Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 82:
[[Special:Contributions/67.122.209.190|67.122.209.190]] ([[User talk:67.122.209.190|talk]]) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:''New address due to network interruption: [[Special:Contributions/71.141.88.54|71.141.88.54]] ([[User talk:71.141.88.54|talk]]) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)''
==Evidence presented by Tom Reedy==
Line 135 ⟶ 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.
'''[[
'''[[User:Ironhand41|Ironhand41]]''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironhand41 12/16/2010] Account with two edits, one supporting Nina's charges of POV at the SAQ peer review.
'''[[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 154 ⟶ 158:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=344852827 2/18/2010]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=345614926 2/22/2010]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=346552052 2/26/2010]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=347965844 3/5/2010]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=349882629 3/14/2010 (two more like this on same day)]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=350036122 3/15/2010]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=389775509 10/9/2010].
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edwardspear Edwardspear, 3/24/2010] 1 edit: Oxfordian vote
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.255.150.219 IP 96.255.150.219, 3/24/1010] 3 edits, all on 1 Oxfordian vote (apparently inexperienced).
===How to get around those pesky and unfair Wikipedia policies and actions — a primer for fringe editors===
Line 193 ⟶ 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 205 ⟶ 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 251 ⟶ 257:
Following my opening the Request for Arbitration, responses were made by the above editors; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=historysubmit&diff=407941319&oldid=407935442 Moonraker2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=historysubmit&diff=407956607&oldid=407955784 NinaGreen], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=historysubmit&diff=408050703&oldid=408038237 Warshy]. Rather than arguing for the acceptance of the case, and suggesting other areas of concern, each editor questioned the substance and emphasis of my initial Request statement. Although it is recognised that none of the editors are familiar with the ArbCom procedures it is apparent that not one reviewed the guides and help pages relating to responding to Requests for Arbitration.<br>
Following acceptance of the case NinaGreen, via proxy, then submitted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinaGreen&diff=prev&oldid=408312276 her case for having the Request dismissed], disregarding the actuality of the matter. Again, this is strongly indicative of an editor acting without making themselves familiar with the situation. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
===NinaGreen's use of article talkspace is contrary to guidelines===
As has been requested by NinaGreen on the workshop pages, I am exampling a few instances of her failure to abide by [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. I would note that this is generally for her benefit, since nearly all parties to this case and other observers - and certainly members of the Arbitration Committee - will be familiar with these protocols. I shall draw particular attention to specific points, and note examples of NinaGreen's non observance to it.<br>
*[[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages|Stay objective]]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=406917989 Apparently, there is a "controversy" over the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.]<br>
*[[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices|Comment on content, not the contributor]] (per [[WP:NPA]]); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=405979186 Alleging WP:OWNership of other pages by editor also participating on Talk:SAQ].<br>
*'''Be concise'''; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=NinaGreen Take your pick of any half a dozen...]<br>
*[[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable|When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs]]; Unable to supply an example of NinaGreen specifically not using a diff, but also unable to supply an example of one being used.<br>
I reget, truly, that I have felt compelled to make this addition - I have said many times that this case was not brought for the review of one or a couple of persons actions, but to resolve a long standing issue of the avoidance of standard practices and misapplication of policy in a possible attempt to allow a [[WP:UNDUE]] referencing of one or more particular claimants of the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare - but NinaGreen has several times in the ongoing ArbCom case made claim that the case is "against her". It is not, but it is apparent that NinaGreen has acted and continues to act contrary to WP guideline, and remains unfamiliar with WP policy and practice. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by Xover==
===The SAQ has attracted long-term and sustained disruption from its supporters===
===SAQ advocates [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|persist]] far past any reasonable attempt at consensus===
[[Shakespeare authorship question|SAQ]] advocates have persisted in pushing their favored [[WP:POV|POV]] far past all reasonable attempts to establish a consensus, literally over several years, forcing other editors to repeatedly and endlessly defend the actual scholarly consenus; and to repeat the same arguments on every article whether it has any relation to the SAQ or not.
