|
==Evidence presented by Xover==
===The SAQ has attracted long-term and sustained disruption from its supporters===
The adherentsAdherents of the ''[[Shakespeare authorship question|SAQ]]'' and the individual candidatesvariants include some of the nastier examples of disruptive editors who not only engage in [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] and [[WP:CRUSH|POV-pushing]], but also very serious [[WP:GAME|gaming]] and [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]]. Rather than link to specific article/talk edits I'll refer to the overall SPI archive page for the chief example:See [[WikipediaWP:Sockpuppet investigationsSockpuppet_investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive]] (see alsoand categories and case links fromat {{uUser|Barryispuzzled}}). ThisOne editor used a sockpuppet account tosock taketook an extremist stance based on the mainstream viewstance and attackattacked ''Authorship''[[Oxfordian adherentstheory|Oxfordian]] who favoureditors; a different candidate (Oxford), andsock then usedjumped a different sockpuppet accountin to jumpdefend inthat and defend thesame editor. he'd just attacked, with the overallThe goal being to create as much disruption and chaos as possible toand leave his main accountpuppeteer free and unnoticed to promote his own favoured candidate ([[Baconian theory|Bacon]]). This was part ofand a deliberate campaign to [[WP:GAME|game the system]] at [[WP:GAC|GAC]]: ([[Talk:Baconian theory/GA1|GA reviewGAC]], [[Talk:Baconian theory/GA2|later GAR review]]). This particular editorHe had been at it since 2006 (albeit not as disruptive during that whole time) and until he was banned in at least four separate SPI instances in 2009/20102009–10.
'''Note''': The intent of the above is not to tar all ''Authorship'' adherents with the same brush as the Sock above—in fact, attempting to deal with this Sock-account has been one of the more productive collaborative efforts between the editors involved on all sides of this conflict—but rather to demonstrate that the problem is not chiefly the immediate one with the editors currently engaged on the SAQ page. It is a long-standing and on-going problem that causes significant disruption, poisons the atmosphere to the point where assuming good faith and reaching consensus becomes impossible, and drives away good and productive editors.
===SAQ advocates [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|persist]] far past any reasonable attempt at consensus===
The[[Shakespeare authorship question|SAQ ]] advocates persisthave 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. ▼<small style="color: grey">(placeholder. will try to fill out <s>later today</s> as soon as possible.) --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</small>
▲The SAQ advocates persist in pushing their favored 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 [[Shakespeare authorship question]]SAQ, and most contain several extremely lengthy ones; all for a subject that after extremely hard-won consensus ended up as a single paragraph in the article. The highest volume on a single point was—Iwas believe, but I haven't the stomach to check—literallyliterally regarding a single footnote. Note that (not all of these are acrimonious, and the list is not as such intended to show a series of individual policy violations by specific editors; it's meant to illustrate the overall polite POV pushing, endless circles, and long-time [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] problems from those seeking to [[WP:RGW|right a great wrong]]).
'''Archives:'''
<small>(note, talk page archive section links; not diffs)</small><br>
'''[[William Shakespeare]]''':
[[Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_1#Moved_authorship_material|1]]
[[Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_2#Missing_the_obvious|2]]
===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.
<small style="color: grey">(placeholder. will try to fill out later today.) --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</small>
In every talk page debate, noticeboard discussion <small>(*cough* indeed even the current ArbCom case *cough*)</small> IP-editors and SPAs <small>(''actual'' SPAs, not the broadest possible ''reductio ad absurdum'' interpretation applied by others in evidence presented here)</small> tend to pop out of the woodwork to lend their support to the cause.
Quite apart from the above mentioned {{u|Barryispuzzled}} and the (otherwise productive and probably good-faith) editors who only show up on [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]-related articles when the SAQ adherents need support; noticeboard, talk page, and merge/delete-discussions tend to get a sudden influx of SPAs and throwaway accounts to support whatever outcome the SAQ adherents desire. For instance, the [[Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 15#Merging|merge discussion]] referenced in [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]]'s evidence (which he gives as '''13—8''' against merging) suddenly found opposition from the following:
{| class="wikitable"
Quite apart from the above mentioned {{u|Barryispuzzled}} case—whose sockpuppets are so numerous as to actually require a maintenance category to keep track of them all—and the, otherwise productive and probably good-faith, editors who only show up on [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]-related articles when the ''Authorship'' adherents need support; noticeboard, talk page, and merge/delete-discussions tend to get a sudden influx of SPAs and throwaway accounts to support whatever outcome the ''Authorship'' adherents desire. For instance, the [[Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 15#Merging|merge discussion]] referenced in {{u|Jimbo Wales}}'s evidence (which he gives as '''13—8''' against merging) suddenly found opposition from {{u|Methinx}} <small>(8 edits since 2009, all of them apparently to “[add] information strengthening de Vere claim…” as his first edit summary put it)</small>, {{u|Schoenbaum}} <small>(88 edits since 2007, all of them to the SAQ talk page or noticeboard discussions)</small>, {{u|Peter Farey}}/{{u|86.29.85.121}} <small>(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.)</small>, {{u|Mizelmouse}} <small>(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)</small>, {{u|Alexpope}} <small>(89 edits since 2009, mostly but not exclusively on ''Authorship'' related discussions or articles)</small>, {{u|Wysiwyget}} <small>(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]])</small>, {{u|Wember}} <small>(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)</small>. All of which—while people have been banned as Socks for less evidence—is, IMO, 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]].
|-
|{{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 the vote stacking appeared to failfailed, they shifted to some creative [[WP:Forum shopping]] by appealing to Jimbo—as detailed in his evidence—and apparently the tactic worked well since Jimbo—whohe really should know better—takestakes the extraordinary step of commenting on this ArbCom case to express his disagreement with the closing admin for closing against“against consensusconsensus” citing the ''majority vote'' vote count '''13—8''', and without—then or now, apparently—noticing that the vote was stacked as detailed above (there were arguments made too, some of them valid, but the closing admin had a much better chance of judging those than Jimbo's brief tally). 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: {{uUser|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.
| 