Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

 * Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so correct me or direct me if this is not the appropriate forum.

I appear to have been functionally banned by one editor from editing a page, and I wish to know, not whether an editor without administrative rights can do this, but how this is to be classified, and where can I make an appeal to overrule the diktat.

The page in question is the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which happens to be related to a subject I have long worked on (the Shakespeare Authorship Question). This is a WP:FRINGE area which I, and a few others, am endeavouring to source to academic works, rather than a mishmash of popular amateur books, or marginal websites.

While looking over the page today, I noticed a good many of the problems associated with the original Shakespeare Authorship page, poor referencing to unreliable popular books where quality academic sources abound, numerous errors, a link to an article originally published in the New York Times, and freely available, sourced to a fringe theory site, an abundance of text that was both unsourced, and consisted of editorializing and clear WP:OR violations. I took the trouble from the outset to begin explaining in depth the reasons behind my edits.

All I got was a series of comprehensive blankings of my edits here, here and here, with edit summaries justifying the blanking and reverts as the removal of a POV. Here, the editor User:Smatprt actually restores the new bibliographical items I had used to justify my introduction of fresh material, which he had elided earlier, together with the material they refer to. I.e., he found my new material unacceptable, but thought the bibliography useful, and so retained it, with the effect that the text is lacking, but its supporting sources are conserved, though nothing in the article refers to them.

I reverted this here because nothing in the edit summaries explained what was wrong with any of my specific editing suggestions, and then explained in concrete detail that his reverts were restoring patently false information, independently of any other consideration. This was again subject to a blanket revert, and User:Smatprt then finally explained his reasons for refusing to allow me to edit that page, and for therefore systematically reverting anything I added to it here.

As the last diff shows, Smatprt blanks me on the grounds that (a) I am an POV warrior. This is sufficient to say (b) he will refuse to answer the problematical points I raised on the talk page (c) that the biography written by the world's ranking academic authority on Edward de Vere, Stanford's Alan Nelson, cannot be used because the scholar is a 'muckraker' (WP:BLP violation, as well as an improper assessment by a mere wiki editor of who does and who does not count in academia); (d) that my behaviour is congenitally vandalistic.

I don't think this is a content dispute. It's a behavioural problem. Perhaps I am part of it, in some eyes? The objection to my behaviour is that I insist articles be written according to the best academic authorities under university or major press imprints, which few of these articles are. I should like input, not on the content, but on the specific instance of behaviour here. It seems to me that a co-editor has effectively put me under an administrative site-ban by refusing to judge my work edit by edit, by adducing a generic label of POV warrior to justify expunging everything I do there, by refusing to even listen to my reasons for making each edit, and characterizing me as a vandal to be chased off that page at sight. WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT seem to also be part of the problem.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is in fact a content dispute. Wikipedia policy doesn't provide any way of resolving problems like this other than appealing for help at the relevant noticeboards, which in this case are WP:FTN or WP:RSN (whichever is most suitable, but not both).  If you can't get help there, you aren't going to get it here, and the only thing you can do is to try to negotiate a solution with the editor you're having problems with. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be a content dispute? I have been given a very clear warning that one other editor will revert whatever I post on that page, merely on his a priori perception that I am a POV warrior (WP:AGF violation by the way). That edict means I cannot edit there without suffering a revert on generic grounds, and appears to me to be trumping administrative rights in site-banning me, which is what sight-deletion amounts to. Of course, I could edit-war on content but I don't want to be sucked into that. It's seems rather extraordinary to me that I am given no option by a co-editor than disappearing from the page, or edit-warring, since he refuses to answer any question I might put, or consider any edit I may make. That is behavioural, not an issue of content, surely? Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, neither WP:FTN nor WP:RSN are relevant, since it has already been classified as Pseudohistory, a branch of WP:Fringe, with regard to extensive arguments in the former, and, with regard to WP:RSN every source he elides is by definition RS, since they are articles and books by tenured academics in academic mainstream journals or under imprint from major presses, university or otherwise. User:Smatprt appears to refuse to accept wiki rulings on both of those venues, and that in turn is a behavioural problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This may require outside assistance. Dispute resolution will only work if both parties agree to work together. Since Smatprt has variously said "you are a POV warrior", "I am not going to engage with you" and "you have basically turned into a vandal in my eyes" and suggested ARBCOM I don't see how this can be resolved without outside intervention. Exxolon (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would tend to disagree with some of the outside commentors who have posted so far. I have never been involved with Shakespeare related articles, but from looking over the history of the page and especially of the last two days, I think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia if Smatprt were topic banned. So, proposal: Smatprt is topic-banned from editing pages relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed. NW ( Talk ) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Good grief, is Smatprt, an SPA and devotee of fringe theories, still edit warring on the Shakespeare articles? I gave up attempting to edit them years ago because of him/her. A topic ban would indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
 * An SPA? Hardly - I have edited hundreds of articles here. Check my history. I do remember User:Bishonen though - he was among a small group of editors that wanted the SAQ banned from wikipedia completely . Good grief is right. Smatprt (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I? Very likely, if I understand what you mean by "banning" an article. Mind you, if your "list-article" Shakespeare authorship doubters had existed then, I would have started with that. It's if possible even more slanted than Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC).


 * This is a behavior problem: Smatprt cannot act this way to protect his version of the article. Sources must be discussed to see which ones have the greatest authority, and if two expert sources disagree, the article must reflect this by including both. Smatprt must stand down from his unsupportable sense of WP:OWNership of the article, and begin interacting with editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with using both references in cases like this. The problem is that Nishidani keeps replacing long-standing sources (that he dislikes) with those that he prefers. No talk, no consensus building, just deletions. I will live up to this suggestion by Binksternet, but will he? Smatprt (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please don't personalize this. I don't replace references I dislike. I replace, everywhere I can, sources from fringe websites, or advocacy orgs with books having an academic imprint, or which are issued by major publishing houses, in line with policy, even if the matter to be sourced is something I might personally dislike. Your edits removed two such improvements to superior sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Topic ban per recommendation. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. I've been involved in this dispute in a very minor way, and I believe that Smatprt's obsession with giving undue weight to a fringe theory of Shakespearian authorship is damaging the encyclopedia—it certainly makes editing the Shakespeare articles less enjoyable. His decision that he's going to blanket revert Nishidani's edits as vandalism are an obvious concern. If the topic ban doesn't go through, this probably should go to arbcom, but that's not going to make anyone happy, especially not Smatprt. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in a way, ArbCom might be the best place - ultimately it needs to be decided if Nishidani and Tom are to be allowed to continue all these deletions (sections in over 25 articles at latest count). That is what the current mediation is all about, but depending on how this goes, that mediation may be stifled before it is even given a chance, which would be unfortunate. Every other SAQ editor has been chased off this encyclopedia. I am the only one left. Maybe that's the way it should be? Who knows?  But it would be nice if some uninvolved editors weighed in here, because as of now, it appears that most of these "topic bans" are coming from Nishidani's long-standing co-editors or those who have a history with me personally. Smatprt (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am a 'SAQ editor', and your recent behaviour effectively drove me off one of the pages related to SAQ. By 'SAQ editor' you clearly understand:'editors who subscribe to any one of the fringe theories being described on the SAQ page', which constitutes an improper construal of what that phrase means. Peter Farey pops in there to make suggestions. He's a well-known Marlovian, and has no complaints I know of about my behaviour nor Tom's. Indeed, we've worked together quite amicably, since he fully understands the problem with sourcing to web sites, and accepted my use of academic references as substitutes for ideas he had previously documented by linking to challengeable web pages. The 'other' editors you refer implicitly to, mainly show up in cases like this to lend support, but appear not to care to actively edit these texts, for what reasons I do not know. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom might actually not be the best place from your point of view, Smatprt, considering this principle of theirs: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation." Attacks without evidence are particularly uncivil, so please give diffs for your claims about these long-standing "co-editors". I've never "co-edited" with Nishidani. Have you, KillerChihuahua? You, NuclearWarfare? Akhilleus? Bishonen | talk 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Ah, but you have reverted smatprt before. Granted, it was three years ago, but it's not completely illogical that he might think of you as being on the same "team". --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are a few from Akhilleus: [] and [].Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Bishonen, have you honestly forgotten this exchange of ours? [] (among others). my point was that you and several others here are not uninvolved. Smatprt (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I had; after a few years, I do tend to forget most such sour, suspicious bad-faith assumptions as yours at that link. Good job too, since encountering them is not exactly the fun part of editing. But I'm glad you remembered it, because it's quite interesting in this context, and if we're lucky, people will click on it even though it's old. Don't you have any example of my involvement that's not three years old? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Response from SMATPRT.
 * Yes, this is a content dispute. And I do categorically deny that I have banned Nishidani or any editor from any page. I could easily argue that Nishidani has done the same thing to me on numerous occasions. Here is an example [], where in the subject line Nishidani says "You can't discuss this on Francis Meres' page" Is he allowed to issue such instructions?
 * But it goes much deeper than that. Nishidani is currently involved in a mediation [] that goes to the real heart of the problem. He has participated in a systematic deletion campaign of any mention of the SAQ except in the one or two articles that he has allowed its mention. He has a history of tag-teaming with user:TomReedy to avoid 3RR, knowing that I am his only obstacle.

If anyone deserves a topic ban it is Nishidani. Having said that, I do regret my statements today. After reading this history and the above noticeboards, I would hope that any reasonable person would understand the situation and not jump to conclusions.Smatprt (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is also retaliation for this topic ban request [] which lays out for all concerned editors the many abuses and tactics he has employed during this argument.
 * An earlier report on his many abuses is here [].
 * The wikiquette report I filed on him after being advised at the administrators noticeboard is here [].


 * I would hope that no reasonable person would assume that amount of bad faith, out in the open, here on ANI, as to ascribe "tag-teaming" and "retaliation" to a respectable user. You should pull in your horns, Smatprt, before somebody suggests an ANI ban for you. Bishonen | talk 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC).


 * How is your threat helping to calm the situation, Bishonen? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How is your cheap jibe helpful here, GentlemanGhost? Bishonen | talk 11:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I would think that, being an admin, you would hold yourself to a higher standard. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Nishidani can claim that this is anything but a content dispute. His partisanship in this is obvious. I find it interesting that he is pushing for a topic ban rather than letting the currently active mediation run its course or taking it to ArbCom. That's putting the cart before the horse as far as I am concerned. And, conveniently, if he gets smatprt banned from the topic, it allows him to have de facto say about what goes into the article. Smatprt's behavior has been bad, to be sure, but I've seen worse offenders handled with kid gloves. Is there a compelling reason why we must rush to judgment here, other than a general desire not to deal with the issue or a dislike of smatprt? Like Nishidani, I also don't agree with the Oxfordian point of view, but I haven't turned it into a religious war. I trust that the admins will act appropriately and not out of proportion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Insisting on proper sourcing is not partisan. Insisting that editors work to finish pages, rather that hog them without improving them, and resenting intrusions by people who like to complete pages, is not partisan. It is taking one's task here as goal-orientated, not a pastime to tickle with one's personal belief-system online. It is a matter of method. Secondly, where did I 'push for a topic ban'? I asked for input on how to classify Smatprt's behaviour. What you find 'interesting' happens to be your distortion of my words. Independent reviewers of my evidence (a drop in the ocean of what's going on) called for a topic ban. Not reading what editors actually say or write and responding to it, but, rather imagining what they might be saying and getting upset, is, precisely, one of the issues at stake.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban. Agree with GentlemanGhost. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban - This has been going on long enough, let's stop it before we back here in the same place six months, or a year or whatever from now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban but for both Smatprt and Nishidani, to  let  them cool  off.


 * Smatprt appears to  have a history  of  being  involved in  issues that  get  taken to  a noticeboard, and warnings about  civility, copyright  problems, and general  complaint messages from  other editors, and has been blocked several  times before. I  suggest  he is not  wholly  innocent  in  the current issue. His apparent action that  suggests he's he's going to blanket revert Nishidani's edits as vandalism would be a statement  of intent  to  vandalize the article through  disruptive editing which  is not  the way to  resolve disputes, and could get  him  blocked again. Nishidani appears to  have a history  of being  involved with  heated arguments, cases of possible lack  of civility, and a block  log  with  several  entries. From  the confusing  use of Nishidani's  talk  page, as a sandbox for article drafts,  it  not  easy  to  determine his general  conversational behaviour.


