Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

User:NinaGreen is a single-purpose account

Nina Green's edit counts as of a few minutes ago were as follows:

67.122.209.190 ( talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Addendum

Tom Reedy pointed out [1] that Nina Green also made a few hundred edits as 205.250.205.73 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before opening her account. The breakdown of those edits is below, with the SPA conclusion staying the same.

67.122.209.190 ( talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

New address due to network interruption: 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory—not a minority view—in academe

Despite a campaign by Oxfordians on Wikipedia to classify the SAQ as a minority view by original research, selective interpretations of a NYTimes survey and out-of-context readings of James Shapiro, it very much remains a fringe theory in academe.

"antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it". David Kathman, Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford UP, 2003, p.621.

"To ask me about the authorship question is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record." Gail Kern Paster, director Folger Shakespeare Library.

"it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed creationist to be hired or gain tenure in a graduate-level department of biology." Alan Nelson

Advocacy, not neutrality, real purpose of Oxfordian editors

9/26/2008 Smatprt welcoming another editor to the "cause" if he is an anti-Stratfordian.

11/24/2008 Article assessor: "Article seems heavily pro-Oxfordian." Oxfordian editor Softlavender: "What were you expecting?"

7/1/2010 Editor Mizelmouse (60 edits, only 2 of articles) urging expunction of a source from the Oxfordian article because "I don't think he is any way helpful to us."

7/1/2010 Informed that remark revealed WP:PROMOTION, said remark meant for "Wikipedia community" instead of "article" and "page" as originally expressed.

The Shakespeare authorship question engenders a disproportionate number of repetitious noticeboard discussions increasing in frequency and intensity

Below are some examples, less than 20% of the total over the years. In addition, several editors and administrators, such as EdJohnston, ScienceApologist, and Verbal hosted discussions on their talk pages and intervened on article talk pages to try to mediate the problems between disputants, all to no avail. Editors or administrators who get dragged into the topic never return once they're able to escape.

5/1/2009 WP:RS/N discussion on Shakespeare Fellowship (Oxfordian) materials as WP:RS (48kb). Result: no.

1/25/2010 WP:FT/N discussion whether the SAQ notable enough to be included in Fringe theory article as an example (34kb). Result: OK to add, but not with any degree of detail.

3/14/2010 WP:AN/I request by Smatprt to topic ban Tom Reedy. Result: Complainant was reminded he had been told to file at WP:RFC. Complainant removed report and filed it at RFC. Result: Administrator deleted page as bogus complaint and commented, "I see no attempt at dispute resolution. Insulting or chastising an editor does not constitute a good faith attempt at dispute resolution".

3/16/2010 WP:FT/N related to WP:AN/I discussion of 3/15/2010. Discussion of SAQ threads on ANI and at RFC/U and toxic atmosphere at SAQ talk page. Result: Admin intervention that eventually resulted in a merge order that produced the current SAQ page.

[2] 6/2/2010] WP:FT/N seeking opinion whether the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism that should be allowed in the article as an example (35kb). Result: no.

[3] 8/18/2010 WP:RFM After several disputes, mediation filed on whether inserting the SAQ into Shakespeare-related or other articles violates WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE. Result: closed after Smatprt was topic-banned (below).

[4] 10/8/2010 WP:AN/I discussion of Smatprt’s editing behaviour (190kb). Result: Smatprt topic banned from Shakespeare-related articles for one year.

[5] 10/23/2010 WP:RS/N discussion on using Oxfordian publications to source Oxford biography (45kb). Result: no.

[6] 12/1/2010 WP:RS/N second discussion ( first) on use of Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles as a WP:RS (12kb). Result: again, no.

[7] 1/3/2011 WP:NPOV/N disputing overall neutrality of the current SAQ article. Result: abandoned by uninvolved editors, one said complainant was "just trolling" (30kb).

Certain editors only appear at SAQ discussions or disputes to support Oxfordians

Fullstuff 3/15/2010. Account with two edits, one to vote against SAQ merge proposal.

Richard Malim 1/19/2011. Account with three edits, consisting of comments below.

IP 24.216.233.108, self-identified as Earl Showerman (presumably president of the Shakespeare Fellowship: "The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)"). 12/16/2010 Account with one edit, supporting Nina's charges of POV at the SAQ peer review.

Ironhand41 12/16/2010 Account with two edits, one supporting Nina's charges of POV at the SAQ peer review.

Ssilvers is an excellent editor with more than 71,000 edits. He only appears at Shakespeare authorship articles and talk pages when Smatprt needs support. Excepting minor edits, his substantive contributions to the SAQ topic show a pattern of following Smatprt’s lead.

1/24/2010: Ssilvers reported Tom Reedy for 3rr violations after Smatprt warning; 4/12/2010; 13 Apr 2010, 4/13/2010; 2/14/2010; 4/15/2010; 2/172010; 9/1/2010; 9/1/2010; 9/1/2010; 10/11/2010.

