Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

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

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

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

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

While looking over the page today, I noticed a good many of the problems associated with the original Shakespeare Authorship page, poor referencing to unreliable popular books where quality academic sources abound, numerous errors, a link to an article originally published in the New York Times, and freely available, sourced to a fringe theory site, an abundance of text that was both unsourced, and consisted of editorializing and clear WP:OR violations. I took the trouble [1] from the outset to begin explaining in depth the reasons behind my edits.

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

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

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

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

This is in fact a content dispute. Wikipedia policy doesn't provide any way of resolving problems like this other than appealing for help at the relevant noticeboards, which in this case are WP:FTN or WP:RSN (whichever is most suitable, but not both). If you can't get help there, you aren't going to get it here, and the only thing you can do is to try to negotiate a solution with the editor you're having problems with. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a content dispute? I have been given a very clear warning that one other editor will revert whatever I post on that page, merely on his a priori perception that I am a POV warrior (WP:AGF violation by the way). That edict means I cannot edit there without suffering a revert on generic grounds, and appears to me to be trumping administrative rights in site-banning me, which is what sight-deletion amounts to. Of course, I could edit-war on content but I don't want to be sucked into that. It's seems rather extraordinary to me that I am given no option by a co-editor than disappearing from the page, or edit-warring, since he refuses to answer any question I might put, or consider any edit I may make. That is behavioural, not an issue of content, surely? Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, neither WP:FTN nor WP:RSN are relevant, since it has already been classified as Pseudohistory, a branch of WP:Fringe, with regard to extensive arguments in the former, and, with regard to WP:RSN every source he elides is by definition RS, since they are articles and books by tenured academics in academic mainstream journals or under imprint from major presses, university or otherwise. User:Smatprt appears to refuse to accept wiki rulings on both of those venues, and that in turn is a behavioural problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This may require outside assistance. Dispute resolution will only work if both parties agree to work together. Since Smatprt has variously said "you are a POV warrior", "I am not going to engage with you" and "you have basically turned into a vandal in my eyes" and suggested ARBCOM I don't see how this can be resolved without outside intervention. Exxolon (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Strong support. Good grief, is Smatprt, an SPA and devotee of fringe theories, still edit warring on the Shakespeare articles? I gave up attempting to edit them years ago because of him/her. A topic ban would indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

An SPA? Hardly - I have edited hundreds of articles here. Check my history. I do remember User:Bishonen though - he was among a small group of editors that wanted the SAQ banned from wikipedia completely. Good grief is right. Smatprt (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I? Very likely, if I understand what you mean by "banning" an article. Mind you, if your "list-article"[2] Shakespeare authorship doubters had existed then, I would have started with that. It's if possible even more slanted than Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

This is a behavior problem: Smatprt cannot act this way to protect his version of the article. Sources must be discussed to see which ones have the greatest authority, and if two expert sources disagree, the article must reflect this by including both. Smatprt must stand down from his unsupportable sense of WP:OWNership of the article, and begin interacting with editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with using both references in cases like this. The problem is that Nishidani keeps replacing long-standing sources (that he dislikes) with those that he prefers. No talk, no consensus building, just deletions. I will live up to this suggestion by Binksternet, but will he? Smatprt (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, please don't personalize this. I don't replace references I dislike. I replace, everywhere I can, sources from fringe websites, or advocacy orgs with books having an academic imprint, or which are issued by major publishing houses, in line with policy, even if the matter to be sourced is something I might personally dislike. Your edits removed two such improvements to superior sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Support topic ban. I've been involved in this dispute in a very minor way, and I believe that Smatprt's obsession with giving undue weight to a fringe theory of Shakespearian authorship is damaging the encyclopedia—it certainly makes editing the Shakespeare articles less enjoyable. His decision that he's going to blanket revert Nishidani's edits as vandalism are an obvious concern. If the topic ban doesn't go through, this probably should go to arbcom, but that's not going to make anyone happy, especially not Smatprt. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a way, ArbCom might be the best place - ultimately it needs to be decided if Nishidani and Tom are to be allowed to continue all these deletions (sections in over 25 articles at latest count). That is what the current mediation is all about, but depending on how this goes, that mediation may be stifled before it is even given a chance, which would be unfortunate. Every other SAQ editor has been chased off this encyclopedia. I am the only one left. Maybe that's the way it should be? Who knows? But it would be nice if some uninvolved editors weighed in here, because as of now, it appears that most of these "topic bans" are coming from Nishidani's long-standing co-editors or those who have a history with me personally. Smatprt (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am a 'SAQ editor', and your recent behaviour effectively drove me off one of the pages related to SAQ. By 'SAQ editor' you clearly understand:'editors who subscribe to any one of the fringe theories being described on the SAQ page', which constitutes an improper construal of what that phrase means. Peter Farey pops in there to make suggestions. He's a well-known Marlovian, and has no complaints I know of about my behaviour nor Tom's. Indeed, we've worked together quite amicably, since he fully understands the problem with sourcing to web sites, and accepted my use of academic references as substitutes for ideas he had previously documented by linking to challengeable web pages. The 'other' editors you refer implicitly to, mainly show up in cases like this to lend support, but appear not to care to actively edit these texts, for what reasons I do not know. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom might actually not be the best place from your point of view, Smatprt, considering this principle of theirs: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation."[3] Attacks without evidence are particularly uncivil, so please give diffs for your claims about these long-standing "co-editors". I've never "co-edited" with Nishidani. Have you, KillerChihuahua? You, NuclearWarfare? Akhilleus? Bishonen | talk 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Ah, but you have reverted smatprt before.[4] Granted, it was three years ago, but it's not completely illogical that he might think of you as being on the same "team". --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few from Akhilleus: [[5]] and [[6]].Smatprt (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And Bishonen, have you honestly forgotten this exchange of ours? [[7]] (among others). my point was that you and several others here are not uninvolved. Smatprt (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I had; after a few years, I do tend to forget most such sour, suspicious bad-faith assumptions as yours at that link. Good job too, since encountering them is not exactly the fun part of editing. But I'm glad you remembered it, because it's quite interesting in this context, and if we're lucky, people will click on it even though it's old. Don't you have any example of my involvement that's not three years old? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Response from SMATPRT.

