User talk:Smatprt

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 (articles) /Archive 7

Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation

I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you not interested in getting this issue settled? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have 7 days to respond. Please give it to me. I don't need to be hounded daily. I am pretty busy with real life until this weekend. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it is my sincere wish to participate in the mediation process, but I am uneasy about the way you phrased the filing. Mentioning specific violations, the use of the word "inserting", etc. do not sound very neutral. It sounds like you are arguing your case already, which I don't feel is quite fair. I looked at the other pending cases and there is a marked difference between them. Would you take a look at them - particularly [[4]] which is quite neutral, as compared to [[5]], where it appears war is breaking out before the filing has even been accepted (or more likely declined). Anyhow - I am wary of suggesting any language myself, for fear of further accusations, so I will leave it to you to consider my request for a some rephrasing. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it as neutrally as I know how. I have changed "inserting" to "including". I don't know any other way to put it, since that is, in fact, the issue. And it asks for specific examples, although they are not called "violations", but "Articles concerned in this dispute".

As far as the process is concerned, it would suit me to not discuss it at all, but to allow the mediators to read the examples and discussions and come to their own conclusions without any comments from us. I realise that is probably a pipe dream, but I really and truly believe we've discussed every thing there is to discuss about the matter, and all that remains is for outside mediators to settle the issue without any lobbying from the principals. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm a little worried that there's some confusion as to the goals of Mediation here. The point of mediation is to get editors talking to one another and to help them work productively together through communication and compromise. If “we've discussed every thing there is to discuss about the matter” and the aim is for someone to “settle the issue”, then I suspect mediation may be a fruitless endeavour. What you're suggesting sounds more like Arbitration, which is a more adversarial process akin to a traditional trial where the sides present evidence and get a ruling handed down at the end. --Xover (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly no expert on Wikipedia law and I've certainly been confused in the past and had to have things explained to me. In any case, arbitration certainly cannot hurt and will tell us whether another step further in the process is necessary. OTOH, we might get it hashed out and not have to take it any further, which would certainly suit me and is in fact my hope, because I'm tired of wasting time on it. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is the highest court of the WikiLand—appeals to the deities aside—and their findings are binding; if they issue a topic ban (e.g. a given user is not allowed to edit on any articles related to a specific topic) it is absolute and final, if they impose a code of conduct (hyper-civility, for want of a better term, for instance) you'd better be prepared to do a lot of counting to ten. It's a bit like the Court of King Solomon. It is also, in my view, a bit of a nuclear option; it exists for when all other avenues have been exhausted, is extremely time-intensive, and tends to escalate differences before they resolve them (usually in a way that makes at least one, but possibly all, parties unhappy to some degree). But I mention it because the Mediation Cabal is likely to look for a commitment to good faith cooperation, a willingness to civil discourse, and a possibility for compromise; and if those elements are missing they are likely to refuse the request for mediation. Mediation is also not a process that binds the parties and issues no “verdicts” and so does not solve anything except in so far as they attempt to help the involved parties resolving the issue themselves. It is much a preferable alternative to ArbCom, but may not always be possible depending on how entrenched the involved parties are.
I wouldn't necessarily argue against requesting arbitration, as we've been getting nowhere fast for a long time now, but I do rather think it would amount to throwing in the towel and admitting a failure to resolve this in a civilized manner. Good neighbors should be able to resolve such differences without bringing Judge Judy into the fray. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested to me that I use dispute resolution and this is the procedure that I'm following. Currently it's at the "* Suggest Mediation" stage. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Work!

Well done for upholding the principles of Wiki justice and seeing off that serial sockpuppeteer RuelandHummer! I can't help thinking though that he rather enjoys being identified and getting the chance to make a major speech at the end of the chase when the case is filed. You might be better off ignoring him in future. FranceIsHog (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt: Shall you file the SPI, shall I, or shall we just get Andonic to block him again? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Check his contributions, it's clearly him. I've notified a couple of admins, hopefully they'll be blocked soon. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - let me know if you think I should follow-up. And good morning, everyone! Smatprt (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Shakespeare authorship question, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Shakespeare authorship question mediation

Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Smatprt.

