Statement by Peter Cohen

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

Statement by uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

Statement by NuclearWarfare

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

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

Statement by Fut.Perf.

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

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

Statement by Protonk

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

Statement by Kittybrewster

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

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)

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

Statement by Moonraker2

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

Specific comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishonen wrote at User:Bishonen/Further RfAR statement (a page he later deleted):

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

The further exchange went like this:

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

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

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

Statement by Nina Green

LessHeard should have opened this with this statement:

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

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

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

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

Statement by Bishonen

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

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• Accusation of editing an archive (Tom was attempting to remove an inadvertent outing). No information about how editing this archive is supposed to harm Wikipedia, but Nina believes she has found a "direct violation of Wikipedia policy", so she posts, and posts again. [5] [6]

Note some repeated mannerisms in the diffs above:

1. References to what Wikipedia policy allows/does not allow. As a user of seven months, Nina is understandably ignorant of policy, but pronounces on it as if she were an expert. At first, I attempted to help her understand policy and the spirit of it, but her combative responses made me feel so much like mr K in The Trial that I have given up this project. I no longer believe she wants to know.
2. Accusations without evidence or example, against Tom and Nishidani of wikilawyering (I wish I hadn't taught her that word; it was inadvertent), bad faith, dishonesty, insults, POV, attempts to push other editors off Wikipedia, and, the new favorite, of being "defamatory", as in "personal attacks on me which are not only personal but which go far beyond that and are defamatory." [7]. She provides no diffs, and I have upbraided other editors for asking her for them, since she obviously has trouble with diffs. I have attempted to counsel Nina as to why diffs are helpful, and suggested a simple way of producing them, but this effort was ignored. [8]
3. Rhetorical questions about when "administrators" are going to do something about Tom's and Nishidani's alleged abuse. Despite the plural form, I guess these administrators are me, since I'm the only admin who'll go near the page. (Excepting always LHvU, but he merely lurks.)
4. Repetition. Ooooow, yes.

Nina attempts to learn more about Nishidani's real life identity, and shares her efforts with the talkpage, with strange hints which I do not understand: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]( Here "Administrators" are instructed to tell Nishidani to shut up about his qualifications.)

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

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

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

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

However, a ban of Nina Green is not IMO the main matter before the committee. It is absolutely necessary to find some way of durably restricting the WP:EXHAUST and WP:FRINGE problems which are now — and usually — rampant on some Shakespeare pages. These pages should be the jewels in Wikipedia's crown, which is impossible if they're produced on a battlefield where every word is contested by aggressive SPAs who live only for seeing their pet authorship theory receive Justice. It took 3 or 4 years to liberate the "authorship question" from the cold dead hand of the civil POV-pusher Smatprt, something that the joined forces of the community and LHvU have now finally accomplished (for one year only, though; S will be back): [18] (Warning: huge ANI thread, may cause dehydration or insanity.) After a short, idyllic interlude in November 2010 where Tom Reedy and Nishidani prepared Shakespeare authorship question for FAC, Nina Green appeared and all was soon as before: the lawyering, the delaying tactics, the extended WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the 5 or 10 posts about each tiniest detail, the insistence on answers, the disinterest in them when they came (see Pestering), in sum: the wearing down of good-faith and highly-skilled editors by attrition. The only difference from the era of Smatprt was that the "civil" part of "civil POV-pusher" was missing this time, as Nina's method for disrupting the page included hassling, harassment, and far-fetched accusations. I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of "Oxfordians" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA. Please protect the articles from the fanatics, not only now, but systematically and ongoingly.

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

• Moonraker2 states above that he is moving his disruption of my statement to this page at my suggestion on his talkpage. Savour the unlikeliness of that statement, if you will... There will be a prize for anybody who can see me making such a suggestion on his Talk. Bishonen | talk 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC). reply

Statement by MoreThings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by warshy

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

Statement by Johnuniq

Please accept this case and consider whether it would be appropriate to establish some form of topic probation that would allow administrators to issue warnings or short blocks to any editors who repeatedly violate community norms for article editing or talk page communication, for articles in Category:Shakespearean authorship.

