Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question

Resolved:

For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Shakespeare authorship question edit

Formal mediation case
ArticleShakespeare authorship question (talk
Opened18 Aug 2010
MediatorsSeddon (talk) and PhilKnight (talk)
StatusClosed
NotesNone

Dispute specifics edit

Involved users
  1. Tom Reedy (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Smatprt (talk · contribs) - now topic banned
  3. Xover (talk · contribs)
  4. Nishidani (talk · contribs)
  5. Verbal (talk · contribs)
  6. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
  7. SamuelTheGhost (talk · contribs)
  8. Bertaut (talk · contribs)
Articles concerned in this dispute

As well as many others.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays#Fringe_chronology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamlet#Political_.22context_and_interpretation.22_section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare%27s_plays#Explanation_of_WP:ONEWAY_and_why_it_disallows_the_insertion_of_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare%27s_plays#Is_a_section_about_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question_appropriate_for_this_article.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Shakespeare_authorship_WP:ONEWAY_violations

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smatprt&oldid=355582268#WP:ONEWAY_violations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tom_Reedy#Not_one-way

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&oldid=365611010#WP:ONEWAY_violations.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smatprt&oldid=374276992#Goal.3F

Issues to be mediated edit

Primary issues
Additional issues (added by other parties)
  • Concerning the pages listed, and several others, whether a pattern of deletionism is emerging.
  • Whether the Shakespeare Authorship Question is notable, and can be mentioned in certain articles.

Parties' agreement to mediation edit

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.
  1. Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Xover (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do not oppose, but I am too busy to be involved. Verbal chat 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. Smatprt (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Added myself. I have only participated in respect of Shakespeare's plays SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree. Bertaut (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A note to mediators. Since Smatprt is topic-banned, and, almost simultaneously, I will be incommunicado on another continent (as I had said over a month ago before this complication arose), with no computer connections for at least three months, perhaps the remaining editors should drop a note as to their intentions, in order to clarify before the mediators what is to be done at this point. Regards Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
  • We are awaiting a response from User:Smatprt, who I have just now notified that this request has been filed. For the Committee, AGK 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept request. Parties, please see WP:RFM/G#Accepted requests for a guide to the process from here on in; and also please do watchlist this page. For the Committee, AGK 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.