Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Certain editors only appear at SAQ discussions or disputes to support Oxfordians: add Ironhand41 as SPA voter |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 137:
'''[[User:Richard Malim|Richard Malim]]''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Richard_Malim 1/19/2011]. Account with three edits, consisting of comments below.
'''[[Special:Contributions/24.216.233.108|IP 24.216.233.108]]''', self-identified as Earl Showerman (presumably president of the [[Shakespeare Fellowship]]: "The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)"). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.216.233.108 12/16/2010] Account with one edit, supporting Nina's charges of
'''[[User:Ironhand41|Ironhand41]]''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironhand41 12/16/2010] Account with two edits, one supporting Nina's charges of
'''[[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]]''' is an excellent editor with more than 71,000 edits. He only appears at Shakespeare authorship articles and talk pages when [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] needs support. Excepting minor edits, his substantive contributions to the SAQ topic show a pattern of following Smatprt’s lead.
Line 199:
==Evidence presented by NinaGreen==
Proxied by request on behalf of NinaGreen, who is blocked, by [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Arbitration as it stands should be dismissed ===
Line 211:
I also wish to make it clear that the foregoing has nothing to do with evidence which might be presented in an arbitration case by any of the parties involved. It has to do with the fact that LessHeard vanU did not support in any way in his statement below the key issue on which he requested arbitration, the alleged 'coordinated campaign'. Wikipedia editors should not be dragged into an arbitration on the basis of a statement by an administrator which the administrator has entirely failed to support in his request for arbitration.[[User:NinaGreen|NinaGreen]] ([[User talk:NinaGreen#top|talk]]) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|Original RfAR Statement by LessHeard vanU|Note: The collapse boxes were added by me. [[User talk:AGK|<
The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this.
However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article.
Line 760:
"The Shakespeare authorship question encompasses the concept that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon may not have been the author of the body of works generally attributed to him."
==Evidence presented by
I wish to appeal my topic ban. Before presenting evidence and possible solutions, I would like to present some context:
A few months after I joined the Wiki community and began editing articles about [[Carmel-by-the-Sea]], I became aware of a kind of a general attitude directed at any editor who even questioned the traditional Shakespearean attribution [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=prev&oldid=76337122]. This was before I started editing anything having to do with Shakespeare and it’s been going on ever since.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakespeare_authorship_question&action=historysubmit&diff=130716656&oldid=130696522][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.164.246.248&oldid=129507388] Honestly, there are times when I have felt that this was the longest case of approved bullying that has ever gone on in Wiki history.
With this continuing no-holds barred hostility directed at anti-Stratfordians came the eventual withdrawal of most anti-strat editors. During this time, I decided that the entire issue came down to an assault on Pillar #2 – “We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".” So I dug in my heals, for better or worse, and worked with diligence to present all the relevant viewpoints, and make the articles more informative and readable, so when visitors came to Wikipedia looking for information, they would be able to discover a wide range of research and current opinions.
As a result, in recent years, the attacks centered on me, I attempted resolution and failed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive86#Alleged_ongoing_harassment_by_User:Nishidani]. I fought back by escalating dispute resolution[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=349866043#Request_for_Topic_Ban_on_users_Tom_Reedy_and_Nishidani] and failed. Ultimately, I ended up [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don't_spite_your_face spitting in my own face]. I fully admit that I pushed back too hard, and in doing so, I did damage to the community. In particular, I am sorry if I caused anyone to withdraw from any article. That was never my intention. My intention was always this and only this: to keep Wikipedia updated on the most relevant and up to date research into the SAQ, and record it in (as Wikipedia terms itself) “the keeper of all human knowledge”. <u>I never advocated that the anti-strat view was the dominate view, and always acknowledged that the mainstream consensus view is that William Shakespeare, of Stratford-Upon-Avon is the writer of the plays and sonnets.</u> No diffs have ever been presented that say otherwise.
As I said, I fully admit that I pushed too hard and finally lost it with Nishidani, who filed the ANI complaint leading to my topic ban. I had never been accused of kicking someone off a page, and I did back off from my remarks right away by trying to explain my reverts of his edits. Making personal insults was very rarely my style and as evidence of that, I have never had a Wikiquette report filed against me. I guess that is why I was eventually labeled as a Civil POV pusher. On the contrary, I always saw myself as a POV equalizer,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Smatprt] a view held by a number of other editors.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Bertaut][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question#SamuelTheGhost]
In appealing my topic ban, I should address some problems that I had with the way the hearing was conducted and resolved by Admin LessHeard, who is no longer an uninvolved editor, and is the filing party in the current larger case.
*At the topic ban hearing it was alleged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389620817&oldid=389618942] that I had an “obsession with giving undue weight to a fringe theory” . No diffs were provided and this allegation remains unproven. On the contrary, an uninvolved editor added this comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare%27s_plays&diff=379594055&oldid=378196222] on one of the 20 odd pages where deletions of sourced material occurred.