The main article ( Shakespeare authorship question) is being developed for FA, yet Talk:Shakespeare authorship question is being filled with repeated claims without substantial evidence. Articleinfo shows that there were 1,145 edits to the talk page in the last month, and NinaGreen averages one edit per two hours. The frequent talk page commentary has interfered with development of the article.

There have been numerous examples of poor use of the article talk page, resulting in two problems: (1) unreadable sections where it is hard to determine who-said-what-when; (2) essentially the same issue is repeatedly raised, and there is little engagement with previous replies.

Both problems are present in the following example. NinaGreen raised some issues regarding a source which involved three substantive questions. After some back-and-forth, Tom Reedy provided a detailed reply ^diff then tweaked it ^diff. The reply included bold text to show NinaGreen's queries, with Tom Reedy's reply underneath. At that point, the talk page section looked like this (with Tom Reedy's reply at the bottom).

Within an hour (with no one else contributing to the discussion at that time), NinaGreen made five edits to the section^{( 1 2 3 4 5)}. At that point, the talk page section looked like this. Problem: the talk page section is now unreadable because there are five interspersed replies, each using {{ outdent}}.

An example of problem (2) (repeatedly raising the same issue) can be seen by searching for "WP:OR" in this section: permalink. See the "Claims of OR are not correct" subsection at the bottom where I attempted to summarize the case, and see the responses.

The current talk page ( permalink) includes 34 instances of the words "defamation" or "defamatory" (less than 10 of these are used in replies where editors comment on usage of these terms).

That is a week after I explained ^diff that "...it is not advisable to use loaded terms like "defamatory", and it is not acceptable to claim that personal abuse has been directed at an editor without any evidence—do not make serious claims like that without at least linking to a discussion that attempts to support the claims...". Also see this diff where I was more explicit, with a link to perceived legal threats and an explanation that it is a personal attack to make a serious accusation without evidence.

Apart from NinaGreen there are two other editors whose procedures are problematic (information upon request). In addition there are some good editors who support NinaGreen's challenges to the article. Those editors should be asked to explain proper procedures at User talk:NinaGreen when a problem is apparent. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by Tom Reedy

I don’t believe there is a great conspiracy among Oxfordians, but there is an overall public relations push by anti-Stratfordians in general and Oxfordians in particular to have the Shakespeare authorship question reclassified as a minority view instead of a fringe theory, and Wikipedia articles are certainly used to gain visibility and promote the idea. For example, the Oxfordian articles have their own category within the authorship category (which has its own template), with 17 articles, including Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian and Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, which, after a token nod to the mainstream view, goes on to make arguments for Oxford’s authorship, all of them cited to fringe sources.

After Smatprt was topic-banned on 23 Nov 2010, I solicited editors to help bring the SAQ article up to FA status. A few editors who had been avoiding the page because of the constant disruption and edit wars began to trickle back in. NinaGreen began editing the page on 16 Dec 2010. I had tried to work with her on the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, which began amicably enough, but problems soon emerged:

original research

refusal to accept a reliable source unless she agreed with it

repetitive insistence on using non-RS sources

On 15 Dec 2010 she made more than 20 edits to the SAQ peer review that were so repetitive, lengthy and off-topic that an administrator zipped them up.

Her first edits on the SAQ pager were deletions of sources and statements she didn’t agree with. She has made a total of 71 edits to that page, 44 of them the first day. I asked her several times to discuss major edits. It is not true that all her edits have been reverted.

She demanded that I recuse myself from editing because 12 years ago I co-authored an essay with David Kathman, that I used synthesis and original research, that I controlled the article, and that I mischaracterised the academic consensus by using a source that described the SAQ as a fringe theory [19]. This conversation is almost surreal and is a good example of how discussions have gone with her and User:Zweigenbaum, who showed up on 17 Dec.