Bertaut is another excellent editor with more than 1,100 edits. He evinces little interest in the SAQ topic unless Smatprt needs support.

13 April 2010; 4/14/2010; 4/15/2010; 4/16/2010; 5/19/2010; 5/20/2010; 9/22/2010; 12/30/2010.

Methinx is an Oxfordian editor with 8 total edits, three of them votes in authorship disputes.

3/3/2010; 3/15/2010; 3/17/2010.

Schoenbaum is an Oxfordian editor with 88 edits, only four on an article page, three of those reversions. The rest were votes and talk page support for Smatprt.

2/4/2010; 2/18/2010; 2/22/2010; 2/26/2010; 3/5/2010; 3/14/2010 (two more like this on same day); 3/15/2010; 10/9/2010.

Edwardspear, 3/24/2010 1 edit: Oxfordian vote

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

1. 7/16/2009 Smatprt creates an Oxfordian article.

2. On 3/24/2010, article Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare’s plays deleted as a result of afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays because of "Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory."

3. That day Smatprt merges the article back into the Oxfordian article "as per talk at merge discussion". Huh??? An AfD is a "merge discussion"?

4. On 6/18/2010 he moves the material to a sandbox.

5. On 9/9/2010, after being laundered through the sandbox, he then forks it into a new article, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, replaces the colon with a dash, adds two grafs of "NPOV" disclaimer and 17 external Oxfordian links.

6. He then again deletes the material from the main article and links the two.

Voilà! Wikipedia hosts virtually the exact same article! So much for WP process.

SPAs involved in this case:

I present this not to imply that any of these editors have done something wrong, but merely to make sure that other factors besides being an SPA are used to determine any action in this case.

• User:NinaGreen [8]

• 205.250.205.73 (also NinaGreen)

• User:Tom Reedy is an SPA for Shakespere and very closely related articles. [9]

• User:xover is an SPA for Shakespere and very closely related articles. [10]

• User:Zweigenbaum [11]

• User:Alexpope [12]

• User:Smatprt is an SPA for Shakespere and very closely related articles, with some exceptions [13]

Proxied by request on behalf of NinaGreen, who is blocked, by AGK [ • 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbitration as it stands should be dismissed

I've copied below the statement by LessHeard vanU which initiated this arbitration. The ground advanced by LessHeard vanU for initiating the arbitration is that 'there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"'. However LessHeard vanU has failed in his statement below to establish the essential elements of his vague assertion that there is a vast conspiracy to affect the point of view of the SAQ article. His statement that 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' mandates that LessHeard vanU identify in his request for arbitration a significant number of editors (1) who over a significant period of time have edited the SAQ article and (2) who are anti-Stratfordians and (3) who are co-ordinating their efforts in a campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the anti-Stratfordian POV and give one authorship candidate equal standing to Shakespeare in the SAQ article. In a statement on the Request for Arbitration page another administrator, Bishonen, named three editors as alleged "helpers' in the alleged 'co-ordinated campaign', none of whom I had ever heard of and who have stated on the Request for Arbitration page that they had never heard of me prior to our encountering each other on the SAQ Talk page. In addition, the three editors have also stated that they are not anti-Stratfordians. As for the fourth editor mentioned by Bishonen, although I know the editor in question (although not personally), I was not aware that he/she was editing the SAQ article until long after he/she began editing. Moreover LessHeard vanU has not supported in any way his statement that this alleged 'co-ordinated campaign' by anti-Stratfordians includes the use of 'ips and throwaway accounts', and I do not personally know of a single anti-Stratfordian who has edited the SAQ article under an ip or a throwaway account. Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated on the SAQ Talk page (the very numerous diffs can be readily located) that the SAQ article must reflect the consensus among the Shakespeare establishment that William Shakespeare of Stratford is the true author of the Shakespeare canon, and I drafted a suggested new lede to the SAQ article which clearly states that position (again, the diffs can be readily located).

Secondly, arbitration is stated under Wikipedia policy to be the last step in dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU states that 'Attempts to resolve these issues by the editors and uninvolved admins has not been successful, in part because new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw'. LessHeard vanU has not provided an iota of evidence to support this statement concerning 'new accounts which appear as existing ones withdraw, and I personally know of no such accounts. Moreover, directly contrary to LessHeard vanU's statement, the fact is that this alleged 'co-ordinated campaign by anti-Stratfordians' has never heretofore been identified as the subject of any earlier form of dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU has therefore not followed Wikipedia policy in bringing this entirely new issue directly to arbitration.

It is clear that the arbitration as it presently stands should be dismissed for the reasons stated above.

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. NinaGreen ( talk) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have became involved in this article only very recently. I soon became aware that I entered in the middle of a long-running controversy. As the details of the conflict have been spelled out, with diffs, by others, I'm not sure what I can add that will be helpful, but I feel I must say something, as the atmosphere has become poisonous. Actually, I'm sure it was so already, and only now is the poison seeping into my lungs. So I will add only my own experience. If I am repeating what one of the other participants has already made explicit, please forgive me.

