User talk:NinaGreen

Welcome

Hello, Nina (otherwise 205.250.205.73), this is just to welcome you on your new user page. Once again, if you need help, please go to the new contributors' help page, the help pages, the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Here are those links again:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• Suggestions on writing an article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Again, welcome! Moonraker2 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N notification

I have posted a request for opinions about Brief Chronicles here. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Libellous remarks

I'd advise you to stop your Personal attacks on me. I will not accept your misplaced allegations of libel regarding my post on the WP:RSN#Brief Chronicles. I will neither accept your unintelligible misrepresentation of my post at the noticeboard. In case you do not withdraw your false statements about me, I will consider seeking help at WP:ANI. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

• Cross-posted on User talk:NinaGreen and Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration. Arbitration is not a Supreme Court of Everything on Wikipedia; it's a rather specialised board exclusively for dealing with conflicts involving conduct. If you consider that the members of the Arbitration Committee are volunteers just like yourselves, I think you'll realise why; there is no way they would have time to deal with all the conflicts involving content, for example. Nor does the ArbCom create policy; they don't have time for that either. Please note the significant fact that most requests for Arbitration are turned down cold; either because they're requests about content, or because they're requests for policy-making, or because the conflict isn't deemed to be ripe for arbitration (which is supposed to be the last stage of dispute resolution, after all other avenues have been tried). All three turn-down reasons would come into play if any of you requested arbitration of the basic conflict on this talkpage. As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Considering how embattled the positions have become, I would suggest, amongst the wide range of possibilities, that you invite outside comment via WP:RFC. But there are plenty of other good ideas at WP:RSN.

There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review"[1] alone, garnered this collection:

1. "Please refer me to the Wikipedia arbitration case which made that determination."
2. "If you want to argue with Shapiro, you can ask Wikipedia to arbitrate the issue."
3. "If you want to turn your personal opinion into Wikipedia policy, you need to take the matter to arbitration. That's the only way you can turn your own personal opinion into Wikipedia policy."
4. "If you and Tom want a determination from Wikipedia that the authorship controversy must be presented on Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you need to take the matter to arbitration to obtain a formal determination to that effect."
5. "If you and Tom wish to hold the personal view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, you have the right to do so, but your personal view is not Wikipedia policy, and you cannot turn your personal view into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
6. "You and Tom are entitled to hold the view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, but you can't turn your personal views into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
7. "Tom and Paul, it's you who are making the assertion that Wikipedia must treat the authorship controversy as a fringe theory, not me. It's therefore your obligation to take it to arbitration if you want to make it Wikipedia policy. You've been making the assertion that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory everywhere on Wikipedia where you could find a forum, but so far it's merely your own personal opinion, albeit repeated endlessly [sic]. If you want to make it Wikipedia policy, take it to arbitration. If you were as sure of the outcome as you've claimed to be in every one of the countless assertions [sic] you've made, you'd be off to arbitration in a flash."
8. "I'm interested in knowing how you would explain to a Wikipedia arbitration board that in your view its only a 'proposition' that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon."
9. "No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour." (What... ? Nina, have you even looked at the page for requesting arbitration ? Here it is.)
10. "The only way to make it Wikipedia policy is for you and Paul and Nishidani to take it to arbitration and obtain a ruling."
11. "And you and Paul and Nishidani are not following Wikipedia rules if you are merely 'deeming' something to be so, and then claiming that what you 'deem' to be so is now Wikipedia policy, and everyone else must abide by what you have 'deemed' to be so. There is a process on Wikipedia by which what you 'deem' to be so can be turned into Wikipedia policy. It's called arbitration."

To address claim number 11; no, it's not called arbitration, and there are no "Wikipedia rules" that have any relevance to the personal attacks and the wikilawyering quoted above. Nina, you are making up these notions of Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. I realise you're a new user, but please make a start on reading the basic policies in good faith, and on listening to more experienced colleagues. Eleven out of the eleven comments above are in error, and haughty and sarcastic with it. The sheer repetition is what troubles me the most. Please read WP:Gaming the system. The nutshell version goes like this:

"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden"

Don't do that. Don't play the IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Only post on this talkpage when you have something to say that is not a copy of what you've said before, in either wording or substance. If I don't see any improvement in this respect, I'm sorry to say you may eventually face a block.

Tom, I see you discussing arbitrating the conflict also: "She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen". (BTW the "she" is rather rude, IMO.) No, I don't think Nina does know that, or even that you do, and I'm trying to explain it as gently as possible to you both. Nothing very alarming would happen; it would merely be useless, and a waste of time and energy, as the case would be briskly ruled unsuitable for arbitration. We all need to aim for not wasting time, our own or other people's. Nina, please reconsider your bad-faith debating style. The other editors are obviously hoping for you to change your approach and become an asset to the article. So am I, as you have a lot of valuable expertise. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC). P.S. On the principle of not wasting time, I won't be re-posting or rewording any of the above unless I see good reason to.

Despite it all the endless back-and-forth . . .

