User talk:Wightknightuk

Hello, Wightnightuk, welcome to Wikipedia. What's your main account?

This account's complete editing history (in toto, three edits) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question
Please take the time to read the article, and take note of the references. It is a Featured Article, having been identified as among Wikipedia's best. That means a number of Wikipedians have contributed to writing and reviewing the article and have agreed that it meets our standards for sourcing and accuracy (among other qualities).

There is statement that reflects the mainstream opinion that the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory. The statement is: That is sourced to a footnote, currently number 3, which cites seven works. These are those sources and some of the relevant quotes from them: Now if you want to further your research, take the time to read those sources. If you want to continue to argue that SAQ is not fringe, then you'll need to find an equivalent number of equally respected academics who have stated in print that the SAQ is not a fringe theory. I don't mean you find a number of examples of authors advancing anti-Stratfordian positions, and then use your own synthesis to say it implies a minority position. I mean you find a number of respected authorities on the subject who state as clearly as those above an opposite opinion. Then you'll be in a position to make a case about the fringe nature of the SAQ.
 * "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims."
 * Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system";
 * Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450;
 * Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record.";
 * Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure...";
 * Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him.";
 * Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant.";
 * Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory.";
 * Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With the utmost respect and humility, I feel that your argument is ill-conceived and the references you site do not support the point you wish to make. The issue at hand is the difference between what is a ‘fringe position’ and what is a ‘minority position’. How do we determine the difference?

What distinguishes a minority belief from a fringe belief therefore? It is not merely the existence of debate, that much must be obvious. Neither is it the extent of the debate, a ‘fringe’ view will remain so however widespread it becomes. The test is in the quality of the execution of the debate. Has the issue moved from the realms of pseudo-science into a field of academic study?

It is suggested that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the issue of whether or not William of Stratford was the principal author of the plays attributed to him, has moved from a fringe issue to a minority one. How can we verify that proposition? I would suggest there are three tests that one should properly apply:

1. Is there a significant population within the relevant academic community who consider the issue to be one that merits academic study? 2. Is the issue in fact one that commands or has commanded the attention of such academic study? 3. Is the issue one which has generated research by members of the relevant academic community?

Let us address those three issues in turn:

1. Despite the anecdotal evidence below, the only significant survey in this area was undertaken by the New York Times and has been referenced separately. In its survey of 265 Shakespeare Professors, the New York Times found that 6% felt there was good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon” and 11% felt there was “possibly” good reason.

In other words, 45 of the 265 Shakespeare professors responding to the questionnaire agreed that there was (at least) ‘possibly’ good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?”

'''This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. ''' 2. Brunel University has run an MA Programme in Authorship Studies, the first MA programme of its kind in the world, convened by Dr William Leahy. Concordia University has run Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. There is evidence therefore that the area has already commanded the attention of academic study.

'''This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. ''' 3. So far as the question of research is concerned we have an abundance of materials to which we may turn. It is understood that works produced by ‘independent scholars’ may be regarded as weaker evidence of research in the field. Nonetheless, it is certainly worth mentioning at least:

‘"Shakespeare" By Another Name’ by Mark Anderson (Gotham Books, 2005); and “Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem”by Diana Price.

However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography. Of course, from a mainstream perspective the most significant work must be Shapiro’s “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" - James Shapiro, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Shapiro’s book is an oft quoted source that aims to challenge theories oppositional to the Shakespearean orthodoxy. However, the existence of such a detailed book, directly addressed to the issue at end, is strong evidence that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is being treated as a subject of interest to the established academic community.

People no longer write books to prove that the earth is round, there is no need and no-one would buy them. Shapiro felt the need to address the Authorship Question by conducting new research on the point and publishing his findings for an eager public. This is a vital and ongoing debate to which, paradoxically, the works of the Stratfordian scholars are providing credibility.

'''This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. '''

For the sake of completeness, I should properly address your own sources. You referenced eight sources and provided quotes from seven. Allow me to address those seriatim. In each case we must consider whether the source supports the statement in respect of which it has been used that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’.

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system"; 1. Kathman states that he has a “Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Chicago” but he does not appear to hold any relevant qualification or higher education appointment verifying his credentials as an academic expert on Shakespeare. 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, albeit that the credentials of its author may be questioned.

Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record." 1. Gail Kern Paster was Professor of English at George Washington University 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source.

 Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure..." 1. Alan H. Nelson is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, which is contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

 Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him." 1. D. Allen Carroll is Professor Emeritus, Department of English, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, and is also contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate.

Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate. ''

Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."'' 1. The quotation is simply irrelevant. It supports the general credibility of certain unnamed individuals within the Stratfordian camp, but it does no more. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it relates.

Of the seven quoted references, therefore: 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a questionable source. 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a reliable source. 2 are anecdotal evidence in support from reliable sources, but displaying bias by virtue of exaggeration, and contradicted by the evidence of an independent survey. 2 are simply antagonistic to the Oxfordian position and do not support the statement. 1 is a statement in support of Stratfordian Academics generally and does not support your statement.

On balance, therefore, the sources that have been referenced do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’. The additional sources that I have referenced, including the work of James Shapiro, evidences that the Shakespeare Authorship Question itself can no longer be disparaged and dismissed as a ‘fringe’ issue.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the references I cite have been the subject of several debates that you should be aware of before you try to criticise them. You may not substitute your own opinion for that of authors published in reliable sources. If you think that Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, edited by Wells and Orlin, is an unreliable source in this context, then take your concern to WP:RSN and see how far you get. Nor do you get to smear Professor Carroll by accusing him of bias, simply on your say-so. You have been warned about the discretionary sanctions that apply to Shakespeare authorship question and I will tell you now that you have almost certainly crossed the line with those sort of comments.


 * Secondly, you are mistaken in your proposition about how to distinguish 'fringe' from 'minority'. Here is the definition from WP:Fringe :
 * "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."
 * You'll find that authors like Erich von Däniken have written plenty of books such as Chariots of the Gods?, but the mere existence of a well-documented fringe theory makes it no less fringe. The view that extraterrestrial visitors were mistaken for gods is a very long way from the mainstream view held by scientists in the field, and that makes it fringe. That does not, however, mean that the books don't sell or that documentaries are not made about them. It is still a fringe theory, despite populist attention and serious academics taking the time to refute it. So it is with the many fringe theories propounded around the Shakespeare authorship question. The fact that David Ellis examines the question is exactly what I was referring previously when I suggested that the presence of debate is not evidence of support. You also need to get up to date: the University of Kent has not been post-titled "at Canterbury" since 2003.


 * Finally, you ascribe far too much importance to the NYT. It is simply inappropriate to suggest that the NYT uncontrolled survey counterbalances Professor Carroll's expert opinion. Additionally, you don't seem able to see that asking a question like "Is there any reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" is just as likely to gain a "possibly" response from the mainstream expert who suspects Fletcher's contribution to The Two Noble Kinsmen is greater than Shakespeare's as it is to gain a similar response from a fringe proponent who believes Shakespeare did not exist. The survey is a blunt and frankly worthless tool for drawing any conclusions about the fringe position of the anti-Stratfordians. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, on the subject of what is fringe, I have set out criteria that sensibly states what is required. We are not distinguishing here between what is fringe and what is mainstream. We are distinguishing between fringe and minority. The use of the term 'fringe' to describe the reasonably held beliefs of a minority of academics who are sceptical or agnostic towards the Stratfordian position is at best discourteous and at worst disparaging of those academics.

I also refer to WP:Fringe which states: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are ... fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the ... fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." The distinction to be drawn here is that the opposing academic view is not fringe. There is a minority academic view that holds that the Authorship question merits attention. There are various fringe views which make a case for alternative candidates.

If you believe that my criticisms of your various sources have been properly addressed in other articles then I should be happy to read those views. However, I trust you will agree, on reflection, that the references to Pendleton, Sutherland & Watts and Gibson, whilst potentially relevant to the article overall, simply do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’ and should be removed.

So far as the position of Carroll is concerned I would invite you to consider whether the quotation is not so obviously an exaggeration as to merit further examination or qualification. Carroll stated that: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him."

Yet it is the very nature of the scholar to doubt, to question and to challenge. The NYT Survey demonstrates that a minority of relevant academics are prepared to question established theories, however firmly held. The testimony of Prof. Carroll, whilst perhaps accurate as to its sentiment, and I am sure made in the utmost good faith, can hardly be intended as an expression of statistical relevance. If it was, then his remarks should certainly have been accompanied by the sort of qualifying language which has been used in connection with the NYT article.

The word 'bias' in this context may have been ill-chosen. There are more appropriate terms for a person who is so entrenched in his view that he will not 'entertain the slightest doubt' about a subject. Let me go so far only to say that Prof. Carroll's statement suffers by the weight of its own obvious exaggeration.