I thought I could help improve, in a modest way, the wording of one or two passages, helped by my knowledge of attitudes toward Shakespeare in the Romantic period. After waiting for days for the battling to die down (at that time the flames were fueled mostly by NinaGreen; this may give some idea of what I was faced with), in what I perceived as a slight lull, I finally posted a comment. My entry into the discussion, I note here, was welcomed warmly by some of the editors, notably Tom Reedy. But no sooner had I posted my observations, and I looked on the talk page for the response, the main thing that was thrown in my face was a tirade by Zweigenbaum. What bothered me is that, although this was dropped into a section specifically created to discuss my comments, it had nothing to do with them, but was rather an outpouring of what seemed like an answer to another question entirely, interspersed with personal attacks, at least against some of the editors as a group, tortuous expositions of I know not what, and even quotations of verse. And this was posted under an IP address, although the name Zweigenbaum was added to identify it, but it seemed as if Zwiegenbaum couldn't even be bothered to log in as himself, following standard Wikipedia practice. After looking back at some of the mind-boggling history of the article, I have to conclude that this was a resurrection of a previously advanced argument that served no purpose in this place but as a bombardment or distraction. Zweigenbaum may or may not have valid points to make—I am not sufficiently familiar with the history of the controversy on this site to know—but this was not the place to make them. Throwing a mass of text into a section that I had created for another purpose was a discourtesy to me and to all potentially involved in the discussion. This is the diff. I suspect many other similar ones could be found. This seems to me a perfect example of WP:Disruptive editing, to put it mildly.

I don't know why I even bother continuing here, except that I did receive a friendly welcome from some, and I have had very positive experiences over many years contributing to other Wikipedia articles. I have seen perfectly capable and talented editors abandon Wikipedia altogether as a result of experiences like this on other pages, and now that I have dared to venture into this madhouse, I understand why. I could retreat into some quiet corner, restricting my edits to articles on, say, supermarkets in Malaysia (I'm joking of course, but please understand my frustration), but there is no worthier project than one involving Shakespeare, and no reason why any well-intentioned editor shouldn't be allowed to work here collaboratively in a peaceful and friendly atmosphere. Cannot something be done about this? I will just add that I have no previous acquaintance with any of the involved editors, with the single exception of a brief and pleasant collaboration more than a year ago with Xover on an article having nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question. 04:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Response to and regarding Zweigenbaum

In response to Zweigenbaum, I have no personal animus toward him either (I am assuming "him"); I know him only by what he posts here, and I am referring only to those posts. As for the signature vs. IP address, I now understand about the problems signing in. But that is a very minor issue, and I won't pursue it. I still maintain, however, that, whether he was deliberately trying to interfere with the discussion I had begun or not, his edit warring and constant bickering with others were done in a manner that had the effect of doing so. Disregarding the presence of all but a few long-time SAQ editors with whom he has a long history, he posted a lengthy argument centered on a term that had apparently been a source of contention in the past. This had nothing to do with the topic in that section, it was very long, and had the effect of distracting attention from the discussion I was attempting to initiate. I am emphasizing this because it is just such behavior that is likely to drive new editors away from an article. If they are new to Wikipedia (which I am not), I can see how it might discourage them from any further participation. Zweigenbaum by this kind of action (and I don't mean to single him out as the only one; he happens to be the only one who directly crossed my path) is editing here in a manner that seems to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield, not as a place for collaborative building of an encyclopedia. I'd say that WP:BATTLE very clearly warns against just this kind of behavior. 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum blocked for revert-warring

Notification: as an uninvolved administrator, I have just blocked Zweigenbaum ( talk · contribs) and his IP 98.207.240.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48hrs for revert-warring ( [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). (Note that the logged-out editing appears to be due to technical problems and was not an attempt at sockpuppetry.)

Zweigenbaum soapboxing

Even during these proceedings, Zweigenbaum ( talk · contribs) ( 98.207.240.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) persistently misuses the SAQ talkpage for soapboxing, engaging in long-winded debates in favour of the merits of the "anti-Stratfordian" case [19]. He explicitly presses for Wikipedia coverage not to reflect the state of the art found in relevant scholarship, because he considers that scholarship flawed (" this webpage does not benefit from delimiting means of understanding the topic, simply because the Shakespeare field has made that mistake. ... it may be miles ahead of the field it reflects, if it shows a circumstantial argument can be credible").

Charles Darnay blocked indef

Charles Darnay ( talk · contribs), a relatively new single-purpose account, was blocked indefinitely for a pattern of aggressive ad hominem postings, and had his talk page access revoked by LessHeard vanU. [20]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The most prolific supporters of the orthodox view have been Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Tom Reedy is co-author of an excellent paper defending the Stratfordian view. It confirms the view that I always held. It is open advocacy, however, and makes no attempt at NPOV.