• Yes, this is a content dispute. And I do categorically deny that I have banned Nishidani or any editor from any page. I could easily argue that Nishidani has done the same thing to me on numerous occasions. Here is an example [[8]], where in the subject line Nishidani says "You can't discuss this on Francis Meres' page" Is he allowed to issue such instructions?
• But it goes much deeper than that. Nishidani is currently involved in a mediation [[9]] that goes to the real heart of the problem. He has participated in a systematic deletion campaign of any mention of the SAQ except in the one or two articles that he has allowed its mention. He has a history of tag-teaming with user:TomReedy to avoid 3RR, knowing that I am his only obstacle.

• I believe this is also retaliation for this topic ban request [[10]] which lays out for all concerned editors the many abuses and tactics he has employed during this argument.
• An earlier report on his many abuses is here [[11]].
• The wikiquette report I filed on him after being advised at the administrators noticeboard is here [[12]].

If anyone deserves a topic ban it is Nishidani. Having said that, I do regret my statements today. After reading this history and the above noticeboards, I would hope that any reasonable person would understand the situation and not jump to conclusions.Smatprt (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

How is your threat helping to calm the situation, Bishonen? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How is your cheap jibe helpful here, GentlemanGhost? Bishonen | talk 11:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

I would think that, being an admin, you would hold yourself to a higher standard. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Nishidani can claim that this is anything but a content dispute. His partisanship in this is obvious. I find it interesting that he is pushing for a topic ban rather than letting the currently active mediation run its course or taking it to ArbCom. That's putting the cart before the horse as far as I am concerned. And, conveniently, if he gets smatprt banned from the topic, it allows him to have de facto say about what goes into the article. Smatprt's behavior has been bad, to be sure, but I've seen worse offenders handled with kid gloves. Is there a compelling reason why we must rush to judgment here, other than a general desire not to deal with the issue or a dislike of smatprt? Like Nishidani, I also don't agree with the Oxfordian point of view, but I haven't turned it into a religious war. I trust that the admins will act appropriately and not out of proportion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on proper sourcing is not partisan. Insisting that editors work to finish pages, rather that hog them without improving them, and resenting intrusions by people who like to complete pages, is not partisan. It is taking one's task here as goal-orientated, not a pastime to tickle with one's personal belief-system online. It is a matter of method. Secondly, where did I 'push for a topic ban'? I asked for input on how to classify Smatprt's behaviour. What you find 'interesting' happens to be your distortion of my words. Independent reviewers of my evidence (a drop in the ocean of what's going on) called for a topic ban. Not reading what editors actually say or write and responding to it, but, rather imagining what they might be saying and getting upset, is, precisely, one of the issues at stake.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Of other Shakespeare article editors' (not named here), contributions to the talk pages appear to encourage or inflame disputes by referring to their involvement in disputes as: guns were drawn on the left and knives on the right, AN/I and RS discussions were referenced, topic bans were threatened, and an SPI revealed a sock puppet. It was kind of exciting, and comments such as I believe Marlow wrote all Shakespears plays - for example, (but not stated by the plaintiffs or respondents in this ANI) - which may lead even the most mild mannered editors into believing they too can disregard the rules with impunity. Disscussions, even heated ones, are supposed to be about improving articles, and not discussing heated academic issues in support of personal opinion, originial research, or other editors.--Kudpung (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I think there is a content dispute here that can be resolved, although all parties should back up a step, take a deep breath and try once more to work together in good faith to come to an understanding. I suggest that instead of trying to rewrite the page all at once, Nishidani place numbered comments on the talk page. Then Smatprt should respond to each proposed change with his reasons why he agrees or disagrees with each one, or propose a better alternative or compromise, and the other editors who work on these authorship pages can weigh in. Hopefully a consensus can be reached on each item, or at least the majority of them, and then if there are a few particularly contentious items left, the parties can seek further comments from a wider group of commentators. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I.e., after several years with no substantial progress made on these pages, and many complaints of obstructionism, the solution is for me, the most recent editor, to bow my head, submit to Smatprt's effective control of jurisdiction and provide him with suggestions on the talk page, which he may approve of, or disagree with. I see you do not apply the same logic to his editing, i.e., prior approval before on-page editing. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment from smatprt: Several editors here have made reference to prior complaints about my editing practices. I just want to advise everyone that (by far) the great majority of complaints originated from a banned editor operating over a dozen sockpuppets who waged a personal vendetta against me and several other users. Here are links to the 2 cases and the archive:[[13]], [[14]] and [[15]]. I am in no way saying that I have not been controversial. The minority view articles I have edited make me an easy target and I have fought back with gusto, I admit. But the campaign by the banned editor has left a lasting record that is easy to misinterpret.Smatprt (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• [[18]] - accused of “faking” evidence

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

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

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

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

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

'has been going on non-stop for almost a year now.'