 * Of other Shakespeare article editors' (not named here), contributions to  the talk  pages appear to  encourage or inflame disputes by  referring  to their involvement  in disputes as: guns were drawn on the left and knives on the right, AN/I and RS discussions were referenced, topic bans were threatened, and an SPI revealed a sock puppet. It was kind of exciting, and comments such  as I  believe Marlow wrote all Shakespears plays -  for example, (but  not  stated by  the plaintiffs or respondents in  this ANI) -  which  may lead even the most mild mannered editors into  believing  they  too can  disregard the rules with  impunity. Disscussions, even heated ones, are supposed to  be about  improving  articles, and not  discussing  heated academic  issues in  support of personal  opinion, originial  research, or other editors.--Kudpung (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This would leave me bewildered had I not a long memory for the odd things that can occur here. I 'cool off'? I have 'a history of being  involved with  heated arguments, cases of possible lack  of civility, and a block  log  with  several  entries'? I had just two minor suspensions for  8 hours and 24 hours in the first months of editing wikipedia, as a result of restoring WP:RS elided by tagteaming editors one of whom was definitely banned later. And one perma-ban for 8 non-consectuive reverts over 50 days. That, I beg to differ, is actually a surprisingly good record over four years of working in conflict-ridden zones where the required articles are not being written because of POV warring. Nothing else, and only because I volunteered to work on pages that better editors, more experienced wikipedians, and several administrators are on record as keeping clear of because they are famously subject to vexatious warring. If you can actually produce any evidence that, out there in the wiki community generally, editors regard me as difficult, impolite, unamenable to extensive talk page analysis, or a congenital edit warrior etc., by all means do so. The only trouble I have gotten into throughout these four years is due to my persistence in asking editors to use academic or quality press sources, to write controversial pages, and adopt internationally accepted terminology to describe the topology of areas where an ethnic conflict contaminates usage with partisan language.  Vague impressions from a quick glance at my record are not enough to say I am on a par with the editor attempting to keep me off what he appears to consider his page. When Smatprt was bullied by a pseudo-newbie, RewlandUmmer,  with a strong odour of being a self-recycled perma-banned edit warrior, I hastened to defend him this August when some doubts were raised about his behaviour. I stepped in here and here to give him advice, and on the ANI noticeboard. Smatprt’s intuition proved correct. Our exchanges were civil, indeed friendly. Out of the blue, unfortunately, this disappeared today. From pleasantry to blanket deletion of anything I edit on a page he wishes to monopolize. You appear to have been persuaded by the specious list of ostensible instances of bad behaviour cited above by Smart which breaks down to being no such thing, as I noted here. Indeed his complaint was ignored by all those who commented. As I will show below, if time allows, this is the second time Smatprt has acted to keep me from editing a page dealing with a subject he has a strong personal faith commitment to.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a content dispute here that can be resolved, although all parties should back up a step, take a deep breath and try once more to work together in good faith to come to an understanding. I suggest that instead of trying to rewrite the page all at once, Nishidani place numbered comments on the talk page. Then Smatprt should respond to each proposed change with his reasons why he agrees or disagrees with each one, or propose a better alternative or compromise, and the other editors who work on these authorship pages can weigh in. Hopefully a consensus can be reached on each item, or at least the majority of them, and then if there are a few particularly contentious items left, the parties can seek further comments from a wider group of commentators. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I.e., after several years with no substantial progress made on these pages, and many complaints of obstructionism, the solution is for me, the most recent editor, to bow my head, submit to Smatprt's effective control of jurisdiction and provide him with suggestions on the talk page, which he may approve of, or disagree with. I see you do not apply the same logic to his editing, i.e., prior approval before on-page editing. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support banning Smartpt from the Shakespeare topic area, broadly construed. What I'm seeing is several year's worth of editors trying to work with this Smartpt person within this very narrow topic area, being met with little but extreme antagonism, personal attacks, bullying, and tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Support topic banning of Smatprt. Edits over the last few days and the history of this dispute at Fringe theories/Noticeboard (check archives) convince me that this is the best way forward. I do not think that any of the other issues raised here require action at this level, though I could be convinced otherwise. The editors involved are well-familiar with our several dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving content disputes, which should be sufficient now. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited with Smatprt or Nishidani except incidentally, though I have skimmed most of the above-referenced FT/N threads. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from smatprt: Several editors here have made reference to prior complaints about my editing practices. I just want to advise everyone that (by far) the great majority of complaints originated from a banned editor operating over a dozen sockpuppets who waged a personal vendetta against me and several other users. Here are links to the 2 cases and the archive:[], [] and []. I am in no way saying that I have not been controversial. The minority view articles I have edited make me an easy target and I have fought back with gusto, I admit. But the campaign by the banned editor has left a lasting record that is easy to misinterpret.Smatprt (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by smatprt: Several comments here raise an issue of me "bullying" and making personal attacks, yet no diffs are provided. I have raised the similiar issue of Nishidani's behaviour towards me. Diffs were requested so here are just a handful:


 * [] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"


 * [] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”


 * [] - accused of “faking” evidence


 * [ – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."


 * [] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."


 * [] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"


 * [] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

This abuse by Nishidani been goin on non-stop for almost a year now. I admit my recent talk page edits where I indicated that I would not engage with himm further and regarded him as a vandal, etc. were over the top. But frankly, I feel I have been bullied, harrassed, insulted and whenever I appealed for help to the appropriate noticeboard I recieved none. I admit it - After months of abuse, after months of being told how terrible an editor I am, and after being told to stay off the main pages and restrict myself to certain articles, I felt like I had enough and lashed out. I was wrong to do so, but we all have a breaking point. I reached mine. Regardless of the outcome here, I am self-imposing a wiki-break of one week. As recommended above, I need to step back, breathe, and reaccess my own actions here. Smatprt (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'has been going on non-stop for almost a year now.'
 * Your diffs are ancient history (I admit, it's a deplorable rhetoric of exasperation, like shaking an uncomprehending chap by the shoulders), and not appropriate to this specific issue. We have had no interactions of substance for six months, and that is why now you are forced to dig up the past in order to buttress the idea that you've been harassed mercilessly.


 * I began editing the now defunct Shakespeare Authorship Question page in February, and suffered a month of extreme exasperation at the extraordinary number of quite trivial arguments your refusal to apply policy generated. All of these diffs date to early-mid March. Science Apologist at that point asked us to merge several highly repetitive articles and forks, and do so by creating a sandbox page ex nihilo to rewrite the disputed text (it's been in trouble for several years). Tom created [A sandbox draft] to do this on 16 March 2010. Despite efforts to start afresh the same problems got quick drafting bogged down. On your own initiative therefore you created a second sandbox article asking Tom and I to go away from you. We did, without protest. Since that date our contacts have been extremely intermittent. I came to your defence in August against the Baconian who attacked you. Tom and I over the last 6 months did over 1200 consecutive edits and built the completely new proposal page for the Shakespeare Authorship Question. It is formatted according to GA principles, consecutive in its logic, adhering to NPOV, covering all major aspects of the debate, and sourced strictly to reliable academic books. The result is Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2. In the meantime, after our split, you made 60 edits to the first sandbox page, without substantive changes, and created a third sandbox page, the monstrously merged TalkShakespeare Authorship Page, sandbox 3, which cost 25 edits. I did 850 odd edits alone, then Tom did 370 odd. Please note that he disagreed substantially with my version in his rewriting, and I had no objection to that. In other words, where no conflict situation was present, Tom Reedy and myself worked rapidly and completely rewrote a troubled page according to policy requirements, but you, essentially, stopped working on it.


 * So, we fulfilled our remit, and await for the community to choose between the 3 versions you created or held hostage as though they were your terrain, and our one version. I started to glance at the Oxfordian theory page, realizing it would not be amenable to the merge proposed and, despite 6 months in which we had virtually no interaction, you instantly reverted everything I did there, without even troubling to look at it. So it is rather late in the day to scavenge through the archives for telling evidence against me for a supposed year long enmity . For 6 months I have honoured the tacit agreement to just edit, without commenting on you. You, apparently, refuse to accept my presence on that page, notwithstanding the long ceasefire. This is not a content war, it is about whether wikipedia has a right to a polished, GA-level page on the subject so dear to you, or whether several pages will lie about, with few substantive edits, and endless argument, in a state of distress, woeful sourcing, inaccurate paraphrase of references, and confused order.


 * The point is, therefore, that it is now twice where you either fork articles to get fellow wikipedians off your terrain, or simply blanket their edits if they intrude on a page dealing with Oxfordian 'theory'. The second action came without any provocation from me, which suggests fatigue, if not enmity. I haven't asked for a ban, as rumoured. I asked that the conditions, given this behavioural problem, be created to allow readers of wikipedia a finished article or two, on these subjects, something that alone or with others you haven't been able to achieve for four years, despite the evident passion for both the subject matter and Shakespeare (which is commendable).Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, Nishidani's summary of events above is not at all accurate, and even misleading. But to the point. I don't need to go back 10 months - lets just go back a few weeks then - Here are two more recent links [] and [].

In the first Nishidani says "Smatprt is a poor editor, whose inability to understand both Shakespearean scholarship and wikipedia practices, invaqriably leads his interlocutors to waste huge amounts of time on multiple pages, to nudge him towards some awareness of the confused state of the edits he does propose." and in the second he says "My impression is that Smatprt cannot work, when given the opportunity to do so, in a fre unrestricted and unchallenged environment, but only becomes hyperactive when he works a page where he has several people disagreeing with him. He proved hyperactive when editing with Tom and myself, and otiose when challenged to work on his own." Nishidani also wrote "I dislike working in a conflictual environment, and I think Tom does as well. By the statistics, that is the only environment where Smatprt is willing to operate." And now he has the guts to say "For 6 months I have honoured the tacit agreement to just edit, without commenting on you". Without commenting on me??? my god, he has never stopped, which these diffs prove beyond doubt. His constant attempts to mislead the community like this is simply astounding.

The straw that broke my back were these statements by Nishidani "So I return to my original request. That he goes and fixes, untroubled, the fringe theory pages which are a mess, to show that he can produce work up to the minimal standards of quality wikipedia is seeking, before engaging with other pages, with the usual conflictual results." and " I'm quite willing to deal with any proposal, as long as he can show, in good faith, that he can produce at least one page, unhampered by editors who think his pet belief system nonsense, on de Vere, the Oxfordian theory, Oxfordian chronology or the Shakespeare Authorship Question that would pass as a fair achievement by a high school student in his final year." (Nice touch)

So in the last week or so, I started working on the Oxfordian article and the bio on De Vere. And in Nishidani jumped, switching out refs to those he prefers, accusing me of various wikicrimes, telling me I "can't discuss this", and adding in some of the most partisan and POV statements I have ever seen. Nishidani proposed I go work "untroubled" and "unhampered" by him, and then he immediately broke his own proposal! And then he comes here with one misleading story after another. Amazing. And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Accurate . .summary of events'? You said 'nearly one year' of harassment, when our strong differences blew up for a month in March, as per your 6 diffs, and, as I then said 'Since that date our contacts have been extremely intermittent,' namely (a) my defence of you when you were attacked, which you refuse to acknowledge and (b) the two diffs you mention here for an hour's editing on 19th August, which contain no harassment, just my judgement that you are a poor editor. The judgement reflects, as per comments by others here, a widespread impression by wikipedians.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose banning Smatprt, or the topic, and i propose banning Nishidani and Tom Reedy instead. I was a regular on articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question for a time, but found the two them so mean-spirited, uncooperative and bullying that I decided it was a waste of time. The way they treat people who disagree with them is shocking, IMO. I'm surprised to see they are still getting way with this sort of thing. It's certainly not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have only time for a short comment (I've been out of town for a couple of days) but I'll get back to this later. Smatprt exactly fits the profile of what is called a civil POv pusher. IOW he has learned how to edit with a gloss of civility in order to manipulate the various Wikipedia grievance processes and continue to push his POV without being blocked or banned. He may in actuality be a super-nice guy; I don't know, but I do know that his primary purpose is to push Oxfordism rather than cooperate to build an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. I recommend that any admins or editors (especially those who are new to this topic) delve deeply into his edit history before making up their mind about any considered action. I recently tried to work with him on the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, thinking that since it is a biography page I could start to bring it up to at least GA standards, but it took no more than a few edits to disabuse myself of that notion, as anyone who peruses the edit history and the talk page will readily learn. I really and truly don't know if Smatprt is capable of even recognising neutrality when he sees it. I have more to say on this, as well as megabytes of diffs, but right now I have an important engagement to attend. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Strongly oppose, and I agree completely with Schoenbaum. I've very much been an impartial observer on this whole issue, and as far as I can tell, Tom and Nishidani literally follow Smatprt around Wikipedia editing his material. I made a joke to him a while back about how they were probably going to turn their attentions to a new page because he'd done a couple of edits on it (I can't remember what page it was). I was joking, but the next day, what happens? His stuff is undone for no valid reason that I could discern. Now, I have to be fair, I've not found either of them to be rude, but I have found them both to be inflexible, unlike, I might add, Smatprt himself. And another thing. I thought this whole issue was in arbitration - an arbitration by which we all agreed to abide. So have we just forgotten about that? And I'm genuinely asking because I know next to nothing about dispute policy. On a more practical level, isn't the Shakespeare project in bad enough shape without banning one of the main contributors? When I joined up here about a year ago, only two people who took time out to help me were Smatprt and Xover. Their advice and help was invaluable for my initial edits on The Two Gentlemen of Verona and, especially, the shambles that was The Taming of the Shrew page. And now we want to ban one of the few people willing to help out new recruits? Ludicrous. I also find it intersting that people are all of a sudden coming out to support of this suggestion. Where have all these people been? When Xover posted an appeal for ideas on the Shakespeare project page a month or so ago, only three people offered up anything. And now everyone's all excited over a possible ban. It seems as if people can't be bothered getting involved in constructive writing, but everyone jumps through hoops to argue about banning someone. That makes no sense to me. Bertaut (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we to take it that this is an example of your impartial observations? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. I used to edit the SAQ article to the best of my ability, but Smatpmt has taken over the article and uses unrelenting attrition to use the article to promote Oxfordian 'theory'. He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ, or the range of different opinions even within the 'alternative author' position. He is only interested in one thing and he drives other editors away. His knowledge of the history of Shakespeare criticism and even of the history and development of alternative authorship theories is actually very limited, so his controlling presence actually drives away more knowledgable and open minded editors. Bertaut's comments above miss the point entirely. It's far from the case that "people can't be bothered getting involved in constructive writing." It's Smatprt who blocks constructive writing in this area. It's really rather absurd to claim that "everyone jumps through hoops to argue about banning someone." Smatprt has been editing for years. The problem has been growning for years. Nishidani did not start this thread with the intent to have Smatprt topic banned. As for the claim that Nishidani and Tom are disruptive in some way, that is the opposite of the truth. Nishidani can be smart-alecky, sure, but that's just his personality. Tom tries to be as polite as he can to Smatprt, but sometimes just becomes utterly frustrated. I know how he feels. If they 'follow' Smatprt around, that's because they know he will systematically distort articles on Shakespeare and any other topic to promote Oxfordianism. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support topic bans for Smatprt and Nishidani (and possibly Tom Reedy) - I think the wide scope of comments here make it clear that both Smatprt and Nishidani are editing with the wrong frame of mind - that is with agendas and looking to further them at the expense of a good editing environement and respect for other editors. I think SAQ will benefit from beng edited for a while by editors with no strong feelings about the subject.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Added comment by Softlavender. I voted above, but without comment. I'd like to add that, like Bertaut, I've had a ringside seat to this whole scenario for a while. As my editing history will attest, although I've never been exclusively focussed on these articles, I've been an editor on several of the Oxfordian-related articles for a period of about 1-1/2 years. It's contentious subject matter, and many editors in both camps (Oxfordian and anti-Oxfordian/Stratfordian) have strong feelings. But all was generally able to be worked out with some degree of agreed-upon compromise and citability until early 2010, when the editors Nishidani and Tom Reedy appeared on the scene and began to use tactics the likes of which I've rarely ever seen on Wikipedia, employing a campaign of mass deletion, bullying, harrassment, insults, editor-monitoring, fabrication and misrepresentation, edit warring, tag-teaming, and abuse of Wikipedia policies to the highest degree they have been able to get away with. I tried to somehow selectively edit in this new environment for a while, but when it became apparent to the two of them that I was a frequent editor on these articles, I became a target of their bullying and harrassment tactics and edit-monitoring, and I found the situation untenable. I consequently took all articles in any way related to Oxfordian studies off of my Watch List in late June 2010. This amounted to approximately 25 articles, including an article I myself had created, List of Oxfordian theory supporters. (I just now checked that article to reference my timeline, and notice that Tom Reedy vandalized it shortly after I stopped editing on Oxfordian articles.)