Although not an expert on the SAQ, I felt the need to make a few modest suggestions on wikipedia talk pages in the interests of NPOV. These suggestions were met by Nishidani with hostility and lies. On the other hand Smatprt has been pleasant and civil to me. It is regrettable that a bad atmosphere has developed amongst the editors of this subject. I would be very much against any attempt to pin the sole blame on the anti-Stratfordians. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Users Moonraker2, NinaGreen, and Warshy are unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices

Despite editing Wikipedia between a few months and a few years, these editors do not appear to be familiar either with some aspects of the Wikipedia culture, nor the methods by which they might gain an understanding of a new aspect.
Following my opening the Request for Arbitration, responses were made by the above editors; Moonraker2, NinaGreen, 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.
Following acceptance of the case NinaGreen, via proxy, then submitted 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. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

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.

• Stay objective; Apparently, there is a "controversy" over the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.
  
• Comment on content, not the contributor (per WP:NPA); Alleging WP:OWNership of other pages by editor also participating on Talk:SAQ.
  
• Be concise; Take your pick of any half a dozen...
  
• 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.
  

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. LessHeard vanU 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The SAQ has attracted long-term and sustained disruption from its supporters

Adherents of the SAQ variants include some of the nastier examples of disruptive editors who not only engage in tendentious editing and POV-pushing, but also very serious gaming and sockpuppetry. See WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive and categories and case links at Barryispuzzled ( talk · contribs). One sock took an extremist mainstream stance and attacked Oxfordian editors; a different sock then jumped in to defend that same editor. The goal being to create as much disruption as possible and leave puppeteer free to promote his favoured candidate ( Bacon) and a deliberate campaign to game at WP:GAC: GAC, GAR. He had been at it since 2006 and until he was banned in at least four separate SPI instances in 2009–10.

SAQ advocates persist far past any reasonable attempt at consensus

SAQ advocates have persisted 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 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 literally regarding a single footnote. (not all of these are acrimonious, and the list is not intended to show individual policy violations; it's meant to illustrate the overall POV pushing, endless circles, and long-time battleground problems from those seeking to right a great wrong).

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

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 Barryispuzzled and the (otherwise productive and probably good-faith) editors who only show up on 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 merge discussion referenced in Jimbo's evidence (which he gives as 13—8 against merging) suddenly found opposition from the following:

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, 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: 92.233.55.53 ( talk · contribs), whose only three edits are on this ArbCom case, and who identifies himself as “Richard Malim” (presumably then the Secretary of the 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 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 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 said it best:

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.

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.

As I understand it the Wikipedia arbitration procedure enables the arbitrator to pass judgment on contentions which are deemed unsupported by reputable sources. Those who consider that there is no case for the supporters of William Shakespeare to answer or do not want the topic aired anyway are anxious that it should be barred completely.

They have a problem : Supreme Court Justice Stevens is on record as stating that the circumstantial evidence in favour of one of the alternative candidates is sufficient to prove the case for that candidate (Oxford). This should be sufficient for the arbitrator to find that the topic is sufficiently defensible, even though less qualified minds may want to be debate the value of the evidence concerned.

However the writer and critic James Shapiro is also on record as saying ,' Shakespearean scholars have a different view of evidence, and hold a comparatively dim view of what Justice Stevens and others think adequate.' Unfortunately Professor Shapiro has yet to define what other definition or test for circumstantial evidence he thinks the Justice should have applied. The definition of circumstantial evidence has evolved in Law for some 100 years plus, and it seems odd that a non-lawyer should seek to apply some other test or definition of his own.

The anti-s may only the supporters of a minority or fringe theory : the whole point of Wikipedia is that a fringe or minority theory is entitled to be protected form the vested interests of academia, where there is evidence for support of it from so distinguished a supporter as Justice Stevens, let alone those others academically (or otherwise - by time spent, and repute of peers) qualified in the study of evidence and other relevant disciplines

Evidence and Expertise

Of course as Peter Cohen is right when he says that one should consult 'in the main' experts in the field first. However most modern Shakespeare academics present a one sided view of the SAQ, and deal with the opposition case tendentiously. Example : Peter Holland's account of the SAQ in the New Oxford Dictionary of (British) National Biography under William Shakespeare, where he puts into the mouths of his opponents arguments I have never seen or heard. The resolution of historical questions depends on evidence and this is where historians and lawyers have to be consulted, as they, and not literary academics and critics, are the experts in the field of evidence Peter Cohen needs reminding that the great Samuel Schoenbaum wrote, 'Intuitions,convictions and subjective judgments generally carry no weight as evidence. This is no matter how learned, respected or confident the authority' (Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship -Northwestern U P 1966, p.178)