No one’s hands are spotless in this matter; I myself have lost my temper and had to apologise and retract some remarks. No such self-awareness has been forthcoming from her. Any remonstrations from editors or admins are taken by her as a personal attack.

I believe the nature of the topic is such that the policies of Wikipedia are not sufficient to stop disruption from advocates of the view that someone else wrote Shakespeare’s works. It is not a rational view based on evidence, and therefore it is championed by those whose methodology is directly opposed to the principles behind the policies of Wikipedia. I don’t have space to describe the process that produced the present article, but I think some lessons could be drawn from the experiment to be used in handling other problems caused by the coverage of fringe theories on Wikipedia. What needs to happen now, however, is to find some way that these articles can be brought and kept in line with the core Wikipedia policies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I am adding this here because it is the best place I can find. Can the clerk please move it if it should go somewhere else?

Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is evidently a close friend of Bishonen, one of the parties to the case, has blocked NinaGreen, another of the parties to the case, on the grounds of "tendentious editing", which is one of the matters yet to be determined. Future Perfect said today at User talk:NinaGreen: "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." That seems to me to prejudge the outcome of the process, and NinaGreen 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 friend of an antagonist, who must surely have a conflict of interest. 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) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator note: The clerks will ensure that one way or another, NinaGreen has a full opportunity to present her evidence. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Moved from the main case page. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @057  ·  00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Moonraker: I have made arrangements for NinaGreen when ready to submit her evidence to me. I will then, per standard practice for blocked parties, post it to the evidence page on her behalf. This does I think resolve the matter from a clerical point of view. AGK [ • 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Future Perfect is a good guy and a funny guy. While we actually don't speak that much, I've been interested to see us becoming closer and closer friends in Moonraker2's fevered imagination, from "playful terms" [20] to the almost voluptuous "close friends" [21] the next day. And, look at this: Future has a penguin (very cute penguin) on his userpage, while I have a fluttering colibri on mine. Ah, flutterer, flutter like a woman's heart! You see what I mean? They're both birds. Isn't that pretty suggestive? Are you sure we're not lovers, Moonraker2? Bishonen | talk 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC). reply

• • Zweigenbaum is ignoring his topic ban. [22] Bishonen | talk 02:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC). reply

As was already noted, Future Perfect is an involved editor. They have been involved in the dispute at the SAQ talk page, and were also involved here at ArbCom. Having looked over the SAQ talk page, Zweigenbaum and at least 3 other ArbCom parties have been engaged in constructive and (fairly) polite discussion, although all of them have slipped some. I do see that every one of Z's edits have been reverted, every RS source he added was challenged and removed, and his attempts at dialogue have been rebuffed. Future Perfect imposed a 3 month topic ban on the one party he has challenged before, based on this edit [23] where Zweigenbaum appeals to the group to live up to the ArbCom ruling on NPOV, and even offers to compromise on several points. One non-alligned editor has even agreed with Z's points [24] [25].

