussion function of the site is eschewed by going on strike against discussion, so to speak, until the time is up on the issue, at which point it doesn't exist. This would be a perversion of the purpose of the discussion page function, in my view. In essence, since Tom Reedy entered the discussion group in December 2009, the site has been completely revamped as a putsch, takeover, as though following the hint of an English scholar, "the Oxfordians are carpet-bombing the Wikipedia site", that the orthodox view is in danger and the site must be taken back. He quoted the scholar's comment during an exchange. The present ambition to have the totally revised article approved as FA, meaning featured article?, would give it permanent status, in effect place it--a piece of writing obvious to me from an ideological point of view--before the public in perpetuity. All Oxfordian sources are rejected as not reputable, even when by credentialed scholars. The bias reflects that of the uneasy orthodoxy concerning the subject itself. Discussing the issues under biased conditions is an inherently unfair state of affairs and probably a misuse of Wikipedia access to the public, highly stressful to the underdog. I wondered if this revision task were taken on for pay or favored status. It is not given to me to know. I do know the site is unrecognizable in comparison to what it was a year ago. Not one contrary view receives neutral expression. Thus I can understand why an individual, Ms Green, myself, or the previous besieged person, versed in the orthodox and alternative scholarship, would feel hopelessly frustrated and betrayed. Even the simple principle of asking for consensus to archive materials before the standard time, got violated without apology or reversal, only the bald statement, the file was getting overloaded. In actuality, pre-mature archiving (in the recent case, five days) buries conflict that the public might become aware of if discussion were retained according to rule. Hence the Wikipedia rule for seeking consensus before removal. There appears to be a serious double-standard. Those in charge will not be sanctioned. Those who do not conform are subject to sanction. As a closing example, the prevailing group has asserted a version of Shakespearean history not endorsed by even the orthodox community of scholars at large, i.e., the notion that there was "no doubt" about the Stratfordian Shakespeare authoring the canon, either contemporaneously or for 200 year after he died. This is contrary to historical fact and record. When I posted to that effect with sources, there was again a summary dismissal, no response, and no change. It constitutes a parable of the kind of thinking that produces revisionist history in the image of its latest tyranny, complete with condemnations, threats, and show trials for the non-conforming. To doctrinally deny or simply ignore verifiable contrary evidence, distorts the processes of seeking and expressing the truth. It is extremely ironical that this shoould occur in the very subject matter, the question of an eclipsed true author of 'Shakespeare', who pleaded to posterity, "If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world, Draw thy breath in pain, To tell my story." Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.240.11 (talk)

The above is why there is a Request for Arbitration - there are those who are not prepared to accept either that there is a consensus within the literary world that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon is the only or principal author of the works ascribed to him, or that the consensus on Wikipedia (which relies upon the most reliable sources available) reflects that of academia. No matter how good - or even correct - an alternative theory or argument is, it may not be indicated as having any better standing within article space as it does in the wider world. It is not Tom Reedy or any other Wikipedia editor that decides upon the question of the authorship or the works ascribed to William Shakespeare, but that of the wider spectrum of Shakespeare academia. Repeatedly revisiting the question, emphasising the points made by authors in their works, repeating arguments made in sources against the prevailing viewpoint expressed in mainstream references, is not how the article is built; the article recognises the existence of alternative viewpoints, gives an overview of what they are and the salient arguments given in support, notes any rebuttal, and places it in the wider context of the overall consensus - that William Shakespear is recognised as the true author. Wikipedia is not a soapbox by which an alternate candidate may be advocated, and those efforts to make it so has given rise to this RfAR. Issues in respect of all parties conduct in editing and discussing the editing of the article (and adminning those spaces!) may be usefully raised in the Request and any subsequent case, but who the "real author" of the works of Shakespeare may not and cannot - it is beyond the scope of both the Arbitration Committee and the remit of the encyclopedia. When this is understood and accepted, then all viewpoints may be presented and noted according to the weight (not quantity) of the references provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) ps. You have an account - why not use it?

Warning

Please don't comment on the nefarious plans people supposedly have "in mind", as you did here, but only on their edits. See the policy No personal attacks, whose nutshell version is "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Please remove or (preferably) strike out the personal attacks on others from that post. (I realise that won't leave much, but that's your problem. Feel free to remove your whole comment.) It's rare for me to block for personal attacks, especially a new user, but your attacks, especially against Tom Reedy, and egregious assumptions of bad faith have long ago reached a point where they poison the whole (supposedly collaborative!) talkpage for the Shakespeare authorship question. Please stop or I may block you from editing. I don't want to do that, but I'm beginning to despair of finding any other way of preventing your disruptive behaviour. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

This is absolutely ridiculous, in my view. You, Bishonen, are one of the most biased, rabid, blindsided editors I've seen post anything on the Sakespeare project area. But on top of those extremely undesirable qualities as an editor, you're also an Admin! So you use your editing bias to threaten a regular editor with whom you viscerally disagree of meting out Administrative sanctions! How sweet. I mean, it is clear to me, that you and Johnuniq may do this pretty soon, trying to muzzle Nina down on WP, as Less Heard did before with Smatprt. Both you and him have already been pretty clear on your threats. But before you do that, let me just register here that I predicted in advance exactly what would happen. I myself will probably get now a warning on my own page from you for expressing my view here. warshy^talk 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It really is baffling the way you're carrying on here, Bishonen. At a time when the project is finding it difficult to attract new contributors, here is a new editor, knowledgeable, energetic and cogent, and for some unfathomable reason you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make her feel as unwelcome as possible. There was absolutely no need for any admin intervention on that page. All that your contributions have done is raise the temperature.

If it is a game, Nina, then the name of the game is to stop you talking about content, and to start you talking about editors. Don't fall for it! MoreThings (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I broadly concur with warshy and MoreThings, without endorsing any extreme views. As Bishonen's impartiality is in doubt, I really think it would be better for him to recuse himself from the whole affair. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Some background

At Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, the issue of whether particular behavior conflicts with policy has been raised. I hope you don't mind, but since it can take quite a long time to become familiar with procedures here, I would like to explain a couple of points.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: that means we do not try to spell out every detail of what is right or wrong. Instead, policies and guidelines and essays are used to provide advice and opinions. The best starting point for an overview is WP:5P. Accordingly, it is unproductive to ask whether a particular rule prohibits borderline behavior (policies only prohibit stuff which is obviously bad). Sometimes users interpret that situation as meaning that they are entitled to pursue a course of action, provided no rules are broken. That is not true, because Wikipedia depends on collaboration. All unmoderated Internet forums (and newsgroups before them) degenerate into chaos where bullies slug it out. Wikipedia manages to avoid that because tendentious editors are (eventually) calmed down or removed.

Regarding the number of edits to a talk page: There is nothing wrong with making 21 edits to one talk page in a few hours. However, it is a problem when that much attention is focused on a single issue over a protracted time. If you feel that others are attacking you, you should report the matter at WP:WQA. If you merely feel that your views are being questioned and you have to respond, a better long-term strategy would be to simply take a break for a day or two, then write a single response that covers the important issues. There is no need to refute every assertion, but there is a need to respond to points made by other editors (provided those points are directly related to improving the article).

I noticed something that may illustrate the situation:

• At this page a dispute is being discussed regarding claims about a certain editor (the details are not relevant here).
• Contributors shows that the largest number of edits at that page is 18 by user Born2cycle in the last 7 days (18 edits in 7 days).
• Another editor claimed that the discussion "has become dominated by a single user" (Born2cycle), and they posted a Wikiquette report at WP:Wikiquette alerts#Born2cycle.
• After a lot of discussion over two days, Born2cycle said "Okay, okay, I hear you. Thank you." (diff).
• The issue has been resolved.

I am not suggesting that the above example is similar to anything at Talk:SAQ. My point is that there are no rules prohibiting what was happening in the above case, and a discussion was required for the editor to receive the message that they needed to change: there was no compulsion. I am providing this background because I know that it is hard to adjust to how things work here. It is collaboration that makes Wikipedia work. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, Johnuniq, that Wikipedia most certainly is bureaucracy. It is Kafkaesque in its bureaucracy. When it suits, policies are set in stone and inviolable, and when it doesn't suit, well then they're just a rough guide, open to interpretation. And who gets to do the interpreting? Why, the ones with the big sticks mops, of course.

The kernel of all the policies here is this: give due weight to reliable sources, and do it from a neutral point of view. And that's exactly what they were doing on that page. Somebody said "This is fringe."; somebody else said "Produce your sources.". Sources were produced, and then challenged. Then an alternate lead was offered and that was challenged. That is exactly how things are supposed to work here. There's no need for all of this stuff about counting posts, and the like. It's just silly. MoreThings (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Nina, you are in violation of the 3RR rule. Stop reverting Shakespeare authorship question immediately or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Inappropriate personal attacks

Nina I suggest you read WP:NPA, which states that "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." If you continue your personal attacks I will take you to dispute resolution forthwith. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, NinaGreen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Nina, I've responded to your question at my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A request to conform your behaviour to Wikipedia policies and procedures

Your repetitious edits on the Shakespeare authorship question talk page are in opposition to WP:AGF and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have made more than 15 postings to that page in the past 10 hours, all of them more or less along the same lines—vague allegations of lack of organization and bias in the article and falsely stating that statements in the lede are not properly sourced. Almost every other editor on that page and one administrator have told you that your continued repetitive complaints have no validity and are not productive nor conducive to successful collaborative editing in accordance with Wikipedia procedures and policies. Despite the consensus of editors, you continue to make the same claims, and you continue to be disruptive and hamper the editorial process. Below are some examples (these examples are by no means exhaustive):

lack of organization and bias

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

unfocussed and disorganized

lack of organization and want to replace lede

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

selectively quoting the source to falsely state that the lede is not properly sourced

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced after being corrected on above accusation

unfocussed and disorganized

more of the same, plus accusations of dishonesty

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

Below find diffs to the other editors (besides myself) to reason with you and explain the proper procedures and suggest the correct method of seeking resolution:

Nishidami

Xover

Xover

Paul Barlow

Xover

Paul Barlow

Xover

Poujeaux

Bishonen

Nishidani

Johnuniq

Johnuniq

All these editors are all telling you the same thing something is not right here, and it’s not the consensus of editors, most of them who have years of experience editing Wikipedia. These examples are by no means exhaustive.