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

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

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

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

First off, Nishidani's summary of events above is not at all accurate, and even misleading. But to the point. I don't need to go back 10 months - lets just go back a few weeks then - Here are two more recent links [[23]] and [[24]].

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

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

So in the last week or so, I started working on the Oxfordian article and the bio on De Vere. And in Nishidani jumped, switching out refs to those he prefers, accusing me of various wikicrimes, telling me I "can't discuss this", and adding in some of the most partisan and POV statements I have ever seen. Nishidani proposed I go work "untroubled" and "unhampered" by him, and then he immediately broke his own proposal! And then he comes here with one misleading story after another. Amazing. And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

'Accurate . .summary of events'? You said 'nearly one year' of harassment, when our strong differences blew up for a month in March, as per your 6 diffs, and, as I then said 'Since that date our contacts have been extremely intermittent,' namely (a) my defence of you when you were attacked, which you refuse to acknowledge and (b) the two diffs you mention here for an hour's editing on 19th August, which contain no harassment, just my judgement that you are a poor editor. The judgement reflects, as per comments by others here, a widespread impression by wikipedians.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

'Strongly oppose, and I agree completely with Schoenbaum. I've very much been an impartial observer on this whole issue, and as far as I can tell, Tom and Nishidani literally follow Smatprt around Wikipedia editing his material. I made a joke to him a while back about how they were probably going to turn their attentions to a new page because he'd done a couple of edits on it (I can't remember what page it was). I was joking, but the next day, what happens? His stuff is undone for no valid reason that I could discern. Now, I have to be fair, I've not found either of them to be rude, but I have found them both to be inflexible, unlike, I might add, Smatprt himself. And another thing. I thought this whole issue was in arbitration - an arbitration by which we all agreed to abide. So have we just forgotten about that? And I'm genuinely asking because I know next to nothing about dispute policy. On a more practical level, isn't the Shakespeare project in bad enough shape without banning one of the main contributors? When I joined up here about a year ago, only two people who took time out to help me were Smatprt and Xover. Their advice and help was invaluable for my initial edits on The Two Gentlemen of Verona and, especially, the shambles that was The Taming of the Shrew page. And now we want to ban one of the few people willing to help out new recruits? Ludicrous. I also find it intersting that people are all of a sudden coming out to support of this suggestion. Where have all these people been? When Xover posted an appeal for ideas on the Shakespeare project page a month or so ago, only three people offered up anything. And now everyone's all excited over a possible ban. It seems as if people can't be bothered getting involved in constructive writing, but everyone jumps through hoops to argue about banning someone. That makes no sense to me. Bertaut (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we to take it that this is an example of your impartial observations? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support. I used to edit the SAQ article to the best of my ability, but Smatpmt has taken over the article and uses unrelenting attrition to use the article to promote Oxfordian 'theory'. He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ, or the range of different opinions even within the 'alternative author' position. He is only interested in one thing and he drives other editors away. His knowledge of the history of Shakespeare criticism and even of the history and development of alternative authorship theories is actually very limited, so his controlling presence actually drives away more knowledgable and open minded editors. Bertaut's comments above miss the point entirely. It's far from the case that "people can't be bothered getting involved in constructive writing." It's Smatprt who blocks constructive writing in this area. It's really rather absurd to claim that "everyone jumps through hoops to argue about banning someone." Smatprt has been editing for years. The problem has been growning for years. Nishidani did not start this thread with the intent to have Smatprt topic banned. As for the claim that Nishidani and Tom are disruptive in some way, that is the opposite of the truth. Nishidani can be smart-alecky, sure, but that's just his personality. Tom tries to be as polite as he can to Smatprt, but sometimes just becomes utterly frustrated. I know how he feels. If they 'follow' Smatprt around, that's because they know he will systematically distort articles on Shakespeare and any other topic to promote Oxfordianism. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

In response to Paul's comments above. "He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ"? That's just silly. But in other news, to claim that Nishidani and Tom are not disruptive is laughable. Obviously, you personally have not had diasgreements them, and as such, not encountered their bullying tendencies. If they are so undisruptive why are there now five people here claiming that that is exactly what they are? Irrespective of what Smatprt is or isn't, anyone who seems to disgree with them is targetted. And, to show I'm not biased in any way regarding this issue, I am not such a person ie they've never bullied me, and I've never had an open disagreement with them, but I can see with my own eyes what they're like. Likewise, just because you've not seen it or encountered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, I might add, as Softlavender proves, Smatprt isn't the only one they follow around. And as for me missing the point (!) - I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was for everyone to write the best articles possible. Bertaut (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

'"He has no interest in the actual history of the SAQ"? That's just silly.' Um, no. You have obviously had no discussion with him about the history of the topic. He knows almost nothing about it and cares even less. He constantly gets wrong the names of historical figures in the history of SAQ. He believes the article should concentrate on the 'arguments' - i.e the various coded messages and what-have-you that are supposed to prove Oxford's authorship. He doesn't even know much about Oxford hmself, as the talk page of the De Vere article indicates. Almost everything he knows is derived from Oxfordian literature, which systematically distorts facts and evidence. Virtually all the people who are complaining about Tom and Nishidani are committed Oxfordian editors. That's why. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to User:Tom Reedy I see that all the regular players have now arrived. Everyone seems to have laid their cards on the table. Except Tom, of course, who promises to be back with extended comments and "plenty of links". For those uninvolved editors that are looking at this, here is some of my history with user:Tom Reedy (basically the last 10 months of hell)

• Tom began editing the SAQ about 10 months ago and within a few months was resorting to the basest and most condescending insults - Diffs from first report: [[25]], [[26]], and *[[27]] - all clearly calling me a "liar"
• Then, there were these priceless gems:

• [[28]] "That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats, which cause me to think that there's some kind of common cognitive connection that predisposes them to becoming anti-Stratfordians."
• [[29]] "Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style)" contained in this edit .