The reference to David Ellis being "... "at Canterbury"" was a quotation from the referenced page of his publishers. Wightknightuk (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is unforgivably arrogant of you to "set out criteria that states [sic] what is required". I've quoted for you what Wikipedians have agreed is the distinguishing feature of a fringe theory, so what makes you think your amateur analysis should supersede the combined opinion of a multitude of other editors? - most of whom have far more experience of how our policies apply. If it's fringe, it's fringe (and in this case it is), and the disrespect is shown by you to all the mainstream authors whose opinion you denigrate. It is not I, but they who treat the SAQ as fringe.
 * Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat. The same applies to my criticisms of published authors. I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your signature
As a courtesy to others, and to prevent Sine Bot endlessly signing your posts, it is recommended that signatures contain a link to the editor's userspace. Could you please read WP:SIG for further advice, and adjust your signature so that it links at minimum to your userpage. If you are writing your name in text at the end of posts, please either use four tildas ~ or click the signature box on the edit toolbar. If you have set up a custom signature in preferences, please uncheck the box marked "treat the above as wikimarkup", to allow the interface to link to your userpage via your signature. Alternatively - as you don't seem to feel the need for a multicoloured sig or one containing symbols, piped links or any other fancy formatting, you can simply clear whatever is in the signature box itself, and the software will automatically generate a signature with the appropriate links. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter - let me know if I can be of assistance with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Elen of the Roads] I am greatly obliged by your assistance in this matter. I had been signing with the appropriate four tildas, but there appears to have been an error with the relevant user profile settings. I hope I have now corrected this and the signature following this post should now publish correctly. Perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm that this is the case?

In any case, I am sincerely grateful for your courteous and helpful engagement in this matter.

Wightknightuk (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this. I can confirm that your signature now appears to be functioning in the usual fashion - thanks for tweaking it. The username is red because you have not created a userpage (in case you were wondering) - there is no requirement to create one if you don't want. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Please review the discretionary sanctions listed at ARBSAQ, and you may as well read the whole page while you are there. If you engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article, you may be subject to a sanction without further warnings. Have a nice day, Jehochman Talk 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the Final Decision and note the concern of the Committee about the way the article has been edited in the past and the conduct of all parties in that process. I am concerned here with the specific issue of whether the SAQ should properly be regarded as a fringe issue, particularly in light of the recent developments in the field,some of which post-date the committee's findings.

As ever, I am sure all parties would prefer to engage in a courteous exchange. I am sure that your remarks concerning sanctions against me were not intended in any way as a threat and should not be construed in themselves as disruptive editing.

I invite comments within the relative solitude of these talk pages in the hope that we might achieve some form of consensus outside any mediation or other dispute resolution procedure.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not beat around the bush. You're operating a single purpose account.  This very much looks like a banned or sanctioned editor returning with a new account.  You're behaving and editing just like the others.  Either you stop behaving and editing like them, or you will be banned very shortly. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Jehochman] You are wrong. I am not a banned editor and I have never been sanctioned. Suggesting that my comments come from some kind of biased position seems to breach WP:NPA.

I am new to Wikipedia as I am new to the Authorship Debate (although not, of course, new to Shakespeare). That does not mean this is an SPA. I have been interested in the Wikipedia project for some time. This is simply the first issue that inspired me 'into the abyss'.

I understand that this article has had a very troubled history. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that seasoned editors will respect WP:DNB and WP:AGF.

I am keen to progress the debate by reasoned argument and consensus. I re-iterate my good faith and lack of bias and I encourage active engagement. Wightknightuk (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On a point of information, it appears that the ongoing sanctions to which you refer relate only to "any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision". Would you please explain how you say I may be subject to further sanctions without notice?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What other accounts have you used? You are clearly not a newcomer. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Jehochman] You say "You are clearly not a newcomer". You make bold assertions without proper foundation. I have informed you that I am new to Wikipedia but in repeated violation of WP:DNB and WP:AGF you have refused to accept what I have told you.

Allow me to summarise: you have formed an hypothesis without supporting evidence; you have maintained your view in the face of contradiction and you have been unpersuaded of the truth despite the lack of any evidence to support your position.

Where on earth did you develop habits like that?

I repeat. I am new to Wikipedia. I have never had another account on Wikipedia. I am prepared to submit a sworn statement under oath to that effect and submit the matter for determination to a competent and independent authority if that becomes necessary.