I ask that you begin editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When pointing out any perceived deficiencies with the article, you need to be specific and provide links to or quotations of the offending text, along with a stated policy or guideline that it violates, as well as an explanation of how it violates that policy or guideline. If you continue to be disruptive you may be subject of an RfC/U case about your behaviour. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I am afraid I find the above a diatribe. Nina Green is invariably rational and polite, and if she finds something "unfocussed and disorganized" (to take one of the above points at random) I see no reason why she should not say so. Such words are not personal abuse, they are constructive criticism. If the same restrictions were placed on academic discussions, there would be no intellectual debate. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A diatribe scants evidence for rhetoric, so that is an unfortunate description, Moonraker. Nina is 'rational' in spelling out what she thinks. The evidence Tom supplies, and which I underwrite, is that she does not appear to understand the rationality shared by several other editors. If answered, Nina doesn't usually reply. She moves to other things, and, after a while, repeats the same thing. It's intensely frustrating. In the meantime therefore, since you can evaluate what she is doing positively, which for the life of me I can't, could you be more active, as an experienced wikipedian, on this and related pages, and assist her in trying to clarify her points and avoid being repetitious? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, rhetoric is the problem. If I may say so, "to conform your behaviour to Wikipedia policies and procedures" sounds just like what the professional classes (and, indeed, all other classes) were asked to do in Stalinist Russia, and it ended in the Great Purge. Surely we can discuss our articles without resorting to threats? Moonraker2 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you can discuss the issue without making ludicrous comparisons to Stalinist Russia? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no such comparisons are strictly necessary, but I stand by that one, which people here might like to reflect on. The comparison, which on the face of it is a linguistic one, is fair in my view, and if you don't agree with that then it's at least fair comment. Perhaps we could see a more liberal approach to pursuing complaints against newcomers to the English Wikipedia, and in particular less rhetorical exaggeration of alleged offences, which is a habit of extremists of various kinds. Even if these present complaints against Nina Green have any substance, which I am sceptical about, they are plainly admitted to be about 'behavioural' matters rather than anything more fundamental. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The measured use of language is what the FA process in particular is about. To call a dif-rich exposition of a problem a 'diatribe' is true only in the classical Greek sense of the word and not in its familiar English connotation. From diatribe we move to hyperbole, and to liken a request to conform to what wikipedia policy requires of editors to Stalinism (why not Nazism, Maoism, McCarthyism, Fascism etc.?,) is an egregious example of that rhetorical device. I say that despite believing that the rules of wikipedia are inadequate, bureaucratic and select, as often as not, for editors whose exquisite politeness is flanked by poor judgement. Still, we have agreed on several things in the past, and I respect your view, even if I cannot understand it. What has happened recently is not conducive to efficient work, and if you can help Nina to make her case, it would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much. But we should be aware that she is fairly new to Wikipedia. She should read carefully the guidelines linked at the top of this page, and NPA, which makes the key point that one should comment on the content of the page, not on other editors as she frequently does. Her claim that "Once something has been put into the SAQ article by Tom Reedy or Nishidani, ... it's set in stone, and removing it is more difficult than taking down the Berlin Wall" is untrue. As a new editor with very little knowledge of the subject I have managed to remove two things from the SAQ article, one of them from the lead. Poujeaux (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I underwrite Tom's complaint, as set forth above. These threads are making the whole process of editing unintelligible to third parties and only create a specious impression of conflict among committed wikipedians, whereas we appear to have three constant sources of disturbance with an ideological axe to grind on behalf of 1 of the 75 authorship candidates, and hold this article to ransom. The purpose seems to be to stop the article going to FA, whatever the conscious intent. There is no awareness in the editing history by Nina here, or by those who have jumped into the article to vigorously support her and denigrate [.editors of some standing, that policies and purposes of wikipedia are understood.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you refresh my memory on the Wikipedia bans you yourself have been placed under? I think I should have that information under the circumstances.NinaGreen (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

As someone who absolutely does not have any tangible, immediate, material axe to grind in this ongoing historical debate (this is not my field of specialty, and I am a disinterested observer who has expressed agreement with well presented arguments on the side of the skeptics, especially by Nina Green), I can only say that the purpose of the majority side in this debate, as shepherded by their 2 principal wikilawyers and litigators (who, coincidentally, are the two people here trying to threaten Nina Green with sanctions), is to steamroll this article to FA status in the face of brilliant minority opposition. In the relentless pursuit of this immediate tangible victory (which would give Nishidani one more card in trying to reverse the permanent ban he is currently under from the Arbitration Committee in certain other areas), they will stop at nothing. They will continue in this relentless pursuit no holds barred. If they have to obliterate, literally wipe out of Wikipedia any opposition that stands in their way, they will do so by whatever wikilawyering ways they are able to concoct. They have already succeeded in their purpose once, and they will continue steamrolling ahead, trying to crush and to obliterate out of existence any opposition that lies in their path, no holds barred. And all this with the immediate, material, and tangible goal of being able to show around, especially inside Wikipedia, for political and clear status gain, that the article they created, this biased hack-of-a-job of a brainchild, has achieved FA status. warshy^talk 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For this [comic] relief, much thanks. I only wish I had not been drinking coffee whilst I was reading it. It took 10 minutes to clean the screen and keyboard, not to mention my burning nasal passages. And to correct your mistaken impressions, no one is seeking sanctions against any one. None of the venues to which I have appealed have any power whatsoever to sanction anybody. My personal wish is that Nina examine her editorial and transactional methods and conform to Wikipedia policy, as I believe she could make some important contributions to Wikipedia articles in her area of interest. I myself had to do the same quite some time ago, and luckily I was convinced of which path led to the most effective method of dealing with others (and not just those on the opposite side of the aisle) and have tried to conduct myself accordingly every since (with a few slips along the way). He that hath ears, &c. &c. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, alternatively several experienced wikipedians, not least Tom and myself, have worked very hard to pull a hopelessly conflicted article out of the mess it was in. We read several thousand pages of materials, revised it, reverted each other, and called for widespread review and criticism. Once the article finally was approved as the default piece for wikipedia, Nina Green, Zweigenbaum, Charles Darnay showed up and subjected it to an unremitting barrage of querulous nitpicking. Your picture can be stood on its head, with one difference. You all love that gambit of depicting someone as the brilliant victim of a cover-up, a suppression, by a disreputable gang of censorious gamesters. Nina, in your tale, is suffering the same fate here, as de Vere's candidacy suffers from the 'Shakespearean establishment'. (a)De Vere was subject to a 'monstrous conspiracy' by Burghley and the Elizabethan establishment to repress his brilliance. (b)Looney and his Oxfordian school suffer from a monstrous conspiracy from modern academia. (c)Smatprt and Nina now suffer from a monstrous no-holds-barred campaign of obliteration to stamp out the 'brilliant minority opposition' first of Smatprt now of Nina. What is consistently the case, in this narrative, is a sense of persecution by some gang of rascals. To me, it's simply a conflict between people trained to reason on evidence, and people who have trained themselves to reason against the evidence. If the latter prefer to embrace a sense of victimism because they think scholarship is Stalinist, so be it. Independent reviewers can make up their own minds, Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I find that self-important and lacking in consistency, but we begin to see what motivates Nishidani, which is that he seems to think no improvement to the article is possible. His latest attempt at finding fault with Nina Green, "an unremitting barrage of querulous nitpicking", fails to comprehend that that is exactly what good editing of historical writing is about. It's clear to me that Nina's nitpicking would have helped A. H. Nelson to produce a better book, if he'd had the benefit of it before going to publication with Monstrous Adversary. The statement "it's simply a conflict between people trained to reason on evidence, and people who have trained themselves to reason against the evidence" is self-evidently absurd, and to add "If the latter... think scholarship is Stalinist..." is a ludicrous invention. This brings me back to the point I made before about too much rhetoric. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Independent reviewers can make up their own minds." Yes, they can. And I have. warshy^talk 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, get back to me when you study the subject. You write:

It's clear to me that Nina's nitpicking would have helped A. H. Nelson to produce a better book, if he'd had the benefit of it before going to publication with Monstrous Adversary.

From this I know that (a) you haven't read the book, at least beyond pxvi, for on the next page there is a generous acknowledgement of the extensive assistance Nina provided Nelson with (b)your lack of background reading does not embarrass you about jumping in to line up on the side of a debate.

If you actually read Nelson's book, you will duly note Nina's help is acknowledged by Nelson.

Nina has been working on this stuff, without troubling herself to gain the technical qualifications, for three decades. If she can do better than Shapiro, Nelson, and the whole 'Shakespearean establishment' nothing is stopping her from submitting the results of her researches to a reliable press, so that it can be published, reviewed, and cited from on the relevant articles in Wikipedia. She cannot use wikipedia to advance her private speculations, or research into primary documents or secondary sources. The error she is making should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the historical method - history is not written by reproducing via astringent paraphrase data from primary or secondary sources. Two scholars, citing the same document, will formulate its content differently. All Nina is doing, in her research and on wikipedia, is questioning the veracity of the secondary reformulations of primary or secondary sources. She is a Platonist, hermeneutically: there are primary documents, which have one meaning, which she knows, and anyone who tries to interpret that source, by synthesis or in summary, can be hauled over the coals by a simplistic challenge which highlights the verbal dissonance between primary source and secondary synthesis. As a Platonist, she is contemptuous of the phenomenal secondary world refraction of the primary documentary idea. She is not 'trained' but has trained herself, and failed to learn or understand the nature of secondary source writing by literary scholars and historians. For her, it is only the 'primary source' that counts, and any refraction of it, in the translation from archive to scholarly book, will have a blurring from the original which indicts its fall into error, its errancy from 'the primordial truth'. This is a very very basic misconception, and accounts for her incapacity to herself make a narrative synthesis, as all historians do, of the immense amount of documentary evidence she has at her fingertips. That is why she is always nitpicking at scholars who step near her field for getting things wrong, but has yet to take on the risks they themselves must assume if they are ever to publish and be taken seriously.Nishidani (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Nishidani, I haven't read all through Monstrous Adversary, but I have read parts of it. I used the online version two days ago when beginning an article on Thomas Fowle. I found it rather revealing that Nelson considers Fowle to have had a "violent temper" apparently on the basis of his having been present on one violent occasion.

I am not going to comment on all of your remarks on Nina Green, which can hardly be based on an exhaustive knowledge of the subject and which do not appear to serve any proper purpose here, except to say that you seem to suffer from the affliction of leaping from speculation to certainty. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Though she probably doesn't recall the occasions, I first noted Nina over 12 years ago, and had an extensive debate with one of her acolytes, in which Nina occasionally intruded, when, as often, the former got stuck and emailed her for help. I've been watching her work desultorily every since. I put that remark as something general observers here should reflect on. If you apply the Platonic analogy of idea and appearance to text and metatext, and consider what is going on here, you should be able to perceive that slippage from the true original to its shabby secondary source is an abiding element in Nina's hermeneutics. Were she to write under these conditions, she would produce only a datum-rich simulacrum (actually not that different from Nelson, minus his narrative). No narrative interpretation of a life or a theme can emerge under this working assumption. I have waited for a decade to see her disprove my assumption here. I hope in the future she will prove that my intuition here is flawed. But she shouldn't be using it on wikipedia where a different set of protocols operate, protocols she interprets badly. I've never denied her good faith. I think, only, that her method is fatally flawed, and wastes the fruition of the erudition she potentially could command. This is of course personal, and off-topic, but since so many are beginning to see some personal motivation in my position, I thought I'd have to reply. Regards Nishidani (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the allusion, I'd take no umbrage. Indeed I'd probably get a salutary laugh if you identified which of the characters in that book you thought my editing profile most reminds you of:)Nishidani (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, stop the defamatory diatribes. And in connection with that, this is now the second time you have claimed that you and I have some prior association (I heard second-hand some months ago when I was not involved with Wikipedia that you had brought up on Wikipedia some alleged prior association between you and I). You wrote above:

Though she probably doesn't recall the occasions, I first noted Nina over 12 years ago, and had an extensive debate with one of her acolytes, in which Nina occasionally intruded, when, as often, the former got stuck and emailed her for help. I've been watching her work desultorily every since.