. . . I think your input will make for a more robust and more neutral article, and that is my hope. Oxfordians have made some valuable contributions to Shakespeare studies, one of them bringing a different perspective that causes (or should cause, if they'd pay attention) mainstream scholars to question their assumptions. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary ban on excessive posting

Hi, Nina. Did you notice me addressing you about repeating yourself excessively on Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford in my previous post here, just above Tom's? (Further comments and your replies are on Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford). That applies in spades to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Both the repetitiousness and the generally large volume of your posting is making that page hard to read. Of course I'm not saying it's all your fault that SAQ talk is a mess. (The newest contributor to the page has a lot of trouble both with signing and with posting in the right place, as I expect you've noticed.) However, sheer length and number of posts is certainly part of the problem, as is soapboxing (please click on that link, if you click on nothing else). I've noticed several editors reminding you that talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM; one person pointed out that you posted 21 times on SAQ talk yesterday. See WP:TALK, where the following points are of special relevance to the situation on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." And further: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject."

I frankly haven't seen you pay any heed to your co-editors on this issue, nor to me. It tends to be a point you ignore when/if you post replies. I've got something to suggest, which I think would be good for the page and also good for you, as being time-saving and making people more likely to pay close attention to what you write. Would you consider holding to a voluntary limitation of at most 5 posts, and altogether 600 words, per 24 hours? Conciseness and focus are good, helpful things. Please respond. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

If I may say so, Bishonen, that suggestion doesn't seem to be based on any policy. There is no offence in having a lot to say, which is just as well from your own point of view. If Nina were to agree to a self-imposed limit of any kind, how long would you wish it to stay in place and what would you ask for next? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but it would be quite tempting to ask you next to limit yourself to addressing stuff you know something about, Moonraker2. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

This appears to suggest that I should say nothing because I do not understand the issues in question. I know enough about freedom of speech to know that people cannot be asked to be silent because someone objects to the quantity of what they say: the notion is an absurdity. Even if I were completely without understanding, which I am not, I should also still have the right to express an opinion. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy is WP:Admin. Those entrusted with the tools are expected to use their abilities to facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia - as long as the methods are within policy there does not need to be a precise definition of how this is done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that WP:Admin can be stretched so far. If it could, then it would give an almost unlimited discretion, which would be very undesirable. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As is your prerogative, although I suspect the reality to be different. I have previously mediated and attempted to resolve disputes (see User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 101 and User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 102) largely based upon admin discretion and initiative, and I have been an admin for over 3.1/2 years and have a reasonable grasp of the flexibility the role allows. Any action, outside of that specifically covered in policy and guideline, is also able to be reviewed by the community and the consensus subsequently derived then followed. I have no issue with specific issues being raised and addressed, upon there being concerns found. Outside of that, like any editor I am permitted to attempt any reasonable course of action to progress the creation of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen started editing one month ago (28 November 2010). Their contributions since then are listed below for background:

Page	Edit count
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford	652
Shakespeare authorship question	50
Talk:Shakespeare authorship question	153
Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford	130
Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2	30

The quantity of talk page posts may be acceptable if something constructive and new were added. However, that is not happening. Bishonen's suggestion is unusual, but something needs to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted this earlier to Bishonen's talk page, but I gather it's better to post it here on my own Talk page. Here's what I said:

Bishonen, I'm not sure how to respond to a message on my Talk page, so I hope this is the way to do it.

Re your proposal. I'm not an unreasonable person, and frankly I have better things to do with my time than post on the SAQ Talk page. But with all due respect, I think you've misidentified the problem. The problem is Tom's stonewalling. I just posted this:

Nishidani, no goalposts are being moved, and no-one is being swept under the carpet, although there's definitely some stonewalling going on on your and Tom's part. As you mention above, I asked that you and Tom whittle the list down so that it didn't include sources more than a decade old and sources who aren't members of the Shakespeare establishment. Tom has stonewalled, and hasn't done anything. You've come up with Peter Milward, but haven't indicated whether that's the sole name left on the list as far as you're concerned. And so far neither of you has even identified the work by Milward which you're citing, nor produced the context of the citation so that it can be confirmed that Milward is endorsing that view and speaking for the Shakespeare establishment. I'm guessing that the quotation is perhaps from the chapter entitled "Catholic Shakespeare" in Milward's unpublished (and unfinished?) online autobiography, Genesis of an Octogenarian, but I have no way of confirming that, or of seeing the quotation in context, because the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter can't be read online. There's a link to it through the Wikipedia article on Peter Milward, but the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter appears in white type, and I can't find the quotation Tom has cited.NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus, Tom posts an alleged list of sources which could be cited to support his claim that the current consensus among the Shakespeare establishment is that those who advocate an author other than William Shakespeare of Stratford are a 'lunatic fringe'. It turns out that virtually every single one of the alleged sources couldn't be cited in a Wikipedia article as a reliable source representing the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment because the sources are either way too old to be representative of the current view of the Shakespeare establishment, or the sources aren't part of the Shakespeare establishment (which Tom deliberately disguised by calling them 'academics' in his list). So I ask Tom to whittle down his list to those who actually can be cited as reliable sources in the SAQ article as representing the Shakespeare establishment on that point, and Tom stonewalls and does nothing. It's been that way with every single significant issue I've raised. That's why the discussion has been so prolix. Tom always responds, but in the end, when the point goes against him, he just stonewalls and fades away, and nothing ever gets resolved, and since Tom controls every edit made to the page, no changes are ever made to the article.NinaGreen (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen answered:

Thanks for answering. That's a perfectly good way of doing it; you can either reply on my page, as you did, or your own (below my post, in that case: just ordinary threaded discussion, as I'm doing here). Whichever you prefer. I don't have quite that impression of the recent discussion on the SAQ talkpage, but never mind about that; what I'm asking for is a reply to my question. Will you agree to the voluntary limitation I propose? Or not? Bishonen | talk 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

Since posting the above to Bishonen's Talk page, I reviewed the History on the Talk page and this statement made by someone on the Talk page, and repeated above by Bishonen, isn't true:

one person pointed out that you posted 21 times on SAQ talk yesterday

I did not post anywhere near 21 times on SAQ yesterday. Not only that, but most of what shows up on the History as individual postings by me are just minor edits I made to the postings. I seem to have trouble catching all my typos and whatnot when I read over my postings before I put them online, and I often go back to a posting several times for minor edits. So the claim about the excessive number of my postings is a red herring. Tom Reedy has posted at least as many times on the SAQ Talk page as I have, and I would be willing to wager that his total word count exceeds mine.NinaGreen (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

my support

For whatever it's worth, I just want to tell you here that I am watching carefully every word that is written on the SAQ controversy on WP over the past two months or so, and I have have been completely swept over by all your arguments so far. What prompts me to come here now and try to express my thoughts directly are your latest replies/arguments to both Less Heard and to Tom Reedy on the SAQ talk page. I just wanted to say "Hear, Hear!." I know this is a tremendously difficult uphill battle and I hope you have the strentgth to keep going as you have been doing for the past 2 or 3 weeks. I hope you don't desist on the face of the established barrier or 'firewall' that exists around the entrenched majority position here in WP. And, again for FWIW, I just want you to know that you can count on me with whatever support I am able to provide, in whatever forum you wish to raise your case going forward. Be strong and courageous! warshy^talk 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, please do stay with us. As I said in the thread above, it is an absurdity for any user to complain that someone else has too much to say, so I hope you will resist going along with any such a notion. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you! Very much appreciated!NinaGreen (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Zweigenbaum As the recent arbitration review appears to concern you, here is my input on the issues on the Shakespeare Authorship Question discussion page. If it about someone else, including me, it may be of interest:

The generalized language of LessHeard's analysis is difficult to grasp, so perhaps I can be most helpful as a newcomer by describing my own experience since beginning to participate in the site in December 2010. My first perception was that Nina Green was being beset with harassments and deprecations, although she seemed to be quoting reputable texts accurately and presenting reasonable objections to the prevailing (Stratfordian) trend of a group centered around Tom Reedy, who is a published advocate against the Oxfordian contention. This a priori bias presents an unbreachable conflict of interest achieving a neutral point of view under the circumstances. I filed a neutrality tag, indicating the conflict between parties regarding content. This resulted in him or another reverting the tag, and I think there were two or three repetitions of filing and reverting, and I decided it was a stonewalling situation. Threats that I was unco-operative followed, shaming, sanctions, warnings I would be banned, sneers, making fun of my name, overfamiliarity with the sense of contempt which that conveys, the like. Ms Green was cursed at, seemingly without sanction against it. A previous Oxford student or scholar, I don't know which, was driven out of the discussion group some months before. Ms Green was accused of representing the mystery man. My substantive contributions were summarily ignored, no exchange whatsover. I became aware that if there is no exchange that after a few days, the issue would be considered closed. Thus, the discussion function of the site is eschewed by going on strike against discussion, so to speak, until the time is up on the issue, at which point it doesn't exist. This would be a perversion of the purpose of the discussion page function, in my view. In essence, since Tom Reedy entered the discussion group in December 2009, the site has been completely revamped as a putsch, takeover, as though following the hint of an English scholar, "the Oxfordians are carpet-bombing the Wikipedia site", that the orthodox view is in danger and the site must be taken back. He quoted the scholar's comment during an exchange. The present ambition to have the totally revised article approved as FA, meaning featured article?, would give it permanent status, in effect place it--a piece of writing obvious to me from an ideological point of view--before the public in perpetuity. All Oxfordian sources are rejected as not reputable, even when by credentialed scholars. The bias reflects that of the uneasy orthodoxy concerning the subject itself. Discussing the issues under biased conditions is an inherently unfair state of affairs and probably a misuse of Wikipedia access to the public, highly stressful to the underdog. I wondered if this revision task were taken on for pay or favored status. It is not given to me to know. I do know the site is unrecognizable in comparison to what it was a year ago. Not one contrary view receives neutral expression. Thus I can understand why an individual, Ms Green, myself, or the previous besieged person, versed in the orthodox and alternative scholarship, would feel hopelessly frustrated and betrayed. Even the simple principle of asking for consensus to archive materials before the standard time, got violated without apology or reversal, only the bald statement, the file was getting overloaded. In actuality, pre-mature archiving (in the recent case, five days) buries conflict that the public might become aware of if discussion were retained according to rule. Hence the Wikipedia rule for seeking consensus before removal. There appears to be a serious double-standard. Those in charge will not be sanctioned. Those who do not conform are subject to sanction. As a closing example, the prevailing group has asserted a version of Shakespearean history not endorsed by even the orthodox community of scholars at large, i.e., the notion that there was "no doubt" about the Stratfordian Shakespeare authoring the canon, either contemporaneously or for 200 year after he died. This is contrary to historical fact and record. When I posted to that effect with sources, there was again a summary dismissal, no response, and no change. It constitutes a parable of the kind of thinking that produces revisionist history in the image of its latest tyranny, complete with condemnations, threats, and show trials for the non-conforming. To doctrinally deny or simply ignore verifiable contrary evidence, distorts the processes of seeking and expressing the truth. It is extremely ironical that this shoould occur in the very subject matter, the question of an eclipsed true author of 'Shakespeare', who pleaded to posterity, "If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world, Draw thy breath in pain, To tell my story." Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.240.11 (talk)