Of the 21 Talk page archives of [[Talk:William Shakespeare]], only 3 do not contain some kind of discussion of the
'''Archives:'''
[[Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_1#Moved_authorship_material|1]]
[[Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_2#Missing_the_obvious|2]]
Line 320 ⟶ 330:
===SAQ advocates stack "votes" and pile on "support" with SPAs===
In every discussion at talkpages, noticeboards, and even the current ArbCom case, IP-editors and SPAs pop out of the woodwork to lend their support to the cause.
Quite apart from the above mentioned {{u|Barryispuzzled}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Methinx}}}}||8 edits since 2009, all of them apparently to “[add] information strengthening de Vere claim…” as his first edit summary put it)
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Schoenbaum}}}}||88 edits since 2007, all of them to the SAQ talk page or noticeboard discussions
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Peter Farey}}<br>{{User|86.29.85.121}}}}||35 combined edits, 28 of which on ''[[Marlovian theory]]'' over two months in 2007, the remaining 7 on the merge proposal; the goal apparently being giving readers {{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|350041404|350036122|guidance}} on learning more about that theory. He didn't apparently bother to log in to his account, presumably since all he was going to do was “vote” on the proposal.
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Mizelmouse}}}}||60 edits since 2007, all of them related to the ''Authorship'' question, including an undisclosed [[WP:COI]] edit to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles|an AfD]], and it later emerged that he and {{u|BenJonson}} were collaborating on a publication project and the latter was even {{diff|User_talk:Jimbo Wales|prev|350435204|staying with Mizelmouse}} while they were opposing the merge proposal
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Alexpope}}}}||89 edits since 2009, mostly but not exclusively on ''Authorship'' related discussions or articles
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Wysiwyget}}}}||5 total edits since he registered concurrently with the merge proposal: 2 to oppose the merger, 2 to vote keep on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays|an AfD for an Oxfordian article]]
|-
|{{Nowrap|{{User|Wember}}}}||who made his single solitary edit, since registering the day after the merge proposal was made, in order to, you guessed it, oppose the merger
|}
All of which—while people have been banned as Socks for less evidence—is merely strongly suggestive of off-wiki coordination, and not as such proof of it; but is in any case de facto, if not de jure, [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]].
When vote stacking failed, they shifted to some creative [[WP:Forum shopping]] by appealing to Jimbo—as detailed in his evidence—and apparently the tactic worked well since he takes the extraordinary step of commenting on this case to express his disagreement with the closing admin for closing “against consensus” citing the ''majority vote'' count '''13—8''', and without—then or now, apparently—noticing that the vote was stacked. Having Jimbo himself comment in your favour in an ArbCom case is sufficiently exceptional that I shouldn't wonder if it gets a mention in the next ''Signpost'': if swaying the outcome was not the intent (in which case, why go to Jimbo?), then it certainly seems to have had that effect.
Of course, predictably, this continues even in this ArbCom case: {{User|92.233.55.53}}, whose only three edits are {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Evidence|prev|409739160|on this ArbCom case}}, and who identifies himself as “Richard Malim” (presumably then the Secretary of the [http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/ De Vere Society]: “Dedicated to the proposition that the works of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Were, 17th Earl of Oxford”). Personally I find it stretches credulity to the breaking point to assume an IP editor with obvious problems navigating Wikipedia's interface should have found his way to a flipping ''ArbCom case'' without being guided there, but, again, the [[WP:AGF|suicide pact]] requires me to suspend my incredulity and accede that this may be so.
Meanwhile, I'm stuck digging through these interminable discussions rather than actually, you know, ''building the encyclopedia''. Anyone want to help me out on ''[[Edmond Malone]]''? No? How about on ''[[King Lear]]'' where we're trying to get a collaboration towards FAC going (except all the editors have been scared off because you just know there will be endless debates about the dating; it cannot possibly have been written after Oxford died, you see?). How about [[Shakespeare's plays|the other 35 odd Shakespeare play articles]] that are generally barely C-quality and which, really, Wikipedia should have Featured-quality articles on.