I also note that Future Perfect called Zweigenbaum's request to the OR noticeboard "forum shopping", [26] even after ArbCom recommended that if talk page discussion does not work, then dispute resolution (such as the OR Noticeboard) is the recommended approach. Based on these actions, and Future Perfect's earlier block of Zweigenbaum directly after the ArbCom case was opened, without so much as a warning, I have to wonder what is going on between these two. In any case, Future Perfect is an involved editor and should not be banning an ArbCom case party. Smatprt ( talk) 03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe that this is actually also a breach of Smatprt's topic ban on his own part, but I have refrained from taking enforcement action against him in this case. I have, however, blocked Zweigenbaum to enforce the topic ban, as he was deliberately refusing to abide by it. I am of course still as uninvolved as I was when I made my previous blocks of Zweigenbaum and of NinaGreen last month, as I only participated in this case from the perspective of an outside administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• FP - can you please stops the threats? I was told by the filing Administrator of this case that "your topic ban is suspended on Arbitration pages" [27]. I am sorry to be critical of you, but I just don't believe your actions are proper, as you have been involved in many ways and across numerous pages.You were heavily involved in the ArbCom case, and you have participated at the SAQ talk page, both against Zweigenbaum [28] and as an advisor to Tom Reedy in instances [29] [30] that had nothing do do with ARbCom or your role as an adminstrator, contrary to your statement cited above. As a result, I do honestly believe you stopped being uninvolved once you started presenting evidence against Zweigenbaum, Nina and myself. Regardless, I have asked for clarification from the ArbCom clerk on whether I am violating my topic ban by asking questions about procedure, clarification of ArbCom decisions, and comments on your (or anyones) ArbCom related actions. In the mean time, can you please stop threatening me? Smatprt ( talk) 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Initiated by NinaGreen ( talk) at 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Case affected

Shakespeare authorship question arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Bishonen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [31]
• Tom Reedy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [32]
• Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [33]
• Paul Barlow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [34]
• Johnuniq ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [35]
• Moonraker2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [36]
• Poujeaux ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [37]
• Warshy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [38]
• MoreThings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [39]
• Xover ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [40]
• Smatprt ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [41]
• Zweigenbaum ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [42]
• Alexpope ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [43]
• Jdkag ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [44]

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 2 "NinaGreen is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."
• Request: Remove topic ban.

Statement by NinaGreen

I'm requesting that the indefinite topic ban be lifted. After my account was unblocked two months ago, I began editing articles on historical figures from the Middle Ages and the Tudor period. In the past two months I’ve edited over 120 articles, expanding them with new material, and adding reliable sources, in-line citations and links, particularly on pages where there were notices requesting help with expansion of articles, sources and in-line citations. There is now a matrix of interlinked articles on these historical figures which should provide a valuable reference for Wikipedia readers. I have considerable background knowledge in this area (by way of example, I’ve submitted numerous suggested corrections to the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in recent years, and all but a few have been incorporated into the current online edition).

A list of 119 articles I’ve edited, which includes all but the most recent ones I’ve been working on, can be found here [45]. A chart showing my total edits, and their nature, can be found here [46].

During these two months a few potential conflict situations have arisen with other editors, and I've successfully defused them. See, for example, [47] and [48]. I've also made use of the Wikipedia Help Desk. In short, there need be no concern on anyone's part that lifting the indefinite topic ban will occasion conflict. It won't. If conflict situations arise, I'll either defuse them, or simply walk away from editing a particular page.

Another reason for my confidence that conflict will not arise is that two editors who were on the other side in the arbitration have complimented my recent work on my Talk page. See [49] and [50].

If the indefinite ban is lifted, I would like to continue editing the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere [51], which is primarily a biography of a historical figure (there is only a brief section at the end with links to the authorship issue, and Oxford’s authorship is flatly rejected in that brief section). See [52]. There has been discussion in the past year on the Edward de Vere Talk page concerning the need to shorten the article. See, for example, Archive 4 under the heading Rewriting, [53]. I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to shorten the article more than has already been done. However if there is consensus that the article needs to be further shortened, I would be the best person to do that since I rewrote the entire article for Wikipedia two years ago, and it was recently acknowledged on the Talk page that I know more about Edward de Vere than virtually anyone (see here under the heading Fair Use, [54]). I could shorten the article without letting factual errors creep in in the process.