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

• Due to these and a host of other issues, this wikiquette was filed:[[37]].
• Our relationship further deteriorated and I was forced to file this topic ban request on TomReedy and Nishidani: [[38]].

To his credit, he initiated the present mediation that Nishidani, myself and several others have committed to:[[39]]. I wonder what our mediator will say to all this? Another question - Does all this mean Tom and Nishidani are withdrawing from the mediation, or are we allowed to continue with that? We'd probably all like to know that one.Smatprt (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I see Wrad has quit the field, and I can't say that I blame him. I'd like nothing better than to have this nonsense cease so that I could use my time more productively.

How did all those complaints against Nishidani and me come out, by the way? Any blocks or admonishments? No? One editor, User:Ncmvocalist, wrote an excellent comment that I put on top of my user page as a reminder.

Yes, I have volumes of diffs, but I'm tired to death of all this, so I'll just give a few from one page.

If anyone wants to know what it is like editing on the same article as Smatprt, the page Shakespeare's life affords ample examples. On that page he has turned the Wikipedia neutrality policy on its head.

Incredibly, Smatprt claims that even mentioning Shakespeare’s authorship in an article about his life is "highly POV", that it is nothing but "interpretation", and that Shakespeare’s career as an actor, playwright, and theatre entrepreneur aren’t documented well enough to include in a Wikipedia article about his biography.

In that same article he deleted a section clearly marked as a tradition as “fringe speculation”. After being reverted by myself and another editor (not Nishidani), he tagged the article for “for neutrality and balance issues” with a comment on the talk page that “minority viewpoints are being deleted or ignored”.

His edit summaries are revealing, with an undercurrent of accusations of dishonesty of those who have edited before him, with examples here and here.

He apparently even edits without access to sources he claims to have. Unfortunately, in this edit, if he has the source he obviously hasn’t read it, because as I pointed out on the talk page, the very source he refers to documents Shakespeare’s authorship of seven plays.

These recent edits illustrate in a nutshell Smatprt’s agenda and method of editing Shakespeare-related articles, and that's all I have to say about this particular noticeboard incident. I would again recommend that all editors read WP:CRUSH, which is what we're dealing with here. I would especially ask you to review the edits of the three editors being discussed and try to determine which of them this sentence from that article applies to: "These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and appropriate weight."

(BTW, Smatprt, those diffs from the "last 10 months of hell" stop in March, seven months ago.) Tom Reedy (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see Smatprt is still saying, on the basis of two diffs from August 19, that I have engaged in an almost year-long harassment. The original counter-charge for the year-long harassment campaign consisted of a handful of diffs in which, after a month of engaging with him, I vented my frustration at his inability to parse simple English. Read for context. Okay. The language was provocative. He complained. The complaint was ignored in review. There has been, since those diffs, no harassment. The two diffs for that intervening six-month period, this and and this for 19 August 2010 I stand by, and are normal measured judgements on an editor, breaking out of the SAQ article he was supposed to rewrite, to attempt to contaminate yet one more mainstream article on Shakespeare with a recurrent blob of fringe theory material. Dozens of other editors have experienced over 4 years my frustration. They have been more temperate, but left the project, as Wrad's remarks underline because hisintractable stonewalling makes many despair of the time wasted on articles he controls.

A word to Ssilvers, Schoenbaum, Bertaut , Softlavender etc.. I see you all rarely, and only as Smatprt's backup team, dropping in at critical points to sway a vote or put in a good word for him when exasperation at his cunctatorial editing behaviour rises. If you have those articles, and wikipedia to heart, edit. Don't just sit round kibitzing, only to leap in and supply a rare and crucial vote of solidarity. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view*

From a review of the above (and I have been watching the unfolding discussion) I am beginning to form the view that this is a content dispute that has taken on the aspect of behavioural and possible policy violation issues; the content dispute is over the balance of views regarding the authorship of the work generally ascribed to Shakespeare within articles devoted to the concept that another writer was, and a general article regarding this "controversy" (which it isn't, because the play's the thing, and these are not effected by who the purported author is.) The principal problem is that the article writers in dispute are generally comfortable to be described as subscribing to the view of one or another of the contenders for Shakespeare's penmanship, which isn't really that big a consideration, and only edit toward that viewpoint, which really is a big consideration. There is a very big ArbCom just winding down regarding issues surrounding the editing of Climate Change articles, and the major issue identified is that editors generally only contributed to articles to address their viewpoint of the subject; and from what I can see, this is the case here.
I think this matter might be able to be resolved, as a fairly simple content dispute, by the application of a simple remedy - but not one that I think the parties are going to particularly subscribe to; that all editors shall, for a period to be determined, only edit toward supporting the viewpoint that they do not hold - the Oxford theorists shall edit to improve the Stratford viewpoint, and vice versa. The principle is that Wikipedia editors should contribute on the basis of improving the project, and not the promotion of a subject and especially not a viewpoint within the subject.
If this suggestion is adopted by uninvolved editors and imposed upon the parties to the dispute, then behavioural issues would resolve down to whether any one editor is able to apply themselves to improving the encyclopedia. Those who will not or cannot will be asked to absent themselves from the subject(s), and will be made to do so if not voluntarily. Those who prove themselves as good collegiate editors will, once the period expires, be permitted to edit toward any viewpoint within the subject area - hopefully having learned to respect the contrary viewpoint - providing they continue to contribute on a more general basis.
The above deprecates the efforts to effect the editing of articles by the removal of other editors who are party to the dispute - only by their own (lack of) effort will an editor be removed. Editors will be less concerned with the actions of others than by ensuring they comply with the remedy, so that they can again edit the article space fully in the future. The reaction to my proposal will, in any event, indicate whether editors are concerned with improving the project generally or in promoting one viewpoint and deprecating others within a fringe area of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (*I am fairly sure I was involved in this matter, or something similar, a few years ago - but cannot recall any detail. Just noting in case someone else does recall the specifics, and tries to declare me not uninvolved - although it should not effect the thrust of my suggestion)