To sum up, Nishidani and Tom Reedy have made it impossible, in my eyes, to edit equably and civilly on any article even remotely connected to Oxfordian studies. I could provide a huge amount of diffs to back up my statements, but that would take hours to accomplish and hours to weed through. I hope the evidence will suffice that I was a serious and respectful editor on this subject matter until the relentless campaign waged by Nishidani and Tom Reedy. Now I avoid all the articles completely, including those I had a major hand in. I hope this brings some perspective to bear on the accusations of Nishidani about Smatprt, whom I have always found to be a civil and equable Wikipedia editor. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Soflavender writes "I became a target of their bullying and harrassment tactics and edit-monitoring, and I found the situation untenable. I consequently took all articles in any way related to Oxfordian studies off of my Watch List in late June 2010. This amounted to approximately 25 articles, including an article I myself had created, List of Oxfordian theory supporters. (I just now checked that article to reference my timeline, and notice that Tom Reedy vandalized it shortly after I stopped editing on Oxfordian articles.)" The reliability of Softlavender's comments can be judged by looking the edit history and talk page of List of Oxfordian theory supporters. Tom's 'vandalism' comprised removing a spurious claim about Leslie Howard and giving an appropriate edit summary. He subsequently gave a detailed explanation on the talk page, to which Soflavender has never responded. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Paul's comments above. "He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ"? That's just silly. But in other news, to claim that Nishidani and Tom are not disruptive is laughable. Obviously, you personally have not had diasgreements them, and as such, not encountered their bullying tendencies. If they are so undisruptive why are there now five people here claiming that that is exactly what they are? Irrespective of what Smatprt is or isn't, anyone who seems to disgree with them is targetted. And, to show I'm not biased in any way regarding this issue, I am not such a person ie they've never bullied me, and I've never had an open disagreement with them, but I can see with my own eyes what they're like. Likewise, just because you've not seen it or encountered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, I might add, as Softlavender proves, Smatprt isn't the only one they follow around. And as for me missing the point (!) - I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was for everyone to write the best articles possible. Bertaut (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * '"He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ"? That's just silly.' Um, no. You have obviously had no discussion with him about the history of the topic. He knows almost nothing about it and cares even less. He constantly gets wrong the names of historical figures in the history of SAQ. He believes the article should concentrate on the 'arguments' - i.e the various coded messages and what-have-you that are supposed to prove Oxford's authorship. He doesn't even know much about Oxford hmself, as the talk page of the De Vere article indicates. Almost everything he knows is derived from Oxfordian literature, which systematically distorts facts and evidence. Virtually all the people who are complaining about Tom and Nishidani are committed Oxfordian editors. That's why. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to User:Tom Reedy I see that all the regular players have now arrived. Everyone seems to have laid their cards on the table. Except Tom, of course, who promises to be back with extended comments and "plenty of links". For those uninvolved editors that are looking at this, here is some of my history with user:Tom Reedy (basically the last 10 months of hell)
 * Tom began editing the SAQ about 10 months ago and within a few months was resorting to the basest and most condescending insults - Diffs from first report: [], [], and *[] - all clearly calling me a "liar"
 * Then, there were these priceless gems:
 * [] "That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats, which cause me to think that there's some kind of common cognitive connection that predisposes them to becoming anti-Stratfordians."
 * [] "Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style)" contained in this edit.


 * [] Out and out vulgarity. Not going to print it here.
 * [], “just another lie”
 * [],” Your reading skills are deficient.”
 * [] “my point is that your writing is not very good. You should probably take a composition course at your local junior college.”
 * [] “I don't think we're going to get away from the poor writing, because it is a byproduct of poor thinking”
 * [] “the vacuous exercise you call discussion, which lately has only been Roger bloviating and crapping up the boards”
 * [] “Once again you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension. Very well, you boys have fun while you can.”

To his credit, he initiated the present mediation that Nishidani, myself and several others have committed to:[]. I wonder what our mediator will say to all this? Another question - Does all this mean Tom and Nishidani are withdrawing from the mediation, or are we allowed to continue with that? We'd probably all like to know that one.Smatprt (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to these and a host of other issues, this wikiquette was filed:[].
 * Our relationship further deteriorated and I was forced to file this topic ban request on TomReedy and Nishidani: [].