I’ve also noticed instances where I could usefully edit the article on the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship [55]. For example, there is factual inaccuracy in the paragraph on Oxford’s Geneva Bible in the use of the words ‘marginalia, ‘annotator’ and ‘annotations’ (see [56]). With the exception of a few hand-written annotations, many consisting of only a single word or fragment, there are no marginalia or annotations among the 1028 marked passages in Oxford’s Geneva Bible. There are merely many underlinings in the text, a significantly different thing (see [57]). Also, in the same article on the Oxfordian theory, the paragraph on Looney’s development of the authorship theory (see [58]) makes no mention of the central tenet of Looney’s theory, which is the 18 aspects of the author’s character and background which Looney identified in the plays before beginning his search for the author. See here, p. 92 [59], and here, p. 103 [60]. Since Looney was the originator of the Oxfordian theory, his exposition of it should be presented accurately in the article. I could help with that.

A further reason for requesting the lifting of the indefinite ban is that it is so broad that I’m sometimes uncertain whether I can edit or not without infringing it. For example, I extensively revised the article on Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, a major historical figure and a significant character in Shakespeare’s plays. In this section of the article. [61], a proponent of the Neville theory of Shakespeare authorship had added a statement that Sir Henry Neville wrote the works of Shakespeare. This has nothing to do with the biography of the 1st Earl of Westmorland, but I was reluctant to delete the statement in case the deletion might be interpreted as an infringement of the topic ban.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. And my apologies if there are any problems with the diffs. I’ve always had difficulty pinpointing specific statements with diffs, particularly when a discussion has been archived.

I’ll notify the editors and administrators listed as involved parties on the initial request for arbitration with the exception of administrator LessHeard (whose Talk page states he is retired, and discourages messages), and editor Charles Darnay (whose Talk page says he is indefinitely blocked). Please advise if there are others who should be notified. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by warshy

• Support. I definitely support it. I did not think Nina Green should have ever been banned at all from editing at Wikipedia to begin with. I did not understand then how Wikipedia really works, and don't think I really understand it today. The overall politics and bureaucracy of the whole entreprise (compounded by the technical demands of the platform) still baffle me. The whole procedure here is new to me, and it seems also very serious and complicated. What I do not have any doubts about are Nina Green's intellectual habilities and her historical knowledge of the period and the subject matter. If Nina Green is back and she believes she can now work within the political and bureaucratic (and techno-bureacratic) constraints of the entrerprise, I, for one, can only express my praise and admiration for her courage and determination. I offered her my editorial and intellectual support long ago, and I am glad she is back on Wikipedia and I can now just reaffirm it once again. I look forward to learning again from her deep knowledge of the subject. warshy ^talk 18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by MoreThings

I support Nina's request. It's clear that she is extremely knowledgeable in this topic area. She is the type of editor WP should be going out of its way to encourage. 31.185.213.13 ( talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (MoreThings) reply

Statement by Zweigenbaum

Since Nina Green has requested the removal of a permanent topic ban, and since she has shown merit in her work in other areas, and a year has transpired since the topic ban, there is no just or wholesome reason to maintain it against her. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by Moonraker