Warning

Please don't comment on the nefarious plans people supposedly have "in mind", as you did here, but only on their edits. See the policy No personal attacks, whose nutshell version is "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Please remove or (preferably) strike out the personal attacks on others from that post. (I realise that won't leave much, but that's your problem. Feel free to remove your whole comment.) It's rare for me to block for personal attacks, especially a new user, but your attacks, especially against Tom Reedy, and egregious assumptions of bad faith have long ago reached a point where they poison the whole (supposedly collaborative!) talkpage for the Shakespeare authorship question. Please stop or I may block you from editing. I don't want to do that, but I'm beginning to despair of finding any other way of preventing your disruptive behaviour. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

This is absolutely ridiculous, in my view. You, Bishonen, are one of the most biased, rabid, blindsided editors I've seen post anything on the Sakespeare project area. But on top of those extremely undesirable qualities as an editor, you're also an Admin! So you use your editing bias to threaten a regular editor with whom you viscerally disagree of meting out Administrative sanctions! How sweet. I mean, it is clear to me, that you and Johnuniq may do this pretty soon, trying to muzzle Nina down on WP, as Less Heard did before with Smatprt. Both you and him have already been pretty clear on your threats. But before you do that, let me just register here that I predicted in advance exactly what would happen. I myself will probably get now a warning on my own page from you for expressing my view here. warshy^talk 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It really is baffling the way you're carrying on here, Bishonen. At a time when the project is finding it difficult to attract new contributors, here is a new editor, knowledgeable, energetic and cogent, and for some unfathomable reason you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make her feel as unwelcome as possible. There was absolutely no need for any admin intervention on that page. All that your contributions have done is raise the temperature.

If it is a game, Nina, then the name of the game is to stop you talking about content, and to start you talking about editors. Don't fall for it! MoreThings (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I broadly concur with warshy and MoreThings, without endorsing any extreme views. As Bishonen's impartiality is in doubt, I really think it would be better for him to recuse himself from the whole affair. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Some background

At Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, the issue of whether particular behavior conflicts with policy has been raised. I hope you don't mind, but since it can take quite a long time to become familiar with procedures here, I would like to explain a couple of points.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: that means we do not try to spell out every detail of what is right or wrong. Instead, policies and guidelines and essays are used to provide advice and opinions. The best starting point for an overview is WP:5P. Accordingly, it is unproductive to ask whether a particular rule prohibits borderline behavior (policies only prohibit stuff which is obviously bad). Sometimes users interpret that situation as meaning that they are entitled to pursue a course of action, provided no rules are broken. That is not true, because Wikipedia depends on collaboration. All unmoderated Internet forums (and newsgroups before them) degenerate into chaos where bullies slug it out. Wikipedia manages to avoid that because tendentious editors are (eventually) calmed down or removed.

Regarding the number of edits to a talk page: There is nothing wrong with making 21 edits to one talk page in a few hours. However, it is a problem when that much attention is focused on a single issue over a protracted time. If you feel that others are attacking you, you should report the matter at WP:WQA. If you merely feel that your views are being questioned and you have to respond, a better long-term strategy would be to simply take a break for a day or two, then write a single response that covers the important issues. There is no need to refute every assertion, but there is a need to respond to points made by other editors (provided those points are directly related to improving the article).

I noticed something that may illustrate the situation:

• At this page a dispute is being discussed regarding claims about a certain editor (the details are not relevant here).
• Contributors shows that the largest number of edits at that page is 18 by user Born2cycle in the last 7 days (18 edits in 7 days).
• Another editor claimed that the discussion "has become dominated by a single user" (Born2cycle), and they posted a Wikiquette report at WP:Wikiquette alerts#Born2cycle.
• After a lot of discussion over two days, Born2cycle said "Okay, okay, I hear you. Thank you." (diff).
• The issue has been resolved.

I am not suggesting that the above example is similar to anything at Talk:SAQ. My point is that there are no rules prohibiting what was happening in the above case, and a discussion was required for the editor to receive the message that they needed to change: there was no compulsion. I am providing this background because I know that it is hard to adjust to how things work here. It is collaboration that makes Wikipedia work. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, Johnuniq, that Wikipedia most certainly is bureaucracy. It is Kafkaesque in its bureaucracy. When it suits, policies are set in stone and inviolable, and when it doesn't suit, well then they're just a rough guide, open to interpretation. And who gets to do the interpreting? Why, the ones with the big sticks mops, of course.