Of course, as I think Nishidani {{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|350243677|350237236|said it}} best: <blockquote>I might add, […], that the de Vereans here seem committed to pushing the theory, but singularly indifferent to editing pages related to it, which would benefit the Encyclopedia, but do not help them, apparently, in promoting their ideas, since it is so much encyclopedic background.</blockquote> When the closing admin, attempting to turn the conflict surrounding the merge proposal into a constructive path forward—by having the two sides develop competing proposals for a merged article in separate sandboxes—Tom and Nishidani rolled up their sleeves and put in, what, a thousand edits over a full year of work. Meanwhile, the various “anti-Stratfordians”… did essentially nothing; that is until the proposal from Tom and Nishidani (much better, by any Wikipedia standard you'd care to consult, and very likely FA-quality) got moved into mainspace and they could start in on picking it to shreds again.
Line 486 ⟶ 513:
However, she has a lot of knowledge of the field (check her webpage) and could make a valuable contribution to wikipedia. On several occasions she has made valid points, though usually in an inappropriate or overstated way. These valid points have been ignored or dismissed by the main editors of the page.
She was right to point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Organization_Problems_-_Bardolotry]. I pointed out later that wp:Lede says "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." She was also right to point out that "Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_20#Not_All_Authorship_Theories_Postulate_A_Conspiracy] - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=407362570&oldid=407355226]. Note that in each case her point was initially dismissed by a member of the "Stratford team". Another valid point she made was "I felt like I was reading Shapiro" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=406637223&oldid=406637029] - too much of the content and style of the article is based on Shapiro's book.
I think that the suggestion of MoreThings of short-term blocks for breaking wiki rules, applied to BOTH sides, is appropriate. Another long-term one-sided ban would not only be unfair and inappropriate, but would also be counter-productive. The best way to encourage and strengthen a minority view is to attack it aggressively and ban it. As an objective outsider with some experience of the climate debate, it is amusing to see the "Stratford team" make all the same strategic errors made by climate scientists and their supporters that have been so damaging to them. [[User:Poujeaux|Poujeaux]] ([[User talk:Poujeaux|talk]]) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 557 ⟶ 584:
[[Shakespeare authorship question]] needs to explain whether research by relevant subject experts supports Shakespeare's authorship. The article currently states "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence" with an explanatory footnote.<sup>[[Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|SAQ footnote]] {{oldid|Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|410115041|(permalink)}}</sup> However, editors want to counter the experts cited in that footnote with a statement that the NYT survey shows that 17% (6%+11%) of academics doubt the authorship.<sup>{{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|403106547|diff1}}, {{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|404545828|diff2}}</sup> Such an interpretation of the survey is not reasonable due to the problems described above, mainly that those surveyed are not published scholars.
===Comments by NinaGreen===
At the Workshop are several comments by NinaGreen requesting clarification of what problem is claimed. For example, this {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|412570571|diff}} includes "I could see no case against me since not a single allegation on the Evidence page cites a Wikipedia policy which I have allegedly violated backed up with relevant diffs which establish the allegation." A week earlier I had explained at [[User talk:NinaGreen#Some background]] that "Wikipedia is [[WP:BURO|not a bureaucracy]]: that means we do not try to spell out every detail of what is right or wrong. Instead, policies and guidelines and essays are used to provide advice and opinions."<sup>{{diff|User talk:NinaGreen|prev|405270489|diff}}</sup> My [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Statement by Johnuniq|statement]] includes some information about problems caused by NinaGreen's talk page style, with reference to the presentation of serious claims (in this case, "defamation") without evidence.