 * Well I see Wrad has quit the field, and I can't say that I blame him. I'd like nothing better than to have this nonsense cease so that I could use my time more productively.
 * How did all those complaints against Nishidani and me come out, by the way? Any blocks or admonishments? No? One editor, User:Ncmvocalist, wrote an excellent comment that I put on top of my user page as a reminder.
 * Yes, I have volumes of diffs, but I'm tired to death of all this, so I'll just give a few from one page.
 * If anyone wants to know what it is like editing on the same article as Smatprt, the page Shakespeare's life affords ample examples. On that page he has turned the Wikipedia neutrality policy on its head.
 * Incredibly, Smatprt claims that even mentioning Shakespeare’s authorship in an article about his life is "highly POV", that it is nothing but "interpretation", and that Shakespeare’s career as an actor, playwright, and theatre entrepreneur aren’t documented well enough to include in a Wikipedia article about his biography.
 * In that same article he deleted a section clearly marked as a tradition as “fringe speculation”. After being reverted by myself and another editor (not Nishidani), he tagged the article for “for neutrality and balance issues” with a comment on the talk page that “minority viewpoints are being deleted or ignored”.
 * His edit summaries are revealing, with an undercurrent of accusations of dishonesty of those who have edited before him, with examples here and here.
 * He apparently even edits without access to sources he claims to have. Unfortunately, in this edit, if he has the source he obviously hasn’t read it, because as I pointed out on the talk page, the very source he refers to documents Shakespeare’s authorship of seven plays.
 * These recent edits illustrate in a nutshell Smatprt’s agenda and method of editing Shakespeare-related articles, and that's all I have to say about this particular noticeboard incident. I would again recommend that all editors read WP:CRUSH, which is what we're dealing with here. I would especially ask you to review the edits of the three editors being discussed and try to determine which of them this sentence from that article applies to: "These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and appropriate weight."
 * (BTW, Smatprt, those diffs from the "last 10 months of hell" stop in March, seven months ago.) Tom Reedy (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Smatprt is still saying, on the basis of two diffs from August 19, that I have engaged in an almost year-long harassment. The original counter-charge for the year-long harassment campaign consisted of a handful of diffs in which, after a month of engaging with him, I vented my frustration at his inability to parse simple English. Read for context. Okay. The language was provocative. He complained. The complaint was ignored in review. There has been, since those diffs, no harassment. The two diffs for that intervening six-month period, this and and this for 19 August 2010 I stand by, and are normal measured judgements on an editor, breaking out of the SAQ article he was supposed to rewrite, to attempt to contaminate yet one more mainstream article on Shakespeare with a recurrent blob of fringe theory material. Dozens of other editors have experienced over 4 years my frustration. They have been more temperate, but left the project, as Wrad's remarks underline because hisintractable stonewalling makes many despair of the time wasted on articles he controls.
 * A word to Ssilvers, Schoenbaum, Bertaut, Softlavender etc.. I see you all rarely, and only as Smatprt's backup team, dropping in at critical points to sway a vote or put in a good word for him when exasperation at his cunctatorial editing behaviour rises. If you have those articles, and wikipedia to heart, edit. Don't just sit round kibitzing, only to leap in and supply a rare and crucial vote of solidarity. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view*
From a review of the above (and I have been watching the unfolding discussion) I am beginning to form the view that this is a content dispute that has taken on the aspect of behavioural and possible policy violation issues; the content dispute is over the balance of views regarding the authorship of the work generally ascribed to Shakespeare within articles devoted to the concept that another writer was, and a general article regarding this "controversy" (which it isn't, because the play's the thing, and these are not effected by who the purported author is.) The principal problem is that the article writers in dispute are generally comfortable to be described as subscribing to the view of one or another of the contenders for Shakespeare's penmanship, which isn't really that big a consideration, and only edit toward that viewpoint, which really is a big consideration. There is a very big ArbCom just winding down regarding issues surrounding the editing of Climate Change articles, and the major issue identified is that editors generally only contributed to articles to address their viewpoint of the subject; and from what I can see, this is the case here. I think this matter might be able to be resolved, as a fairly simple content dispute, by the application of a simple remedy - but not one that I think the parties are going to particularly subscribe to; that all editors shall, for a period to be determined, only edit toward supporting the viewpoint that they do not hold - the Oxford theorists shall edit to improve the Stratford viewpoint, and vice versa. The principle is that Wikipedia editors should contribute on the basis of improving the project, and not the promotion of a subject and especially not a viewpoint within the subject. If this suggestion is adopted by uninvolved editors and imposed upon the parties to the dispute, then behavioural issues would resolve down to whether any one editor is able to apply themselves to improving the encyclopedia. Those who will not or cannot will be asked to absent themselves from the subject(s), and will be made to do so if not voluntarily. Those who prove themselves as good collegiate editors will, once the period expires, be permitted to edit toward any viewpoint within the subject area - hopefully having learned to respect the contrary viewpoint - providing they continue to contribute on a more general basis. The above deprecates the efforts to effect the editing of articles by the removal of other editors who are party to the dispute - only by their own (lack of) effort will an editor be removed. Editors will be less concerned with the actions of others than by ensuring they comply with the remedy, so that they can again edit the article space fully in the future. The reaction to my proposal will, in any event, indicate whether editors are concerned with improving the project generally or in promoting one viewpoint and deprecating others within a fringe area of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (*I am fairly sure I was involved in this matter, or something similar, a few years ago - but cannot recall any detail. Just noting in case someone else does recall the specifics, and tries to declare me not uninvolved - although it should not effect the thrust of my suggestion)
 * Thanks. I thought that is what Tom and I did in writing TheShakespeare autrhorship question. Your review of it, comparing it to the earlier wiki standard version which caused all the trouble, would be must appreciated on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. It would be very easy to game and a deuced bother to enforce, which probably puts it over the threshold of complexity for something we would actually want to implement. On the other hand, if all relevant parties voluntarily commit to this for, say 3–6 months or so, I would strongly support implementation in lieu of topic banning anyone. It is worth acknowledging that there have been efforts to represent each side fairly in accordance with NPOV, as ideally everyone should all the time, but though a blunt instrument I think this would have the desired effect of improving both coverage and editing atmosphere. I would add explicitly that edits and references neutral to SAQ are exempt from this consideration, and clarify the question of talkpage participation. Perhaps it is just the old cynic in me, but I would also like to caution involved editors against metastasizing this question in the manner of the British Isles terminology dispute. Would we really want 10 Things I Hate About You (film) to state a loose adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew, a play allegedly written by Shakespeare? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU I've made this suggestion several times in the past on this and other articles, so I have no objection. However, when you write:
 * 'The principal problem is that the article writers in dispute are generally comfortable to be described as subscribing to the view of one or another of the contenders for Shakespeare's penmanship, which isn't really that big a consideration, and only edit toward that viewpoint, which really is a big consideration.'
 * I beg to disagree. I don't care who wrote 'Shakespeare' (I said so here to an impeccably polite, highly intelligent anti-Stratfordian author who visited my page). As I see it, the clash is over what constitutes WP:RS, and whether, after 4 years of chronic stasis (before I ever joined in) an article in a lamentable state of textual and source confusion can simply be left as a playground for contentious disputes, or whether we should be put under an obligation at some point to think in terms of finalizing a page towards GA level. Smatprt wish to document an article classed as pseudohistory, and WP:fringe by using numerous fringe sources. Tom and I are for describing the theory as it has been described and analysed in detail by mainstream scholars, according to the strict standards of WP:RS. The problem with using fringe sources written by people with no academic repute is that they consistently screw up everything. Much of the conflict (which occurred in Feb-March) arose from difficulties in getting Smatprt to understand that his fringe sources consistenly skewed classical allusions, and he in turn misunderstood his own sources. That is a behavioural problem, because no amount of detailed explanation of why his sources fringe sources are so confusing can budge him.
 * "this suggestion is adopted by uninvolved editors and imposed upon the parties to the dispute, then behavioural issues would resolve down to whether any one editor is able to apply themselves to improving the encyclopedia."
 * Yes, but as I showed above. Tom and I on one sandbox page did our version in over 1200 edits. Smatprt, having three pages, 2 sandboxes and the old page, made, after our departure, a total of 60+20 edits to those three versions in 6 months. He did not make any substantive change in content, or improve the exposition of orthodox theory on any of those pages. I at least drew the conclusion that he cannot work on his own, as you suggest one should, either to clarify Oxfordian theory or learn something about orthodox mainstream Shakespearean scholarship. The experiment you suggest has been conducted, with the result that, to return to the original complaint, he refused to allow me to edit a page on his topic. That is the gravamen of the problem. (If my frustrated intemperance in March is to be bundled with his his behaviour in October, well, I won't object to a perma-ban. I see from the thread that many former fine Shakespeare editors had been run off, and if the air is cleared by getting both myself and Smatprt out of there, perhaps the spirit of informed collaboration for FA articles Wrad nostalgically recalls, could return. Individuals don't count. The aim is to get competent editors drafting to quality standards, not me or Smatprt frigging about endlessly on whether 'vast' (per source) or 'large'(toned down adjective) is the appropriate way to describe the academic consensus that this is a fringe theory and pseudohistory. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't wish to prejudice any future involvement in this matter - and, as the author of a suggested method of resolution, it behooves me to do so in an admin capacity - by examining what has happened historically, but may I suggest that if you are confident that you and Tom have been attempting to work without favour to a particular viewpoint that you would be able to work exclusively to address the viewpoint that Smatprt holds? Providing Smatprt is agreeable to work on article space devoted to viewpoints other than which he personally holds, then the exercise can begin.
 * To 2/0, I recall you expressed a wish - at "some other place" - that we might work together again. Would you be willing to sysop such an exercise as suggested above? You are familiar with the issues of editing articles relating to fringe viewpoints, where citing and sourcing are concerned, and the problems of overlap into mainstream (ie. those cited to references which reflect the consensus/majority viewpoint); until the consensus of literature authorities is that the authorship of Shakespeare's works is seriously questioned, that articles relating to his works reflect the opinion that The Bard is the "onlye begetter" of them. I should think that most mainstream references are clearer on that point than is the case with - an example I have drawn from the top of my head - anthropogenic global warming even. If this is to be attempted, having two admins will likely prove to be of benefit simply for availability purposes (and I am not thinking of attempting a consensual sysopping environment).
 * I am going to ask Smatprt if they are also willing to participate in such an exercise - since this only runs when there is agreement from all potential parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 to Shakespeare authorship question in a wp:bold move (plus the sandbox version is better by far) and have also redirected Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship per the merger consensus which was reached months ago mark nutley (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I got this right? You want to require editors to edit in support of a point of view?  (Even if it is one to which they do not subscribe.)  That might be a fine exercise for a debating society, but it's no way to build an encyclopedia.
 * Here's an alternative idea: these editors should be required to edit towards an accurate account of the academic work in the field. Kanguole 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we edit from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, which is what I have been trying to do. Since I adhere to the academic consensus, when it comes to Shakespeare I edit anti-Strat articles instead of mainstream articles. While that might be OK for a few months, I wouldn't want to do so forever, since I have a list of Shakespeare-related articles I want to work on but have been putting off trying to finish the sandbox article. Also I doubt this will go down well with Oxfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem I can see is that the SAQ page was dominated by aficionados of just one alternative candidate, Edward de Vere. They were hostile to Baconian theory, for example. Their exercise perhaps would better be to write the Baconian theory, and Marlovian theory articles, for example, rather than re-edit a massive and well organized page, written with an aspiration to NPOV from the perspective of mainstream scholarship. The pages on alternative candidates are neglected, and Tom and I have tried to get them into shape. Even the page dealing with the biographies of key figures for Oxfordian theory like J. Thomas Looney and Charlton Ogburn /Charlton Greenwood Ogburn are neglected by those who hold to their theory. It's quite amazing. I think for practical purposes - we are hear to write comprehensive articles - we should be asked to fill out the huge gaps in the encyclopedia that even adherents to these fringe theories ignore. We did this, for example, with Alden Brooks, who made a major contribution to the fringe argument with his works, and yet lacked a biography.Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nishidani is perfectly correct that Oxfordian editors seem to have no interest in the figures behind the theory they support, the theories' history, or the various arguments that have been proposed over the years. Their sole interest seems to be to convert readers to The Truth by adding Oxfordian arguments to as many pages as they can. An example is the Famous Victories of Henry V. The scholarship on this play has been systematically distorted by an Oxfordian editor who has dragged out obscure and obsolete sources to promote the view that this pre-Shakesperare work about Henry was written by de Vere. I created the articles on Joseph C. Hart and Abel Lefranc. I also greatly expanded the one on James Wilmot. If editors genuinely interested in the history and arguments made by the major and minor players in the SAQ were to do the same, it would add to our knowledge by creating properly sourced articles on books and writers who have discussed these matters. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to Kangoule: Yes, you do seem to have it wrong - although it is likely because I was not precise enough in my language. Of course, all edits to any article should neutrally follow the best sources available, but what I am proposing is for editors to work to that standard in those articles that do not favour their own expressed (or expressed by other parties) preference. Oxfordian inclined editors should contribute to the non-Oxfordian articles, Stratfordians likewise to the non-Stratfordian articles, and any other determined viewpoint as regards the "real" author of the works of Shakespeare to work on articles except that viewpoint. In short, I am trying to break the perceptions of ownership and bias by having editors work to good encylopedic standards on the "other" articles within the subject areas - and hopefully foster some collegiate respect for the other viewpoints. It will, in a worse case scenario, indicate who is here for the betterment of the encyclopedia, and who is here to advocate one viewpoint and deprecate others. In the best case scenario, all the articles will be improved by a fresh perspective and editors will learn to value input by individuals who question what may be regarded as assumptions by the pre-existing editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oxfordians are already contributing to the non-Oxfordian Shakespeare articles, from an Oxfordian perspective. They, or rather, Smatprt, for he alone edits this line - the others hopping in usually only when his intrusion of fringe material from poor sources is challenged - would not even be noticed as Oxfordians if they mastered the intricacies of mainstream scholarship and edited from that perspective. It's like asking an Velikovskian to write on Egyptian chronology, or Akhnaton, or the Exodus, using only sources that do not share the old maestro's peculiar cosmo-historical theories. Then, asking wiki astrophysists to improve the articles on Venus and Jupiter from a Velikovskian perspective, since it is absent there. Or for ancient historians to add to the Necho I and Ramesses I pages a detail NPOV exposition on Velikovsky's view that, despite the 600 years which separate these distinct figures in the standard model, they are interchangeable, the same person, in Velikovsky's fringe thesis. Then I suppose, the ancient historian could, to see things from a Velikovskian perspective, go to Hittites and get into a huge edit war with others by proposing a section detailing Velikovsky's reasons for denying that the Hittites as described ever existed, being neo-babylonians, all exquisitely detailed by selective quotation from one of the 3 relevant volumes he wrote on this, (WP:OR, WP:Undue, and WP:Fringe violations been chucked one's way by everyone in the meantime). All this is possible, but effectively it is asking fringe theory believers to study mainstream books, and orthodox scholars to drop the latest book on Shakespeare by Stephen Greenblatt, or Brian Vickers, or their copy of the Shakespeare Quarterly, in order to master the contents of Mrs Henry Pott's Francis Bacon and His Secret Society, (1891) or Mrs Nancy Rice Clark's  Bacon's Dial in Shakespeare (1922). By Jove, I know who would get the benefit of this, the Oxfordians compelled to read academic masterpieces, while the sober wikipedians would be condemned to spending their months immersed in books no serious scholars reads any more, if only because they are tedious exercises in paranoid hermeneutics! I'm sure you will appreciate the irony in your suggestion, if I take it as meaning, functionally, a reward for fringe theory believers, who are invited to ascend to the luminous spheres of paradise (mainstream scholarship), while  orthodox mainstream scholars are advised to take up residence in the intellectual equivalent of Dante's Malebolge, among the fraudulent! Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Constance Mary Pott, founder of the Francis Bacon Society, Eleanor Turner Clark, the founder of the American branch of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, no page on Wilbur G. Zeigler, the father of Marlovian theory. No page on Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence. No page on Percy Allen (writer), who played an important role in the 1940s. Charles Wisner Barrell, a major player, gets the barest stub, though the Oxfordian sites showcase his writings. The same goes for Ogburn père, whose 1952 opus kick-started a dying theory.  No page on Diana Price, the only recent sceptic who has tried hard to make an intelligible argument for the fringe view. Take one that has been sketched on Granville Greenwood, which is really bizarre because of the carelessness. He actually is registered under two names, because the same man also has a bio under George Greenwood. Both pages are embellished with variants of the extraordinary line: 'His father and brother, Charles Greenwood, had equally brief first-class careers', which suggests that Greenwood's father was his brother. Disattention to detail everywhere when fringe theory is the subject, and neglect of important wiki constructive work on the historical environments of these ideas, and the people about them. One can hardly expect Shakespearean mainstreamers to fill all these obvious lacunae. There's loads of work out there that begs attention, and allowing pages to get bogged down for several years in trivial disputes that drain time better spent in actually creating and pushing articles through to completion is not a spectre that incentivates readers or experienced hands to improve this particular area.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggested to Smatprt that he write about the SAQ university programs (something I'd like to know about), but got no response. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Traveling and laptop crashed. Resorting to blackberry with poor reception. 60 minutes just to post this. Returning oct 18. Sorry about this.Smatprt (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always felt that the idea that one should edit "towards" a partisan viewpoint one does not hold is half-baked and counter-productive. We're supposed to edit towards the neutral point of view, which in itself is a viewpoint. Editing in any other direction sounds inherently suspect and I think it's probably very subjective too--if I look at an edit how do I know the editor has made a conscious effort to put more emphasis on a point of view than he thinks is justified, and if he has done so why is that supposed to be a good thing?

For those reasons I oppose this proposed restriction. I haven't evaluated Smatprt's edits or those of the other editors, but if they haven't yet engaged in mediation and are all willing to do so I think that might be worth trying. --TS 11:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation was opened on 18th August, two months ago, at Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question. It seemed to have died in its tracks, after opening statements were made on the talk page.
 * What is the proper procedure on this page, in the meantime. It is not fair to talk behind people's backs, if their backs are turned. To judge from Smatprt's note, he is unable physically to reply for at least 8 days. Does one just suspend the discussion until that date? Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Until Smatprt can respond in detail, we can try to resolve any issues that other potentially effected parties have (which may or may not effect Smatprt) and even perhaps attempt to also act in Smatprt's likely best interests - other editors will have some idea of his likely position - per AGF so that there is the best chance of this proceeding promptly upon his review and comments. His initial response appears to indicate he is interested, so why not build a model that he is also likely to agree to? Chance for folks to get some practice in regarding stepping into a different editors shoes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to TS (have we interacted before?) Perhaps not toward a viewpoint, but to edit an article relating to a viewpoint one does not agree with - and apply oneself as diligently to ensuring a npov presentation of the best sources available for it as one would the article(s) regarding one's own preference. Simply, to try and improve an article through best practices only and putting aside own's own consideration of the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why somebody interested in the mainstream view of Shakespearean scholarship should spend a microsecond reading, let alone editing, an article about fringe views. This seems like an unjust imposition. Whatever next, requiring qualified biologists only to write articles about biblical literalism? --TS 13:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for Smatprt because no one who supports him in arbitration disputes, or crucial moments of conflict, actually troubles themselves to edit alongside him. He's a lone paladin left to battle away for Oxfordian theory on wikipedia, and I can understand that isolation, rather than making him disappointed in the lack of supportive fellowship, led him to explode when, having finished my assigned job on theShakespeare Authorship Question (which he had effectively given up, I think, as a lost cause), I showed up to begin tackling the next logical page in a problematical set of articles, i.e., to bring up to NPOV, in consonance with WP:RS, the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship page. It might well have struck him as if, having yielded ground on the terrain most dear to him, he found his reserve redoubt under fire. I wasn't thinking like that. I was thinking. Done this, do that, i.e. fix a series of troubled POV-plagued articles that rely on poor sourcing, and are advocacy pages.


 * Since the Shakespeare Authorship Question issue, which has been a sore and bone of bitter contention for several years, has been settled, the question is, whether that is to serve as a model or not for how to write of a fringe theory that has mainly historical interest. I.e. are we to edit articles on fringe theories according to NPOV, and the strict reading of WP:RS, duly formatted to comply with GA standards, or are we to be given licence to dither away for several more years with a methodology that ignores the quality of secondary sources, permits WP:OR violations everywhere, and is rather lenient about WP:Advocacy editing? In blanketing my transfer of a section of the SAQ article written to summarize the mainstream critique, based on WP:RS, of de Vere's candidacy, Smatprt more or less declared he would not accept such material or such methods on that page, and used a kind of administrative fiat to ban me from it. Not promising therefore. Nishidani(talk) 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know lots of people who feel that way about editing Wikipedia. Why contribute articles in your specialty when they can be vadalised by a 14-year-old kid who read something on the Internet and then waste time arguing on talk pages and dispute resolution pages to defend your edits against people whose main expertise is in gaming the system?
 * I look at it like a cop or an elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution: being a Wikipedian means you agree to uphold Wikipedia standards no matter where they appear. It's a bit more than just being limited to your own obsession, and in fact those editors are often the worst offenders when it comes to disruption. Either the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia mean something or they don't. If they don't, then I'd like to find out so I make better use of my time doing something else. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the redirect has been reverted even though there has been 7 months given to actually do a merger, what is the usual process when something like this happens? mark (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * my god, trying to comment by blackberry from the pacific ocean is insane. I'm really sorry cuz I want to respond and participate. Marknutkey, your bold moves, while in good faith, completely disregard the process we all agreed to. Please ask tom or nishidani to explain the process we were following and had agreed to also check with scienceapologist, who proposed it. And please restore the saq in the meantime so as not to scuttle that process. It would be the right thing to do. OMG, another hour just on this post. Blabkberry editing is a nightmare!Smatprt (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you can explain why your blanketing of my last remark here also entailed blanketing all of my spelling corrections to the earlier edit I made regarding the Velikovsky analogy? I know a blackberry in mid ocean can be troublesome, but it looks like you've jammed me again. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the edit history it appears that he blanked you in two edits 3 minutes apart, so it wasn't unintentional. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't make a fuss, if only because in the 70s I was hired to help in doing the backleg of one of the yachts in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, to bring one of the competitors back to port, and I know what Smatprt must feel like being all at sea.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment here that contains the germ of a proposal that might be relevant. Pertaining to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article, I wrote:
 * I would like to say that this article as it is written is terribly written and organised and its references and POV violate almost every Wikipedia policy. If it is to be merged into the SAQ article, it would have to be rewritten. I think we need to step back and determine a course of action, possibly involving rewriting the stand-alone SAQ candidate articles to bring them up to Wikipedia standards, maybe through competing sandboxes much the same way we did the main SAQ article. In fact, that method might be a good way for Wikipedia to solve some of its most contentious problems regarding controversial articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark Speaking purely for myself, I've never been opposed to the idea of having 3 separate pages for Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, and Baconian theory, and perhaps your move was a tad premature. Most of our attention was given to getting a stable overview of the whole complex history of Shakespeare doubts. There's still a huge amount of work to be done to apply the same method to whatever material might be regarded as not covered in that overview. There can be no full merge of the material on that page back into the new article, because, as Tom has just noted, it is a total wipeout, formatwise, in terms of referencing protocols, and everything else. The problem is, if the wiki community accepts we have an Oxfordian page, will that in turn come to be a battleground, with the same editing vices, stonewalling and preference for poor sourcing, and POV advocacy, which derailed the SAQ page? Unless behaviour changes, it most probably will. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic of this discussion
I have refrained from voting on Smatprt's topic ban because I wanted to see his comments and defence. However, it seems obvious by this diff and this one that he still thinks he has the right to arbitrarily delete another editor's text and hasn't learned anything at all from this. If it's so difficult to post from a BlackBerry, it must be very important to him to try to silence his interlocutors the same way he did on the Oxfordian page, which is what sparked this discussion to begin with. I also read his comment for the restoration of the old SAQ page as just another attempt at delay, a tactic which he has employed for the past four years. Therefore,