This is all starting to feel very peculiar indeed, if not downright creepy. You need to spell out for all of us forthwith what that alleged prior association was and who the 'acolyte' was because I cannot recall having ever had anything to do with you until I started editing the Edward de Vere article last November.NinaGreen (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very reasonable to regard real life claims as creepy. However, rather than spelling it out, may I suggest that Nishidani drop the matter entirely. It would be highly desirable for such issues to never be mentioned on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Nishidani has made a statement that he and I have had a prior association, and this is the SECOND time he has made that statement. Nishidani needs to prove that the statement is true, since I cannot recall ever having had anything to do with him until last November on Wikipedia.NinaGreen (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, dear me. Drop it, yes, certainly. I don't think anyone here is reading for tone. Moonraker said, 'your remarks on Nina Green, which can hardly be based on an exhaustive knowledge of the subject,'

I remarked that I have engaged online with Nina over a decade ago, something which made me interested in 'the subject', and have examined, read widely, the subject, and desultorily looked over her work ever since. If people are going to read anything sinister in such a straightforward comment, I can't stop them, but I certainly will desist if it means we have to get another huge thread of suspicion here. I hope some reflection is made on the technical flaw I alluded to. If the point is understood, it would save us a huge amount of time-wasting interactions. It was not, as is now almost invariably being said now, a 'defamatoryt diatribe'. It was an assist to try to get across why, from an academic perspective, this mode of nitpicking does not convince anyone. The method is flawed. So, that's it. Nishidani (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Nishidani, that is NOT it. You have twice gratuitously brought up this alleged prior involvement with me, of which I know nothing. The first time you brought it up, I was not even on Wikipedia. In the second instance, you've brought it up in the middle of a defamatory diatribe. You've made this very PERSONAL, and now need to establish that you are telling the truth by providing us all with the specifics.NinaGreen (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please choose your words carefully. Explaining why I got interested in the subject is not 'defamatory' of you, it is personal only in so far as I searched my own memories to discover where I first encounter the de Verean thinking your work exemplifiesm, and a short analysis of the methodological flaw you employ here cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a 'diatribe'. That's it, dear. If you think I have been defamatory or engaged in a 'diatribe', take it to the usual wiki complaint forums. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

such pompous, presumptuous, patronising, pretentious pontification! Poujeaux (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you've brought this up twice, once when I wasn't even on Wikipedia and only heard about it second-hand, and once today, and it's not going to be brushed off. I want the details of what you're talking about spelled out right here on this Talk page.NinaGreen (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm still waiting for the details of this alleged incident from you, including the name of the person whom you've defamed with the term 'acolyte'. Almost every Oxfordian I've dealt with concerning the authorship issue is a well-respected professional, and for you to defame someone with a professional reputation by terming him an 'acolyte' requires that you back up that claim. Moreover you wrote, among other defamatory comments concerning me:

Nina has been working on this stuff, without troubling herself to gain the technical qualifications, for three decades. . . . She is not 'trained' but has trained herself, and failed to learn or understand the nature of secondary source writing by literary scholars and historians.

This is clearly defamatory. You have elsewhere on the Talk pages for the SAQ and Edward de Vere articles claimed to have qualifications yourself which permit you to denigrate my qualifications, and have more than once claimed to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Since you've made such an issue of it, and since you've used your alleged superior qualifications and your having been published in peer-reviewed journals as a weapon with which to attack my qualifications, you need to back up your claims. Exactly what is your academic training, and in what universities have you taught? What books have you published, and in which peer-reviewed journals have you published (with specifics of the books and articles, please).NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we take it that Nishidani doesn't have the qualifications he's boasted of so often? Can we take it the alleged incident involving the alleged 'acolyte' which Nishidani has twice brought up on Wikipedia never really happened, and that Nishidani just made it up?NinaGreen (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you need cheering up...

... I'd just like to let you know that with their bias, repeated bullying, refusing to listen even when you make a valid point, false association with some previous editor, and childish insults, they are succeeding in driving my views from their side towards yours! Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!NinaGreen (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, I have no idea what this arbitration is about. Tom's allegations are all over the place. Please define the issue which is being arbitrated. It cannot be an 'outing' issue because there IS no outing issue. Firstly, Tom's alleged 'slip' only revealed an e-mail alias Nishidani uses outside of Wikipedia, and did not reveal any personal information concerning Nishidani as defined in WP:OUTING at all. Secondly, I am not trying to get Nishidani to reveal any personal information as defined in WP:OUTING. I am merely trying to get Nishidani to back up (1) his gratuitous statements concerning an alleged incident which he claims took place involving me and some unnamed 'acolyte' 12 years ago which I have no knowledge of, and (2) his gratuitous statements that his superior academic qualifications and publication record in peer-reviewed journals justifies his defamation of my academic qualifications. There is no 'outing' issue there. Nishidani made the statements gratuitously. He needs to back them up. So, as mentioned earlier, please define the issue being arbitrated, and how it got to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Reading over some recent talk page activities of yours, and seeing the reports on the Arbcom request of how your editing has been perceived by multiple outside observers, I have become convinced that you have indeed been engaged in a campaign of agenda-driven tendentious editing, which has had a seriously disruptive effect on the overall editing situation at the Shakespeare-related pages. Multiple attempts at getting you to recognize the problem and change your approach have evidently failed.

As an uninvolved administrator, I am therefore now pulling the emergency brake and blocking you, for an initial period of 10 days, to give the topic some rest and see how things play out without you.

If and when there will be a need for you to state your case at the impending Arbcom case, I will of course be willing to unblock you for that purpose (but this will be conditional on your staying away from the disputed pages during that time).

I have seen hints that at least one other administrator has independently been considering a "lengthy block" in your case. Therefore, to fellow admins: if you feel an even longer block is in order, feel free to modify this accordingly.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think a block is inappropriate - it sort of prejudges any ArbCom case (if accepted) and will likely make the editor defensive in their arguing of their actions. I, like other editors involved, do not doubt NinaGreen's sincerity in their belief in their viewpoint nor that it should be represented, and my concerns relate in the manner in which she conducts herself and the detrimental effect it has on the editing environment and other editors - and also that this editor is only one among others who have not conducted themselves appropriately in these areas. It is perhaps unfair that one, recent, example has been singled out, and that a restriction may have been an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now look at this: "To give the topic some rest and see how things play out without you."

This is precisely the goal sought by the majority side that has started this RfAR (at least as I understand it, given that my experience with wikilawyering is very limited. And, indeed, by my own skeptical philosophical nature I despise any type of "lawyering" on principle). Nina Green is a brilliant scholar on the field in general and is the only one that can stand on the way of the current owners of the WP article on the avowed goal of getting this biased hack-of-a-job to FA status. warshy^talk 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This block is eminently unfair and prejudicial, and contrary to Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia's best interests, and should be immediately lifted with an apology to me because this entire allegation of Tendentious Editing is bogus. It was first speciously raised by Tom Reedy almost as soon as I entered into discussions on the SAQ Talk page, and the irony is that although I have no bias and have remained neutral in my position throughout, Tom Reedy has himself OPENLY ADMITTED HIS OWN BIAS ON THE SAQ TALK PAGE ['a wacky theory') AND HAS STATED THAT HIS OPEN BIAS BRINGS A NEEDED PERSPECTIVE TO THE SAQ ARTICLE. Moreover the examples of alleged Tendentious Editing Tom gave at that time (and which administrators took no exception to) consisted of 'repetitious comments' on the SAQ Talk page, not EDITS. If the COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGE (not EDITS) were repetitious, it was solely because Tom Reedy and his associations kept endlessly bringing up allegations against me which violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and I was forced to respond to them OR ELSE HAVE THEM ACCEPTED AS FACT. It was thus a Catch-22 situation. Each of Tom's allegations to which I did not respond was accepted as a FACT by administrators and thereafter reiterated again by Tom as FACT, and each allegation to which I responded was then cited as yet another example of my alleged 'repetitious statements', and accumulated as yet another rationale for eventually blocking me. Moreover none of the comments on the Talk page (and I repeat, none of them, were EDITS), and could not therefore possibly constitute Tendentious Editing because Tendentious Editing doesn't refer to DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Tendentious Editing, which clearly applies to EDITS, not to discussion on the Talk page:

What is tendentious editing?

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what the latter writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest.

I have not been permitted by Tom Reedy, Nishidani or Paul Barlow to EDIT the SAQ article at all (a violation of WP:OWN on their part), so it is impossible that I could have been editing 'with a sustained bias' since I have not even been allowed to EDIT AT ALL. The few suggested edits which I made and put up for discussion on the Talk page were INSTANTLY REVERTED by Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow, and then subjected to a barrage of invective against me on the Talk page, while a few other suggested edits which I did not actually MAKE in the article but merely put up for DISCUSSION on the Talk page were similarly subjected to a barrage of invective by Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow and then simply dropped because Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow, and occasionally Johnuniq, have consistently acted as though they OWN the SAQ article, and are in violation of WP:OWN. The Tendentious Editing allegation is thus completely false, both on the ground that the policy does not apply to discussion on the Talk page, and on the more important ground that not A SINGLE ALLEGATION OF BIAS ON MY PART HAS EVER BEEN MADE BY ANY EDITOR ON THE TALK PAGE!

Throughout all this, Wikipedia administrators monitoring the SAQ article, including the administrator who has wrongly blocked me above (whom I've never even heard of until today), have NEVER intervened in connection with Tom Reedy's ('a wacky theory') and Nishidani's ('this ideological mania') openly admitted bias while all this was going on, and have NEVER intervened in connection with Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow's incessant violations of WP:NPA, WP:NPV, WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:AGF as they have arisen on the SAQ Talk page and other Talk pages, even though the defamation and personal attacks on me on both the SAQ Talk page, my own Talk page, and the Edward de Vere Talk page by Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow literally run into the hundreds. One of the real problems in connection with the SAQ article is THE CLEAR BIAS WHICH ADMINISTRATORS HAVE DISPLAYED over the past month in (1) siding with Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow in attempting to prevent me from editing the SAQ article at all (in which they have succeeded; I have not been able to make a single substantive edit), (2) in supporting Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow's specious allegations made for the purpose of building a case to have me banned precisely because I DO HAVE A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW which threatens Tom Reedy and Nishidani's OPENLY ADMITTED BIASED POINT OF VIEW WHICH PERMEATES THE SAQ ARTICLE, and (3) ignoring any and all of Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow's repeated violations of WP:NPA, WP:NPV, WP:OR WP:OWN and WP:AGF and their incessant defamation and personal attacks.