*I was accused of bullying and making personal attacks,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389696002&oldid=389694270] but no diffs were provided. As requested, I provided diffs that these personal attacks actually came form the other side.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389734104&oldid=389733660]. Another editor confirmed my allegations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389792899&oldid=389791702]. No diffs were provided in rebuttal or to prove similar allegations against me.
*It has been said there (and in this case) that I wanted to say that the anti-strat theory was equal to the mainstream theory. No diffs were provided. I will say for the record that I have never said any such thing. This allegation remains unproven.
*I was told “you have to acknowledge that the academic consensus is that the plays, etc., were written by William Shakespeare, and that there is a lot of material that can be used to support that viewpoint.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LessHeard_vanU&diff=prev&oldid=392577729] The problem is - <u>I have always agreed with this statement, and said so previously</u>. And I have reaffirmed that statement on the present workshop page. As with most of the reasons for my banning, no diffs were provided to support the accusation, which remains unproven.
*I was accused of ownership issues. After reading the diffs that were provided to back up the statement, several ANI editors subsequently recharacterized the problem as more of a content dispute than anything else.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389576637&oldid=389576534] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389648919&oldid=389648870 ][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389627505&oldid=389626354] This last diff also questions why the mediation was not allowed to run its course prior to the ANI case being pursued. LessHeard also agreed that this was primarily a content dispute that escalated into behavioral issues[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=389847341&oldid=389847276].
*Several editors at ANI made reference to prior complaints about my editing practices. I would like to advise the arbitrators that 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:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Barryispuzzled],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Barryispuzzled_(2nd)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive]. I am in no way saying that my editing style has not been problematic. I have admitted that. But these complaints by the banned editor has left a lasting record that is easy to misinterpret. Following his banning, I should have at least requested the record of those complaints be removed. I failed to do that, which was my mistake.
To summarize, I was indicted based on a series of accusations of ownership violations, which were later characterized by numerous editors (including Less Heard) as content issues. At the hearing, no diffs were provided to back up the allegations of bullying, personal attacks, etc.. On the contrary, I provided diffs to show that my accusers had engaged in the very behavior that they had accused me of. But I, alone, was singled out for banning. I also question why the mediation was not allowed to go forward prior to the ANI case. This normal step in dispute resolution was skipped, making the ANI case premature. I feel that this was a procedural error that should not have happened and that the mediation case should have been resolved prior to the ANI case being pursued.
'''Requested Resolution''':
:I believe that I can be a worthwhile contributor to the community. My interest in non-authorship related issues is evidenced by my extensive work on
:*formatting Shakespearean character lists
:*adding Shakespeare play images to the articles
:*guarding against vandalism (the typical “Shakespeare did my mum” kind that come from school kids),
:*template formatting (alphabetizing and other thankless chores), etc..
:I would like to continue in that vein. Unfortunately, due to the overly broad terms of my topic ban, even these kinds of non-authorship related edits are not allowed.
'''In regards to Authorship related articles:'''
:*Unlike recent anti-strat participants, I believe my knowledge of policy, guidelines and following the appropriate steps in dispute resolution can be helpful to the project. My biggest fallback, is my tendency to editwar, which I fully admit.
:*I would agree to a 1RR restriction on all Shakespeare authorship articles. For further assurance, I would agree to the same restrictions on all my editing as well.
'''In regards to the numerous content issues at play:
'''
:*I would agree to participating in the mediation case filed by Tom Reedy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question]
:*I would agree to take matters to the Content Noticeboard, which has not been done in the past.
In closing I would like to offer this statement by Xover,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Xover] one of the mainstream editors involved in the larger ArbCom case. While holding opposing viewpoints on many matters, I found his summary of the situation insightful and respectful. Thank you for allowing me to present this topic-ban appeal. Respectfully, [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
<font color = "green">
==Evidence by Bishonen regarding Smatprt's topic ban==
<span class="bish">I have submitted evidence regarding the general SAQ case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Evidence&oldid=412966990#Evidence_by_Bishonen above], but I still permit myself to create a short section here for evidence on the issue of Smatprt's topic ban. That's because a) it's a completely separate thing from the larger case, b) it's exactly what Smatprt himself does, and c) I suspect it's the only way to get people to catch sight of this new section. (It's green for newness, like my additions above. I hope that's not offensive.)</span>
<span class="bish">I only want to make one point, which is to do with Smatprt's presentation and its (lack of) clarity. Smatprt: you give many diffs to single posts, including some from the long ANI thread which is the background to your topic ban; but you don't give a link to that ANI thread itself! (If it's in your text somewhere, I apologise, but I've been looking and I can't find it.) That means that the reader has no overview of what you yourself call "the topic ban hearing", and little chance of forming their own opinion; all they have is a personally conducted tour of what you want to show them. I'm not suggesting that you did that on purpose, nor that there are highly alarming things in the whole thread that you leave out; but only that it's what the reader needs for context. So, dear reader, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt&oldid=394677839 here] is the ANI thread which forms the main background to Smatprt's topic ban. It's pretty long, I'm afraid. Still. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC).</span></font>
==Evidence presented by {Write your user name here}==
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
==={Write your assertion here}===
| |||