• Support There's no need to say again what I said in the original debate, which is on the record. When the ban on NinaGreen happened, well over a year ago now, I felt (and still do) that it was a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that getting to the point of imposing it had stretched the definition of "disruptive behaviour" quite a long way. The ban was surely at least partly the result of several users seeing Oxfordians collectively instead of individually, some even suggesting that there was a grand conspiracy at work. (Some much less rational Oxfordians actually had misbehaved on the English Wikipedia not long before, and it seemed to me that Nina was suffering from the way they had been perceived.) For those who supported the ban, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. I am hoping that everyone is a little older and wiser and that NinaGreen will be welcome to make a new start in the Shakespearian pages. Moonraker ( talk) 21:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• In reply to Newyorkbrad's suggestion, I do not see what exactly it amounts to, nor, to be quite frank, what the rationale for it would be. All of the editors involved in the original case were notified of this request to lift the topic ban, and most of them have spoken up here, unanimously supporting the request. In view of that, it is disappointing that the arbitrator comments are generally far more negative, along the lines of "we got it right and we feel it's too soon". Given those reactions, which to my mind are rather ungenerous, Newyorkbrad seems to be exploring a possible compromise solution, perhaps aimed at saving face on all sides. However, looking now at Tom Reedy's attempt to draft the detail of such a compromise, which includes continuing to ban Nina from parts of certain pages, but not from all of them, it strikes me as awkward and unlikely to be supported by anyone, except with a view to bridging the gap between the editors and the arbitrators. The real question here is whether maintaining the indefinite topic ban would serve any useful purpose, and in my view the correct answer is that it can safely be lifted. After all, it can always be reimposed later if the arbitrators feel a case for that has been made.
• Newyorkbrad surprises me on at least one point which may be relevant. Nishidani, who has long been working in the SAQ pages, and who took an active part in them while Nina was also working there, says of her views on the authorship question "I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong." So clearly he has not observed any excesses of Oxfordian zeal. I myself took a lesser part at the same time and saw her as probably an Oxfordian, and if so then one of a subtle mind with an objective approach to the authorship question. However, Newyorkbrad, who so far as I know is not active in the SAQ pages, says "NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis... her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays." I find myself wondering where this claim comes from and what evidence could be adduced for the "strong advocacy" part of it, which neither Nishidani nor I observed. I hope we can avoid any over-statement of the case (such as it was) against Nina when the topic ban was imposed.
• In conclusion, I feel it is best to have a clean decision on whether to lift the topic ban or not, and that it can now be lifted. Moonraker ( talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by iantresman

• Support: In my opinion, all criticisms of editors should be backed up with verifiable reliable sources (article editing diffs) in order to facilitate due process and to ensure transparency. The first finding of fact is that she was using a " single-purpose account" (SPA). This is not evidence of wrong-doing. While bad editors may use an SPA, using an SPA does not imply a bad editor; Correlation does not imply causation. She may even be an expert in her field and doesn't want to stray off-subject. We're told that she has "engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior"... but there are no diffs. We're told that she has "been repeatedly counseled"... but no diffs. And then we are given "sample evidence", but no indication how it relates to the findings of fact. There may be diffs here, but they are not supplied in a coherent and relevant fashion.

    Looking at some of the sample evidence, at last we find a page of article diffs from Bishonen. Unfortunately the first set of 22, gives no indication of wrong-doing, only that they are her first 22 edits on an article. However, the second set of 9 article diffs is presented to illustrate "the disruptive side of Nina's editing", a hat tip to Bishonen, this is hard evidence (verifiable reliable sources). Unfortunately I'm not entirely convinced. Swapping references for a cn tag, and replacing the entire lead without discussion or consensus, are potentially bad, but they might be OK. There is no evidence that these are not just one-off naive attempts at being bold. I would like to have seen evidence that there was an attempt to discuss the issue (it may have happened, but there is no evidence/diffs of it). I'd like to have seen evidence that despite discussion, that the edits were reverted regardless.

    Wikipedia makes it easy for editors to provide article edit diffs representing verifiable reliable sources that support their criticisms, and, demonstrate that the high standards that are described in policy have not been met. Diffs should be compulsory, and included in such a way, that an edit trail can be followed. We'd expect nothing less in an article. I see evidence of edits that I would query myself and may disagree with, and over-zealous contributions. I don't see sufficient evidence of "a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior", which is not to deny that it did not happen. I think that an RFAR should have a high standard of documented evidence. I don't see that it has made a water-tight case. I spent about 30 mins going through the material, which should be ample time to follow a good edit trail.