* I support a topic ban of Smatprt from Shakespeare-related articles for a period to be determined after further discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(EDIT: Since he has reverted the SAQ page I believe his intentions are clear.)
 * Well I won't vote, because I brought the complaint. But, excluding us peons in the field, I looked over the administrative voting above and came up with the following breakdown.
 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Smatprt


 * NW
 * Bishonen
 * KillerChihuahua
 * Akhilleus
 * Kudpung
 * 2over0
 * Maunus


 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Nishidani


 * Kudpung
 * Maunus


 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Tom Reedy


 * Maunus(possibility to be considered)


 * Admins calling for some different solution


 * LessHeard vanU
 * If I've missed something, or classified wrongly, please correct. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I give up. After this edit, where Smatprt has reverted a new page that, no equable judgement could doubt, significantly improved the prior version, which we were all obliged to substitute with a different version, and restored what he calls a 'consensual version', when it was in fact a conflicted version for 4 years, I'll get off the fence, and call for a ban from all articles relating to Shakespeare. Include me in the verdict by all means if one wants the appearance of an equable solution. It can be a year, or whatever, but at least sufficient time to enable Shakespeare editors (I'm not one) a breathing space to return and work these articles in an unconflicted atmosphere. I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason given for not responding to complaints on this page may be pretextual, simply a strategy to make it die on its feet for 8 days. He did this over the summer on the pages he was supposed to edit towards a new version, and the pattern seems to be repeated here. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that utilising purported limited connectivity to revert other editors while still not being able to communicate the reasons is very unhelpful - one person chanting "against consensus" while not being part of the discussion is not appropriate. I have put forward a suggestion on how to start afresh, but while there is obvious disregard for discussion it seems to be a bit pointless. Perhaps getting third parties to look over the issues and determine where there are policy violations and propose sanctions is needed before people will agree to model proper behaviour. I wouldn't limit to admins, though - just uninvolved parties - because sysop flags do not guarantee better reviewing ability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

After attempting to absorb the mind numbing wiki-leze on the long stretch of this page, which is but a blur now, I'm merely picking a post at random upon which to tag this little tale, since I sense being somewhere near the vicinity of the bottom. I apoligize in advance for being unaware with much of the formatting protocal, and am not even sure if this is a place to offer a smidgen of support to SMATPRT, so double apologies if not. This a general observation, however, of what I've managed to garner from the foregoing discussion/s. I have also also been a witness--more often as an an observor, of SMATPRT's straightforward attempts at maintaining the Edward de Vere page page over the past few years, but have also encountered him firsthand as a sometime contributor. Ironically, SMATPRT took me for an antagonist when we first sparred on some rather dramatic altarations taking place on the page. I'm sure that dialogue must still be lurking somewhere in these corners. In any event, I am all for solid sourcing of material presented in the article/s. But there is some bias as to what constitutes solid sourcing; yes, you have a set of definitions, yet there remains some bias. (Please see my remarks on the discussion page for Oxford posted earlier today in this regard.) SMATPRT seems to me to have genuinely tried more often than not in an even-handed manner, with a modulated voice, and with reasonable questions/arguments and an obvious concurrance and willingness to continue working to upgrade the endnote sources, etc. Basically, to cooperate justly; but he justifiably expects some just cooperation in return, which with all due respect, he has not received. With regard to Mssrs. Tom Reedy & Nishidani (among others but particular these two), I was pleased to read some constructive comments with regard to limitations of authority and stricture from some few Administrators. But as for the two chaps in question, and the other cohorts who have hammered SMATPRT on those pages, which I may say without hyperbole, as well as the thick of the Grand Inquisitors above, I have first of all never seen such a pack of bullies, to put it mildly, nor smelled such a recent unsavory stench of Big Brother, to put it largely. I am glad there seems to be something of a thread for a call for a somewhat fairer, possibly more impartial judgement on the matter--verdit rather. But if SMATPRT is banned as an editor on Wikipedia, I would only remind you that this entire transctription is in the public domain. And this kind of blacklisting definitely has the potential to come back and bite you with some ugly PR. There is talk of standards above. I can still recall what Wikipedia stood for the first several years of its infancy, and with all its sophistication and innocency. VNV a.k.a. Vero-Nihil-Verius
 * Ridiculous posts like this one are one of the reasons why any reasoned discussion of this topic gets bogged down in nonsense written by Oxfordians and other "Anti-Stratfordians" who appear out of the blue whenever Smatprt's behaviour is challenged. Pages and pages of this stuff leave a quagmire, and nothing gets done. Yes, it is time for a topic ban. Paul B (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Smatprt, you say, has 'maintained' the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page against a what you term, and you say these are euphemisms, a pack of bullies, Grand Inquisitors, cohorts, with Tom and myself as gangleaders?
 * Could I remind you that I have never edited that page, and that over four years, the editing statistics give us the following breakdown of Oxfordians vs. mainstream Shakespearean scholarship supporters.

Oxfordians Total = 297 edits from an avowed Oxfordian perspective
 * Smatprt 159
 * Ben Jonson 44
 * Vero-Nihil-Verius 13
 * Various anons 65
 * JackofOz 7
 * Softlavender 4
 * Alexpope 3
 * SamueltheGhost 1
 * Afasmit 1

Mainstream scholarship supporters participating in mediation, or recent edits on pages Smatprt dominates. Total = 26
 * Tom Reedy 22
 * Paul Barlow 1
 * Xover 2
 * Wrad 1
 * Nishidani 0
 * (Clarification: These statistics relate to the page before I began to edit the page in a comprehensive review, four days ago.) Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why a motley behind less than 10% of this selection of major edits should be charged with persecuting Smatprt there is beyond me, unless the strategy is to adopt the gambit of depicting the resident giant of the page as the victim of a packassault by leprechauns who are, however, hardly ever seen. I freely admit to having examined it quietly several months ago. That is my only crime. All I noted was this. (a)There are 3 biographies to draw on to write this page: that of Ward (1928), that of Alan Nelson (2003), that of Mark Anderson (2005), the Oxfordian supporter whose main claim to competence in Elizabethan archival research was that he regularly writes for Rolling Stone. (b)That page has 71 notes. Of these major sources, Ward is cited 1 time, Nelson 3, Anderson never, except in promotional bibliography. Oxfordian websites, orgs or non RS books are cited 16 times.

(c) Citing primary sources in unverifiable archives, such as the Archivo General e Simancas, 31 times. I.e. whoever 'maintains' the page allows most of its sourcing to be unverifiable primary research, or partisan Oxfordian webpages written by non-academics. The world's foremost authority on de Vere, whom Smatprt detests as a 'muckraker' (Tom Reedy's term, and I disagree with both), is cited 3 times on trivia. In other words the page has been maintained without any effort to write it according to the two established and major biographies that are readily available.

Draw your own conclusions, as long as they are consonant with the relevant data. Mine was that the reigning editor has a doctrinal hostility to writing pages according to WP standard criteria, and does not care to use mainstream sourcing. It's behavioural. P.s. 'cohort' is not a person, but a group of persons. The archive material is, I suspect, copied from secondary sources, which are then dropped, making it impossible for the reader to verify anything, unless he goes to archives in Paris and London, or laboriously checks with the secondary sources he may suspect as being cited, without being named. Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The archive material seems to come from The Oxford Authorship Site. In some cases it seems the reference is to the accompanying commentary rather than the text of the primary source.  Kanguole 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks 看過了!I.e. editing to wiki from a non-RS POV advocacy site, without revealing the source. WP:OR on a large scale, but also, those documents on that web page appear to come in large part from B.M. Ward. The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604, from contemporary documents, (1928, reprint 1979), or his papers. They appear to have been edited for that site by Nina green. Ward did the crypto-Oxfordian bio of de Vere in 1928 (but I think Ward is certainly a Reliable Source). The point is, this is a very peculiar, devious way of going round things. We have Ward's book, and Nelson, which cite all of those documents, and yet the editor who did that cites the archival numbers for the original historical documents, while eliding the original secondary sources. It just makes every outside editor or reader's work so much harder to verify anything, and runs a high risk of WP:OR violations from the use of obscure archival papers whose provenance, in RS, is concealed from wikipedians. Not a conspiracy, just absurd practice that gives everyone the round-around on WP:V. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to contribute here, but I've just noticed that my name is mentioned above, so I must clarify. Nishidani lists me as an "Oxfordian" who has edited the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page "from an avowed Oxfordian perspective". I'd like to point out that This wouldn't matter much but it illustrates Nishidani's casual attitude to the truth. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an "Oxfordian" and Nishidani has no reason to suppose I am.
 * my sole contribution, 13 November 2009, was a minor edit, updating a link to a scholar's name. To say it was "from an avowed Oxfordian perspective" can only mean that he didn't bother to look at it, or that he thought nobody else would.
 * Sure, whatever. Thanks for that contribution, one link: it must have been exhausting work. I think I've done 1100 edits to that and related pages on this notoriously difficult Shakespeare area. I've only seen you pop up when some chat is underway, usually to niggle away at me or Tom. But, that's your right. I must drink one beer less tonigh to punish this arrogant avowal of mine, smacking of pride, of my belief that my record as an intensive contributor to content, and not vexation, there has been salutary, and not casual. I hope we can leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to know
All right, I have returned to land. What exactly would you like me to respond to? While I wait for your list of questions, I'd like to bring us back to where we started in terms of our original assignment. Smatprt (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created two articles for community comment: Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1 and Shakespeare authorship question Draft 2. The first article is the version that I have worked on since receiving the assignment from ScienceApologist. The second version is the one created by Tom and Nishidani. I want to assume good faith and request that uninvolved editors comment on the pluses and minuses of each version. Whatever is ultimately decided is fine, but I do want to at least go thru the process we agreed to. Within 24 hours (I have a lot of catching up to do at my job today) I will give my reasoning behind Draft 1 (we have heard the reasoning behind draft 2). In the meantime, I would ask Nishidani to refrain from his continued attacks on draft 1 until he at least hears what my approach to it actually was. Smatprt (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another attempt to divert the topic from its original purpose.
 * What we would like to know is why did you blank out Nishidani's comment here, as well as an explanation of the original complaint of you blanking out his edits. While you're at it you can explain why you reverted the current Shakespeare authorship question article three times (1, 2, 3) while you were complaining about the difficulty in connecting.
 * So far the vote to topic ban you is 9 to 3. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to blank out any comments. Due to connectivity issues, I found it impossible to keep up with the latest version. I did my best to edit only the latest version, but failed in that regard. My apologies, but it was as simple as that. It took forever to make edits and there were conflicts. It wasn't intentional and I realized that if I did unintentionally blank anything, that one of you would fix it right away - which did indeed happen. Again, my apologies, but it was truly frustrating to try to edit this particular talk page by blackberry. Smatprt (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider that an acceptable explanation. I don't believe his comments were restored, however, which I will do. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the old SAQ article because it was hijacked without going thru the agreed process, which I have tried to reinstate above. I have explained the reasons behind my draft here, at the rfc:[]. From my blackberry, a simple revert was easily accomplished, even with the connectivity issues. Responding point, by point, providing links, trying to format, etc - those are the actions that I could not easily accomplish. I hope that makes sense. Smatprt (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I "hijacked" nothing, not did Nishidani. The move was made by an uninvolved editor, and has since been taken over by a new editing team whose purpose is to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. It's already received more outside comment and suggestions, as well as editing by non-authorship geeks, than any of the other times when outside input was solicited. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, Tom. But you let it go instead of following thru on the process we all agreed to. Why didn't you inform the editors and administrators here of the process we were going thru, as dictated by ScienceApologist? Why did you not revert and finish you draft? Then we could have put both versions up for community comment? Smatprt (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "I reverted to the old SAQ article because it was hijacked by you and others". 'Nuff said. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't perform the initial hijacking. But you let it happen, didn't revert, didn't inform other editors here about the process we agreed to, and instead immediately supported the hijacking and began editing it. You still haven't answered any of my questions: Why didn't you inform the editors and administrators here of the process we were going thru, as dictated by ScienceApologist? Why did you not revert and finish you draft? Then we could have put both versions up for community comment, yes?Smatprt (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (a) A process was agreed on, to write a sandbox article. You then arbitrarily railroaded Tom and I off the alternative article, by creating a third, apparently to get us off your sandbox article. Tom and I worked for 5 months finetuning that version with over 1200 edits. You did a mere 60 tweaks to your version, keeping it basically the same as the SAQ article that had bogged down, and created yet another, mega-page running to over 300,000kb, that underwent a mere 20 odd edits. I.e. for the four or five months we worked ourselves to exhaustion, to come up with what was asked of us, you sat back and just tweaked, or watched on.
 * (b)A mediation was agreed to, under Seddon, in August. We all signed up. Seddon disappeared. It is October, and nothing happened.
 * (c)At this point, out of the blue, I began editing another page, seeing the SAQ version close to finish, and ready for review by outside hands, and you blanket reverted me. I protested this usurpation of administrative fiat, whereby you explicitly declared I wasn't welcome on that page, and asked the community to do something about this cancellation of my rights.
 * (d) You then tried to fudge up an impression I harassed you. The diffs went back to March, when I first encountered your extraordinary approach to editing wikipedia, and like many other previous editors, found it exasperating (no excuse, admittedly).
 * (e) I noted that, since we split, we had had almost no interactions from May until October, and (zero evidence for 'harassment' over those 5 months). I recalled only one interaction, my defense of you in August, when you were attacked, and felt harassed, by the sockpuppet of a banned Baconian editor. For which you thanked me at the time.
 * (f) You replied that even on Aug 9th (in my mediation note) I stated you were difficult to get on with, hence I had engaged in almost a 'year long' campaign of intimidation and harassment. It was untrue, and no evidence was given.
 * (g) Reviewing the evidence in the complaint here, several admins called for you to be banned, two said I deserved one as well.
 * (h) You disappear in the wild blue pacific, come back, and, since in the meantime I had made in 3 days almost as many edits to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page as you had in 3 years, replacing everything there sourced to primary documents in archives with standard scholarly citations, you began erasing much of that work.
 * (i)You systematically replaced sources that are RS, two standard academic sources, in just one edit with two old website pieces written by Oxfordians who are neither academically trained, nor RS; called Alan Nelson biography (2003, Liverpool University Press) the work of a hostile critic, to be expunged.
 * This is the state of the play, and it is not a difference about content. It is the fact that four 4 years, articles you dominate are in poor shape, and by the testimony of a good many editors, intractable. That must indicate a behavioural problem related to a persistent failure to understand what RS are, what NPOV means, what WP:fringe implies, why WP:Advocacy editing for a sectarian POV is frowned on.