The kernel of all the policies here is this: give due weight to reliable sources, and do it from a neutral point of view. And that's exactly what they were doing on that page. Somebody said "This is fringe."; somebody else said "Produce your sources.". Sources were produced, and then challenged. Then an alternate lead was offered and that was challenged. That is exactly how things are supposed to work here. There's no need for all of this stuff about counting posts, and the like. It's just silly. MoreThings (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Nina, you are in violation of the 3RR rule. Stop reverting Shakespeare authorship question immediately or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Inappropriate personal attacks

Nina I suggest you read WP:NPA, which states that "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." If you continue your personal attacks I will take you to dispute resolution forthwith. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, NinaGreen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Nina, I've responded to your question at my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A request to conform your behaviour to Wikipedia policies and procedures

Your repetitious edits on the Shakespeare authorship question talk page are in opposition to WP:AGF and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have made more than 15 postings to that page in the past 10 hours, all of them more or less along the same lines—vague allegations of lack of organization and bias in the article and falsely stating that statements in the lede are not properly sourced. Almost every other editor on that page and one administrator have told you that your continued repetitive complaints have no validity and are not productive nor conducive to successful collaborative editing in accordance with Wikipedia procedures and policies. Despite the consensus of editors, you continue to make the same claims, and you continue to be disruptive and hamper the editorial process. Below are some examples (these examples are by no means exhaustive):

lack of organization and bias

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

unfocussed and disorganized

lack of organization and want to replace lede

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

selectively quoting the source to falsely state that the lede is not properly sourced

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced after being corrected on above accusation

unfocussed and disorganized

more of the same, plus accusations of dishonesty

falsely stating the lede is not properly sourced

Below find diffs to the other editors (besides myself) to reason with you and explain the proper procedures and suggest the correct method of seeking resolution:

Nishidami

Xover

Xover

Paul Barlow

Xover

Paul Barlow

Xover

Poujeaux

Bishonen

Nishidani

Johnuniq

Johnuniq

All these editors are all telling you the same thing something is not right here, and it’s not the consensus of editors, most of them who have years of experience editing Wikipedia. These examples are by no means exhaustive.

I ask that you begin editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When pointing out any perceived deficiencies with the article, you need to be specific and provide links to or quotations of the offending text, along with a stated policy or guideline that it violates, as well as an explanation of how it violates that policy or guideline. If you continue to be disruptive you may be subject of an RfC/U case about your behaviour. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I am afraid I find the above a diatribe. Nina Green is invariably rational and polite, and if she finds something "unfocussed and disorganized" (to take one of the above points at random) I see no reason why she should not say so. Such words are not personal abuse, they are constructive criticism. If the same restrictions were placed on academic discussions, there would be no intellectual debate. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A diatribe scants evidence for rhetoric, so that is an unfortunate description, Moonraker. Nina is 'rational' in spelling out what she thinks. The evidence Tom supplies, and which I underwrite, is that she does not appear to understand the rationality shared by several other editors. If answered, Nina doesn't usually reply. She moves to other things, and, after a while, repeats the same thing. It's intensely frustrating. In the meantime therefore, since you can evaluate what she is doing positively, which for the life of me I can't, could you be more active, as an experienced wikipedian, on this and related pages, and assist her in trying to clarify her points and avoid being repetitious? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, rhetoric is the problem. If I may say so, "to conform your behaviour to Wikipedia policies and procedures" sounds just like what the professional classes (and, indeed, all other classes) were asked to do in Stalinist Russia, and it ended in the Great Purge. Surely we can discuss our articles without resorting to threats? Moonraker2 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you can discuss the issue without making ludicrous comparisons to Stalinist Russia? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no such comparisons are strictly necessary, but I stand by that one, which people here might like to reflect on. The comparison, which on the face of it is a linguistic one, is fair in my view, and if you don't agree with that then it's at least fair comment. Perhaps we could see a more liberal approach to pursuing complaints against newcomers to the English Wikipedia, and in particular less rhetorical exaggeration of alleged offences, which is a habit of extremists of various kinds. Even if these present complaints against Nina Green have any substance, which I am sceptical about, they are plainly admitted to be about 'behavioural' matters rather than anything more fundamental. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The measured use of language is what the FA process in particular is about. To call a dif-rich exposition of a problem a 'diatribe' is true only in the classical Greek sense of the word and not in its familiar English connotation. From diatribe we move to hyperbole, and to liken a request to conform to what wikipedia policy requires of editors to Stalinism (why not Nazism, Maoism, McCarthyism, Fascism etc.?,) is an egregious example of that rhetorical device. I say that despite believing that the rules of wikipedia are inadequate, bureaucratic and select, as often as not, for editors whose exquisite politeness is flanked by poor judgement. Still, we have agreed on several things in the past, and I respect your view, even if I cannot understand it. What has happened recently is not conducive to efficient work, and if you can help Nina to make her case, it would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much. But we should be aware that she is fairly new to Wikipedia. She should read carefully the guidelines linked at the top of this page, and NPA, which makes the key point that one should comment on the content of the page, not on other editors as she frequently does. Her claim that "Once something has been put into the SAQ article by Tom Reedy or Nishidani, ... it's set in stone, and removing it is more difficult than taking down the Berlin Wall" is untrue. As a new editor with very little knowledge of the subject I have managed to remove two things from the SAQ article, one of them from the lead. Poujeaux (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I underwrite Tom's complaint, as set forth above. These threads are making the whole process of editing unintelligible to third parties and only create a specious impression of conflict among committed wikipedians, whereas we appear to have three constant sources of disturbance with an ideological axe to grind on behalf of 1 of the 75 authorship candidates, and hold this article to ransom. The purpose seems to be to stop the article going to FA, whatever the conscious intent. There is no awareness in the editing history by Nina here, or by those who have jumped into the article to vigorously support her and denigrate [.editors of some standing, that policies and purposes of wikipedia are understood.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you refresh my memory on the Wikipedia bans you yourself have been placed under? I think I should have that information under the circumstances.NinaGreen (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