Thanks. I thought that is what Tom and I did in writing TheShakespeare autrhorship question. Your review of it, comparing it to the earlier wiki standard version which caused all the trouble, would be must appreciated on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would be very easy to game and a deuced bother to enforce, which probably puts it over the threshold of complexity for something we would actually want to implement. On the other hand, if all relevant parties voluntarily commit to this for, say 3–6 months or so, I would strongly support implementation in lieu of topic banning anyone. It is worth acknowledging that there have been efforts to represent each side fairly in accordance with NPOV, as ideally everyone should all the time, but though a blunt instrument I think this would have the desired effect of improving both coverage and editing atmosphere. I would add explicitly that edits and references neutral to SAQ are exempt from this consideration, and clarify the question of talkpage participation. Perhaps it is just the old cynic in me, but I would also like to caution involved editors against metastasizing this question in the manner of the British Isles terminology dispute. Would we really want 10 Things I Hate About You (film) to state a loose adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew, a play allegedly written by Shakespeare? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU I've made this suggestion several times in the past on this and other articles, so I have no objection. However, when you write:

'The principal problem is that the article writers in dispute are generally comfortable to be described as subscribing to the view of one or another of the contenders for Shakespeare's penmanship, which isn't really that big a consideration, and only edit toward that viewpoint, which really is a big consideration.'

I beg to disagree. I don't care who wrote 'Shakespeare' (I said so here to an impeccably polite, highly intelligent anti-Stratfordian author who visited my page). As I see it, the clash is over what constitutes WP:RS, and whether, after 4 years of chronic stasis (before I ever joined in) an article in a lamentable state of textual and source confusion can simply be left as a playground for contentious disputes, or whether we should be put under an obligation at some point to think in terms of finalizing a page towards GA level. Smatprt wish to document an article classed as pseudohistory, and WP:fringe by using numerous fringe sources. Tom and I are for describing the theory as it has been described and analysed in detail by mainstream scholars, according to the strict standards of WP:RS. The problem with using fringe sources written by people with no academic repute is that they consistently screw up everything. Much of the conflict (which occurred in Feb-March) arose from difficulties in getting Smatprt to understand that his fringe sources consistenly skewed classical allusions, and he in turn misunderstood his own sources. That is a behavioural problem, because no amount of detailed explanation of why his sources fringe sources are so confusing can budge him.

this suggestion is adopted by uninvolved editors and imposed upon the parties to the dispute, then behavioural issues would resolve down to whether any one editor is able to apply themselves to improving the encyclopedia.

Yes, but as I showed above. Tom and I on one sandbox page did our version in over 1200 edits. Smatprt, having three pages, 2 sandboxes and the old page, made, after our departure, a total of 60+20 edits to those three versions in 6 months. He did not make any substantive change in content, or improve the exposition of orthodox theory on any of those pages. I at least drew the conclusion that he cannot work on his own, as you suggest one should, either to clarify Oxfordian theory or learn something about orthodox mainstream Shakespearean scholarship. The experiment you suggest has been conducted, with the result that, to return to the original complaint, he refused to allow me to edit a page on his topic. That is the gravamen of the problem. (If my frustrated intemperance in March is to be bundled with his his behaviour in October, well, I won't object to a perma-ban. I see from the thread that many former fine Shakespeare editors had been run off, and if the air is cleared by getting both myself and Smatprt out of there, perhaps the spirit of informed collaboration for FA articles Wrad nostalgically recalls, could return. Individuals don't count. The aim is to get competent editors drafting to quality standards, not me or Smatprt frigging about endlessly on whether 'vast' (per source) or 'large'(toned down adjective) is the appropriate way to describe the academic consensus that this is a fringe theory and pseudohistory. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't wish to prejudice any future involvement in this matter - and, as the author of a suggested method of resolution, it behooves me to do so in an admin capacity - by examining what has happened historically, but may I suggest that if you are confident that you and Tom have been attempting to work without favour to a particular viewpoint that you would be able to work exclusively to address the viewpoint that Smatprt holds? Providing Smatprt is agreeable to work on article space devoted to viewpoints other than which he personally holds, then the exercise can begin.

To 2/0, I recall you expressed a wish - at "some other place" - that we might work together again. Would you be willing to sysop such an exercise as suggested above? You are familiar with the issues of editing articles relating to fringe viewpoints, where citing and sourcing are concerned, and the problems of overlap into mainstream (ie. those cited to references which reflect the consensus/majority viewpoint); until the consensus of literature authorities is that the authorship of Shakespeare's works is seriously questioned, that articles relating to his works reflect the opinion that The Bard is the "onlye begetter" of them. I should think that most mainstream references are clearer on that point than is the case with - an example I have drawn from the top of my head - anthropogenic global warming even. If this is to be attempted, having two admins will likely prove to be of benefit simply for availability purposes (and I am not thinking of attempting a consensual sysopping environment).