In the Workshop, NinaGreen makes a very strong claim regarding me: "a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December",<sup>{{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|411035271|diff}}</sup> repeated as "false allegation by Johnuniq".<sup>{{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|411075783|diff}}</sup>
From [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?|no personal attacks]] we see that among comments that are "never acceptable" is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
At the [[WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Claim of false allegation|workshop talk]], I responded with evidence to show that my "false allegation" was in fact a simple (and correct) statement of fact. A day later, I posted "Please either strike out your claim, or present evidence to support it" at [[User talk:NinaGreen#Claim of false allegation|NinaGreen's talk]]. The only response from NinaGreen was a short statement which did not respond to my request, but which repeated "Johnuniq's false allegation" twice.<sup>{{diff|User talk:NinaGreen|prev|411659646|diff}}</sup> I have previously notified NinaGreen that evidence of claims is required, for example: "serious claims like that need at least a link with some attempted support (directing personal abuse at an editor is [[WP:NPA|totally prohibited]]; an unjustified claim of abuse is in itself abuse)".<sup>{{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|406650884|diff}}</sup>
==Evidence by Bishonen==
Line 594 ⟶ 630:
'''MoreThings''':
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=408014995]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Workshop&diff=411648978&oldid=411646887]<font color = "green"> (Added 00:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC). This attack was too much for arb Shell Kinney, who removed it from the workshop page. But I think it's just fine for illustration purposes.)</font>
'''Zweigenbaum'''
Line 706 ⟶ 743:
[[User:Moonraker2|Moonraker2]] ([[User talk:Moonraker2|talk]]) 08:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by
===Self-indictment, with a few clumsy sobstory excuses.===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani#Arbcom_submission_here.2C_since_it_is_far_too_long.2C_and_I_am_far_too_exhausted_to_waste_my_last_weeks_on_vacation_reading_thousands_of_diffs I've placed my evidence, also against myself, on my own talk page here] since, despite struggling for a week, I cannot bring myself to do what is required of me, and mount a case against anyone. I prefer to just give the thinnest of sketches as to how I perceived things over the past 11 months. I apologize to arbitration. My knowledge of rules, my grasp of diff theory, everything on wikipedia, is empirical, and in my experience one very rarely gets a comprehensive picture from diffs, unless someone is willing to riff back and forward for context, or read whole archives, which would be a form of cruelty here. I should add, though it is a partisan, subjective comment, that the attempt here to make us into an indistinguishable POV tagteaming duo is unfair to Tom Reedy. He thoroughly revised my 900+edit version of the article, invariably with a severe eye on [[WP:NPOV]], as befits his professional training, and he even went at times out of pocket to purchase and send me rare books on the subject so I could form my own independent idea of some recondite aspects of the field. He is a passionate Shakespearean scholar with however a broad and deep knowledge of that period, yes, but, despite a lapse or two, deserves nothing like the halo of suspicious thrown about him repeatedly, by virtue of his editorial association with me, over the past several months. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 06:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wilde,_1st_Baron_Penzance&diff=412203670&oldid=392678702 This recent edit on an otherwise obscure page] today is a timely reminder that provocative IPs are a problem, and that the potential range for advocating SAQ material over a very large number of articles not related to Shakespeare still exists.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
::For the record [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wilde,_1st_Baron_Penzance&diff=next&oldid=335622626 I only made one edit to that page], and it has nothing to do with the complaint made in the edit summary given above.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 04:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by jdkag==
===SAQ Assortment of Supporters===
I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution. The article has been written by the passionate defenders, who have converted the article into a history of the question (though there is also a separate Wiki entry on this). Moreover, they use every opportunity to belittle the SAQ concept. What the defenders have not allowed is a concise and cogent synopsis of the reasons for questioning Stratfordian attribution. The bias is apparent in the first paragraph of the entry, in which SAQ is a presented as a fringe concept. Stratfordians are considered Shakespeare scholars, whereas SAQ supporters are discredited as "an assortment of supporters." The article uses terms such as "unequivocal" to describe the set of facts that are relied upon to defend Stratfordian authorship, and whereas these facts are recounted in detail (too much so for a wiki entry), the weaknesses underlying these "facts" go unmentioned.
Not all who support the SAQ position are necessarily anti-Stratfordians; some, such as Diana Price, have simply published work showing why the case for attribution is particularly weak. Another good pro-SAQ book by a professor of Shakespearean studies (as opposed to the anti-SAC Shapiro book) is described here:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133116&SubjectId=997&Subject2Id=997
In general, I think that proponents of the SAQ position do not see SAQ as an "argument" but as a concept. I would suggest that a more appropriate, non-POV opening sentences would read:
"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 Smatprt regarding topic ban appeal==
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}===
| |||