Just following up on the message you left on my talkpage. A lot of cases that come through MEDCOM involve some element of either NPOV, or UNDUE. These issues are often the cause of many disputes. It is important to remember that there is no one size fits all solution to these problems. The key to success is a willingness to cooperate with parties, the ability of all to agree on a suitable middle ground, and the individual acceptance that the final solution is quite often not the perfectly ideal one but one that can be beared. In addition medation is a fluid process. With no set rules of engagement and lies down to the individual preferences of the parties and mediator. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref format

See talk at Shakespeare attribution studies. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

redirect

Smatprt, I reverted your redirect deletion because attributional studies are often called authorship studies, especially for Shakespeare's works. The disambiguation is done in the search box, so there's no confusion. (As soon as this damn SAQ page is done I want to fill in the rest of the article with enough information for readers to know where to go, at least.) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit, I don't know what I'm doing. What I want it to do is when "Shakespeare authorship question" is typed in the search box "Shakespeare authorship question (attribution studies)" also comes up and goes directly to Shakespeare attribution studies. Do you know how to do that? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

CN

In regards to your edit commentary on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, allow me a few comments. In this edit, the link is to the film--but that is a primary source on YouTube. Secondary sources are always better. Your comments in this edit aren't exactly to the point: I find plenty of sources for plenty of things, but I'm no expert on de Vere. Moreover, a bit of googling here didn't provide a reliable source, since The Valve is a blog, and it's second-hand (almost by definition)--the information is found on the second page of the linked article from the LA Times. I added the reference. Here, IMDB is generally not regarded as a reliable source. There really is no need for "jeez" and for double question marks. CN tags and others are invitations to make articles even better and I placed them there in good faith. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, entries certainly don't have to be "controversial" to require reliable sourcing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - and my apologies for my tone and the use of "jeez" (oops - there's those quotation marks again - I still don't understand the offense they cause). I realize that secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are allowable when there is no OR/interpretation included, yes? And I understood that IMBD is generally ok as long as it's simply describing the plot or noting the actors/directors involved. But there are plenty of other sources for everything you tagged, so if you want to retag anything, I'll do my best to fill the gap. Thanks again for the note. Due to the controversial nature of the article and the many wars that break out there between Stratfordians and authorship skeptics, I admit to being "loaded for bear" as my park ranger friends say! It was good you called me on it. Smatprt (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, thanks for your note; no offense taken, and I apologize if I sounded a bit standoffish in my own response to you. With certain articles I personally want to see higher standards than for the average wrestler or monster truck, and literary topics are among those. Too many "in popular culture" sections suffer from lack of secondary sources; I thought the note I found on the Pimpernel movie was very enlightening--I didn't know there was a Nazi-interest in Sh. Anyway, before we go on, we need to check our loyalties to decide if we can work together: I believe that all of Sh.'s work (the good stuff anyway) was written by Christopher Marlowe, who lived secretly until ripe old age. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A Marlovian, eh? Very cool (unless you are totally pulling my leg). Me? Well, it is not so cut and dry. Although labeled on these pages as a strict Oxfordian, technically I'm more of a group theorist. I suppose I am in step with Derek Jacobi's thoughts on the matter - a group with DeVere at the head of the table or as the major influence. In any case, I hope we can work together on these articles as they move forward. Best. Smatprt (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, leg pulling...Dr. F. (B-text), act 4 scene 5! Very nice! No, I'm not really that kind of Marlovian, and I don't have much of a position here. One of my professors was working on a novel that proposed that but I don't think he ever finished. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well, regardless, any help on these articles is greatly appreciated! The fact that you don't have much of a position is actually a benefit. Most of we regular editors are pretty partisan. Best. Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