It is clear that one of the major problems with the SAQ article is Tom Reedy and Nishidani's OPENLY ADMITTED BIAS, and Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow's repeated violation of the Wikipedia policies cited above and others, and their incessant Wikilawyering. The other major problem with the SAQ article is with ADMINISTRATORS monitoring the page who have done NOTHING to address the obvious problems outlined above, and instead have EXACERBATED THE PROBLEMS by ignoring or siding with the above-named editors' REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF VIRTUALLY EVERY WIKIPEDIA POLICY. The problems with the SAQ article will not cease until some NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATORS are found to monitor the SAQ article and prevent Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow from driving away any and all other editors who do not SHARE THEIR OPENLY ADMITTED BIAS. The first evidence I have seen of any fairness on the part of any administrator monitoring this page is LessHeard's comment above, which at least recognizes the fact that this block violates Wikipedia's policy of fairness and will prejudice the arbitration, resulting in a kangaroo court proceeding.NinaGreen (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen's Biased Statement On The Arbitration Page and LessHeard's Mistaken Assumption In The Arbitration Request

Bishonen has made an astonishingly biased statement on the Arbitration page which demonstrates in spades the contention in my statement on that page that administrators are biased and that the problem with the SAQ article will not be resolved until neutral administrators are found. In particular, Bishonen wrote:

I don't know how Tom Reedy manages to add any content to Shakespeare authorship question in the aggressive barrage from Nina Green and to some extent her helpers Warshy, Moonraker2, Zweigenbaum, and MoreThings on the talkpage. . . . . I may add some more specific information on Zweigenbaum, Moonraker, MoreThings, and Warshy tomorrow. But please accept this case. It's impossible to get the community to touch it (see my ANI thread about Zweigenbaum) because the talkpage is so repulsive and life is so short. But you arbs get paid, don't you..? Bishonen | talk 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Of the 4 people whom Bishonen calls my 'helpers', I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THREE OF THEM ARE, and if I've ever run across them elsewhere than on the SAQ Talk page and my own Talk page, I have absolutely no knowledge of it. As for the fourth person, I only recently guessed at his/her identity from the content of some of his/her postings, and had no idea that he/she was involved with Wikipedia editing until I saw the postings and realized who the person must be. LessHeard has put forward in his arbitration request the statem'ent that there is some sort of 'vast conspiracy' among anti-Stratfordians to edit the SAQ article. IF THIS IS THE SORT OF EVIDENCE OF THE 'VAST CONSPIRACY WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED AT THE ARBITRATION, THEN IT WILL SURELY FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE, AS IT WELL DESERVES TO, BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT ONLY COMPLETELY BOGUS, IT IS DEFAMATORY TO EVERYONE NAMED IN IT.NinaGreen (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nina. I was also astonished to see myself included in a list of your "helpers". Please allow me to make it clear that you and I do not know each other and have had no contact outside what is visible to all on a small number of Wikipedia talk pages, including this one. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina is right again, as usual, in her remarks here (though Moonraker2, whom I also don't know, beat me to the punch here). Let me make it clear that I had not heard of the name Nina Green or even suspected of her existence until 12/14/2010, when I first read her first comments on the SAQ talk page. I have since, of course, learned to respect very much both the quality of her scholarship as well as the impartiality and sharpness of her historical argumentation. warshy^talk 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A statement filed on the Request for Arbitration page made this very perceptive comment:

Has a prima facie case been established here? Which of the diffs point to "a possibly coordinated campaign"? Where are these legions of ips and throwaway accounts engaging in it? What have been their contributions? Here is the edit history since smatprt was banned . . . .

LessHeard's statement initiating the request for arbitration reads:

However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article.

I know of no diffs which etablishing a 'possibly coordinated campaign'. I know of no ips and throwaway accounts. I asked LessHeard earlier on this page what this arbitration was about, and did not receive a clear answer. One cannot be forced into an arbitration without a prima facie case having been made by providing the above-referenced diffs and identification of the alleged ips and throwaway accounts.NinaGreen (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the comments I made in my statement on the request for arbitration page is that it is in fact Tom Reedy who has mounted a co-ordinated campaign to involve other editors of their persuasion, not the anti-Stratfordians (as LessHeard has falsely alleged). Direct evidence of this is found in Tom Reedy's comment in Archive 2 of the Edward de Vere article Talk page at:

[2]

It's no surprise that no other editor has contributed to this discussion, even though I've asked. One look at your passive-aggressive merry-go-round posts is enough for anybody with less patience than I have. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is direct evidence that Tom Reedy was asking other editors (obviously of his persuasion) to edit the Edward de Vere page to counteract my points and to establish the consensus Tom always relies upon to block any edit with which he doesn't agree.NinaGreen (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see also User:Bishonen/Further RfAR statement, where I have had to object to an unfounded prediction by Bishonen. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise on ten-day block of NinaGreen

You will be unable to join me in commenting at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise, but please be aware of a note I have just left there. Others may wish to add their views there, and you should still be able to comment here on your own talk page, if you have anything to add. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, as I said earlier, I can unblock you so you can take part in the case, on condition you stay away from the disputed pages. (Alternatively, I suppose you could submit evidence to the committee also per e-mail, but that's a bit of a hassle.) Let me know what you would like to do. As a piece of honest advice, let me tell you that if you participate in the case pages, you should make sure you write much more calmly than you have here. Tirades like the ones above will just make the process an even more miserable experience for everybody including yourself (believe me, I know what I'm talking about), and are unlikely to improve your position in the eyes of the committee. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect, is the Arbitration Committee aware that you have blocked me?NinaGreen (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If they read my statement, yes, they are [3]. (Though with arbitrators, you can rarely tell how much they actually take in when they read stuff.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect wrote "I can unblock you so you can take part in the case, on condition you stay away from the disputed pages." That seems to me to prejudge the outcome of the process, and Nina surely has an absolute natural justice right to be heard in it, so I do not see why she should be asked to agree to such conditions. If there are to be any "terms" of the unblocking, I would suggest they should be proposed by the Arbitration Committee and not by a close friend of Bishonen, who is one of the parties to the case. Effectively, Future Perfect wishes to impose a topic ban on Nina at the outset of the process. If that is justified, which I do not believe it is, it can be done without any agreement by NinaGreen. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect, please advise all members of the Arbitration Committee that you have blocked me for 10 days, and that you have urged that I be blocked for a longer period, and that your stated purpose for the 10-day block is to 'see how things play out' with the SAQ article during the 10 days that I am blocked. This is clearly prejudicial to me, as it constitutes an attempt by you to gather what you consider to be 'evidence' against me while an arbitration is underway, so that you, or Tom Reedy, or Nishidani, or Paul Barlow, or Bishonen (I gather from the comment above that you are a close friend of Bishonen's) can later say during the arbitration how much better things went with the SAQ article because I was blocked for 10 days, thereby attributing all problems with the SAQ article to me, and prejudicially influencing the Arbitration Committee.NinaGreen (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) As I just told you, I have already told them. (2) It's not a good idea for you to go arbitrarily imputing bad-faith motives in my actions; it reflects poorly on yourself. (3) I'm actually not a particularly close friend of Bishonen, although, like most other long-term wikipedians on this project, I have known her and held her in high esteem for a long while. I also happen to like her sense of humour, so I might occasionally joke around with her a bit, as will most other admins she knows, but that has nothing to do with your case. (4) Now, do you want to be unblocked or don't you? Just say the word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a submission on this matter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. I suggest waiting to see what response there is to that. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That probably won't help much – the way the arbs work, such an answer might be long in coming, probably longer than this ten-day block would have lasted. Don't expect too much from the arbs; they usually wait somewhere in their Olympic heights without saying much, until they finally hurl down their thunderbolts on whoever happens to stand in the wrong spot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also left a note on the talk page of the clerk, X!. What you say is surprising, but no doubt you are more familiar with such matters than I am. In any event, I do not see how the case can proceed with one of the parties blocked. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can say (as a member, as well as the secondary drafter for this case) that the Committee is aware, and will not necessarily use the block itself as part of the decision, but may or may not use the behavior in this area as part of the decision (depending on what's submitted as evidence and what the drafting arbitrators (and the rest of the Committee) see as part of our review of the area. As Future Perfect at Sunrise says, you can request an unblock to participate in the arbitration case (and would suggest that it would be better to avoid the topic area while this is going on), or submit your evidence here on the talk page, and a clerk will move it over. SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here, SirFozzie. The case isn't formulated as a case against NinaGreen. Don't you feel the block on her prejudices it? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(de-indent) No I don't. SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Evience for Shakespeare authorship question arbitration

Hi, I'm the clerk of the Shakespeare arbitration case. Please author any evidence you want to submit off-wiki and/or on this page. When you are ready to submit it, please e-mail me the entirety of your submission using Special:EmailUser/AGK and I will add it to the evidence page of the case on your behalf. My understanding is that the arbitrators are keen for your evidence in particular to be submitted as early as possible, so that the other parties can rebut it as necessary, but the deadline for evidence submissions has been set at a fortnight from the date of case opening (which is an increase from the original one week). I've also watchlisted your talk page, so I'll see any questions you post here. I hope this arrangement, which is in line with standard practice for blocked parties, is agreeable to you. Regards, AGK [•] 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your message. As noted in the new section I've added to this Talk page, LessHeard vanU has not established a prima facie case for the issue to be arbitrated, the alleged vast and sustained conspiracy by anti-Stratfordians, and for that reason the arbitration as it now stands should be dismissed. An equally cogent reason for dismissing the arbitration at this point is that LessHeard vanU has asserted that the issue of this sustained vast conspiracy by anti-Stratfordians has been the subject of earlier attempts at dispute resolution. A quick check of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures will establish that this is not true, and that in fact this alleged sustained vast conspiracy by anti-Stratfordians has never been identified as the subject of any form of earlier dispute resolution.

You wrote:

My understanding is that the arbitrators are keen for your evidence in particular to be submitted as early as possible, so that the other parties can rebut it as necessary

That would be very prejudicial to me. As noted in the section I have just added to this page, LessHeard vanU has not established a prima facie case. He has merely made vague allegations about a sustained vast conspiracy, most of which have already been refuted on the Request for Arbitration page. I have not the slightest idea what case I have to meet, and I can hardly be expected to present evidence under those circumstances.NinaGreen (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think "very prejudicial" is accurate. But in any case, that expectation is not a requirement but a statement of what would be ideal. The only time frame you need really be aware of is the two-week limit for the evidence phase. I await your finalised evidence submitted by e-mail. AGK [•] 10:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you please forward to the arbitrators for their consideration the entire section below on my Talk page headed Arbitration As It Stands Should Be Dismissed. No editor should be dragged through an arbitration process (and this case involves many editors) when no prima facie case has been established by the administrator (in this case LessHeard vanU) who has initiated the case. The case was initiated by LessHeard van U alleging that there exists a vast conspiracy of anti-Stratfordians who have undertaken a sustained and co-ordinated campaign for the stated purpose of putting one authorship candidate (i.e. Oxford) on an equal standing with Shakespeare in the SAQ article. LessHeard vanU's statement initiating the arbitration provides not a scintilla of evidence for the existence of the alleged vast conspiracy, and in fact the History page of the SAQ article establishes definitively that I am almost the sole Oxfordian who has tried to edit the SAQ article in the past month or so (unsuccessfully, since every single one of my substantive edits was instantly reverted by Tom Reedy or his associates). Moreover I drafted a new lede for the article which expressly states in unequivocal terms that the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment is that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the true author of the Shakespeare canon, which definitively refutes LessHeard vanU's statement that the purpose of this vast conspiracy is to put Oxford on an equal footing with Shakespeare.

I stress that the material I am requesting you to forward to the arbitrators at this point is not my statement of evidence which you have requested above. It is solely evidence that the arbitration should be dismissed, and not go forward at all, because LessHeard vanU has not established a prima facie case for the alleged vast conspiracy or for its alleged purpose, nor has he established his statement that preliminary forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution have been gone through (in fact the record of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures establishes definitively that this alleged vast conspiracy has not been the subject of any earlier dispute resolution procedure, or certainly not one that I am aware of).