    If the editor persists in problem editing, Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to deal with it, and a sliding scale of blocks to quickly return to 6 and 12 months blocks. -- Iantresman ( talk) 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

@Tom Reedy: You are quite correct, that I did not review all the evidence (I said that I spent about 30 mins on it), and I was not familiar at all with the case. But I feel that it should not matter. As an editor with no opinion either way, I felt I should be able to read the "Findings of fact", and see a well-documented case supported by hard evidence. ie. the finding of fact is "the editor was uncivil" together with a diff supporting the finding of fact. Where a simple diff is insufficient (eg. the editor's pattern of behavior), I expect to find a series of diffs, or a link to a post containing a series of diffs. If the case was an article, it was get lots of "citation needed" tags. If someone is accused of a certain behavior, it should be trivial to offer article editing diffs in support, and transparency requires that we provide verifiable reliable sources in a coherent and relevant fashion. Without it, we have hearsay. -- Iantresman ( talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by Tom Reedy

Support: The idea floated here by some that Nina did not deserve her topic ban is beyond ludicrous. Warshy admits he doesn't know how Wikipedia works; and iantresman appears to not have reviewed all the evidence (and in truth I don't understand why he even commented on this case since he's not familiar with it at all). Reviewing a few few gigabytes of her article talkpage entries from that time would set him straight. And of course we have the usual Oxfordians who edit little, if any, but who can be counted on to pop up to support what they hope is another would-be champion for the cause. Their opinions can be appreciated for what they're worth, i.e. nil.

Having said that, it appears that she has taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works and its intended purpose. I'm not sure if she's the one to revise the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, but noy because I think she'd return to POV editing; the page needs a biographical unity instead of being a list of chronological events. I've reviewed Nina's editing, and she's done some good work. I think she has become closer to the type of editor I had hoped she would when I invited her to rewrite the Oxford page more than a year ago (or has it been two now?). The purpose of blocks and topic bans is to stop the encyclopedia from being sabotaged in fulfilling its purpose, but I think another purpose of them is to let editors know what won't be tolerated and to get them to comply with WP principles and become productive editors. I think Nina has done that. If, as some suspect, it's all a big ruse to slyly introduce fringe beliefs as mere minority views down the road sometime, with as many eyes as there are on her editing I think that will become evident sooner or later and another ban could be instituted. But I think all the work she has done and the evidence of her dealing with other editors in editing disputes clearly indicates she deserves a chance. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply

As per Newyorkbrad's comment, "I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this."

Perhaps the ban could be lifted on editing the main Shakespeare pages and the historical pages of the SAQ alternative authors such as Bacon and Oxford, but not including any topic concerning the SAQ or any directly-related SAQ pages. An example would be the Edward de Vere page: the ban would be lifted for everything on the page except for the SAQ section, and it would also remain in effect for any SAQ articles. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by Johnuniq

I support removal of NinaGreen's topic ban as it is likely there will not be a return to former disruption, and Nina is able to improve many articles that are connected with the period and people often mentioned in association with the Shakespeare authorship question. Sampling Nina's recently edited articles shows that very good work has been done since her return, and there is no indication of problematic behavior. Her commitment to defuse conflict or to walk away from editing a particular page, together with the discretionary sanctions that apply to all editing associated with the topic, shows that this request should be taken as an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia.

Some of the commentary presented in earlier statements is most unfortunate as this is not the place to restage old battles. The misguided supports are not a reason to prolong Nina's topic ban, though they do confirm that SAQ topics will require ongoing maintenance. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by Nishidani

Support without hesitation. I don't think the apostles of the higher alter-Shakespearean truth are doing her cause any good. To call into question the original decision is profoundly wrong-headed (and bad politics, but then again, there's a history of that in the movement). The arbs made the correct call in the circumstances. Those who supported a ban weren't being ideological or motivated by animosity: Nina wasn't listening. I can also understand why she wasn't listening. She knows that era far better than people like myself, works with primary sources (like Tom Reedy), and has a passion for hunting things down to their sources, and generalists like myself may well have struck her as ignoramuses. We just go by academic Shakespearean sources, which, regarding the two or three controversial articles, generally ignore the alternative hypotheses about a counter-identity, and thus fail to cover what sceptics argue (I believe Nina is sceptical and not committed to any one candidate, but I may be wrong).