<--I found myself in an AfD last year over a journal which was apparently started by the Oxford party, before I knew that there were parties here as well. All of a sudden, 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, I have to admit, and a good learning experience: emotions run high, on both sides (all three sides?). Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (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. Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Relatedly, this is a friendly message to indicate that I believe you are currently running up against WP:3RR on that Shakespeare article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am formally asking whether you are willing to participate in an exercise that I outlined during the above discussion, that the participants to the dispute be prepared to exclusively edit only toward a differing viewpoint than the one ascribed to them. I suggested this exercise as a way of avoiding sanctions and restrictions regarding historical disputes, and a way forward to avoid future conflicts. I would specifically note my comments made in the last paragraph here, that we can only proceed if you are willing as the "other" party. If you feel that your contributions have been within WP policy and practice then it should not be onerous to participate, but if not, then the only recourse is to formal dispute resolution and the potential of sanctions and restrictions being enacted. Could you please respond at the ANI discussion? Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Shakespeare authorship doubters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Shakespeare authorship doubters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare authorship doubters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baconian theory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary topic ban while the RfC is ongoing

I have volunteered you as agreeable to being topic banned per my comments here. Upon thinking about it further, you are of course able to work on the draft noted in the RfC if you think any of the comments there should be incorporated. However, in the meantime, could you just try and not get into any edit wars or stuff. The other named two parties are also getting this message. Stay cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I assume talk pages are still ok, and participation in the mediation [[6]]I have mentioned (assuming it ever gets going)?[[7]] But hands off any articles that mention the authorship or the major candidates, etc. Yes?Smatprt (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Could you point me toward the RfC that was ongoing? I would review it, and the related drafts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

yes - here it is: [8]. You realize it went missing due to some hasty page moves by an univolved editor? I think it was only gone for about half a day, before I got it restored. Talk about a comedy of errors! Smatprt (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was nudged by Tom, so I went into Draft1 and dealt with wp:AVOID, and some other issues I or others had commented on. So you might want to check my latest diffs. Happy reading.Smatprt (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's keep the talk pages unmuddied

Thanks for the message, but your recent post has cluttered that talk page. You have already outlined the rationale earlier on the page, which this post has effectively repeated, and you have already provided a link to the RfC. I then expressed an opinion there, that is all. I would invite you to reverse your last edit at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question - all necessary links already exist. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I compared the duplicate listings and deleted the earlier posting, since my last version had all the necessary links and some additional material that the first posting did not. Regardless, I hope my deletion accomplishes what you were looking for - losing the repetition and thus uncluttering the page. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you review this?

The discussion at my page in the "checking in on a few things" has taken a certain turn - perhaps you may wish to opine, and perhaps move to resolve the issues raised? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Hi, Smatprt. I'm sorry for the way I expressed myself in this post. I was in a hurry IRL, and exasperated (more with LessHeard than you), and what I said didn't come out right. It sounds a bit like I think of you as some kind of Machiavelli who's out to destroy wikipedia. I really don't think that. I respect your convictions, and I do believe your goal is to improve the pages you edit. (Even though we have differing opinions about the way you go about it.) Bishonen | talk 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the note. I truly appreciate it and it was quite timely, as I was beginning to think you considered me the devil incarnate. Best wishes. Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My response on the mediation

Hi Smatprt,

I've (finally) gotten around to posting my response on the mediation. I refer quite a lot to what I imagine your point of view to be and such, so I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to have a look at it and let me know if I've been too presumptuous anywhere, or have phrased things in a way that you find is biased or insulting or… I've tried to cut through to what I see as the heart of the matter, and I'm sure there are opinions of mine in there that you disagree with, but I'm hoping I managed to do it in a way that might help us improve things rather than “winning” any random point of discussion; so if you let me know where you feel I've stepped wrong I'll do my level best to amend it to address your concerns. --Xover (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xover, and welcome back. Rest assured, I found no offense in what you wrote and think you are quite valid in your assumptions. I actually think we are in agreement on the main thrust of your comments, and the particulars as well. Having said that, though, I think the place for those comments is actually here [[9]]]. Would you consider moving them there and in their place leaving a 200 word view of the content issues that were raised on the main mediation page [[10]]. This would have several benefits. 1) I think it would help further the understanding of the greater wiki community who are watching the ANI if they heard your perspective, and 2) I think we would all like to hear your comments on the mediation issues, which are more about content than they are about behavior.Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Hi Smatprt, thanks for making this comment. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your imposed voluntary topic ban re SAQ is lifted

Per my comments at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Re the imposed voluntary topic ban is lifted you are no longer under any such undertaking. I strongly suggest that you do not start or participate in any edit wars, arguments, or any other unwise actions. I regret that neither my proposals or your participation lead to a breakthrough to the impasse in this matter. The RfC has yet to conclude, of course, and I suggest that that remains the only avenue by which these issues may yet be addressed. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are topic banned from the Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship related articles for 1 year.

