Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 684:
If three editors very much on the periphery of an article spontaneously and in unison voice concerns about an admin’s behaviour it may be that those editors are in cahoots. Or it may be that they are simply voicing a genuine concern. I posted because it seemed to me that Bishonen was partisan. Her posts too often seemed barbed, condescending and designed to provoke. And they were all aimed at editors on one side of the debate. It seemed to me that the idea was to goad Nina into biting back. And that’s pretty much what happened.
==Evidence presented by Moonraker2==
===The root of the problem===
I am more interested in [[Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford|Oxford]] than in the [[Shakespeare authorship question|SAQ]] page. Here are my edits to both: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403000636&oldid=402937608 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403006990&oldid=403000636 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403069614&oldid=403068095 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403070953&oldid=403070758 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403074530&oldid=403071163 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403080969&oldid=403080286 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403104595&oldid=403100027 7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=403464325&oldid=403464106 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=407046558&oldid=406472942 9], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=408138025&oldid=407721182 10], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=408138460&oldid=408138025 11], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=407764088&oldid=407675998 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=407921383&oldid=407802542 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=408126512&oldid=407978349 3]. Several merely link a new page I have created, such as [[Thomas Fowle]], [[Benedict Spinola]], [[William Damsell]], [[George Delves]], [[Edward Windsor, 3rd Baron Windsor|Edward Windsor]], and [[John Garrard]]. I use this space to make it clear that I have no "Oxfordian" or "Stratfordian" agenda. I understand the fascination of the mystery, but it is a matter of indifference to me who this writer was.
While watching these pages, [[Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford|Oxford]] and [[Shakespeare authorship question|SAQ]], I noticed a new editor of obvious ability. I welcomed her and encouraged her to create a user account, which she did. I saw her being given a hard time by what we may call [[the Establishment]] of both pages, and I formed the view that these were Stratfordians with a sense of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]] of the pages who felt threatened by the arrival of a well-informed Oxfordian. I also noticed what I considered to be partisan interventions by the admin Bishonen, who in my view was being provocative. Bishonen has made unfounded personal attacks on me, and I strongly object to her smears. She has described me as one of NinaGreen's "helpers", which I see she tries to justify in her statement above, but the worst instance of this behaviour is her suggestion that I am part of an Oxfordian entryist campaign. She wrote (on a page linked from the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question|request page]] but later [[User:Bishonen/Further RfAR statement|deleted]]): {{quote|I have no doubt that if/when Nina is banned from Wikipedia, the next person in the long, shadowy line of "Oxfordians" out there will step up to the plate, be welcomed by Moonraker2, claim special consideration as a new user, and set about preventing Shakespeare authorship question from ever becoming a FA.}}
This is a series of reckless inventions. I objected to it, and the conversation is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Statement_by_Moonraker2 here]. Such fantasies by an admin are unacceptable. In my view, Bishonen is enraged by any opposition to her own unreasonable behaviour. Until this ArbCom case, I did not know the history of conflict between Stratfordians and Oxfordians which lay behind the hostility of several established users to Oxfordians, whether real or imagined, but now that it has been explained it seems to me to be based on little more than an [[association fallacy]]. The most courteous users are unsettled by a [[irresistible force paradox|brick wall]], and it cannot be in Wikipedia's best interests to allow one side of any debate to institutionalize the denigration of the other.
With pages like these, and in a medium such as the English Wikipedia, some conflict is inevitable, and grown-up ways need to be found to manage it impartially. in my view, that has not been happening recently.
[[User:Moonraker2|Moonraker2]] ([[User talk:Moonraker2|talk]]) 08:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||