Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:11, 9 February 2011

Latest revision as of 07:19, 27 March 2022

(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 199:

==Evidence presented by NinaGreen==

Proxied by request on behalf of NinaGreen, who is blocked, by [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

=== 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)}}

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 816:

<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}==