I also have a suggestion for resolving what one observer termed the WP:BATTLE aspect of the SAQ article, if the arbitrators would be receptive to hearing it.NinaGreen (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen, it is unlikely that the case will be dismissed . If it turns out there is no evidence of behavior problems, it is possible that the case will be closed with no action, but the time for dismissal has passed. You may wish to change your evidence to reflect this. Shell ^babelfish 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shell, thanks for your comments. I hope that Wikipedia's arbitration procedures are not so bizarre that the time for dismissal has passed. I trust that Wikipedia's arbitration procedures are similar to those for a case in the criminal justice system where charges are laid and a case accepted for trial, but if the prosecution fails to establish the charges, the judge can and does dismiss the case. In this instance, the charge is of a vast conspiracy for a stated purpose, and LessHeard has not presented any evidence of either the vast conspiracy or that it was for that purpose. On the contrary, evidence contained in official and indisputable Wikipedia records such as the Edit History of the SAQ article establishes that there is no vast conspiracy as I was almost the only Oxfordian editor editing the SAQ article for the past month or so. Wikipedia records also establish that this alleged vast conspiracy was never the topic of an earlier dispute resolution process, and that, contrary to LessHeard vanU's statement, was taken by him straight to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, it's nothing like any real-world court system. You might find reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration helpful to understand what Arbitration on Wikipedia is and how it generally works. As I said earlier, if the evidence doesn't establish behavioral issues that are contributing to or causing the dispute, the Arbitration may be closed with no action (in fact, this may be what you mean by dismissal, so we may be in agreement here), however, this is very rare. There doesn't have to be proof of some vast conspiracy, we're going to be looking at what is causing the dispute to fester and addressing any behaviors we find. It would be more advantageous for you to focus your evidence on what you believe is the cause of the dispute, keeping in mind that Arbitration will not rule whose content is correct and instead only looks at whether or not behavior is causing the dispute to be unsolvable. Shell ^babelfish 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Shell, again thanks for your helpful comments. I see that the purpose of arbitration is to "break the back of the dispute". I also see that there is a Workshop page on which parties can submit proposals, and I'd like to submit one which I think would go some way toward breaking the back of the dispute. What I'd like to suggest is 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. The SAQ article is part of the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project, but many articles have been hived off from it as it grew like Topsy, and have become independent main articles which are not covered by the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project. The SAQ article itself contains links to seven of these independent main articles. There is thus an overwhelming amount of duplication, and the authorship controversy has far more coverage in Wikipedia than the subject warrants. I tried to bring this duplication and proliferation of articles up as a matter of discussion on the SAQ Talk page, but was shut down by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. I would also like to 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, what needs to be clarified by the arbitrators or the independent administrators appointed by them is whether editors who have overtly expressed bias 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 wacky theory', 'this ideological mania') in my statement on the Request for Arbitration page. With respect to the latter issue, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, it's clear that Oxfordian editors are vastly outnumbered by Stratfordian editors, and thus consensus is always against any edit proposed by an Oxfordian editor. And as soon as an Oxfordian editor appears on the scene, 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 editor with the intent 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 outside the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project, and by addressing the issue of whether editors who have openly admitted bias 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)

I haven't heard anything back from the arbitrators re the above proposal which I'd like to submit to the Workshop Arbitration page.NinaGreen (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBITRATION AS IT STANDS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

I've copied below the statement by LessHeard vanU which initiated this arbitration. The ground advanced by LessHeard vanU for initiating the arbitration is that 'there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"'. However LessHeard vanU has failed in his statement below to establish the essential elements of his vague assertion that there is a vast conspiracy to affect the point of view of the SAQ article. His statement that there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare' mandates that LessHeard vanU identify in his request for arbitration a significant number of editors (1) who over a significant period of time have edited the SAQ article and (2) who are anti-Stratfordians and (3) who are co-ordinating their efforts in a campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the anti-Stratfordian POV and give one authorship candidate equal standing to Shakespeare in the SAQ article. In a statement on the Request for Arbitration page another administrator, Bishonen, named three editors as alleged "helpers' in the alleged 'co-ordinated campaign', none of whom I had ever heard of and who have stated on the Request for Arbitration page that they had never heard of me prior to our encountering each other on the SAQ Talk page. In addition, the three editors have also stated that they are not anti-Stratfordians. As for the fourth editor mentioned by Bishonen, although I know the editor in question (although not personally), I was not aware that he/she was editing the SAQ article until long after he/she began editing. Moreover LessHeard vanU has not supported in any way his statement that this alleged 'co-ordinated campaign' by anti-Stratfordians includes the use of 'ips and throwaway accounts', and I do not personally know of a single anti-Stratfordian who has edited the SAQ article under an ip or a throwaway account. Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated on the SAQ Talk page (the very numerous diffs can be readily located) that the SAQ article must reflect the consensus among the Shakespeare establishment that William Shakespeare of Stratford is the true author of the Shakespeare canon, and I drafted a suggested new lede to the SAQ article which clearly states that position (again, the diffs can be readily located).

Secondly, arbitration is stated under Wikipedia policy to be the last step in dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU states that 'Attempts to resolve these issues by the editors and uninvolved admins has not been successful, in part because new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw'. LessHeard vanU has not provided an iota of evidence to support this statement concerning 'new accounts which appear as existing ones withdraw, and I personally know of no such accounts. Moreover, directly contrary to LessHeard vanU's statement, the fact is that this alleged 'co-ordinated campaign by anti-Stratfordians' has never heretofore been identified as the subject of any earlier form of dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU has therefore not followed Wikipedia policy in bringing this entirely new issue directly to arbitration.

It is clear that the arbitration as it presently stands should be dismissed for the reasons stated above.

I also wish to make it clear that the foregoing has nothing to do with evidence which might be presented in an arbitration case by any of the parties involved. It has to do with the fact that LessHeard vanU did not support in any way in his statement below the key issue on which he requested arbitration, the alleged 'coordinated campaign'. Wikipedia editors should not be dragged into an arbitration on the basis of a statement by an administrator which the administrator has entirely failed to support in his request for arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

Examples;

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

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

Question for AGK

Hi AGK. You mention above that arbcom is anxious for Nina to submit her evidence so that others can rebut it. Nina didn't open this case, LHvU did. He alleges that

"...there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare.".

Why is the committee not anxious for LHvU to provide his evidence, so that whomever it is that he's accusing of engaging in this conspiracy can rebut his accusations? Bishonen has called for Nina to be banned for at least a year. Why is the committee not anxious for her to provide her evidence so that Nina can rebut it?

If I were you, Nina, I'd sit tight and wait to see what evidence, if any, is brought against you or anyone else. As things stand, there is no evidence, and no case to answer. MoreThings (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just passing on the message. AGK [•] 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we worded that poorly; we meant that we wanted to ensure that NinaGreen was given a full opportunity to participate despite the current block on her account rather than meaning we wanted to see her evidence soon. Shell ^babelfish 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was just meant as a passing comment and mostly as a statement of what would be ideal. Unless a deadline is formally announced, they have little value. Much ado about nothing, methinks. AGK [•] 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence length

Your evidence stands at 1100 words; the limit is 1000 words. Would you like the "statement by LHvU" quote replaced with a simple link to his comment? That would bring you within the limit. (Otherwise I will have to remove it altogether.) AGK [•] 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AGK, yes, thanks, please put in a link. But please note that this is not my evidence in the arbitration. See my statement above in which I wrote:

I stress that the material I am requesting you to forward to the arbitrators at this point is not my statement of evidence which you have requested above. It is solely evidence that the arbitration should be dismissed, and not go forward at all, because LessHeard vanU has not established a prima facie case for the alleged vast conspiracy or for its alleged purpose, nor has he established his statement that preliminary forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution have been gone through (in fact the record of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures establishes definitively that this alleged vast conspiracy has not been the subject of any earlier dispute resolution procedure, or certainly not one that I am aware of).

If LessHeard vanU does present evidence of the alleged vast conspiracy, and does present evidence that this alleged vast conspiracy has been the subject of earlier dispute resolution procedures, my evidence in rebuttal will be presented at that time. The current statement is merely a clarification of the fact that LessHeard vanU had not yet presented one iota of evidence of the alleged vast conspiracy or of the earlier dispute resolution procedures of which it was allegedly the subject.NinaGreen (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Materiality and Relevance of Evidence in Wikipedia Arbitrations

Is there no requirement in Wikipedia arbitrations that evidence must be material and relevant to the issue being arbitrated? So far on the evidence page there are:

(1) two logs of my edits (with no breakdown as to which were substantive edits (i.e. my rewrite of the entire Edward de Vere article, my substantive edits to the Elizabeth Trentham article, the Colne Priory article, the Martin Marprelate article, etc.); which were merely minor edits for the purpose of correcting typos, clarifying the wording of my substantive edits etc.; and which were my attempted substantive edits to the SAQ article, all of which were instantly reverted by Tom Reedy and his associates;

(2) a listing of SPA's (I have no idea what these are); and

(3) a listing of 11 noticeboard discussions, 8 of which took place long before I became involved in editing the SAQ article, and none of which I participated in.

There is not the slightest indication as to whether these submissions of 'evidence' are material or relevant to the vast conspiracy alleged by LessHeard vanU. No-one could possibly respond to them when they are simply plunked down without any explanation as to their materiality or relevance. Is there no-one in charge of monitoring the evidence presented in Wikipedia arbitrations, and removing evidence when it is not material or relevant to the issue being arbitrated?NinaGreen (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally, editors are given a good deal of freedom to submit whatever "evidence" they consider important. If it turns out to be irrelevant, rambling, false, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate, arbitrators will just ignore it, or perhaps even consider it as a sign of the submitting editor's own unconstructive role, so it might backfire against them when it comes to deciding sanctions. It's usually not terribly helpful for participants in the case to engage in long debates trying to "refute" each other's evidence. If you feel the evidence is obviously "impossible to respond to", then just don't respond to it. The best thing you can do right now is to make sure your own evidence is brief, factual, and to the point. Don't submit lengthy argumentative text, but simply brief factual statements, each with one or two links to back them up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this does not really answer the question. Irrelevant or off-topic with respect to what? What is the 'case' we are supposed to be providing evidence on? The incoherence of the evidence submitted so far underlines this point. (I have asked Lessheard and AGK the same question). Nina, I had to look up SPA - apparently this means that you only edit on one topic. Poujeaux (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As 'evidence' is added to the Evidence page, the issue in this arbitration becomes more and more unclear and incoherent. I have no idea what I or other editors who have been dragged into this arbitration by LessHeard vanU should be responding to. Moreover I am not a SPA. I only began extensive editing on Wikipedia in late November 2010 [4], and spent several weeks thereafter rewriting the entire Edward de Vere article (which is a biography, and not under the aegis of the Wikipedia Alternate Views Project as the SAQ is) with Tom Reedy's express blessing and with no objection from any other editor. I've also contributed to several other Wikipedia articles, and plan to edit other articles on Elizabethan historical and literary figures as time permits. My name should be removed from the SPA list on the Evidence page.NinaGreen (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Question For AGK Re My Proposal For The Workshop Page

AGK,I haven't heard anything back concerning this proposal which in an earlier section on this Talk page I indicated I would like put forward on the Workshop page for the consideration of the arbitrators. I've copied my two earlier requests below.NinaGreen (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Shell, again thanks for your helpful comments. I see that the purpose of arbitration is to "break the back of the dispute". I also see that there is a Workshop page on which parties can submit proposals, and I'd like to submit one which I think would go some way toward breaking the back of the dispute. What I'd like to suggest is 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. The SAQ article is part of the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project, but many articles have been hived off from it as it grew like Topsy, and have become independent main articles which are not covered by the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project. The SAQ article itself contains links to seven of these independent main articles. There is thus an overwhelming amount of duplication, and the authorship controversy has far more coverage in Wikipedia than the subject warrants. I tried to bring this duplication and proliferation of articles up as a matter of discussion on the SAQ Talk page, but was shut down by Tom Reedy and Nishidani. I would also like to 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, what needs to be clarified by the arbitrators or the independent administrators appointed by them is whether editors who have overtly expressed bias 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'[5], 'this ideological mania'[6]) 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')[7]. With respect to the latter issue, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, it's clear that Oxfordian editors are vastly outnumbered by Stratfordian editors, and thus consensus is always against any edit proposed by an Oxfordian editor. And as soon as an Oxfordian editor appears on the scene, 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 editor with the intent 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 outside the Wikipedia Alternative Views Project, and by addressing the issue of whether editors who have openly admitted bias 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)

I haven't heard anything back from the arbitrators re the above proposal which I'd like to submit to the Workshop Arbitration page.NinaGreen (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is now on the Workshop page.NinaGreen (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can clarify this point for me. Here's the discussion re diffs for my proposal for the Talk page:

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).