I want to get back to editing, and not have time wasted in this eternal round of procedural nitpicking. We had, a day ago, developed a fine momentum for pushing through what was clearly the superior version of the 4 articles. I have a feeling that, with this return to bickering, and incomprehensive editing, everyone will just be turned off, and 6 months of fatigue, bearing finally some concrete prospect of success, will just go down the tube. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I have started an rfc here: []Smatprt (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban
In the meantime, I think the topic ban should be seriously considered, after these four edits by Smatprt on the de Vere page today, barely back.
 * (1) here we have the summary 'expanding lead, removing running commentary from notes'


 * (2) here the summary reads: 'Shakespearean authorship question: remove - undue weight being given to one biased critic. no balance. re-occurring problem here.'


 * (3) here we have the edit summary: 'removing speculation. More weight issues concerning this one biased critic being over-used in this article'.


 * (4) here the edit summary runs: 'over use of Nelson - again and again. must stop stating opinions and stick to the known facts.'

I could give detailed analyses why each of these violates guidelines, but withhold comment for the moment. I will so only if the violations are not obvious. They look like a provocation, and invitation to edit war, in which I refuse to get involved.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But I may be presuming people know the books, or obliging them to check them - an imposition of fatigue -

Take (3), as an illustration. He elided my text as speculation. My text ran: "Nelson" The source texts runs: "‘As with numerous other noblemen, Oxford's may have been a mere courtesy admission’ +'Oxford purchased no known legal books'." Elsewhere Nelson supplies details why here he makes that interpretation of the evidence. Smatprt didn't check. He expunged the source remarks on principle, disliking them, which is, I repeat, his major behavioural problem as an editor.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'It is not speculation. It is exactly according to the source’s text :


 * You prove my point - Nelson's speculations and "interpretations" have no place here. Just stick to the facts. It's not known what legal books Oxford purchased. So what? If something is not known, why are you making such a big deal about it?? "May have been" a courtesy admission???  It may have been, it may not have been. So what? Again - it's just speculation and opinion, it's not stating known facts. Why is it so hard for you to stick to the facts?  This is a bio article, for goodness sake.Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And yes, I am well aware that you would like a topic ban - leaving you and Tom to edit to your own POV and fill the articles with speculation and opinion instead of facts. How about this - why don't the three of us all just withdraw from these articles and leave it to uninvolved editors or a new editing team? Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Interpretations have no place there. Just stick to the facts'
 * If this is the principle, why was the the version I began to edit during your absence so riddled with 'interpretations' picked from non-RS Oxfordian material, and you hadn't noticed anything of the sort over the last 3 years?
 * This is quite easy to establish. Compare
 * "your last version, before I began editing" (23 unfactual speculations unsourced to RS or without any source at all, on a quick count. In three years you never sighted them. All are favourable to the image you wish to construct of Oxford. You only begin to complain of wrong facts and interpretations when someone brings in, for once, an impeccable RS, the world's foremost authority on Oxford's life.)


 * "my version before you started restoring the old version."


 * I'm tired of this bickering. And I think all potential editors who have shown up are put off by this. Could someone do the Shakespeare pages a favour and ban the both of us. It can get along fine without me. It can't get off its feet with this chap.Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll post the data on the appropriate talk page, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I don't think you have the faintest idea of what historians do, nor what principles govern the use of reliable sources to edit material into these pages. Closed. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to formally declare a voluntary topic ban on the raft of articles relating to the question of the authorship of the works usually ascribed to William Shakespeare, between effecting the following editors -, and , until the RfC above is concluded. Uncontroversial edits, such as correcting typo's, reverting vandalism, etc. will be allowed, plus any edit with consensus. Since I have volunteered the above editors it should be noted that violation of the topic ban will result in a severe finger wagging. Repeated violations will result in the official topic ban discussion being restarted (this is the serious bit!) Other editors may join in voluntarily also (but only for themselves, no more being volunteered by third parties). Just sign up below. Participation in the RfC is also encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (edit: amended text italicised per comments received below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm on. I will hold my edits to the SAC and related pages until this issue is resolved. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem there at all, LessHeard vanU, if I have understood the suggestion. Just a matter of English usage. The phrasing 'I am going to declare a voluntary topic ban on . . between editors' makes no sense. One doesn't declare a ban between editors, one does not declare a ban on people and then call it 'voluntary'. In short, the statement is meaningless, though I think I know what you mean (I must sound like a precious prick saying this, and it may prejudice my case for survival, but I'm a stickler, whatever, and no offense intended). But, sure, it's actually a great idea. I'd like to finish editing the biography on de Vere, since in a few weeks I will be off for several months travelling, which I don't see as actually related strictly to the area. But I'll agree to volunteer to refrain from that as well, in the hope that you can all determine what our fates are before November the first, and, if possible give me just a week, if the knife falls my way, just to conclude my revision of that. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, 13 minutes after you declared the ban Smatprt reverted an edit he didn't like. No surprise. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite just Tom. At least in my own editing experience, when one has a page open in the edit section, time passes, and you only realise someone has posted a notice on your page after you've closed it. I think over a text while the editing window is open (hence unable to se what's posted on my page as a notification) sometimes up to a half an hour.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you think it takes 13 minutes to hit "undo" and delete a section from the bottom of the page, my observation is just. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do have one question: what exactly do you mean "Repeated violations will result in the official topic ban being restarted." Does that mean that this AN/I is dead? Because from where I stand I see a clear consensus to topic ban Smatprt that lost momentum because of the delay. From my limited experience with these things Wikipedia dispute resolution is much like TV news: what's unfinished gets pushed out by what is new, and that's the reason why Smatprt has been able to survive for the last four years: he's a master at obfuscation and delay that either wears people out or causes them to move on to something new. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm on as well. Having been tag-teamed already by Tom and Nishidani this morning and afternoon, I am soooo looking forward to a voluntary break. I'll refrain from editing the SAQ, deVere, etc. articles, as well. I imagine we'll define that pretty broadly to include all the pages Tom and Nishidani have deleted SAQ material from over the past few months - I believe its around a dozen or so articles, is that about right Tom? Smatprt (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the record, TOM: Nishidani and I have been over at the De Vere page haggling for the last hour. Your constant accusations, this crying wolf all the time, is really tiresome. It's obvious you are out for blood now, and want me out of your way. Every other minority view editor has been driven off except me. How convenient if I was forced off, yes? Frankly, after what you two have driven me to, I may deserve a ban. But if so, I shouldn't be the only one. Remember the advice you received during the merge discussions - "it takes two (or in this case three) to edit war." Smatprt (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, Smatprt, if you were topic banned it would not be "convenient", it would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and give Shakespeare editors a better working environment. Your behaviour has run off a large number of good editors from Shakespeare projects. If you think I have "driven off" what you refer to as "minority editors", you should file charges against me and use the diffs of the interaction between me and all those editors as evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't need to - we have above testimony:
 * " i propose banning Nishidani and Tom Reedy instead. I was a regular on articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question for a time, but found the two them so mean-spirited, uncooperative and bullying that I decided it was a waste of time. The way they treat people who disagree with them is shocking, IMO. I'm surprised to see they are still getting way with this sort of thing. It's certainly not in the best interest of Wikipedia." Schoenbaum (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nishidani and Tom Reedy have made it impossible, in my eyes, to edit equably and civilly on any article even remotely connected to Oxfordian studies. I could provide a huge amount of diffs to back up my statements, but that would take hours to accomplish and hours to weed through. I hope the evidence will suffice that I was a serious and respectful editor on this subject matter until the relentless campaign waged by Nishidani and Tom Reedy. Now I avoid all the articles completely, including those I had a major hand in. I hope this brings some perspective to bear on the accusations of Nishidani about Smatprt, whom I have always found to be a civil and equable Wikipedia editor." Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And in a related note we have -" to claim that Nishidani and Tom are not disruptive is laughable. Obviously, you personally have not had diasgreements them, and as such, not encountered their bullying tendencies. If they are so undisruptive why are there now five people here claiming that that is exactly what they are? Irrespective of what Smatprt is or isn't, anyone who seems to disgree with them is targetted... And, I might add, as Softlavender proves, Smatprt isn't the only one they follow around..." Bertaut (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you want to isolate the problem to just me, and act like I am the cause of all evil on these pages, but as you can see - that is not precisely so. Smatprt (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but diffs are the coin of the realm. I can produce dozens of opinions like that about you. Probably hundreds. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hundreds. Good luck with that. Smatprt (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Resp to Tom Reedy - I forgot to include the word "discussion" in my comment; the ANI discussion relating to logged topic bans is suspended while we try this experiment, but can be resumed if the RfC/drafting option breaks down for any reason. My view is that the comments made at that discussion would, if taken to the bitter end, result in bans of varying lengths and severity among the three main editors, depending on how an impartial admin reviews it. I am attempting to get the result, a diminishment of disruption to the articles, without the stigma and inconvenience of logged sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary "Where are we?" break
The three main participants to the content dispute regarding articles relating to the question of the true authorship of the works of Shakespeare, i.e. those who have been forwarded as candidates for an official topic ban, have been subjected to a voluntary topic ban on mainspace articles by me so that the RfC on which draft should be preferred can be commented upon and the draft(s) amended accordingly. Other regular editors of the disputed articles are also encouraged to abide by a voluntary editing ban - usual disclaimers apply - and contribute to the RfC's and drafts. This is, as I said, entirely voluntary and is a means by which hopefully matters can progress and not be distracted by edit/revert wars in article space. Partipants are encouraged to AGF and endeavour to resolve the dispute via the RfC and collegiate editing of drafts. If edit/revert wars recommence, then the question of official topic bans and other sanctions will be revisited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you saying this AN/I is dead? And that we, the banned, cannot implement any suggested changes to the respective drafts? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Content dispute'? See the top of this thread. I simply wanted to be allowed to edit, after being consistently blanketed and obstructed, despite 6 months in which nary an impolite word was exchanged between me and Smatprt. Now I have undertaken to hold my peace. I thought this was behavioural. Back to silence.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing that this makes sense, but then it never did. There is already evidence produced of problems in this area as long ago as 2007. This has gone far past the "make nice and post an RfC" stage. If you can make up restrictions as you go along, why shouldn't I do so too? Mine would be much simpler: SAQ topic ban for Smartprt on the basis of years-long disruptive editing. My proposed solution may not be Solomonic, but it has the support of more than one administrator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I for one am very confused. If the "content dispute" part of this is in the process of being resolved (to which I am amenable and have agreed), what about the topic ban part? For the record here is the tally sheet of admin opinions:
 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Smatprt
 * NW
 * Bishonen
 * KillerChihuahua
 * Akhilleus
 * 2over0
 * Maunus
 * Angus McLellan
 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Nishidani
 * Maunus
 * Admins calling for a topic ban on Tom Reedy
 * Maunus (possibility to be considered)
 * I'll shut up and get back to editing in non-banned areas.
 * Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudpung isn't an administrator. Kanguole 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a report: the topic ban is already showing an effect. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) If you do so choose to read the collapsed mess, please not that Tom and I have already resolved this elsewhere and I don't need any additional criticism for my actions, which I admit were less than ideal. I don't want to hear any more about this conversation or the topic as a whole unless it goes to Arbitration, which it probably should. Sven Manguard Talk 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No criticism. Your remarks however gave me long food for thought. I wonder if you would be so kind as to take some time off the net and read Plato's Gorgias? Everything I would like to have said can be found there, if read the right way. Study in particular Callicles. Just a suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions upon voluntary topic ban during RfC
Per my comments here, I have removed the editors from their voluntary topic ban. It is my conclusion that the exercise failed to progress the issues that have been causing concern as noted above. I shall review the discussions on this page within 24 hours, and see if there is a consensus for other actions designed to address these issues (unless someone else does so beforehand). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban vote totals (admins marked *)

 * FOR a topic ban on Smatprt


 * 1. NW*


 * 2. Bishonen* (Involved editor)