I have reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt and determined that the consensus is that you should be topic banned from Shakespeare and Shakespeare related articles, broadly construed, including their talkpages, your talkpage, and the talkpages of other editors, and other Wikipedia pages in relation to the subject matters, for 1 year. My reasoning can be found here. You may wish another admin, or other senior independent editor, to review my conclusions and the relevant discussion, or may appeal the ban at WP:ANI, or request an Arbitration Committee case. I will, in due course, register this topic ban at the Community bans page. In any event, and the avoidance of doubt, this topic ban starts now as the noting on the bans page is only formality. The only qualification on the comprehensive ban is the ongoing RfC and the draft article, where it would be permissible to respond to comments and update the draft accordingly. Once that concludes, then there should be no edits to Shakespeare related content whatsoever. You should, I suggest, take this opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute to Wikipedia outside of these areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Hi. We've been working on Flower Drum Song, and it is at FAC. Would kindly take a look and either comment or vote? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (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) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Note them where? On their talk page, or by adding them to the list you created at ArbCom so a clerk can notify them?Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

ps. Your topic ban does not extend to Arbitration Requests (or any subsequent case, if any), so you can freely comment at the Request page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

I would like an uninvolved administrator or senior editor to review the topic ban decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt. I am not sure what the process is, or how I am supposed to offer evidence on my behalf for reconsideration. Since this is my first experience with topic banning, I am also concerned that since my departure, my username, and other references to myself, have been brought up numerous times (always negatively), complete with accusations of every kind. Another editor has even been repeatedly accused of being my meatpuppet, sockpuppet, etc, and other such nonsense (with absolutely no evidence given to back up these wild assertions.) I thought there was a policy against these kinds of continued attacks on a banned editor - especially since I cannot respond. It all seems terribly unfair. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the ban decision is valid and can only be overturned through a renewed community discussion, or by Arbcom. Given that there will be an Arbcom case on the topic area, the obvious option would be for you to request a review and possible lifting of your ban by the committee as part of that case. Since you are already listed as a party, you will of course be free to participate in the case pages (as long as you stick to the procedural questions of the case and don't use them for the type of general debate about the topic area from which you are banned.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf. Followup questions:

• You say the ban decision is valid. How was that determined? Can you also list for me the official reason for the ban, since they were not outlined in the official decision?
• I note that since my banning, the editors who voted for my ban have repeatedly cited my name, and my supposed crimes, generally continuing their attacks knowing that I cannot respond. Isn't there a wiki-policy that is supposed to prevent such further mocking? (Found it: "it is inappropriate to bait banned editors, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.". So what can be done to prevent this type of ongoing abuse?
• I was also wondering why I was banned from all Shakespeare related articles (including cleaning up cast lists, supplying photos, etc) instead of my ban having to do with strictly Shakespeare Authorship edits and/or discussion? As an actor/director/producer of Shakespearean productions, there are a range of "Shakespeare" issues that have nothing to do with authorship, which I have edited previously with no controversy whatsoever. I would ask you to review that aspect of my banning as well.
• Finally, in what section of the ArbCom case do I open the side-topic of my ban, which was so convoluted that, to be fair to me, will need additional space outside of the primary issue of the ArbCom case? Thanks for your assistance. Smatprt (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The ban was determined by an uninvolved administrator (Tony Sideaway) summarizing the collected opinions of administrators who had previously commented, and confirming that they constituted a consensus. The reasons for the ban are expressed in those opinions of the other administrators. They agreed that there had been a pattern of disruptive editing on your part.
• Editors are generally expected to not "kick a man while he's down". However, I haven't seen any serious pattern of "attacks" (let alone over "supposed crimes") regarding you – what I did see were general references to the perception that there was a long-term editing problem while you were involved, which seemed to abate after you were excluded. In any case, you now will be able to respond where necessary, since you will be able to take part in the case.
• About how and where to file your issue: my recommendation is to add a section on the "evidence" page were you might make your case that the ban decision wasn't based on a clear and well-documented consensus; and then add a draft proposal to the "workshop" page where you could state how your sanction should be overturned or replaced with something else. That's, roughly, the standard process. (Ask the clerks for advice if you're unsure about formal details). If you're worried it might get bogged down in the expected overall hullaballoo (and I have to admit, that concern is not quite baseless), you might alternatively just approach the Arbcom's Ban Appeal Subcommittee per e-mail. They'll tell you if they'd be willing to consider your appeal separately in an off-wiki procedure, or if they'd prefer to have it as part of the big case.
• About narrowing down the scope of the ban: I guess that might be debateable. Perhaps the first step about that would be to approach TS again. I don't see you raised that possibility back at the time, did you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I do have a few follow-up questions:

• Is this the same Tony Sideaway? [11]. If so, to have a blocked sockpuppet take any part seems, I don't know... insane? If it's not the same editor, then can you confirm that Tony Sideaway is an administrator. As I recall from ANI, he is not.
• I will post diffs at ArbCom concerning the kicking of a man while he is down. Due to the hasty archiving going on at the SAQ talk page (automatic archiving without consensus, btw) many of these insults have been hidden from immediate access.
• Thanks for the advice on procedure. That was very helpful
• Actually, two editors (opposite side of my fence, btw) approached LessHeard about the scope issue and for some reason, Less Heard made it conditional on Tom Reedy's consent, which obviously was not forthcoming. I am concerned as to why Tom Reedy seems to have been given administrator privileges in this affair. Why would an involved editor, against whom I had filed wikiequette [12] and ANI harassment reports[13], would be given oversight of my case? It all seems terribly prejudicial. Can you enlighten me on that? Thanks again for the interaction. I truly appreciate it. Smatprt (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I misspelled the user name, I meant Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs). And I had indeed forgotten he is currently not an admin, technically. (He was one a couple years ago, and is still regarded as a highly influential voice in many situations.) But whatever, I now see it was actually not him but LessHeard who finally took the responsibility and formally enacted the topic ban. That's fine; they both read the consensus the same way, and LessHeard has of course always been a competent administrator in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your query, John W. Kennedy and John K. are not the same person. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Smatprt, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Smatprt/gallery. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns re my admin conduct

Hi Smatprt. I don't think we should expect AGK to give our spat houseroom, so I'm replying to your concerns here. Admins are indeed not supposed to use any admin powers to give themselves an advantage in an editing dispute. You think I was "extremely involved" in Shakespeare authorship question? Bad guess. You should really check Histories before you say stuff like that, not just plonk it down on the principle that if you make enough accusations, some of them are bound to stick. During the past three years on that page, I have a) protected the page for a week, from Christmas Eve 2010 to New Year's Day 2011 and b) on 19 December 2010 removed an inappropriate drive-by POV tag which had been added by a then extreme newbie (Zweigenbaum), who understandably didn't know any better [14] You think I protected the article at a point that was advantageous to "Stratfordians"? How so? Oh, and c), in mid-October 2010, I had a little spurt of minor editing: I changed "Promoters of various authorship theories assert that their own candidate is a more plausible author in terms of education, life experience, and/or social status. They argue that the documented life of William Shakespeare lacks the education, aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court which they claim is apparent in the works" to "bla bla which they say is apparent in the works", on the argument that "'claim' (verb) is a word suggesting bias." [15]] You see that that's an edit in favour of the "promoters", I hope? And on the same day I "rescrambled" the lead section, i. e. I re-ordered the paragraphs, adding nothing and removing nothing—well, I made one trivial word change, do try working that up into a sinister plot to get you banned. [16] Everybody was pleased at the time, I believe. Did you complain? Not that I recollect. (I can't face doing this diff-mining on the talkpage as well, sorry. You do it if you want it done.) And more or less simultaneously, I made a few MOS and grammar fixes and unpacked an Easter egg.[17] [18][19][20].