My question. I haven't been able to figure out how to get diffs while I'm blocked. Can someone advise how I can do that? The one 'diff' of the three which actually is a diff was copied by me from Tom Reedy's correction below in which he stated that he had called the authorship controversy a 'crank' theory rather than a 'wacky theory'. With respect to the two others, the best I could do was get the page.NinaGreen (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You can view page histories in just the normal way while you are blocked, as far as I'm aware. By the way, you could save yourself and all others concerned a lot of trouble, if only you responded to the my offer I made you from the start: I'd still be happy to unblock you so you can participate directly, provided you promise you will stay away from the disputed pages for the remainder of the time the block was set to last. You only need to say the word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was able to locate the diff for Tom Reedy's recent statement ('I'd like to hear from some sane Oxfordians') and have inserted it in the earlier copy of my proposal above. However when I go the archive which should contain Nishidani's statement ('this ideological mania'), I can't locate the diff for it. The archive seems to have been collapsed in some way, and the items for that date don't show up, although one can find the statement by using the link I provided above.

While I was in the process of trying to find the diff for Nishidani's statement ('this ideological mania') I ran across Tom Reedy's earlier statement calling me a 'fanatic' and 'obsessive'. However the paragraph in which I quoted Tom Reedy making that statement seems to have been altered. The context clearly indicates that I was quoting Tom Reedy using the words 'fanatic' and 'obsessive', and yet the words 'fanatic' and obsessive' are missing from my quotation of Tom Reedy's words, although the context clearly indicates they should be there. See [8]. Can anyone explain what has happened?NinaGreen (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About the diffs of the archived material: the edit history is still in the history of the main talk page, not in the archive page. The archive page only has the history of those edits where material was copied over from the original to the archive. – About the Tom Reedy diff, apparently he removed that sentence from your quote the same moment when he also removed it from his original posting and apologized, immediately after you pointed it out. [9]. Did you not notice at the time? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect, you wrote:

About the diffs of the archived material: the edit history is still in the history of the main talk page, not in the archive page. The archive page only has the history of those edits where material was copied over from the original to the archive.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that Tom Reedy deleted all record of his offensive comment before the page was archived, and therefore, when anyone searches the SAQ archives, the statement can no longer be found. I had no idea this could happen, and didn't notice that Tom had done this at the time. This is very interesting because early on I saw an extremely negative statement which someone had made about Roger Stritmatter, and when I tried to find it in the SAQ archive I couldn't locate it. It thus appears that the same thing happened with that statement, i.e. it was deleted after people had read it, and it had had its intended impact, but deleted before it could be archived. I have had the experience of not being able to locate other things in the archive recently. This is obviously extremely prejudicial to Oxfordians attempting to gather evidence to be used in the arbitration because the evidence has been erased.

And incidentally, I see that the diff you've provided above shows the difference between two edits, one made at 18:20 and one made at 18:44 on 19 November 2010, but when I go to the edit history on the main SAQ Talk page, I can't find edits for either of those times. How did you find them?

Also, I still cannot find the diff for Nishidani's statement ('this ideological mania'). I've provided a link to Archive 18, where I found it when searching the SAQ archive, and the date stamp says the statement was made at 6:29 on 28 December 2010, but when I go to the Edit History of the SAQ Talk page, I can't find an entry for Nishidani on that date and at that time.NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have your time display settings set to a timezone other than UTC? Note that the times displayed as part of page text, i.e. in talk page sigs, are normally in UTC, whereas those displayed in page histories and diff views are in whatever time zone you have set in your user preferences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It takes a while to get the hang of this diff stocktaking Nina. But nothing's disappeared. Here's the one you wanted regarding my language here Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. The two corrected diffs can now be inserted into my proposal on the workshop page:

overt expressions of bias ('a crank theory'[10], 'this ideological mania'[11]) 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')[12]

NinaGreen (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But of course, just a tip-off. 'Crank' and 'mania' were the terms Samuel Schoenbaum used in 1970 to describe the speculative ventures. I can't swear for Tom, but my use of 'mania' was an allusion to this key RS. If you need any more diffs that I can help out with, drop me a note.Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction

FYI, I never called the SAQ a "wacky theory". I called the idea that Oxford wrote Shakespeare a crank theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My Proposal As E-Mailed To The Arbitration Clerk

When I sent my proposal to the clerk for posting on the Workshop page, I had made a number of changes to the earlier version on this Talk page. The clerk posted the version I sent by e-mail, as I had requested. Bishonen then suggested to the clerk that he should copy over the earlier and unrevised version of my proposal on this Talk page. The clerk did so, with the result that the version now on the Workshop page is different in a number of key respects from the version the clerk had first posted on the Workshop page at my request. See [ http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Workshop&diff=409364720&oldid=409346012]. The clerk has been helpful and courteous to me in every way, and I am not imputing any fault whatsoever to him. I cannot help but wonder, however, at Bishonen's suggestion to the clerk. At the least it seems careless of Bishonen not to have compared the two versions, which are obviously very different from each other, before suggesting to the clerk that he should copy over the version from my Talk page.

This is the version of my proposal which I e-mailed to the clerk, and which I've asked to be restored to the Workshop page. The only change I've now made is to insert the corrected diffs.

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'[13], 'this ideological mania'[14]) 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')[15]. 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) 03:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it. (X! · talk)  · @256  ·  05:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much!NinaGreen (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For god's sake. This is the rawest you've ever pulled, Nina, those passive/aggressive hints about my bad intentions. (Would you have liked the diffs better purely ornamental, like this: [4]? Is that it?) I apologise profoundly for rescuing those dead diffs, whose demise nobody else had noticed. I actually for a moment congratulated myself on being about to get a "thanks" out of you (that would have been a first). But no, you ""cannot help but wonder" at my suggestion to AGK to resuscitate the links. It seems to me you don't wonder enough: you don't, even for a moment, wonder why I suggested the clerk use the talkpage version—nay, you don't even seem to wonder enough to read my brief account of the reason: "The manner of copypasting the proposal here has killed those notes, which seems disadvantageous to Nina." "You could perhaps keep the diffs clickable by using the edit mode version." And you assume, also without wondering, that the clerk will slavishly do what I suggest, without applying his own wits in any way. Checking that kind of stuff is what the arb clerks do, among other things; My remark to AGK, as to what I "assumed," was intended as a small reminder to him to make sure he checked that the phrasing was the same. Never mind, you needn't worry about any more sabotage from me, any further cause for you to "wonder"; I'm now officially aware that it's naïve to have anything to do with you. It won't happen again. I cannot help but wonder what I'm still doing on this fatuous page. That won't happen again, either. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen is one of the two administrators involved with the SAQ article, and her language ('the rawest you've ever pulled', 'passive/aggressive') demonstrates the bias she has displayed towards me since I first began editing late in October 2010. Bishonen provides no evidence that I've ever 'pulled' anything, and she cannot provide any evidence thereof because I never have 'pulled' anything. Moreover the highly negative implications of the psychological term 'passive/aggressive' are well known. Bishonen's comments contravene WP:NPA, and are particularly inappropriate coming from an administrator. Moreover Bishonen has stood by without intervening while I have been subjected to a continuous stream of insults from Tom Reedy and Nishidani, including Tom Reedy's use of the highly negative psychological term 'passive aggressive', which Bishonen has now herself picked up.

Bishonen has also openly demonstrated her bias against me in her statement on the Request for Arbitration page in which she stated that Tom Reedy can't get any work done if I'm involved as an editor ('I don't know how Tom Reedy manages to add any content to Shakespeare authorship question in the aggressive barrage from Nina Green and to some extent her helpers Warshy, Moonraker2, Zweigenbaum, and MoreThings on the talkpage'), thus clearly indicating that she supports Tom Reedy's ownership (contrary to WP:OWN) of the SAQ article, and that she is of the view as an administrator that I should not be permitted to be an editor because I constitute an impediment to Tom Reedy's ownership of the SAQ article. In addition, Bishonen falsely denigrated four editors by calling them my 'helpers' when, as explained on the Request for Arbitration page, three are not Oxfordians and never knew of me nor I of them until we encountered each other in editing the SAQ article, while I did not guess who the fourth editor was until long after he/she had begun editing the SAQ article.

Moreover, Bishonen earlier demonstrated her bias against me by attempting to have me enter into a voluntary ban to limit my comments on the SAQ Talk page predicated on a false implication by Johnuniq that I had made 21 distinct comments on the SAQ Talk page on 28 December 2010 (see earlier section on this Talk page). I established via Wikipedia records that I had made only 8 distinct comments (the rest were merely minor edits) in response to 9 comments by other editors specifically directed to me, and that Johnuniq's statement was false. I then asked Bishonen how she became involved in attempting to have me enter into a voluntary ban on the basis of Johnuniq's false implication, and she refused to answer. Bishonen's conduct in that instance speaks for itself in terms of her bias against me.

As for the diffs Bishonen mentions above, it is clear from her own statement that she knew the earlier version of my proposal was on my Talk page since she specifically directed the clerk to it, yet she disclaims any responsibility for examining the difference between the two versions, and casts all the blame on the clerk for not doing so. Moreover, once the clerk had substituted the Talk page version as per Bishonen's suggestion to him, Bishonen immediately criticized two of my diffs as not being sufficiently precise, diffs which she must surely have already seen on the Talk page version since she directed the clerk to that version. I've established elsewhere on this Talk page that the reason the diffs were not sufficiently precise is that one of the statements had been deleted by Tom Reedy, and neither of the statements could be found by searching in the SAQ archive (see discussion above on this page). It seems disingenuous that after Bishonen's stated concern that it would be 'disadvantageous' to me if the diffs weren't there and that the clerk should get them by copying over the Talk page version, she would immediately criticize the diffs as soon as the clerk had inserted them.