Oxfordians' Arguments re Circumstantial Evidence

Paul Barlow fails to distinguish between areas of expertise. It is true that many judges (not all) whose minds were not directed to the specific area of circumstantial evidence did and do not support Justice Stevens. Stevens however is an accredited expert on circumstantial evidence, and therefor his view has sufficient weight not to be discounted by Wikipedia. Accredited experts in English Literature cannot but be trumped by him or approach him for expertise on circumstantial evidence: or, if they can, perhaps one would formulate a set of tests which we can apply to the facts of the Authorship Question, and good enough to enable an opposite conclusion to that of Justice Stevens to be arrived at. The ground would be level, so even if it were possible (which it is not), the sheer academic weight of Justice Stevens' opinion would allow the Oxfordian contentions to survive. Then I want to know which of the accredited experts in English Literature is also an expert biographer, historian or lawyer, i.e. trained in the assessment of circumstantial evidence.Even Nelson has no track records in their disciplines before writing his book - the shortcomings of which are the subject of endless exposure by Oxfordians.

Hi. I was directed here, since my name has come up on this page. The first time I ever heard of Smatprt was when I made some edits to his Wikipedia biography, mostly by doing google searches and adding info from online newspapers and refs to those sources. Then, if I recall correctly, I also worked on the article for the theatre company that Smatprt runs in California. During this process, I had occasion to communicate with Smatprt. I assume that all of the information about me in Section 2.3 above is correct, but I wish to point out that I have no personal relationship with Smatprt, and I have never met him f2f. Smatprt and I have both worked on a few other articles that occasioned communication, and Smatprt has given me peer reviews and, I believe, commented and voted on a couple of the articles that I nominated for FAC. Over time, I noticed that he did a lot of editing at the Shakespeare articles, including the Shakespeare Authorship Question article and related pages (such as the Oxfordian and Baconian articles). As stated in Section 2.3 above, I made a few minor edits to those articles and also reviewed a small minority of the extremely lengthy talk page discussions that quickly made my head hurt. In this process, I came to the conclusion that Tom Reedy and some of the other editors who disagreed with Smatprt were using unfair editorial tactics to force their point of view into the article(s) and exclude notable, referenced information that had been added to the article(s) by Smatprt. Therefore, I reverted some edits that I thought were not neutrally written. In some cases, if I recall correctly, Smatprt drew my attention to the ongoing editorial disagreement. I believe that I acted properly. I hope the editors of these pages can come to an understanding and work together, as I believe that they have lots of knowledge and resources to contribute in this area, and it would be valuable to the encyclopedia if they could present the various arguments in a neutral way that reflects the available sources and allows the readers to consider the arguments and make their own decisions. If Arb com or anyone else needs to inform me of anything, please use my talk page, as I am not watching this page. Also, thanks to Tom Reedy or whoever wrote the kind words about me in Section 2.3 above. While I have your attention here, theatre experts, may I point out that the articles on Theatre and Drama are both very disappointing, and would greatly benefit from even .01% of the effort expended on this argument. I urge anyone with an interest in dramatic literature and performance to brush them up to at least legitimate B-class articles, since they are both important basic topics. Best regards to all. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Long-standing ad hominem, personal attacks by John W. Kennedy, Paul Barlow and Administrator John K

Note: Accusations have been made that the poisonous atmosphere can be blamed on anti-Stratfordians. Actually, it began with the other side. First diff is prior to my participation on SAQ articles, showing the general attitude towards the minority view that already existed, continuing to this day.

• "This article as of 17 September, 2006, is bullshit…. The Oxfordian cult has taken it over" - John W. Kennedy 9/18/2006

• "He has the same ruthlessness with facts that other Oxfordians typically do. Barlow on 5/7/2007

• "The issue is a hobby horse of the mentally disturbed lower middle class, and the article has NPOV" Administrator John K on 5/14/2007

• “Go away and tend to your own website. Wikipedia is not for you. Administrator John K on 11/22/2010

Tom Reedy and Nishidani make personal/ad hominem attacks, demonstrate Tendentious editing

Tom Reedy

• Vulgarity/pa [21]
• [ [22]], “just another lie”
• [ [23]] “rumors, half-truths and outright lies”
• [ [24]] “I don't think we're going to get away from the poor writing, because it is a byproduct of poor thinking”
• [ [25]] “T...that's dishonest, and unfortunately that has become your hallmark”
• [ [26]] “Once again you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension. Very well, you boys have fun while you can.”

Nishidani

Nishidani should be well known to ArbCom [27], [28]. He is simply repeating his behavior from this prior case.

• [29] Section demonstrates precisely Nishidani’s tactic of making enormous posts when asked a brief specific question – (User:SamuelTheGhost: “I really am at a loss to understand your apparent hostility to me. Have I done something to offend you?”) Nishidani’s response: “The best answer to an incomprehensible query is a question…" Nishidani then presents a series of huge posts, failing to answer the initial question, cutting discussion with [30].