That's it. Unless you want to continue moving backwards through the history all the way to d), my next edit? It's from October 2007 and reverts you (oh noes!), saying "Smatprt, you're being absurd."[21] :-) Well, I'll stand by that, as far as my "extreme involvement" is concerned. You are.

I wouldn't say our history on these pages goes back three years, as you put it; that sounds like we've been incessantly feuding for three years (what a nightmare), when the truth is that when I tried to help copyedit William Shakespeare (I think it was—or some proto-Shakespeare authorship question or something) three years ago, it only took you a few days of, to me, incomprehensible nitpicking and suspiciousness and imputations of bad faith to get rid of me from the page, and I've been avoiding "your" pages ever since. (I see in your contribution on User talk:AGK how well you still do that stuff!) It's not that I'm a shrinking violet, particularly, but I have a really low boredom threshold for some things. See you in another three years or so. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks!

Hi Smatprt,

Regarding your comments here and here as they bear on the readability of the Workshop page. Without endorsing the other points you make there, I'd like to thank you for that overall thrust of it. The Workshop page certainly has become entirely unmanageable (I believe some early guidance to restrict discussion to the associated Talk page would have been helpful), and, yes, I am also having great trouble keeping up with it. I would especially like to thank you for having the integrity to call out Nina—who is at least nominally “on your side” in this matter—when you disagreed with her actions. I am, as Bishonen, a little baffled that you can in good faith equate my and Nishonen's mode of discourse with Nina's (the “walls of text” on the one side being, at least to my mind, distinctly confrontational and hostile, thus making the comparison rather lopsided); but that aside (and no hard feelings on that account, incidentally) it would, in human nature, have been very easy to focus exclusively on the flaws of “the opposition” and to ignore the same problem in one's own nominal supporters. So kudos to you for that, and thanks for making the effort in an otherwise very polarizing situation. --Xover (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. In regards to "walls of texts", it seems that part fo the complaint was the sheer length. That is where I see the comparison to you and Nishidani. Where you are concerned, its simply length, I agree, and Nina's content is very very different, thus my loss in what little faith I had in her. But Nishidani can be directly compared. Not only length (not actionable for anyone, frankly), but the repetitive information, the personal attacks, the off-topic blather and the avoidance of issues, all remind me of Nina's truly serious problems. I would hope that you could also step back and see what I am saying regarding his behavior. You have become far more partisan in the last 3 months. I miss the old Xover. Just saying, and yes - no hard feelings. Smatprt (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I miss this guy, even though he presented a wall of text when we were all asked for 200 words max :). (Nishidani posted over 500 words!) That's all I meant by the wall of text comment in regards to you. Smatprt (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, there was a 200 word limit somewhere? Then I'm utterly screwed I think; I had trouble getting below a thousand! :-| --Xover (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That was mediation - and yes, 200 words were asked for. Since it got cancelled, I don't think you are screwed :) I did appreciate what you said there and only wish you had said the same thing during by topic ban discussion. (Sigh). Or somewhere at the ArbCom case (the stuff concerning me, not anyone else). You showed great insight and pegged me pretty well - for better and worse. Smatprt (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. I'm deliberately not getting into any discussion of Nishindani (or Nina, for that matter) here while the ArbCom thing is going on. As I said, the situation is polarizing as it is, and I really don't want to make it worse (if that's even possible) by a careless or hasty comment anywhere. --Xover (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-Arb

Sorry to read about the arb result. But there are plenty of non-Shakespeare articles to edit on WP, and you can re-engage with the Bard before Thanksgiving. Let me know if you want help working on any articles.  :-) All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also disappointed by the outcome. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban reminder

Regarding your postings here and here, please remember that your topic ban also covers "related articles, broadly construed, including their talkpages, your talkpage, and the talkpages of other editors, and other Wikipedia pages in relation to the subject matters". You had a temporary limited release of your topic ban to allow you to participate in the Arbcom case only, but the case is now over, so there is no more reason for you to comment there. (I won't be enforcing this through blocks this time, since your criticism was directed at me, but I might enforce it next time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)