Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Nina's helpers: Addendum |
→Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU: since it is becoming a repeated allegation, here is some examples of NinaGreens violations of WP practice |
||
Line 255:
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.
==Evidence presented by Xover==
| |||