• Nishidani shames and regurgitates accusations against a restricted editor, adds ad hominem attacks on "de Vereans" and “the de Verean salient”. [31], [32], [33]

• Attacks past editors with insults, derogatory comments about these editors technical expertise, interest in policy, etc. [34]

• Jabs at administrators, belittles user Smatprt, urges another editor not to support Nina. [35]

• Jabs at Arbitration, calling it “dysfunctional”. [36]

• Posts series of personal comments to belittle Nina, explaining why her qualifications are "inadequate", her thoughts “misconceived”, and the reasons for Nina's “incapacity”. [37]

Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow identifying real life names of users and attempted outings

• 5/10/2007 On Paul's talkpage, IP self-identifes himself as Reedy, provides contact info for off-wiki discussions. [38]

• 5/9/2007 Previously, IP (Reedy) had outted editor BenJonson: "It might interest you to know that the person known as "Ben Jonson"... is none other than Dr. Roger Stritmatter" [39]

• 5/10/2007 "I also alerted Hardy and 'Andy Jones'. Smatprt I believe is Marty Hyatt or Katherine Ligon, but I'm not sure." [40]

• 7/10/2007 Barlow adds my name to talk page. [41]

Note: Barlow hides information in an old 2006 edit. (Check date in summary vs date in section)

• 7/12/2007 Within 48 hours, my name appears on Andy Jones' talkpage. "Anyway, I seriously doubt that Smatprt and BenJonson are one-and-the-same. Smatprt hasn't denied being Stephen Moorer... and BenJonson is very probably Roger Stritmatter." [42]

Note: I didn't "deny being Stephen Moorer" because the policy on outing is to "not" affirm or deny.

• 7/13/2007 Reedy outs me to another editor:"You know and I know that all the speculation is pure BS, ... if for no other reason than to keep editors like Stephen Moorer (smatprt) from continual sabotoge." [43]

Rebutting "newbee" excuse:

• 12/27/2010 Reedy making an implied threat to embarrass and out a fellow editor. [44]

• 1/10/2011 In Edit Summary, Reedy threatened another editor with "embarrassment" if his true identity were known. [45]

Tom Reedy and Nishidani are POV warriors

[46] - Reedy describes himself as the anti-Stratfordians "sworn nemesis" - and soon begins deletion campaign. Tom’s war on the SAQ, deleting all mention of the SAQ from every article on Wikipedia that he could find, misinterpreting WP:COATRACK and WP:ONEWAY. Edit warring when necessary, Tom and Nishidani team up to insure their deletions:

• [47], [48], [49], [50] - November, 2007

Note: Tom's Edit Summary while deleting material: "keeping my promise"

• [51] (material deleted was present when article achieved FA)

• more: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]

Edits the day after I was banned:

• [59]
• [60] (changed "strongest" to “most popular”, deleting reference to Encyclopdia Brittanica where “strongest” was used.)

• [61] The issue at hand was the brief mention of the SAQ in the article “Shakespeare’s Plays” that Tom wanted deleted. 2 uninvolved editors responded, both mainstream supporters btw - [62], [63] Uninvolved editor Scartol offered: [64] and a compromise [65]. Both new editors withdrew, citing similar complaints about Tom and Nishidani [66], [67].

Scartol summed it up: “You really should have listed this under "Requests for Argument" or "Demands for Consensus Along the Lines of What We've Already Agreed Upon Among Ourselves", because that's the sense I get of what you're looking for here.”

This content issue raised at mediation [68], mediation began [69] and then was abruptly cancelled after I was banned, in spite of 8 different editors being named.

Rebuttal to Tom Reedy: What Jimbo actually said

To clarify Reedy's "to no avail" [70], here is the transcript of Jimbo's actual comments [71]

• Perhaps Tom's point is that even Jimbo's input was disregarded, and that Jimbo's participation was 'to no avail".
• Bottom line - Jimbo's suggestions were ignored, consensus was not followed... and here we are now.

Note: The "Peter" referred to by Jimbo is Peter Cohen (comments below). Please note that Peter is an involved editor who shares a long editing history with Nishidani. In the link above, note Peter making a series of alarming accusations. When asked for evidence, he provided none.

Policy is clear on how to treat fringe theories such as the Shakespeare authorship question

At the heart of this matter is a content dispute. Disagreements on matters of content should be resolved in line with the three main content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Due regard should also be paid to the guidelines WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. The applicability of the latter guideline is made clear by the following quotation:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field.

It goes on to note that [p]roponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. The same behaviour is happening in this case and this has been noted in the Literary Review where adherents of one form of the fringe theory have been described as "currently carpet-bombing Wikpedia". An instance of such carpet-bombing is this post to this very page in which a brand new account misinterprets what is meant by a neutral point of view and expects the theory to be given space on Wikipedia and presented in a manner that protects it from the criticisms of academic orthodoxy.