I am going to ask Smatprt if they are also willing to participate in such an exercise - since this only runs when there is agreement from all potential parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 to Shakespeare authorship question in a wp:bold move (plus the sandbox version is better by far) and have also redirected Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship per the merger consensus which was reached months ago mark nutley (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have I got this right? You want to require editors to edit in support of a point of view? (Even if it is one to which they do not subscribe.) That might be a fine exercise for a debating society, but it's no way to build an encyclopedia.

Here's an alternative idea: these editors should be required to edit towards an accurate account of the academic work in the field. Kanguole 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that we edit from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, which is what I have been trying to do. Since I adhere to the academic consensus, when it comes to Shakespeare I edit anti-Strat articles instead of mainstream articles. While that might be OK for a few months, I wouldn't want to do so forever, since I have a list of Shakespeare-related articles I want to work on but have been putting off trying to finish the sandbox article. Also I doubt this will go down well with Oxfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One problem I can see is that the SAQ page was dominated by aficionados of just one alternative candidate, Edward de Vere. They were hostile to Baconian theory, for example. Their exercise perhaps would better be to write the Baconian theory, and Marlovian theory articles, for example, rather than re-edit a massive and well organized page, written with an aspiration to NPOV from the perspective of mainstream scholarship. The pages on alternative candidates are neglected, and Tom and I have tried to get them into shape. Even the page dealing with the biographies of key figures for Oxfordian theory like J. Thomas Looney and Charlton Ogburn /Charlton Greenwood Ogburn are neglected by those who hold to their theory. It's quite amazing. I think for practical purposes - we are hear to write comprehensive articles - we should be asked to fill out the huge gaps in the encyclopedia that even adherents to these fringe theories ignore. We did this, for example, with Alden Brooks, who made a major contribution to the fringe argument with his works, and yet lacked a biography.Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani is perfectly correct that Oxfordian editors seem to have no interest in the figures behind the theory they support, the theories' history, or the various arguments that have been proposed over the years. Their sole interest seems to be to convert readers to The Truth by adding Oxfordian arguments to as many pages as they can. An example is the Famous Victories of Henry V. The scholarship on this play has been systematically distorted by an Oxfordian editor who has dragged out obscure and obsolete sources to promote the view that this pre-Shakesperare work about Henry was written by de Vere. I created the articles on Joseph C. Hart and Abel Lefranc. I also greatly expanded the one on James Wilmot. If editors genuinely interested in the history and arguments made by the major and minor players in the SAQ were to do the same, it would add to our knowledge by creating properly sourced articles on books and writers who have discussed these matters. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resp to Kangoule: Yes, you do seem to have it wrong - although it is likely because I was not precise enough in my language. Of course, all edits to any article should neutrally follow the best sources available, but what I am proposing is for editors to work to that standard in those articles that do not favour their own expressed (or expressed by other parties) preference. Oxfordian inclined editors should contribute to the non-Oxfordian articles, Stratfordians likewise to the non-Stratfordian articles, and any other determined viewpoint as regards the "real" author of the works of Shakespeare to work on articles except that viewpoint. In short, I am trying to break the perceptions of ownership and bias by having editors work to good encylopedic standards on the "other" articles within the subject areas - and hopefully foster some collegiate respect for the other viewpoints. It will, in a worse case scenario, indicate who is here for the betterment of the encyclopedia, and who is here to advocate one viewpoint and deprecate others. In the best case scenario, all the articles will be improved by a fresh perspective and editors will learn to value input by individuals who question what may be regarded as assumptions by the pre-existing editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oxfordians are already contributing to the non-Oxfordian Shakespeare articles, from an Oxfordian perspective. They, or rather, Smatprt, for he alone edits this line - the others hopping in usually only when his intrusion of fringe material from poor sources is challenged - would not even be noticed as Oxfordians if they mastered the intricacies of mainstream scholarship and edited from that perspective. It's like asking an Velikovskian to write on Egyptian chronology, or Akhnaton, or the Exodus, using only sources that do not share the old maestro's peculiar cosmo-historical theories. Then, asking wiki astrophysists to improve the articles on Venus and Jupiter from a Velikovskian perspective, since it is absent there. Or for ancient historians to add to the Necho I and Ramesses I pages a detail NPOV exposition on Velikovsky's view that, despite the 600 years which separate these distinct figures in the standard model, they are interchangeable, the same person, in Velikovsky's fringe thesis. Then I suppose, the ancient historian could, to see things from a Velikovskian perspective, go to Hittites and get into a huge edit war with others by proposing a section detailing Velikovsky's reasons for denying that the Hittites as described ever existed, being neo-babylonians, all exquisitely detailed by selective quotation from one of the 3 relevant volumes he wrote on this, (WP:OR, WP:Undue, and WP:Fringe violations been chucked one's way by everyone in the meantime). All this is possible, but effectively it is asking fringe theory believers to study mainstream books, and orthodox scholars to drop the latest book on Shakespeare by Stephen Greenblatt, or Brian Vickers, or their copy of the Shakespeare Quarterly, in order to master the contents of Mrs Henry Pott's Francis Bacon and His Secret Society, (1891) or Mrs Nancy Rice Clark's Bacon's Dial in Shakespeare (1922). By Jove, I know who would get the benefit of this, the Oxfordians compelled to read academic masterpieces, while the sober wikipedians would be condemned to spending their months immersed in books no serious scholars reads any more, if only because they are tedious exercises in paranoid hermeneutics! I'm sure you will appreciate the irony in your suggestion, if I take it as meaning, functionally, a reward for fringe theory believers, who are invited to ascend to the luminous spheres of paradise (mainstream scholarship), while orthodox mainstream scholars are advised to take up residence in the intellectual equivalent of Dante's Malebolge, among the fraudulent! Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on Constance Mary Pott, founder of the Francis Bacon Society, Eleanor Turner Clark, the founder of the American branch of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, no page on Wilbur G. Zeigler, the father of Marlovian theory. No page on Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence. No page on Percy Allen (writer), who played an important role in the 1940s. Charles Wisner Barrell, a major player, gets the barest stub, though the Oxfordian sites showcase his writings. The same goes for Ogburn père, whose 1952 opus kick-started a dying theory. No page on Diana Price, the only recent sceptic who has tried hard to make an intelligible argument for the fringe view. Take one that has been sketched on Granville Greenwood, which is really bizarre because of the carelessness. He actually is registered under two names, because the same man also has a bio under George Greenwood. Both pages are embellished with variants of the extraordinary line: 'His father and brother, Charles Greenwood, had equally brief first-class careers', which suggests that Greenwood's father was his brother. Disattention to detail everywhere when fringe theory is the subject, and neglect of important wiki constructive work on the historical environments of these ideas, and the people about them. One can hardly expect Shakespearean mainstreamers to fill all these obvious lacunae. There's loads of work out there that begs attention, and allowing pages to get bogged down for several years in trivial disputes that drain time better spent in actually creating and pushing articles through to completion is not a spectre that incentivates readers or experienced hands to improve this particular area.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mediation was opened on 18th August, two months ago, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question. It seemed to have died in its tracks, after opening statements were made on the talk page.