As someone who absolutely does not have any tangible, immediate, material axe to grind in this ongoing historical debate (this is not my field of specialty, and I am a disinterested observer who has expressed agreement with well presented arguments on the side of the skeptics, especially by Nina Green), I can only say that the purpose of the majority side in this debate, as shepherded by their 2 principal wikilawyers and litigators (who, coincidentally, are the two people here trying to threaten Nina Green with sanctions), is to steamroll this article to FA status in the face of brilliant minority opposition. In the relentless pursuit of this immediate tangible victory (which would give Nishidani one more card in trying to reverse the permanent ban he is currently under from the Arbitration Committee in certain other areas), they will stop at nothing. They will continue in this relentless pursuit no holds barred. If they have to obliterate, literally wipe out of Wikipedia any opposition that stands in their way, they will do so by whatever wikilawyering ways they are able to concoct. They have already succeeded in their purpose once, and they will continue steamrolling ahead, trying to crush and to obliterate out of existence any opposition that lies in their path, no holds barred. And all this with the immediate, material, and tangible goal of being able to show around, especially inside Wikipedia, for political and clear status gain, that the article they created, this biased hack-of-a-job of a brainchild, has achieved FA status. warshy^talk 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For this [comic] relief, much thanks. I only wish I had not been drinking coffee whilst I was reading it. It took 10 minutes to clean the screen and keyboard, not to mention my burning nasal passages. And to correct your mistaken impressions, no one is seeking sanctions against any one. None of the venues to which I have appealed have any power whatsoever to sanction anybody. My personal wish is that Nina examine her editorial and transactional methods and conform to Wikipedia policy, as I believe she could make some important contributions to Wikipedia articles in her area of interest. I myself had to do the same quite some time ago, and luckily I was convinced of which path led to the most effective method of dealing with others (and not just those on the opposite side of the aisle) and have tried to conduct myself accordingly every since (with a few slips along the way). He that hath ears, &c. &c. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, alternatively several experienced wikipedians, not least Tom and myself, have worked very hard to pull a hopelessly conflicted article out of the mess it was in. We read several thousand pages of materials, revised it, reverted each other, and called for widespread review and criticism. Once the article finally was approved as the default piece for wikipedia, Nina Green, Zweigenbaum, Charles Darnay showed up and subjected it to an unremitting barrage of querulous nitpicking. Your picture can be stood on its head, with one difference. You all love that gambit of depicting someone as the brilliant victim of a cover-up, a suppression, by a disreputable gang of censorious gamesters. Nina, in your tale, is suffering the same fate here, as de Vere's candidacy suffers from the 'Shakespearean establishment'. (a)De Vere was subject to a 'monstrous conspiracy' by Burghley and the Elizabethan establishment to repress his brilliance. (b)Looney and his Oxfordian school suffer from a monstrous conspiracy from modern academia. (c)Smatprt and Nina now suffer from a monstrous no-holds-barred campaign of obliteration to stamp out the 'brilliant minority opposition' first of Smatprt now of Nina. What is consistently the case, in this narrative, is a sense of persecution by some gang of rascals. To me, it's simply a conflict between people trained to reason on evidence, and people who have trained themselves to reason against the evidence. If the latter prefer to embrace a sense of victimism because they think scholarship is Stalinist, so be it. Independent reviewers can make up their own minds, Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I find that self-important and lacking in consistency, but we begin to see what motivates Nishidani, which is that he seems to think no improvement to the article is possible. His latest attempt at finding fault with Nina Green, "an unremitting barrage of querulous nitpicking", fails to comprehend that that is exactly what good editing of historical writing is about. It's clear to me that Nina's nitpicking would have helped A. H. Nelson to produce a better book, if he'd had the benefit of it before going to publication with Monstrous Adversary. The statement "it's simply a conflict between people trained to reason on evidence, and people who have trained themselves to reason against the evidence" is self-evidently absurd, and to add "If the latter... think scholarship is Stalinist..." is a ludicrous invention. This brings me back to the point I made before about too much rhetoric. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Independent reviewers can make up their own minds." Yes, they can. And I have. warshy^talk 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, get back to me when you study the subject. You write:

It's clear to me that Nina's nitpicking would have helped A. H. Nelson to produce a better book, if he'd had the benefit of it before going to publication with Monstrous Adversary.