The case for waiving should rest, therefore, on what editors in the area who either opposed Nina, and supported her ban, or were engaged in supervising the conflict, now think in review. My reasons for suggesting we welcome Nina back are (a) she has a depth of knowledge of the period that, as her recent editing shows, can greatly benefit period articles (b) she's shown a clear willingness to abide by wiki procedures and, if the occasion arises, step away from conflict (c) unlike a large number of editors, troublesome or not, she can work articles from top to bottom and we are in need of people willing to dedicate their expertise to comprehensive editing (d) the two Oxfordian articles are a wiki disaster and will never be written adequately unless someone with Nina's long familiarity with those recondite if fringe theories offers her assistance and collaboration to regular mainstream twits like Tom Reedy , Paul Barlow and myself. With her drive, and grasp of the 'stuff' these articles could achieve encyclopedic respectability. All that needs to be ironed out is what constitutes RS for a fringe topic. I think Nina's last effort, before her ban, where she comprehensively rewrote the de Vere bio from Nelson, a source she disagrees with, but which is the only one, as we insisted, that fits the highest RS criteria, shows that she understood, if rather late, the principle other wikipedians insisted on. Unlike most of the fringe, Nina really does have a work ethic, and a commitment to precise control of sources, and I think she should be treated on her individual merits. Nishidani ( talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by Zbrnajsem

Support, without any restrictions whatsoever. Nina Green is welcome as another person who can profoundly contribute to the complex SAQ on WP. Additionally, what is about User:BenJonson? He is not mentioned in the above sections. I think he was also involved in the case, and he was also banned from the SAQ editing. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further community statements. We may want to see a longer track record, but this proposal seems to be worthy of serious consideration. Jclemens ( talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• I have no interest at all in lifting this topic ban, it is far, far too soon, NinaGreen's disruption was so severe, and her socking bad enough, I'd need to see at least a year of problem-free editing, and perhaps more. Courcelles 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Independent of this request, I can't see Tom Reedy's idea working particularly well, it would just drown AE in arguments about what edits were and wern't covered by topic bans, which we normally preempt with the "broadly construed" language that makes any semantic arguments baseless. If we were inclined to change this, moving Nina from "full topic ban" to the MER system from the Falun Gong 2 case would be an interesting idea and likely produce less arguments at AE. Courcelles 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• While Nina Green has done some good work, no doubt about that, I am horribly suspicious that everyone appearing here so far is trying to argue from a premise that the original ban and topic ban were unwarranted. That just isn't going to wash, and raises deep concerns about the reason for this request. I'd want to hear from some of the people she has actually edited with since the ban ended. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• There is a lot of community support for this, however I feel that more time is needed than two months to assess someone's behaviour. In NinaGreen's case, the language of the Findings of fact is very strong: " NinaGreen ( talk · contribs) ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself." Generally, six months is considered a minimum amount of time to assess someone's behaviour. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• I authored the original decision in this case, and I am confident that the decision we reached in that case was well-supported: NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis. The remedies that were adopted—a period of separation from the project, followed by a topic-ban upon her return—were entirely warranted. Since her return, NinaGreen has abided by the topic-ban and has focused on editing historical articles, although her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is obvious that NinaGreen has a thorough base of well-documented historical knowledge and it appears that she is capable of improving Wikipedia articles about English history and biography with reliably sourced writing based on that knowledge. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to lift the topic-ban altogether, which could allow NinaGreen to edit about who wrote the plays, which I don't think she is looking to do right now anyway. Thus, I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. AGK [•] 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• On Newyorkbrad's suggestion: I oppose any change (incremental or not) to NinaGreen's sanction unless at least six months have passed. AGK [•] 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Six months of trouble-free editing would be a starter. Evidence of collaborative behaviour such as GA or FA article production would be helpful too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Original discussion