What is the proper procedure on this page, in the meantime. It is not fair to talk behind people's backs, if their backs are turned. To judge from Smatprt's note, he is unable physically to reply for at least 8 days. Does one just suspend the discussion until that date? Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Until Smatprt can respond in detail, we can try to resolve any issues that other potentially effected parties have (which may or may not effect Smatprt) and even perhaps attempt to also act in Smatprt's likely best interests - other editors will have some idea of his likely position - per AGF so that there is the best chance of this proceeding promptly upon his review and comments. His initial response appears to indicate he is interested, so why not build a model that he is also likely to agree to? Chance for folks to get some practice in regarding stepping into a different editors shoes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resp to TS (have we interacted before?) Perhaps not toward a viewpoint, but to edit an article relating to a viewpoint one does not agree with - and apply oneself as diligently to ensuring a npov presentation of the best sources available for it as one would the article(s) regarding one's own preference. Simply, to try and improve an article through best practices only and putting aside own's own consideration of the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why somebody interested in the mainstream view of Shakespearean scholarship should spend a microsecond reading, let alone editing, an article about fringe views. This seems like an unjust imposition. Whatever next, requiring qualified biologists only to write articles about biblical literalism? --TS 13:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I know lots of people who feel that way about editing Wikipedia. Why contribute articles in your specialty when they can be vadalised by a 14-year-old kid who read something on the Internet and then waste time arguing on talk pages and dispute resolution pages to defend your edits against people whose main expertise is in gaming the system?

I look at it like a cop or an elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution: being a Wikipedian means you agree to uphold Wikipedia standards no matter where they appear. It's a bit more than just being limited to your own obsession, and in fact those editors are often the worst offenders when it comes to disruption. Either the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia mean something or they don't. If they don't, then I'd like to find out so I make better use of my time doing something else. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the redirect has been reverted even though there has been 7 months given to actually do a merger, what is the usual process when something like this happens? mark (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

my god, trying to comment by blackberry from the pacific ocean is insane. I'm really sorry cuz I want to respond and participate. Marknutkey, your bold moves, while in good faith, completely disregard the process we all agreed to. Please ask tom or nishidani to explain the process we were following and had agreed to also check with scienceapologist, who proposed it. And please restore the saq in the meantime so as not to scuttle that process. It would be the right thing to do. OMG, another hour just on this post. Blabkberry editing is a nightmare!Smatprt (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can explain why your blanketing of my last remark here also entailed blanketing all of my spelling corrections to the earlier edit I made regarding the Velikovsky analogy? I know a blackberry in mid ocean can be troublesome, but it looks like you've jammed me again. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history it appears that he blanked you in two edits 3 minutes apart, so it wasn't unintentional. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I won't make a fuss, if only because in the 70s I was hired to help in doing the backleg of one of the yachts in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, to bring one of the competitors back to port, and I know what Smatprt must feel like being all at sea.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment here that contains the germ of a proposal that might be relevant. Pertaining to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article, I wrote:

I would like to say that this article as it is written is terribly written and organised and its references and POV violate almost every Wikipedia policy. If it is to be merged into the SAQ article, it would have to be rewritten. I think we need to step back and determine a course of action, possibly involving rewriting the stand-alone SAQ candidate articles to bring them up to Wikipedia standards, maybe through competing sandboxes much the same way we did the main SAQ article. In fact, that method might be a good way for Wikipedia to solve some of its most contentious problems regarding controversial articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Speaking purely for myself, I've never been opposed to the idea of having 3 separate pages for Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, and Baconian theory, and perhaps your move was a tad premature. Most of our attention was given to getting a stable overview of the whole complex history of Shakespeare doubts. There's still a huge amount of work to be done to apply the same method to whatever material might be regarded as not covered in that overview. There can be no full merge of the material on that page back into the new article, because, as Tom has just noted, it is a total wipeout, formatwise, in terms of referencing protocols, and everything else. The problem is, if the wiki community accepts we have an Oxfordian page, will that in turn come to be a battleground, with the same editing vices, stonewalling and preference for poor sourcing, and POV advocacy, which derailed the SAQ page? Unless behaviour changes, it most probably will. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic of this discussion

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

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

(EDIT: Since he has reverted the SAQ page I believe his intentions are clear.)