From this I know that (a) you haven't read the book, at least beyond pxvi, for on the next page there is a generous acknowledgement of the extensive assistance Nina provided Nelson with (b)your lack of background reading does not embarrass you about jumping in to line up on the side of a debate.

If you actually read Nelson's book, you will duly note Nina's help is acknowledged by Nelson.

Nina has been working on this stuff, without troubling herself to gain the technical qualifications, for three decades. If she can do better than Shapiro, Nelson, and the whole 'Shakespearean establishment' nothing is stopping her from submitting the results of her researches to a reliable press, so that it can be published, reviewed, and cited from on the relevant articles in Wikipedia. She cannot use wikipedia to advance her private speculations, or research into primary documents or secondary sources. The error she is making should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the historical method - history is not written by reproducing via astringent paraphrase data from primary or secondary sources. Two scholars, citing the same document, will formulate its content differently. All Nina is doing, in her research and on wikipedia, is questioning the veracity of the secondary reformulations of primary or secondary sources. She is a Platonist, hermeneutically: there are primary documents, which have one meaning, which she knows, and anyone who tries to interpret that source, by synthesis or in summary, can be hauled over the coals by a simplistic challenge which highlights the verbal dissonance between primary source and secondary synthesis. As a Platonist, she is contemptuous of the phenomenal secondary world refraction of the primary documentary idea. She is not 'trained' but has trained herself, and failed to learn or understand the nature of secondary source writing by literary scholars and historians. For her, it is only the 'primary source' that counts, and any refraction of it, in the translation from archive to scholarly book, will have a blurring from the original which indicts its fall into error, its errancy from 'the primordial truth'. This is a very very basic misconception, and accounts for her incapacity to herself make a narrative synthesis, as all historians do, of the immense amount of documentary evidence she has at her fingertips. That is why she is always nitpicking at scholars who step near her field for getting things wrong, but has yet to take on the risks they themselves must assume if they are ever to publish and be taken seriously.Nishidani (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Nishidani, I haven't read all through Monstrous Adversary, but I have read parts of it. I used the online version two days ago when beginning an article on Thomas Fowle. I found it rather revealing that Nelson considers Fowle to have had a "violent temper" apparently on the basis of his having been present on one violent occasion.

I am not going to comment on all of your remarks on Nina Green, which can hardly be based on an exhaustive knowledge of the subject and which do not appear to serve any proper purpose here, except to say that you seem to suffer from the affliction of leaping from speculation to certainty. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Though she probably doesn't recall the occasions, I first noted Nina over 12 years ago, and had an extensive debate with one of her acolytes, in which Nina occasionally intruded, when, as often, the former got stuck and emailed her for help. I've been watching her work desultorily every since. I put that remark as something general observers here should reflect on. If you apply the Platonic analogy of idea and appearance to text and metatext, and consider what is going on here, you should be able to perceive that slippage from the true original to its shabby secondary source is an abiding element in Nina's hermeneutics. Were she to write under these conditions, she would produce only a datum-rich simulacrum (actually not that different from Nelson, minus his narrative). No narrative interpretation of a life or a theme can emerge under this working assumption. I have waited for a decade to see her disprove my assumption here. I hope in the future she will prove that my intuition here is flawed. But she shouldn't be using it on wikipedia where a different set of protocols operate, protocols she interprets badly. I've never denied her good faith. I think, only, that her method is fatally flawed, and wastes the fruition of the erudition she potentially could command. This is of course personal, and off-topic, but since so many are beginning to see some personal motivation in my position, I thought I'd have to reply. Regards Nishidani (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the allusion, I'd take no umbrage. Indeed I'd probably get a salutary laugh if you identified which of the characters in that book you thought my editing profile most reminds you of:)Nishidani (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, stop the defamatory diatribes. And in connection with that, this is now the second time you have claimed that you and I have some prior association (I heard second-hand some months ago when I was not involved with Wikipedia that you had brought up on Wikipedia some alleged prior association between you and I). You wrote above:

Though she probably doesn't recall the occasions, I first noted Nina over 12 years ago, and had an extensive debate with one of her acolytes, in which Nina occasionally intruded, when, as often, the former got stuck and emailed her for help. I've been watching her work desultorily every since.