 * 3. KillerChihuahua*


 * 4. Akhilleus* (Involved editor)


 * 5. Beyond My Ken


 * 6. Tarc


 * 7. 2/0*


 * 8. Paul B (Involved editor)


 * 9. Maunus*


 * 10. Tom Reedy (Involved editor)


 * 11. Nishidani (Involved editor)


 * 12. Angus McLellan* (Involved editor)


 * 13. DGG*


 * AGAINST a topic ban on Smatprt


 * 1. Softlavender (Involved editor)


 * 2. Schoenbaum (Involved editor)


 * 3. Bertaut (Involved editor)


 * FOR a topic ban on Nishidani


 * 1. Kudpung


 * 2. Schoenbaum (Involved editor)


 * 3. Maunus*


 * 4. Nishidani (Involved editor)


 * 5. smatprt (Involved editor)


 * FOR a topic ban on Tom Reedy


 * 1. Kudpung


 * 2. Schoenbaum (Involved editor)


 * 3. Maunus* (possibility to be considered)


 * 4. smatprt (Involved editor)

Moving out for reference. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really how we do things. There is no vote. Since according to that no admin has opposed a topic ban on Smatprt, I think we have an admin consensus for that. --TS 14:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if we are going to look at it that way, I suppose I should add that no admin has opposed a topic ban on Tom or Nishidani either. We should also note that a number of comments have been received offering other solutions instead of topic bans, but they have been left off Tom's vote list entirely. We should also note the number of involved editors. It would be helpful, of course, if more uninvolved editors weighed in. Smatprt (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If it will assuage your concerns, you can take me as being opposed to a topic ban for either Tom Reedy or Nishidani. If there was any evidence at all that you were approaching this matter with an open mind - open-minded dissent is a Good Thing - I wouldn't be supporting a topic ban for you either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose I can only ask that you do a little more homework. I have always encouraged, requested and supported the art of compromise. Tom and Nishidani, on the other hand have always taken a "my way or the highway" approach and have rarely (if ever) even responded to suggestions of compromise or meeting in the middle of the road. Look at this section [], for example, particularly these comments from two uninvolved editors who attempted to find a middle ground: [], [], [], []. The responses from Tom and Nishidani are good examples of what I am talking about. I would agree to any of the compromises suggested by these editors. Tom and Nishidani would have no such thing. So who is open-minded here? Smatprt (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor is just these two. I count 3 other editors in that discussion (Old Moonraker, Xover and Akhilleus) also refusing to compromise the core policies of the encyclopedia.  Kanguole 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiply that discussion by 30 or so articles spread out over almost a year, then you'll have an inkling of our world and a hint of the frustration we feel at the inaction of the last 4 or 5 (I've lost count) dispute resolutions that resolved nothing, but simply patted everyone on the head and said "Try to work together, will you?" Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope everybody realises the (Involved editor) markings in the list above were performed by Smatprt? In my case, "involved" refers to a brief attempt by me three years ago—no, your eyes aren't deceiving you, that's three years—to copyedit William Shakespeare, I think it was. The lead section only, I think it was (not too sure about that). Despite consensus on the talkpage for approving my edits, Smatprt reverted me with such stubbornness and so much argufication on the talkpage that I gave it up as a waste of time, and withdrew from all things Shakespeare. I don't offer this as an intrinsically interesting story, but as throwing some light on Smatprt's notion of "involvement". Oh, and I'm quite opposed to the nonsense of a topic ban for Tom and Nishidani—surely it goes without saying that the articles need them. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

My reading of consensus
Per the tally above, and the supporting commentary previously, there is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors of good standing that Smatprt is to topic banned from Shakespeare articles. I also note that there has been no period suggested, although it is clear that there was an inference of "permanent", so I am going to set the ban for 1 year and then to be reviewed (with consideration given to good editing outside of the Shakespeare area). There is also some comment from several editors regarding Nishidani's and Tom Reedy's interactions with those editors, although most can be said to be involved in the disputes in relation to those articles. These do not, in my view, raise to the level of sanctions or warnings, but to a request to continue to WP:AGF of editors who contribute toward an Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian sentiment. I shall now notify the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I made some content and structure-oriented suggestions at the article talk page. I have mostly been trying to avoid getting drawn in since then. This has clearly been a vexed problem that would have taxed anyone's patience. While I have some reservations about the capacity of Tom Reedy and Nishidani to maintain balance as regards to the neutral presentation of the various "anti-Stratfordian" strands, I feel comfortable with their understanding and representation of reliable sources. I also feel their approach at talk pages and other discussions has been more disciplined and respectful of policy. On balance, I believe your actions in relation to Smatprt are appropriate and had I been a participant above, I would have supported them. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on both drafts
From a couple of hours of studying the subject based on the ongoing discussions in WP, and a first look at Shapiro's latest book on the matter (Contested Will), and from a first reading of both drafts, I'd say that the controversy is not about behavior as some of the contestants here contend, but is indeed a deep content matter. From reviewing both drafts it becomes clear that academic wars are being waged here on WP by "smaller" proxies, for Ogburn on one side (draft 1), and for Shapiro on the other (draft 2). Suffice it to say that Shapiro himself mentions the ongoing debate in WP, and that he himself traces his own scholarly development from a pure mainstream Stratfordian to acknowledging the importance of the SAQ debate to the development of academic thought on the subject, and to becoming a Stratfordian that now asserts that a long list of works were actually the product of William's collaboration with other authors. warshytalk 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That Shakespeare collaborated with others has been well known for centuries, though only recently has it been possible to come to resonable conclusions about the details of it. These developments owe nothing to the likes of Ogburn, and only very little to early SAQ writers. They are overwhelmingly a product of modern mainstream scholarship. Shapiro mentons the debate on Wikipedia only to demonstrate how much mainstream scholarship is distorted by it. Paul B (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is far too esoteric
Look, the question is "should we topic ban Smatprt?" We can discuss the other editors' conduct at a later date. As far as I can tell most admins who have commented think he should be. So we have a decision.

So, Smatprt is topic banned from articles related to William Shakespeare, broadly construed.

--TS 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me - as I understand it, Administrator LessHeard VanU suspended this ANI until the RFC is over and until our voluntary topic ban is given the chance to sink in and produce some results. I'm not saying it will work, but we agreed to it. In lieu of that, your action is not valid. Smatprt (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did this simple discussion get extended into an RFC? This is beyond a joke. --TS 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Here are the relevant excerpts:
 * "the ANI discussion relating to logged topic bans is suspended while we try this experiment, but can be resumed if the RfC/drafting option breaks down for any reason. My view is that the comments made at that discussion would, if taken to the bitter end, result in bans of varying lengths and severity among the three main editors, depending on how an impartial admin reviews it. I am attempting to get the result, a diminishment of disruption to the articles, without the stigma and inconvenience of logged sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The three main participants to the content dispute regarding articles relating to the question of the true authorship of the works of Shakespeare, i.e. those who have been forwarded as candidates for an official topic ban, have been subjected to a voluntary topic ban on mainspace articles by me so that the RfC on which draft should be preferred can be commented upon and the draft(s) amended accordingly. Other regular editors of the disputed articles are also encouraged to abide by a voluntary editing ban - usual disclaimers apply - and contribute to the RfC's and drafts. This is, as I said, entirely voluntary and is a means by which hopefully matters can progress and not be distracted by edit/revert wars in article space. Partipants are encouraged to AGF and endeavour to resolve the dispute via the RfC and collegiate editing of drafts. If edit/revert wars recommence, then the question of official topic bans and other sanctions will be revisited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)"

There's consensus for topic banning Smatprt from Shakespeare articles, broadly construed. You don't get to override that and decree that it'll be "revisited". Smatprt, there is no suspension. Your topic ban is in force. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC). That wasn't Little Less above, it just looked a lot like it. It was Smatprt. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

This is so weird. I only made a sub-page because the discussion had reached 70k or more (now it's around 150k but at least it's not on the main page). It's an admin discussion with consensus and if other admins want to start an RFC or mediation or reiki or tarot that's great, but meanwhile there is a topic ban. This isn't rocket science. --TS 00:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not weird, it's quite simple. There is indeed a topic ban. That wasn't Less Heard posting about RFCs and mediations, it was Smatprt quoting him. And forgetting/omitting to sign as himself. Kanguole just told me that. I assume good faith, of course... but where's the SineBot when you actually want it? Bishonen | talk 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Jeez, my mistake - but come on, I'm having a back and forth with Tony where we have 4 interchanges in a matter of minutes - I think that is pretty obvious. And yes, I forgot to sign the last one. Really - in the middle of this conversation I'm going to try and sneak by you?? My stupidity and nothing more.


 * So how does one administrator say the ANI is closed, a course of action is imposed and the involved parties embark on that action, and then, well after the fact, another administrator decides the ANI is not closed after all. I have no idea which administrator is right. You both can't be. Either the ANI was closed and a course of action was agreed to, or it wasn't. I was told it was. As far as I know, you can't come in after the fact and re-open it in this way. Smatprt (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We can indeed; perfectly normal, I assure you. I seriously advise you not to test your own opposite conclusion by editing any Shakespeare articles; you'll be blocked if you do. Tony, ought there to be some sort of note on any of Smatprt's pages about the topic ban? I hope that's not necessary, because we don't want to embarrass him; on the other hand, admins need to know. Can it be recorded in some other place? Bishonen | talk 01:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm going to be relaxed about this. If no admin comes up to me and tells me something seriously interesting about this by the end of this month (Monday week, basically) I'll tell Smatprt he's topic banned. But that's not a hard-and-fast rule, it's just me being cautious because I'm not an admin. I don't think it would be sensible for Smatprt to edit the articles in the meantime. --TS 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've held myself strictly to the letter of the voluntary topic ban through this nightmare. I would appreciate clarification on whether this still holds. I'm leaving in the first week of Nov., and would like to know whether I can complete the revisions of articles I started or not within that time. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A possible solution; this ANI discussion concludes with whatever consensus has been arrived, and then is suspended pending the RfC/voluntary topic ban that I am enacting and adminning either resolves the issues or breaks down. If issues are resolved, then I and the other parties return and request that the decision of this ANI discussion is voided. If issues are not resolved, then the decisions here are made effective on all parties. With the stick of the decisions made here, initially the topic banning of Smatprt and any subsequent restrictions on editors, the carrot that is the voluntary topic ban (which has the same effect) and RfC attempt to resolve the editorship issues is the more tempting. Nishidani has been following the voluntary ban vigorously, Smatprt has given vocal backing to it and is to be expected to follow to the letter, and Tom Reedy is mistrustful it will work but has been holding to it. I think that TS's timescale of "by the end of the month" is sufficient time to see if there is any traction with the voluntary/RfC method of resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC) nb. Those were indeed my words quoted by Smatprt, and no comment on Smatprt's failure to note the authorship.


 * OK, I’m confused. This is my understanding of what you said:
 * 1. This AN/I is concluded with the consensus, i.e. Smatprt is topic-banned.
 * 2. That banning is then suspended, because during the RfC all three disputants are voluntarily topic-banned.
 * 3. If the RfC is not resolved, then Smatprt’s topic ban is reinstated.
 * 4. If the RfC is resolved, then Smatprt’s topic ban is lifted.
 * Is that a fair summary of what you wrote? If so, I have a few questions.
 * 1. The RfC is drawing few comments, and those that have been made make it clear that version 2 is the preferred version.
 * 2. Version 2 is now the de facto mainspace version, but no one is discussing and implementing the edits introduced on the talk page, ::and we are forbidden to do so.
 * 3. So what exactly would define the success of the RfC? And what is to prevent Smatprt from making tendentious edits to the new version once his ban is lifted (assuming success is declared)?
 * My distrust is directed both at the process that has allowed this type of thing to drag on for four years with no resolution, during which time numerous good editors quit editing Wikipedia Shakespeare pages in disgust, and the apparent naiveté that given his history anything short of topic ban will work to curb Smatprt’s tendentious and disruptive editing. These types of “work-together” solutions have been tried, with the result of continued and escalated disputes. I don’t see how this attempt is going to have any different result unless Smatprt is topic-banned. One incident that feeds my scepticism is Smatprt's recent violation of your condition: "(a) Uncontroversial edits, such as correcting typo's, reverting vandalism, etc. will be allowed, plus any edit with consensus. Since I have volunteered the above editors it should be noted that violation of the topic ban will result in a severe finger wagging." He made a two controversial edits without consensus, one that is still on the page, and got no fingerwagging that I can tell. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding omits one thing only, in that at the time that this ANI concludes and, presumably, Smatprt is banned we then look to see if there is sufficient progress on the voluntary ban/RfC model and see if the official ban should be suspended as there is sufficient ground being made. If it is determined that it is simply a method by which Smatprt is attempting to evade an official ban or that the exercise is failing, then we go with the ANI decision; we need to have in place serious evidence that the ban is not necessary. Only by his own actions, like removing the contested edit noted above, and not making other errors will Smatprt avoid a topic ban - the same applies to the other parties to not edit war, etc - and this will be the case for however long the voluntary ban lasts (which we have not yet discussed is until the RfC concludes). Any unresolved violation of the voluntary ban means default to the one apparently taking shape here. It should also be noted that the consensus on this page may reject the voluntary topic ban/RfC we are currently operating under, in any case, so it really is up to those editors under risk of being removed from the editing area to make it work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK but I'm still confused as to what defines RfC success. Since we're all voluntarily topic-banned for the moment, we can hardly engage in any edit wars, and in any case if Smatprt behaves long enough for the topic ban to be lifted, then we're back to yet another one of these drawn-out procedures to institute another ban. And since there are two competing versions up for the RfC, how does that foster any cooperation? I think I'm missing some very basic point. Pray you, if it be, give it me, for I am slow of study. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The conclusion of the RfC is that one or other of the drafts is preferred as being most policy compliant (which includes proper sourcing and due weight of references, etc.), possibly including elements of the other, where there is again consensus, and without any part which is rejected by consensus. That forms the basis of the article going forward, and all parties hold to that (unless consensus duly dictates otherwise). The co-operation devolves from having both drafts potentially providing input, and agreeing to abide by the decision of the reviewing editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay by me, but for one crucial point. I underwrote your original proposal because it read: 'I . .declare a voluntary topic ban on the raft of articles relating to the question of the authorship of the works usually ascribed to William Shakespeare,  . . until the RfC above is concluded.'
 * That language is quite clear and it therefore does not make sense, to me, to now hear:'this will be the case for however long the voluntary ban lasts (which we have not yet discussed).'
 * What was a voluntary undertaking to adhere to a topic ban now appears to be an involuntary submission to a topic ban that may prove to be indefinite, since the new interpretation says the time it extends over is not determined. But it was. Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, yes the voluntary topic ban lasts for the length of the RfC. I have amended my comment accordingly - I really need to review before posting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'No worries' as the youngsters say. It's in the nature of these things that slips are made. We're all pretty exhausted. Thanks for the clarification.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Less Heard, indeed, what does constitute a resolved RFC? If it's enough that Smatprt simply plays dead for a period and bides his time, I worry that it'll be nothing other than yet another loophole for him—one of so many over these four years. That's why I feel I must insist on putting the consensual topic ban in place now. That's what we have actually decided. Isn't it? Bishonen | talk 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
 * After 30 days, or earlier, when a reviewer looks at what has been said and makes a decision on what consensus says. That is the conclusion; but I suspect we are both referring to a satisfactory conclusion - one that both sets of editors can agree to as a basis for going forward. However, as noted above, there needs to be sufficient momentum within both the RfC and the voluntary topic bans "by the end of the month" alluded to by TS at the top of this section for the official topic ban to be suspended. You can, if there appears to be consensus, instigate the topic ban(s) right now, although I should prefer to wait until the clocks go back and would ask for a exemption on the RfC drafts in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Arggghhhhhh!!!! What consensus, and among whom? The consensus to topic ban Smatprt? The consensus of which article version is preferred? Forgive me for being so thick, but I have a hard time parsing your meaning. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. I write as I think, which means sub-clauses of sub-clauses and thus a lack of clarity. Just a moment while I collect my thoughts, pin them down, and try and make sense of them... Okay, I mentioned consensus twice, the first being in respect of the RfC - what "consensus" can be derived from the comments upon the RfC draft articles. The second noting of consensus is the one regarding the topic banning of Smatprt discussed just above in this discussion. Does that help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my absence - I was sleeping (I'm on PST). OK - I have removed the controversial edit and will begin a discussion about sources later today. I think this sourcing conflict is much to blame and would like to see it resolved for the good of everyone - future editors as well. Nishidani recently remarked that he and Tom require an "extreme scruple in sourcing" and he has often said that he will only accept sources with an university imprint. Is that Wikipedia policy? That is what I'd like to eventually discuss. I'd also like the mediation [] we've all agreed to to actually take place. Had the mediation happened in a timely manner, we might not even be here. Smatprt (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RS Board discussion

