{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. <redacted> LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Your talk page privileges have now been removed. If you wish to appeal your block or contribute to the ArbCom case, per the notices below, you may do so by email. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
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—
Thanks, <redacted> LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- LessHeard: honestly, seeing C.D.'s use of his talk page above, after his block, I would personally oppose unblocking him even for the Arbcom case. He is evidently not willing to stop the ad hominem rants, and experience shows that participants like this are absolutely toxic to Arbcom proceedings. It's not something we should force other participants to endure. Let him e-mail evidence to Arbcom if he wishes. If the arbs themselves decide to unblock him, I guess that's their prerogative, but I really don't see why we as administrators should do so voluntarily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
- NinaGreen ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
- 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;
- 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 [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. <redacted> LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Your talk page privileges have now been removed. If you wish to appeal your block or contribute to the ArbCom case, per the notices below, you may do so by email. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
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—
Thanks, <redacted> LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- LessHeard: honestly, seeing C.D.'s use of his talk page above, after his block, I would personally oppose unblocking him even for the Arbcom case. He is evidently not willing to stop the ad hominem rants, and experience shows that participants like this are absolutely toxic to Arbcom proceedings. It's not something we should force other participants to endure. Let him e-mail evidence to Arbcom if he wishes. If the arbs themselves decide to unblock him, I guess that's their prerogative, but I really don't see why we as administrators should do so voluntarily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
- NinaGreen ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
- 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;
- 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 [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)