Now I will ask you again, since "it appears that the ongoing sanctions to which you refer relate only to 'any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision'. Would you please explain how you say I may be subject to further sanctions without notice?"

If you persist in repeating unsubstantiated and disparaging claims about me I will have to consider reporting the matter. I trust that will not prove necessary.

Wightknightuk (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify
Since I don't think you've quite understood the warning. The topic area of the Shakespeare Authorship question is subject to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions - remedy 1 in ARBSAQ. Discretionary sanctions allow any administrator to first warn and then sanction an editor who is editing problematically in the specified area. Administrator Jehochman has warned you under discretionary sanctions not to "engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article." This would include posting to the various noticeboards in the way that you have done.

The position is now that should you make edits that advocate fringe theories relation to the topic, you could find yourself topic banned from the subject or blocked, without further warning. There is an appeal route against a sanction, but not against the warnings, which are customarily issued fairly freely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify. Are either of you [Elen of the Roads] or [Jehochman] acting in the capacity of administrators in this matter? If so then it would be helpful if details of that status were included in any relevant "warning".

You state that "Discretionary sanctions allow any administrator to first warn and then sanction an editor". That suggests that both warning and sanction must be conducted by an editor. Any warnings should be specific as to their terms. Could you please indicate where an appropriate and specific warning has been made by an administrator?

I presume that the improper use of warnings/threats in circumstances such as this might also constitute a form of abuse. Perhaps you would clarify your understanding?

I appreciate that there is an unwillingness to accommodate alternative viewpoints generally in this article but the Stratfordian position would be far better served by being able to demonstrate a preparedness to engage.

Kindly note that cross-posting to different notice boards has occurred only in response to posts made by various administrators of the page in question. It would have been my preference for the discussion to have been kept to a single page.

Finally, I would like a response from [Jehochman] to my previous post.

Wightknightuk (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jehochman is acting as an administrator, as he's given you an administrator warning. As for myself, although I am an administrator, I'm just explaining that what he has done is given you a warning under discretionary sanctions - as I don't believe you understood that. Now that he has done that, you could be sanctioned by him or another administrator not involved in editing the article (you'll be aware that I edited the talkpage to comment about the survey, so would be disqualified from issuing warnings or sanctions) should your editing be considered problematic.


 * There is no appeal against these warnings. Discretionary sanctions are designed to keep a tight lid on problematic areas. I suggest that you don't try advance the argument that the theory as defined in the article (ie that Shakespeare had no hand in the plays) is anything but fringe, unless you have far better evidence than that presented so far, as it looks like there is a high probability you will wind up being sanctioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Elen of the Roads] Thank you, you have explained the position in part but the (non)-identification of administrator status appears problematic. Moreover, the various parties with whom I have engaged since joining have themselves violated various codes and policies some of which has been pointed out to them.

Furthermore, [Jehochman] was clearly issuing warnings against me in the belief that I am not what I am. That is not so. I am what I am! Accordingly, any warnings issued by [Jehochman](who was himself guilty of WP:DNB and WP:AGF) must be regarded as improper.

However, a legalistic approach to this situation will not finally be helpful. We need to be more conciliatory. What I think would be helpful, and to the general benefit of WP, is to find an accommodation whereby the article is more consonant with the value of neutrality to which WP aspires. Hand on heart, I don't think any of the editors I have so far encountered could be said to have dealt with me in a proper and befitting way

Finally, however, you have suggested to me that "(I) don't try advance the argument that the theory as defined in the article (ie that Shakespeare had no hand in the plays) is anything but fringe". With respect, that has not been my position. I have addressed the position at length elsewhere. It has not been my case that the theory itself is "anything but fringe". However, there is a minority view (within the academic community) that accepts that the field of study merits academic enquiry. Respectfully, that is not the same thing at all as suggesting the theory itself is a minority theory.

I wonder, again in a spirit of conciliation, whether there might be merit in considering a different word. 'Fringe' is clearly heavily loaded and the feeling appears to be that 'minority' will give disproportionate credibility to the debate. Might I suggest there is merit in the consideration of the term 'Marginal'. It would on the one hand indicate a small minority and on the other point towards an argument that is at the very edge of acceptability. However, it is not 'fringe' in the same way as 'flying saucers' and 'faked moon landings' and other such nonsense might be said to be 'fringe'.

Context is all important, and to re-iterate, I would not propose that the term should be used in relation to any particular theory, but rather to the acceptance of the study of the theory. For example:

"There is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention". Alternatively, the inverse construction could equally be used, "Although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention, there is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field".