Well I won't vote, because I brought the complaint. But, excluding us peons in the field, I looked over the administrative voting above and came up with the following breakdown.

Admins calling for a topic ban on Smatprt

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

Admins calling for a topic ban on Nishidani

• Kudpung
• Maunus

Admins calling for a topic ban on Tom Reedy

• Maunus(possibility to be considered)

Admins calling for some different solution

• LessHeard vanU

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

Okay, I give up. After this edit, where Smatprt has reverted a new page that, no equable judgement could doubt, significantly improved the prior version, which we were all obliged to substitute with a different version, and restored what he calls a 'consensual version', when it was in fact a conflicted version for 4 years, I'll get off the fence, and call for a ban from all articles relating to Shakespeare. Include me in the verdict by all means if one wants the appearance of an equable solution. It can be a year, or whatever, but at least sufficient time to enable Shakespeare editors (I'm not one) a breathing space to return and work these articles in an unconflicted atmosphere. I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason given for not responding to complaints on this page may be pretextual, simply a strategy to make it die on its feet for 8 days. He did this over the summer on the pages he was supposed to edit towards a new version, and the pattern seems to be repeated here. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that utilising purported limited connectivity to revert other editors while still not being able to communicate the reasons is very unhelpful - one person chanting "against consensus" while not being part of the discussion is not appropriate. I have put forward a suggestion on how to start afresh, but while there is obvious disregard for discussion it seems to be a bit pointless. Perhaps getting third parties to look over the issues and determine where there are policy violations and propose sanctions is needed before people will agree to model proper behaviour. I wouldn't limit to admins, though - just uninvolved parties - because sysop flags do not guarantee better reviewing ability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

After attempting to absorb the mind numbing wiki-leze on the long stretch of this page, which is but a blur now, I'm merely picking a post at random upon which to tag this little tale, since I sense being somewhere near the vicinity of the bottom. I apoligize in advance for being unaware with much of the formatting protocal, and am not even sure if this is a place to offer a smidgen of support to SMATPRT, so double apologies if not. This a general observation, however, of what I've managed to garner from the foregoing discussion/s. I have also also been a witness--more often as an an observor, of SMATPRT's straightforward attempts at maintaining the Edward de Vere page page over the past few years, but have also encountered him firsthand as a sometime contributor. Ironically, SMATPRT took me for an antagonist when we first sparred on some rather dramatic altarations taking place on the page. I'm sure that dialogue must still be lurking somewhere in these corners. In any event, I am all for solid sourcing of material presented in the article/s. But there is some bias as to what constitutes solid sourcing; yes, you have a set of definitions, yet there remains some bias. (Please see my remarks on the discussion page for Oxford posted earlier today in this regard.) SMATPRT seems to me to have genuinely tried more often than not in an even-handed manner, with a modulated voice, and with reasonable questions/arguments and an obvious concurrance and willingness to continue working to upgrade the endnote sources, etc. Basically, to cooperate justly; but he justifiably expects some just cooperation in return, which with all due respect, he has not received. With regard to Mssrs. Tom Reedy & Nishidani (among others but particular these two), I was pleased to read some constructive comments with regard to limitations of authority and stricture from some few Administrators. But as for the two chaps in question, and the other cohorts who have hammered SMATPRT on those pages, which I may say without hyperbole, as well as the thick of the Grand Inquisitors above, I have first of all never seen such a pack of bullies, to put it mildly, nor smelled such a recent unsavory stench of Big Brother, to put it largely. I am glad there seems to be something of a thread for a call for a somewhat fairer, possibly more impartial judgement on the matter--verdit rather. But if SMATPRT is banned as an editor on Wikipedia, I would only remind you that this entire transctription is in the public domain. And this kind of blacklisting definitely has the potential to come back and bite you with some ugly PR. There is talk of standards above. I can still recall what Wikipedia stood for the first several years of its infancy, and with all its sophistication and innocency. VNV a.k.a. Vero-Nihil-Verius

Ridiculous posts like this one are one of the reasons why any reasoned discussion of this topic gets bogged down in nonsense writien by Oxfordians and other "Anti-Stratfordians" who appear out of the blue whenever Smatprt's behaviour is challenged. Pages and pages of this stuff leave a quagmire, and nothing gets done. Yes, it is time for a topic ban. Paul B (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Smatprt, you say, has 'maintained' the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page against a what you term, and you say these are euphemisms, a pack of bullies, Grand Inquisitors, cohorts, with Tom and myself as gangleaders?

Could I remind you that I have never edited that page, and that over four years, the editing statistics give us the following breakdown of Oxfordians vs. mainstream Shakespearean scholarship supporters.

Oxfordians

• Smatprt 159
• Ben Jonson 44
• Vero-Nihil-Verius 13
• Various anons 65
• JackofOz 7
• Softlavender 4
• Alexpope 3
• SamueltheGhost 1
• Afasmit 1

Total = 297 edits from an avowed Oxfordian perspective

Mainstream scholarship supporters participating in mediation, or recent edits on pages Smatprt dominates.

• Tom Reedy 22
• Paul Barlow 1
• Xover 2
• Wrad 1
• Nishidani 0

Total = 26

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

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

Draw your own conclusions, as long as they are consonant with the relevant data. P.s. 'cohort' is not a person, but a group of persons.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)