WP:NPOV has a section dealing with unorthodox views in which it is stated:

Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate, and the scientific view and the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked.

The Shakespeare authorship question is just another example of historical revisionism and should be handled in the same way with the academically orthodox position that Shakespeare wrote his own plays being given due weight and the heterodox position being identified as one advanced by those whose training and expertise lies without the fields of Shakespearean and literary theory.

Turning to WP:V we find:

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

and

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The suggestion that Will Shakespeare was not Will Shakespeare is clearly one such exceptional claim. Indeed, User:Zweigenbaum has confirmed this by referring to a conspiracy of silence within academia. The import of the combination of the two quoted extracts is that in discussing the historical question as to the identity of Shakespeare, Wikipedians should look in the main to peer-reviewed academic publications by leading Shakespeare experts rather than to the opinions of Supreme Court judges, actors, authors and other laymen.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Proponents of the fringe theory have persistently violated the policy identified above

Rather than dig up posts by individual editors which trangress WP:NPA or other policies and guidelines governing interpersonal conduct, I shall only give examples that go against the content policies outlined above. Many, possibly most, regular editors do snap occasionally. What distinguishes whether occasional breaches of conduct should be tolerated or not is whether an individual's presence on Wikipedia is intended to improve content in line with policy or whether their purpose here contravenes WP:NOTSOAP and results in repeated violation of the content policies. It is my contention that, like many pseudoscience articles, the SAQ attracts repeated violation of WP:NOT and the content policies and needs protection from Arbcom. If this protection is not provided and instead remedies are taken against editors for violation of interpersonal conduct policies, then the same pattern of behaviour will continue to be repeated albeit with different actors.

Zweigenbaum

This user is fully aware that the academic consensus is clear. This post, for example contrasts "academic" and "alternate" views, includes a quotation which compares the likelihood of an Oxfordian being admitted to an English department with that of a creationist being admitted to a biology department. A similar consession is made in the user's edit linked in my preamble above. In short, the user repeatedly dismisses sources favoured by policy and advocates that we give fringe views more credence than sanctioned by policy.

What case?

I have been invited to submit evidence regarding the case. If someone can explain what "the case" is, I would be happy to do so. There is no clear statement about what the "case" is. I raised this question with AGK but it was not answered. The vague statements by LessHeard above ("disregarding the actuality of the matter") do not help. From the diverse list of points made above, it seems I am not the only one who is confused. I cannot see the value in going over the history of old wiki disputes, or drawing abitrators' attention to relatively trivial things such as indenting on talk pages. I see that NYB asked about the scope of the case, but this has not been answered. For the time being I will assume that the "case" consists of the statements by LessHeard and Bishonen.

I am a new editor on this topic. I am fairly interested but quite disinterested in the subject. I think that the theories that anyone else wrote Shakespeare are wrong. I fully support the very fair and balanced statement by MoreThings [72], which is quite incorrectly described as confrontational by Bishonen below. Clearly this is a highly controversial subject. It is therefore to be expected that there will be a robust exchange of views on the talk page, and some edit warring on the page itself. It is also clear that there are entrenched stubborn positions on both sides. Poujeaux ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Nina Green must obey wiki rules, but a long ban is not appropriate

I have been quite critical of Nina on her talk page and on the SAQ talk page. [73] [74]

She needs to focus her arguments, concentrating on one point at a time and providing detailed arguments. She also must obey wiki rules, particularly addressing the page content rather than an editor. Clearly she is a relatively new user with wiki-literacy problems (note that Tom uses this as an excuse for some of his transgressions).

