| Revision as of 14:32, 21 August 2010 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,556 edits →Issues to be mediated← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:30, 21 August 2010 edit undoSmatprt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,274 edits →Issues to be mediated: deleting comments from sockpuppet of Barryispuzzled. Bye Barry.Next edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| ; Additional issues (added by other parties) | ; Additional issues (added by other parties) | ||
| *Additional issue 1 | *Additional issue 1 | ||
| **I recently made properly sourced additions to the Shakespeare Authorship Question and Oxfordian theory articles but ] immediately removed them for no apparent reason other than they contradict the Oxfordian position and . It was subsequently restored in the latter by another editor . I left a comment in the wrong place on but was disrespectfully labeled a "vandal" by this same editor. (I also misplaced a comment on another page but that editor kindly placed it on the appropriate talk page.) I have made my views known to the offending editor . Looking through the pages of objections to ]'s behavior, I find it incredible that: (a) he doesn't recognize his own behavior; and (b) no action has been taken to stop his obstructions which seem to have wasted the time of many editors with honorable intentions. If a permanent ban is not placed upon him on this occasion then he has once again made a laughing stock of Misplaced Pages and the administrators who do their best to allow it to function efficiently. ] (]) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''. Just a technical point. ] has done absolutely nothing to warrant either calling for a permanent ban, or imposing a permaban, and I doubt whether any here would wish for this kind of drastic ostracism to be even considered. ] (]) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC) | '''Comment'''. Just a technical point. ] has done absolutely nothing to warrant either calling for a permanent ban, or imposing a permaban, and I doubt whether any here would wish for this kind of drastic ostracism to be even considered. ] (]) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:30, 21 August 2010
Shakespeare authorship question
| Request for formal mediation | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Shakespeare authorship question (talk) |
| Submitted | Error: Invalid time. |
| Mediator | Not yet assigned |
| Status | Awaiting party agreement |
| Notes | None |
Dispute specifics
- Involved users
- Tom Reedy (talk · contribs), filing party
- Smatprt (talk · contribs)
- Xover (talk · contribs)
- Nishidani (talk · contribs)
- Verbal (talk · contribs)
- ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Shakespeare's plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chronology of Shakespeare's plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- George Gascoigne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mary Sidney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shakespeare's sonnets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Martin Marprelate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hamlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As well as many others.
- Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays#Fringe_chronology
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hamlet#Political_.22context_and_interpretation.22_section
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Smatprt&oldid=355582268#WP:ONEWAY_violations
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tom_Reedy#Not_one-way
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Smatprt&oldid=374276992#Goal.3F
Issues to be mediated
- Primary issues
- Whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into other articles about Shakespeare or other articles is a violation of WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE.
- This dispute has gone on for many months and spread over many pages.
- Currently the discussion is centred on the Shakespeare's plays article talk page.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
Comment. Just a technical point. Smatprt has done absolutely nothing to warrant either calling for a permanent ban, or imposing a permaban, and I doubt whether any here would wish for this kind of drastic ostracism to be even considered. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
- All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.
- Agree. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Xover (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.