Bishonen's bias against me has also been demonstrated on several other occasions. One of them involved Bishonen's question to me as to why I had never praised Tom Reedy. When I replied giving an example of having praised Tom Reedy, Bishonen continued to assert that I had not answered her questions, ignoring the fact that I had presented the example she had requested. Another instance involved Bishonen's compilation of a list of examples of so-called Tendentious Editing on my part, none of which involved actual editing of any Wikipedia article, but merely comments on the Edward de Vere article Talk page. That list compiled by Bishonen has been brought up again and again, and forms part of the evidence in this arbitration, despite the fact that none of the examples compiled by Bishonen involves actual editing. Moreover while taking me to task for so-called Tendentious Editing and other minor alleged infractions of Wikipedia rules, Bishonen ignored a clear example of Tendentious Editing on the part of Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Bishonen stood by without intervening when Tom Reedy refused to provide a citation for a quotation from Peter Milward and Nishidani repeatedly badgered me concerning the quotation while also refusing to provide the citation for it.

It's clear that Bishonen, who is an administrator, has exhibited sustained bias towards me from the time I began editing in late October of last year up to the present date.NinaGreen (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(a)I have been subjected to a continuous stream of insults from Tom Reedy and Nishidani

Document them with diffs. I am wholly unaware of any 'insult' in your regard, and your repeated comments about 'defamatory diatribes', 'continuous streams of insults' without evidence to back them via diffs lends itself also to the charge that you are extremely loose in your language and attack people by repeating ad nauseam, without proof, that you were attacked by them.

(b)'Bishonen stood by without intervening when Tom Reedy refused to provide a citation for a quotation from Peter Milward and Nishidani repeatedly badgered me concerning the quotation while also refusing to provide the citation for it'

He didn't do your work for you. Given Milward 2008 almost certainly identifies the source, anyone can find it. I offered to provide it here if you would, after repeated requests, finally tell editors why the source and quote did not pass the high bar you set for one statement in the lead, which you challenged. Reedy provided the precise kind of testimony you appear to deny existed, and you are here as earlier, trying to make a huge case out of his lack of reedyness to give the quote to you on demand, in the face of your refusal to say simply why that quote is not appropriate, despite meeting all of the criteria you set. Indeed, when I offered to supply the quote on condition you reply to queries, and not simply make them, what was your reply, almost immediately? You already had it! If you had it, instead of fussing about Tom, you should have simply told us after a week your judgement on that quote. Instead you kept and still keep everyone on tenterhooks, refusing, with the source text on your desk, to answer the request I was constrained to make. Much of your remarks above about tendentious editing are template stuff pasted from that thread. You've said it all before, and you keep repeating it, and repetition, if I must repeat myself, is neither argument nor evidence, Nina. Asking for everything, and listening to nothing would test the patience of Job, let alone we lesser mortals. For a computer clunk like myself, just answering these two points has cost me 1 and a quarter hours, i.e. 80 pages of lost reading of any good book.Nishidani (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, Wikipedia policy on Tendentious Editing clearly states that the person quoting must produce the source. Tom didn't. You didn't. Eventually someone found it for me (it's sufficiently obscure not to have been mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Peter Milward). You and Tom engaged in Tendentious Editing, repeatedly refusing to provide a source.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

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.

NinaGreen (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Contention Is Result Of Earlier Merge Decision Not Being Carried Out

I came onto the scene after a decision had been reached which I knew nothing about, and having been directed to it today, and having read enough of it to make my head spin, I can see why things have been contentious during the past few months. It's because an enormous amount of contention which took place before I came on the scene (and before a number of other editors who have been involved with the SAQ article during the past few months came on the scene) was supposed to be resolved according to a merge decision reached by Science Apologist which was never carried out. Instead, Tom Reedy has continued to expand the SAQ article, and now wants to take it to FA status at the earliest possible opportunity while not having carried out the merge decision, despite the fact that Tom Reedy was one of the first to support the merge decision, and the decision went his way. See [16]. See also:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_15#Merging

and

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_16#Merging_procedure

The heart of this dispute clearly seems to be a battle over the various articles already in existence and over which ones are to be kept and which ones deleted, and Tom Reedy's attempt to foreclose that issue by attempting to take the SAQ article to FA status immediately while ignoring the merge decision he supported and which went his way. NinaGreen (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I opposed merging the Oxfordian theory article with the SAQ article, from the outset, and disagreed with Tom on this. In working the SAQ article with me, I think he came round also to that view. The result was a polished SAQ main article, and an expectation that the Oxfordian Theory page would have to stay independent, and given its lamentable state of incoherence, be reworked. I doubt whether Tom or I have the patience to sacrifice another year of our lives on that, so de Verean true believers should have no trouble what soever going to that page, and pulling it up to GA standard at least. Tom and I met our side of the challenge (i.e. actually improve a chronically embattled, poor article). I think Smatprt, yourself, BenJonson, Schoenbaum, Mizelmouse, Bertaut, Softlavender, AlexPope,etc.etc. have ample resources and means to show wiki what you can individually and collectively do in an environment unhampered and unhindered by ornery brutes like Reedy and myself?Nishidani (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you should not speak for Tom on this. I suspect his view is not at all as you've presented it. And the suggestion that 'ornery brutes like Reedy and you' :-) would go away and let Oxfordians edit the Oxfordian Theory page is something I cannot imagine unless you both took an oath before a Justice of the Peace.:-)NinaGreen (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But you always include me with Tom, i.e., the Tom and Jerry duo! An undertaking here, before Arbcom, is better than an oath, since it sticks before everyone's eyes, and can be cited against one. If you guys undertake to bring that article up to GA standards, which means having neutral third parties review the text thoroughly to see it conforms to the protocols for that grading, within the year, I won't edit it. I'd add that if Smatprt undertook to limit himself to that article till Novdember, an exception should be made to his one year suspension, in order to enable him to collaborate with yourself and the dozen Oxfordians active on wikipedia to that end.Nishidani (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, that's a very interesting proposal, and I'm in favour of exploring it further because if we editors could reach some sort of agreement among ourselves to be submitted to the arbitrators, that would be the best way out of the very unpleasant impasse in which all of us now find ourselves. I would certainly be more than willing to work towards that end. Could you get Tom and Paul on board? I can't speak for any other Oxfordian editor, firstly because I couldn't speak for anyone but myself anyway, but secondly because I only know of one other Oxfordian who has been editing the SAQ article during my 'tenure' there, and as I mentioned earlier, I only guessed who that person was quite some time after he/she began editing the article. If there have been any other Oxfordians editing the SAQ article during my 'tenure' there, I don't know who they are. But let's see what we can do with this idea of yours.NinaGreen (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I am only responsible for myself. As I will argue in my presentation, if I ever get over the fatigue all this is causing, there has been almost no conflictual behaviour from Tom or myself since late March, i.e., since we were given an opportunity to show how we conceive of a comprehensive NPOV version, and how Smatprt might write his version. We did 1,400 edits, Barlow and several others certainly chipped in as well, must have read some 50 odd books and over a hundred articles, and despite the time this cost, 6 months out of our lives, we came up with what many view as a respectable piece of work for wikipedia. Though there are a few things I might regret in a very anal reading of WP:AGF in the first month or two of my editing here, I don't believe I have provoked anyone since. I even rushed to defend Smatprt from a sockpuppet who seemed to have caused him into a technical error that laid him out to censure (Aug 19). But I am convinced his suspension for a year was in the interests of the project. I think you could be an invaluable contributor in the future, but must master policy, show some interest in what others think. That this is possible we showed on the deVere page, but your interventions on the SAQ, in my absence, were in my view highly destructive of a fragile equilibrium.

One last point, it's not improbable that Arbcom will tell us to all get stuffed, and therefore my proposal contains an egregious presumption. I think we should leave proposals to later, when the outcome of their deliberations is clear. If there is room after then for all or any of us, then I will come back to the point I made, but not to persuade Barlow or Reedy. I think there is now some kind of obligation by deVereans to prove that they can commit themselves to the aims of the encyclopedia and produce work of a quality which passes the rigorous tests of wikipeer review. Tom Reedy has managed a little miracle in his extraordinary dedication to the Project, whatever the outcome. I am waiting to see whether any of the baker's dozen of deVereans can actually shape an article that satisfies the severe eyes of neutral third party reviewers, as Reedy;s work has. It was a major, indeed grievous injustice, aside from other considerations, not to recognize the sheer effort, intelligence and attempt at neutrality which he expended on what has been, as most wikipedians know, an embattled, hopelessly confused, higgeldy-piggledy mishmash of dubious snippets of material for several years.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, who are these 12 Oxfordians you mention ('I am waiting to see whether any of the baker's dozen of deVereans can actually shape an article that satisfies the severe eyes of neutral third party reviewers, as Reedy;s work has'). During my 'tenure' editing the Edward de Vere article and attempting to edit the SAQ article since late last October, I had the distinct impression I was the sole Oxfordian on the scene until a few weeks ago when another Oxfordian joined in, and as I've said, I didn't guess who he/she was until he/she had been editing for some time. Do you know something about 12 Oxfordian editors that I don't know?NinaGreen (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be 13 Oxfordians. See Baker's dozen. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, since you're being helpful here, perhaps could identify for all of us the mythical 13 Oxfordians who are currently editing the authorship articles. I certainly don't know who they are.NinaGreen (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Nishidani's number, so I don't know exactly who he has in mind, but let me guess: yourself, Smatprt, Charles Darnay, Schoenbaum, AlexPope, Zweigenbaum, BenJohnson, Richard Malim, Mizelmouse, Softlavender, Methinks, Ironhand, Fullstuff. I'm not sure why it matters. Some of these may be the same person under different identities. One or two may not be card-carrying Oxfordians. I really don't see why the exact number matters. There have been quite a few. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, it matters because I don't know who they are other than the individual who has used his own name, and that individual hasn't made a single edit to anything other than the arbitration page. This stuff about a group of Oxfordians working together is all in your heads.NinaGreen (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry Nina, but I do not believe that what you say is true. I certainly think there is communication off-Wiki. How else do these people appear to edit such matters as arbitration cases? It's not surprising that there is such communication, nor is it in itself a problem. People with an interest in a subject will typically communicate in various fora. The problem is that editors just appear to vote or debate in cases, rather than to improve content in accordance with policy. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you haven't provided diffs for these instances ('How else do these people appear to edit such matters as arbitration cases?'), so this is merely the usual situation in which you state something as a fact and then make an assumption based on what you've stated as a fact without having first proved the fact. Moreover you've contradicted yourself. First you implied that the editors you named above were currently editing, and would therefore be the mythical baker's dozen of Oxfordians Nishidani might have had in mind who would get down to business and edit the entire Oxfordian authorship article while he refrained from doing so, and now you claim they are instead editors who don't edit at all unless they're called upon outside Wikipedia to edit in arbitration cases ('The problem is that editors just appear to vote or debate in cases, rather than to improve content in accordance with policy.'). Which is it? And while we're on the topic, what about Tom Reedy's statement that he had 'alerted Hardy and AndyJones' (was Tom referring to Hardy Cook, the editor of the Shaksper list, which has a very large world-wide membership, and is this how Katherine Duncan-Jones came to make her statement that Oxfordians were 'carpet-bombing Wikipedia?), not to mention Tom Reedy's recent statement that he had tried to get other editors interested, but had been unsuccessful?NinaGreen (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that the "baker's dozen" refers to the participants in the deletion debate. [17]. I make no "claim". I said I was guessing. Why do you need to be so argumentative about everything? It makes communication pointless. I have no memory of what Tom might have meant when he said something nearly four years ago. look up his edit history if it matters so much to you. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you jumped into an interchange between me and Nishidani (see above), correcting me as to how many there are in a baker's dozen. Have you considered the possibility that it is you who are argumentative, and who make communication difficult?NinaGreen (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my correction was for clarification, and somewhat lighthearted. "Hardy" almost certainly referred to another Wikipedia editor of the time. My guess is that he meant user:Hardyplants, who used to edit Shakespeare pages at the time. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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:[18]

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 [19].