This is all starting to feel very peculiar indeed, if not downright creepy. You need to spell out for all of us forthwith what that alleged prior association was and who the 'acolyte' was because I cannot recall having ever had anything to do with you until I started editing the Edward de Vere article last November.NinaGreen (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very reasonable to regard real life claims as creepy. However, rather than spelling it out, may I suggest that Nishidani drop the matter entirely. It would be highly desirable for such issues to never be mentioned on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Nishidani has made a statement that he and I have had a prior association, and this is the SECOND time he has made that statement. Nishidani needs to prove that the statement is true, since I cannot recall ever having had anything to do with him until last November on Wikipedia.NinaGreen (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, dear me. Drop it, yes, certainly. I don't think anyone here is reading for tone. Moonraker said, 'your remarks on Nina Green, which can hardly be based on an exhaustive knowledge of the subject,'

I remarked that I have engaged online with Nina over a decade ago, something which made me interested in 'the subject', and have examined, read widely, the subject, and desultorily looked over her work ever since. If people are going to read anything sinister in such a straightforward comment, I can't stop them, but I certainly will desist if it means we have to get another huge thread of suspicion here. I hope some reflection is made on the technical flaw I alluded to. If the point is understood, it would save us a huge amount of time-wasting interactions. It was not, as is now almost invariably being said now, a 'defamatoryt diatribe'. It was an assist to try to get across why, from an academic perspective, this mode of nitpicking does not convince anyone. The method is flawed. So, that's it. Nishidani (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Nishidani, that is NOT it. You have twice gratuitously brought up this alleged prior involvement with me, of which I know nothing. The first time you brought it up, I was not even on Wikipedia. In the second instance, you've brought it up in the middle of a defamatory diatribe. You've made this very PERSONAL, and now need to establish that you are telling the truth by providing us all with the specifics.NinaGreen (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please choose your words carefully. Explaining why I got interested in the subject is not 'defamatory' of you, it is personal only in so far as I searched my own memories to discover where I first encounter the de Verean thinking your work exemplifiesm, and a short analysis of the methodological flaw you employ here cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a 'diatribe'. That's it, dear. If you think I have been defamatory or engaged in a 'diatribe', take it to the usual wiki complaint forums. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

such pompous, presumptuous, patronising, pretentious pontification! Poujeaux (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you've brought this up twice, once when I wasn't even on Wikipedia and only heard about it second-hand, and once today, and it's not going to be brushed off. I want the details of what you're talking about spelled out right here on this Talk page.NinaGreen (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm still waiting for the details of this alleged incident from you, including the name of the person whom you've defamed with the term 'acolyte'. Almost every Oxfordian I've dealt with concerning the authorship issue is a well-respected professional, and for you to defame someone with a professional reputation by terming him an 'acolyte' requires that you back up that claim. Moreover you wrote, among other defamatory comments concerning me:

Nina has been working on this stuff, without troubling herself to gain the technical qualifications, for three decades. . . . She is not 'trained' but has trained herself, and failed to learn or understand the nature of secondary source writing by literary scholars and historians.

This is clearly defamatory. You have elsewhere on the Talk pages for the SAQ and Edward de Vere articles claimed to have qualifications yourself which permit you to denigrate my qualifications, and have more than once claimed to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Since you've made such an issue of it, and since you've used your alleged superior qualifications and your having been published in peer-reviewed journals as a weapon with which to attack my qualifications, you need to back up your claims. Exactly what is your academic training, and in what universities have you taught? What books have you published, and in which peer-reviewed journals have you published (with specifics of the books and articles, please).NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we take it that Nishidani doesn't have the qualifications he's boasted of so often? Can we take it the alleged incident involving the alleged 'acolyte' which Nishidani has twice brought up on Wikipedia never really happened, and that Nishidani just made it up?NinaGreen (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you need cheering up...

... I'd just like to let you know that with their bias, repeated bullying, refusing to listen even when you make a valid point, false association with some previous editor, and childish insults, they are succeeding in driving my views from their side towards yours! Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!NinaGreen (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, I have no idea what this arbitration is about. Tom's allegations are all over the place. Please define the issue which is being arbitrated. It cannot be an 'outing' issue because there IS no outing issue. Firstly, Tom's alleged 'slip' only revealed an e-mail alias Nishidani uses outside of Wikipedia, and did not reveal any personal information concerning Nishidani as defined in WP:OUTING at all. Secondly, I am not trying to get Nishidani to reveal any personal information as defined in WP:OUTING. I am merely trying to get Nishidani to back up (1) his gratuitous statements concerning an alleged incident which he claims took place involving me and some unnamed 'acolyte' 12 years ago which I have no knowledge of, and (2) his gratuitous statements that his superior academic qualifications and publication record in peer-reviewed journals justifies his defamation of my academic qualifications. There is no 'outing' issue there. Nishidani made the statements gratuitously. He needs to back them up. So, as mentioned earlier, please define the issue being arbitrated, and how it got to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Reading over some recent talk page activities of yours, and seeing the reports on the Arbcom request of how your editing has been perceived by multiple outside observers, I have become convinced that you have indeed been engaged in a campaign of agenda-driven tendentious editing, which has had a seriously disruptive effect on the overall editing situation at the Shakespeare-related pages. Multiple attempts at getting you to recognize the problem and change your approach have evidently failed.

As an uninvolved administrator, I am therefore now pulling the emergency brake and blocking you, for an initial period of 10 days, to give the topic some rest and see how things play out without you.

If and when there will be a need for you to state your case at the impending Arbcom case, I will of course be willing to unblock you for that purpose (but this will be conditional on your staying away from the disputed pages during that time).

I have seen hints that at least one other administrator has independently been considering a "lengthy block" in your case. Therefore, to fellow admins: if you feel an even longer block is in order, feel free to modify this accordingly.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)