 * By all means, let begin another interminable discussion. I have kicked it off here. And if the participants in this deliberation have not yet read the statements in the mediation you piped to, they should. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked Smatprt ‘to remove the edit  contested, and avoid other errors.’  He didn’t, though he has given you once more the impression that he has removed all contested material introduced (as I earlier noted in a patent violation of the ban (plus any edit with consensus,’ is allowed), in saying: ‘OK - I have removed the controversial edit and will begin a discussion about sources later today.’

He removed only one part of his original edits, and left in the other, which is the contested edit sourcing, for his own opinions, a BBC piece that was actually written by copying verbatim the passage Smatprt originally wrote for the article. Now we have another huge thread developing because clear administrative directions are, for the third time, being minutely, and almost invisibly, wikilawyered, to achieve, I believe, precisely this effect, of unending disputatiousness. I will play no part in it. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 400px|thumb|left|Nishidani, you are not exhibiting good faith unless you follow the procedure to address the issues raised by Smatprt. [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)]]
 * You don't have to, because if you are following the voluntary topic ban in good faith and it is found that Smatprt is not then Smatprt is going to be topic banned officially. He is being given the chance to prove that he is prepared to act constructively and collegiately - and you seem to have evidence that he is not. The disputatiousness is going to end, one way or another, quite soon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, let me respond. Tom mentioned the two edits, and I thought he was talking about the two Ogburn cites. He didn't mention the BBC article. Now you, Nishidani, are raising the BBC report and saying its not RS either. I have to say its hard to keep up with what sources you are actually contesting. It's my understanding that the book the BBC reports on goes into extensive detail about De Vere's extensive patronage so whether the headline parrots the Wiki article or not, it is also summing up a major portion of the book it is reporting on. However, not having read the book (it's in German), I can't say for sure. In any case, I see Tom has opened up a discussion at the RS board (shortly after I announced my intention to do so).
 * Please don't do this. I notified the fact a day ago on the admin's page where you are editing. It is not something I bring up now. The point was, given the suggestion, you should have simply removed both both the contested edits, which we had been asked a good while back not to engage in, and which, given past discussions, anyone could see were provocative and in violation of the terms of the voluntary ban we all underwrote. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I must admit to being a little wary of what might be construed as Forum Shopping by Tom Reedy. Not only did he post at the RS board (the most appropriate place, obviously)[], but he also posted at four other boards! [], [], [], and []. I have been often accused by Tom of spreading the debate around the encyclopedia with much finger wagging and have come under a lot of fire for posting the RFC in more than one place. Yet here he is, doing the exact same thing. Is that acting constructively and collegiately? Smatprt (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The first response at the RS board has provided the answer I expected, so I will quote in in its entirety:
 * "As as RSN question there is a basic way of answering which is that Wikipedia does not demand the exclusive use of academic sources, and news articles are also acceptable in many cases. Just because a subject is historical does not seem to me to make a generalizable difference to that remark. Books making fringe theory arguments can of course also be used carefully in some cases if those fringe theories are notable and agreed to be needing coverage, which appears to be the case with the de Vere = Shakespere theory. How to balance those things is of course another question. So: If I understand correctly the material that needs sourcing is a statement saying that de Vere had a large number of works dedicated to him?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) (You can bet I'm remembering to sign this time!) Smatprt (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Smatprt, please familiarise yourself with the term WP:FORUM before you sling around accusations. There is nothing wrong in soliciting opinions from knowledgeable editors by posting a link to a discussion at the appropriate locations where they would be expected to congregate, and it cannot be compared with violating WP:ONEWAY, which I assume is your reference to "spreading the debate". And please remember that this entire episode cascaded from your editing against the topic ban.
 * Christ, can't we be still for a day or so? It's raining here and I've got a good book. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, I really do not understand your stance - you are on the brink of a topic ban, and yet you seem intent in arguing the minutiae of other editor's concerns. Where is the necessary identification of issues with your own standpoint? Pointing out the issues with other editors is not going to help you persuade others that your absence is not going to benefit the article area - even if the other parties are sanctioned. My proposals are a method by which you can indicate you are able to function according to WP practice, by seeking common ground and compromising between differing stances, but you seem to be using them to further your disputed viewpoint. Your choice, but it appears to me that you are squandering this last chance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please help me to understand - Tom and Nishidani are arguing minutiae, making further accusations and that is OK? Tom slings accusations in the same breath that he chastises me for slinging accusations. He proceeds to post to places where he thinks they will agree with him, but that is OK? And no, I wasn't talking about his particular application of ONEWAY, which is one of the subjects of the mediation we both agreed to. I was referring to the endless complaining about me posting an rfc, going to various noticeboards over the years, filing a wiki etiquette report against him, etc. He accuses me of "cascading" when I believe this all cascaded because of the endless vote tallies, and his out-for-blood pushing for a topic ban (directly after we agreed to LessHeard Vanu's proposal).Smatprt (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note that directly after the RS skirmish about Ogburn, he then proceeded to remove Ogburn and his book,[] as well as the major book by the senior Ogburns [], as well as one by another Oxfordian [] as sources and references from the current SAQ article (as opposed to the unpublished draft). He had included them before, and in all his and Nishidani's original drafts, but now Tom is rushing around deleting them. And all this without even waiting for opinions from the RS board?[]. I would consider that (at worst) gaming the topic ban, and (at best) confrontational editing. In any case, it is not a case of acting constructively and collegiately as you requested. Smatprt (talk)
 * It wasn't just Ogburn that I removed. For the most part they were fossils left over from the previous draft that hadn't been removed nor cited in the article. I was not expecting the article to be moved to the main page so quickly and was not finished, as I stated many times. I've known I was going to remove them sooner or later, but your reminder that they were there jogged my memory.
 * I accept this reasoning. I still honestly believe removing all the Ogburn references is not warranted, but I suppose that is better discussed after more comments are received at the RFC. Smatprt (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How this relates to this situation is unclear to me. And by the way, the statement "directly after the RS skirmish about Ogburn that Tom initiated" is yet another example of your trying to avoid the responsibility for making the edit by trying to reframe the incident. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement. I realize there is plenty of blame to go around and that I am a primary offender. Smatprt (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, what I would like to do is go back to reverting obvious vandalism, doing some formatting on character lists, and other non-controversial activities. These, I believe, are the allowed activities during the voluntary topic ban. I do not intend to work on any references or other tags and will wait for further comments at the RS noticeboard - if not for my own clarification, then for the clarification of future editors. Is that what you mean by functioning according to WP policies? I have also laid out reasoned responses on the RS question here.[] - Is that permissable, because I really think the RS issue is one where my policy understanding is correct and the only comment there pretty much confirms this.Smatprt (talk)
 * I specifically asked that the discussion not degenerate into another SAQ row, but apparently my hope was futile. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to feel that Tom and Nishidani can lay out any charge and discuss any minutia, but I cannot. Is there any offer of understanding or compromise being offered that I have missed?Smatprt (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly is Tom's cartoon above helpful? We are all going in circles - how is poking fun at that in any way constructive or an attempt to compromise?Smatprt (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lie down and take deep breath. You're hyperventilating. This place could use a laugh. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to add one thing - and that is a sincere thanks to Bishonen for this note []. I would just like to say "back at 'cha". I truly appreciate your words and if they are a preface to a kindler gentler Wikipedia, then I look forward to it. Smatprt (talk)
 * The difference between me and the rest of the Shakespeare editors you've worked with is that I have not been run off by your tactics, but instead stood up to them, as tiresome as it has been personally, because the alternative is to let you edit unchecked. I don't fade away, but respond to each and every point (I learned that from Bill Clinton). The tactics of attrition that have been so successful in the past does not work on me. That is the long and short of your complaints about me. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained myself in more detail at my talkpage, but for the benefit of the general readership - the minutiae of the common and academic consensus on WS's authorship is indeed related to the minute detail of that viewpoint, of which the Oxfordian viewpoint is one. Recognising that the Oxfordian theory is more fringe than minority allows a recognition of WP:DUE in regard to the presence of such theory within the main articles, and it approach in articles dedicated to such considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the topic ban continues to affect Wikipedia, giving us a hint of what unchecked advocacy editing portends for the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back the edits and commented upon the ip's talkpage - the contrib history is interesting reading, it is apparently a stable ip since there are comments about unilateral changes to historical figures dating from May this year. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what you think! Apparently this editor (Nina Green, apparently, a well-known Oxfordian] has some kind of special dispensation to edit her way. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I first read her work some 10 years ago. The past is beginnng to haunt me. At least the signature appears to eliminate the other possible Oxfordian hand one thought of, on examining the Canadian IP. Cry havoc and let slip the gods of wikilaw? Unlikely. Just more mess on these pages, as was predictable. Interesting to see she sources Nelson's 2003 book to Pearson's 2005 book. But then Borges did argue that the present does influence the past. Sigh!Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Things just get better and better. It is now stated as fact that "On 23 July 1567, the seventeen-year-old Oxford accidentally killed an unarmed under-cook". Smatprt only went so far as to say it was 'probably' an accident. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, WP:RS (mass removal of academic reliable sources), WP:OWN; WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:AGF, WP:V (the 'truth' must be edited in, independently of what available mainstream research holds). You name it, the IP has managed to break all of them, and the silence at AN/I is deafening.
 * The floodgates are open once you allow pages in this kind of fringe subject to be edited by 'private amateur researchers' from their webpages. I don't know how long one has to keep repeating it, but once you break the restricted rules on RS in the SAQ, you get the mess we now have. I no longer would know where to begin to emend the damage, and if this tripe is what one has to negotiate by consensus, instead of by hard and fast rules on quality sources, then editing there's going to be a pointless waste of time as a Sisyphean toil of futility, as it has been for the last 4 years.
 * Just take one example:
 * (a)On her website the IP has the following:-
 * "MYTH: Oxford was educated in the household of Sir Thomas Smith at Ankerwyke from 1554 until the death of Queen Mary on 17 November 1558"
 * Primary sources are cited to support her claim this is a myth.
 * (b)After her blanket revert of my revision of all that primary source stuff, she rewrote and gives, among dozens of other pieces of misinformation the following:
 * "Oxford benefited from the tutelage of some of the great minds of the Elizabethan age. He was first tutored by the Cambridge don and statesman, Sir Thomas Smith at his estate of Ankerwycke [1] in the Upper Thames Valley from some time in 1554 until the death of Queen Mary."
 * What she affirms in a website as a complete myth, is here said to be absolutely true. Same editor, diametrically opposed conclusions. Can we have a return to some logic here, please?Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The May comments are from me relating to the James Wilmot article. Wilmot is another figure in the Shakespeare Authorship saga. His supposed seminal essay on the matter has now been conclusively shown to be a forgery. The ip has persistently changed the text to add his/her own spin - that the Wilmot text is authentic. Edit summaries are often either deceptive or aggressive and he/she refuses to enter dialogue to work matters out. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them 31 hours for misrepresenting WP:BRD as vandalism, and linked to WP:V on the talkpage discussion. If there is going to be spurious claims to authority, then I shall likewise exercise mine. I have also reverted the article, pending consensus - based on verification of WP:RS - for the edits on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)