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)

Block lifted

Hello, your 10-days block was set to expire regularly in about twelve hours. To make transition a bit smoother for you, I have lifted it a few hours early now (mainly because I might not be around tomorrow to deal with any WP:autoblock issues), so you are now free to return to normal editing. Please take care to edit cautiously and avoid anything that might be seen as resumption of disruptive behaviour. Happy editing, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect, thanks for letting me know.NinaGreen (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, I do not believe Fut.Perf. ever established (or asserted any details of) "disruptive behaviour" by you. It strikes me as unjustified to talk about "resumption of disruptive behaviour", especially as there is a due process under way which may or may not make such a finding and which should prove more judicious than Fut.Perf. was. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a clique which participates on these and other pages Nina is at and makes snipey, passing remarks at all of her "enemies". That is an unhealthy method of collaboration. If you have a grievance, take it up with the subject; otherwise, best to keep quiet. AGK [•] 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AGK, I don't agree with any of that and find it "snipey". If you have a grievance should you not take it up with me? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

SAQ arbitration procedures

May I offer a suggestion here because I do not want to extend the discussion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop. My understanding of procedures followed at Wikipedia is that people will be focusing on recent activity. Certainly it is appropriate to refer to old events (say from more than six months ago) where those events are part of a pattern. For example, in my evidence I referred to a 2006 case to illustrate that the SAQ problems have been long term. However, it has been acknowledged (I'm not sure where I saw this, but it was on a talk page somewhere) that Tom Reedy edited as the IP mentioned in the workshop, making a total of four edits in May 2007. It is obvious that Tom was extremely new to Wikipedia and those were his first edits (in this edit he was struggling with the orange "new messages" bar). Yes, the IP (Tom) violated WP:OUTING in May 2007. However, Tom was told that policy forbids such behavior and I believe there has been no further breach. In Wikipedia's terms, that is a good outcome. I am not asking you to refrain from mentioning the incident—I am just trying to provide some background on standard procedures. Incidents from 2007 are only relevant if they are part of a pattern, and evidence of recent edits fitting that pattern would be needed.

Regarding talk page archives: If I wanted to find a diff for a comment that is now in an archive I would proceed as follows. In a browser window, open the talk page history for, say, the last 500 contributions. Control-click the "older 500" link to open another tab page showing the older 500 contributions. If necessary repeat this process until the time period of interest is shown. Then, open the archive and find the comment of interest. In my browser, I can highlight the timestamp at the end of the comment then press Ctrl-F to find that text. Then switch to the history tab and press F3 to search for the next occurrence of that timestamp. This should find the edit of interest providing you have not changed your preferences from the default which shows timestamps as UTC. You need to search the history of the original talk page where the comment was made (not the history of the archive page). You can ask about stuff like this at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks for your comments. Can you refer me to the diffs where 'Tom was told that policy forbids such behaviour'?

I am also concerned that what I see in those diffs is the organization of a faction [20], contrary to Wikipedia policy. No-one seems to have immediately alerted Tom Reedy to the fact that 'outing' is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Why not? And what of Tom's references to 'alerting' Hardy (is this a reference to Hardy Cook?) and Andy Jones? No-one seems to have immediately told Tom Reedy that that constitutes organizing a faction, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Why not?NinaGreen (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea on either of these. Re outing: since I am not providing evidence on this (and it seems trivial to me), I don't think it is necessary to look for comments that I think (or at least, assume) occurred in May 2007. Re faction: I do not know what the comments mean, or whether they have some significance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At the Workshop, you wrote "it doesn't work when the archive is labelled Archive Full":^diff

A visit to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 20 illustrates the issue: looking at its history page shows that MiszaBot I made 5 edits (each edit being to copy in more comment sections from the article talk page). The last edit has the same edit summary as the others, except that it adds "ARCHIVE FULL". That simply means that after the last edit, the size of the archive page had reached the maximum allowed in the template that configures the automatic archiving (that template is at the top of the article talk page). The significance of that edit summary is that the next time an archive was required, MiszaBot I created a new archive page.

There is no difference between a "full" archive and other archives: they are simply copies of material deleted from the talk page. When editors comment, they do so on the article talk page. Therefore, the history showing each comment is the history of the article talk page (not the history of the archive page). If a diff is needed, that diff will be found in the history of the article talk page, using the technique that I outlined above. One slight complication can occur: the time shown is rounded to the nearest minute, and it is possible for a comment to show a timestamp of, say, "20:13" (8:13 p.m.) while the history page shows "20:12" (or perhaps "20:14"?) for that edit. Such a difference is rare, but it can occur, so if searching for "20:13" in the history does not show the edit, you need to manually inspect the history for the date in question and look for a time close to 20:13. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of false allegation

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Claim of false allegation where I have proposed that your claim of a false allegation be struck out. Please either strike out your claim, or present evidence to support it. After posting this, I will add a link at the Workshop talk page (link above) indicating that I have provided this notification. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• As you have not responded, I have asked a Clerk for advice on how to proceed. See User talk:AGK#SAQ workshop: responding to a false claim. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked to take action in relation to this grievance. I decline to do so, because this kind of thing is outside of the ambit of the clerks' office. However I would, simply as an editor interested in ensuring that Wikipedia is as collegiate a place to contribute to as possible, ask Nina to consider whether it is fair to post a damaging criticism of another editor without substantiating it. AGK [•] 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AGK, thanks for your comments. I have amply substantiated it elsewhere (on my Talk page, as I recall), in response to Bishonen, who jumped on Johnuniq's false allegation to try to force me to agree to a voluntary ban on my postings on the SAQ Talk page. The matter was dropped by Bishonen when I asked her to explain how she became involved in Johnuniq's false allegation. Bishonen refused to explain her involvement with it, and that was the end of it.NinaGreen (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah right, we've heard that before, too. What "involvement"? I wasn't "involved" in anything, I did it all by myself, because I thought something had to be done about your eternal repetition of the same things, even in the same words. How many times have you quoted Tom as saying "crank theory" and Nishidani as saying "this ideological mania" (always those two quotes strung together), I wonder? 40 times? 60? What makes you think anybody needs to hear that over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? Or the phrase "move the dispute forward and serve the project", which is all over the workshop (and which, I guess, is your own notion of your workshop activity)? How many times have you pointed out, also on the workshop, that Tom has agreed that the four authorship candidate articles should be deleted from the SAQ article since they weren't very good? The count is at least twelve times on that one, and it was pretty boring even the first time... Seriously, Nina, this repetitiousness of yours makes people cry, even if it's—as it seems to be—invisible and non-existent to you. This kills the workshop. This produces walls of text. Your loyal helper Moonraker2 immediately leapt leapt for my throat when I suggested a voluntary ban on the amount of text you post, and assured me in rude and inaccurate terms that the only reason for your long self-quoting harangues was that you had so much to say. Is it that and the other responses here that you call "amply substantiating" that Johnuniq made a false claim? You don't remember correctly, then. So much for my "involvement". Johnuniq's count (which was quite correct, despite your unique definition of what constitutes an "edit") wasn't something I got "involved in", it was a minor detail which I quoted in what I thought was an important suggestion of my own to you. If you had listened to that suggestion when I made it, you might not be where you are now. Please either strike out your claim of a "false allegation", or present evidence to support it. You've got the link to your ample substantiation now, so you can look for evidence there. I'm sorry to say you won't find it, though. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Your request for the arbitration case to be dismissed

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

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

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

Your post to Jimmy Wales

You posted to the archive, and not Jimbo's talkpage. I have posted a diff to Jimbo's talkpage so he may be able to review your comments. I suspect he will respond, if he chooses, to my notifying rather than to the page you edited, so you will need to keep an eye on User talk:Jimbo Wales#A heads up, relating to ArbCom-SAQ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo talk page archive

From the big box at the top of the screen:

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

I've reverted your additions -- if you re-add them, please do so in the correct location. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nina, the outing issue

Nina, you were not outed. I was. I am trying to follow this issue to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with you. Would you please step away from this particular issue? As I said, it has nothing to do with you. And please stop copying and pasting everyone else's comments all over the place. Please. Smatprt (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Smatprt, I started the Outing section on the Workshop page with respect to another Oxfordian editor whom it appears Tom outed on the Evidence page. By all means follow up on your outing, but you were not the only Oxfordian outed by Tom Reedy. I see you've removed my latest comments from the Workshop page. Please restore them.NinaGreen (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Roger and I were... and you were not. And if you are talking about Earl, he signed his own post, for god's sake. Will you ever learn how this place works or are you going to keep making baseless accusations? Earl is a non-issue. As is the guy from the DeVere Society. He identified himself as well. And if you had actually read the evidence page, you would see that I raised the issue weeks ago.Smatprt (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove them - they are on the workshop talk page. I've asked for a clerk to restore your comments if my move was wrong.Smatprt (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. YOU identified Earl on De 17th [21]. Now you are accusing Tom of doing it a month later???? Nina, you just made a huge error for all to see. Smatprt (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'out' Earl. He signed his comments, and I referred to him as 'Earl Showerman' because he had signed the comments. The heading with his User Name wasn't on the comments at the time, or if it was, I didn't see it, and Earl himself didn't put it there (I think it's automatically generated when a new section is started or Nikkimaria put it there when she was tidying up the section). It was Tom Reedy who made the connection between Earl's signature and the User Name at the top of the comments and 'outed' Earl on the Evidence page.NinaGreen (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it. EARL SIGNED HIS NAME, THEN YOU REPEATED IT. Out is out. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information" EARL SIGNED HIS NAME. Smatprt (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to walk away from Wikipedia, then do so

I am quite prepared to delete your userpage, courtesy blank your talkpage, and place a "retired" template on it - which is as close as to closing your account that can be done - and further make representations that any sanction or restriction or admonishment that may result from the Arbitration Case be suspended. However, if you remain an active party in the case then you are obviously not withdrawing and I am not prepared to provide a discreet closure to your participation in this matter. I was going to make this proposal in a couple of days, had you remained inactive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, I wasn't going to participate any further, but when I learned this morning that Ironhand41 was NOT Earl Showerman, and that Tom Reedy had once again repeated his pattern of 'outing' Oxfordian editors, I had to advise the arbitrators of that fact. I trust you will be supporting an immediate block on Tom Reedy.NinaGreen (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, enough.

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

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

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with remedy 2 ("NinaGreen banned"), I have blocked your account for 1 year. AGK [•] 20:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)