I should be obliged by your thoughts on this, after appropriate consideration. I would urge you to accept my contribution in good faith and to respond in kind.

Wightknightuk (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the warning is to alert you to the ArbCom decision so that you have a chance to comply. We don't like to block people out of the blue.  You've been notified, so now you are expected to follow what was decided, and you will be swiftly blocked or banned if you do not.  Please stop wikilawyering and conspiracy theorizing.  These are pointless activities. Jehochman Talk 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, stop abusing talk pages, as you did here and similar edits immediately before. This is it.  Next time you go near that page to engage in advocacy, wikilawyers, or any sort of disruptive activity, you will be banned from the topic. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[Jehochman] Sorry, did I miss your apology to me for your various breaches of protocol?

Your reference was unclear as to which talkpage you were referring to. Also you were unclear how my comments constituted abuse whereas the other protagonists did not. Could you please clarify?

I am not 'wikilawyering' I am trying to progress towards neutrality by a process of discussion and conciliation. I am happy to do that here if you are concerned to keep the talk pages less confusing for third parties stumbling across them.

I have suggested two alternative forms of a proposed insertion which I feel to be a reasonable form of attempt at productive discussion: "There is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention". Alternatively, the inverse construction could equally be used, "Although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention, there is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field".

Would you please let me have your considered view on this? Alternatively, if no-one will even consider the discussion of any potential amendments of however minor a nature am I to conclude it is your view that "we've built this page, please go away and leave it alone".

I have come in good faith and should be grateful for a good faith response.

Wightknightuk (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
This account is blocked indefinitely. It only edits Shakerspear authorship question, and does so disruptively. There are ArbCom discretionary sanctions in effect. Consider this block as falling under those sanctions, but also under the general purpose rule that disruption-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. This is most likely a sock of somebody who has been banned already or perhaps it is somebody new behaving exactly the same way. In either case Wikipedia does not need tendentious editors filling article talk pages with endless arguments and repetition, as this account has been doing. Jehochman Talk 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. Would you please clarify the terms of the block and the mechanism for appeal against the decision?

If you would be so kind as to post the links to make complaint for sanctions against administrators I would appreciate it.

Wightknightuk (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wightknightuk. I'm stepping in here to reply to your questions as Jehochman is most likely asleep at this time. You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text  below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Your best first place of call for complaining about an administrator is probably Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Or you could go straight to Requests for comment/Admins, but that would involve more work, so it might be sensible to run it by ANI first to see if it has any chance of gaining traction. I'd be frankly surprised if it did, in any venue, since you have persistently flouted the discretionary sanctions for the SAQ article. But you don't have to take my word for it; try it by all means, if you're able to post on any of the pages indicated; that is to say, if you succeed in getting unblocked. If you don't (the most likely scenario), you can e~mail ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead. My best advice, for any of these, is to keep your complaint brief and on point. Many admins tend to ignore lengthy and elaborate posts to WP:ANI; they're just too busy. Arbitrators are even busier. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Your battleground approach is one of the reasons I chose an indef block instead of a topic ban. You have been pursuing every possible argument in every possible venue in your quest to spin Wikipedia. The block is meant to spare our good faith editors the stress and waste of time that you have been causing. You can appeal here as Bishonen already stated. Jehochman Talk 11:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Appeal Against Block
I can guarantee you that the above block request will not be actionned favourably - did you even read the guide to appealing blocks? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reviewing this unblock request - making a note here, as it will take a little while to summarize my thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you want a perfect example of how to spin a blunt comment into "[he] personally insulted and attacked me" compare:
 * (Wightknightuk's spin:) Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat ... I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again.
 * with what I wrote:
 * (In reply to Wightknightuk's criticism of published sources:) Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat. The same applies to my criticisms of published authors. I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again.
 * Civil POV-pushers are a pain, but spinners are the worst kind. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed the misrepresentation of your comment - the misrepresentation of the situation in general was pretty blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested reading
Wightknightuk, of course the entire WP:FLAT essay is a good resource to understand why you have been blocked and lost your appeal, but the section "Gaming" is especially relevant to your talk page behavior. I hope it helps.

Also, FYI, the entire point of the discretionary sanctions listed at ARBSAQ is that we don't have to go through all those "recommended steps" you outlined in order to get rid of disruptive and POV pushers. Those steps have been taken countless times before with other, similar editors, and the ArbCom decision was the result of years of the same type of behavior that you exhibited. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)