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 [75]. 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" [76] - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor [77]. 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" [78] - 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. Poujeaux ( talk) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I was involved in an early October RSN discussion about the New York Times survey of academics which Tom Reedy is arguing should be discredited. As my strenuous arguments on that page suggest, the seemingly willful misinterpretation of the NY Times survey was not the solely by anti-Stratfordians. the survey itself represented a single data point, but it showed that anti-stratfordians are best characterized as a marginal view among academics surveyed in North America. Arbcom is not here to make judgements like that about content, but a big part of this case will involve at least making a guess as to the centrality of a particular view. In my opinion Reedy is overstating the marginality of the anti-stratfordian group. I should hasten to say that the various editors named in this arbcom case are obviously pushing back in the opposite direction and I don't feel their positions are necessarily legitimate. Just be aware that both sides appear to be working the ref a bit on the FRINGE question. Protonk ( talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I've been editing Shakespeare Authorship pages for a long time. The situation has become increasingly difficult over the years and is now becoming intolerable. The behaviour of User:NinaGreen has been the catalyst for this Arbitration request, simply because she has consistently "carpet bombed" pages with endless obfuscations and misrepresentations of policy, evidence of which has already been submitted. Before her, the principal contributor was User:Smatprt, now topic-banned, and before him we had user:Barryispuzzled, now banned, who drove away the first active editor of the page, user:The Singing Badger. Smatprt, before his ban, was busy attempting to place references to SAQ on as many pages as possible. Here, for example, he wants to add claims that there are hidden meanings in a book by Francis Meres into the article on Meres. This version would have meant that most of the article promoted a fringe theory [79]. The material had previously been added by User:BenJonson, who is also an active Oxfordian editor [80] and who has added Oxfordian arguments to as many articles as he can, proudly listed on his user page. SAQ authors find "hidden" references to Oxford, Bacon or whoever in the works of many Elizabethan writers. Oxfordians also need to challenge conventional dating of some plays. This has seriously distorted some articles. Others such as the Ur-Hamlet article, give undue weight to minority views to advance the Oxfordian position. To most readers (and editors) these interventions will probably not be recognisable, but they are systematic and they seriously distort the presentation of Shakespeare on Wikipedia. BenJonson and Smatprt had a habit of finding scholarship - no matter how old or marginal - that supports their preferences and then adding it to articles as a mainstream view. Here is one example, just spotted. The article on Anne Cecil, Oxford's wife, states that "both traditional Shakespearean scholars[11] and Oxfordians[12] have often identified Anne as the original of Ophelia in Hamlet" (my bolding). This assertion was added by BenJonson [81]. The footnote to "traditional" scholarship is "George Russell French, Shakspeareana Genealogica (1869), 301; Lillian Winstanley, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession, 122-124". This creates a spurious consensus from two sources, one utterly obscure from 1869, the other, though no date is given, is from 1921. Neither represent mainstream opinion in recent scholarly literature on Hamlet, or even mainstream opinion in 1921. And in fact on checking the 1921 source one finds that it actually argues that Elizabeth Vernon is the main model for Ophelia. [82] Note also the phrasing. Mainstream scholars are "traditional", implying some sort of old-fashionedness in comparison to "Oxfordians". I've gone onto this one obscure example in detail just to illustrate the pervasive nature of the problem. It is very time-consuming to ferret out all this material, check sources, find what they are and what they actually say. This systematic misinformation discredits Wikipedia, a fact that is already being publicly commented upon by Shakespeare scholars.

It should be noted that with the exception of the defunct account user:Barryispuzzled (a Baconian) all this activity is coming from Oxfordians. Articles on other authorship candidates lie undisturbed. Arguments for them are not shoehorned into articles. So we have the added irony that even the range of SAQ arguments are being misrepresented in our articles. One fringe of a broader fringe has taken over the space.

Warshy, Richard Malim and Zweigenbaum on this very page seem to advocate that Wikipedia's policies should be suspended for this case because knowledge is not exclusive to "academies" or because academics are hiding the truth in some way. Richard thinks that the opinion of a judge with no expertise on Elizabethan literature trumps accredited experts. He also "forgets" all the other judges, the overwhelming majority, who ruled for Shakespeare, and whose legal expertise is presumably to be discounted. This double-think is constantly to be encountered. Nina Green insists that her personal findings should disqualify sources that meet the standards of WP:RS - especially the main biography of Oxford by Alan Nelson. Meanwhile the most draconian interpretations of policy should apply to statements made in opposition to her position (see Zweigenbaum's diffs [83]). Accusations of conspiracy and veiled threats are common, which drives away all but the most committed editors and produces a siege mentality in those who stay. This is problematic for several reasons. I don't always agree with Tom or Nishidani, but any apparent 'dispute' gets picked up upon. This can create a closing of ranks which does not encourage open debate about the content and structure of articles. Accusations abound. Samuel the Ghost on this page accuses Nishidani of lying (see talk page for context) for what in other circumstances might be interpreted as a minor slip (and has already been discussed at length).

My feeling is that we need clear guidelines for both non authorship-related Shakespeare pages and for the fringe-theory authorship pages, so that we can have a set of specific principles to follow. I would very much like to be able to work with SAQ "believers" in a way that does not degenerate rapidly into name-calling. However, the fundamental problem is that Oxfordians and “Strats” essentially want different kinds of article. The former want a forum to showcase their arguments and circulate them as widely as possible. The latter want encyclopaedic discussion of the history, interpretation and intellectual status of the arguments. Hence the fact that the Oxfordians show very little interest in the history of their ‘movement’ (the article on its founder is barely more than a stub) and certainly not in other forms of Anti-Stratfordianism, but do want to add their ‘evidence’ to other pages which are not directly about the topic. Attempts to remove these on the grounds of WP:Fringe are seen as forms of censorship. I've no doubt that none of the active Stratfordian editors want to censor or eliminate discussion of the topic. It's just that we have very different ideas about how and where it should be discussed.

Introductory Essay

Not all human knowledge is created in established/establishement 'academies.' Maybe the best example of this assertion is this very online enterprise (WP). This is not an 'academic' endeavor at its core, essentially, per se. I believe there must be some hundreds of very talented and skillful editors around here, whose scholarly qualifications are equal if not better than those of some 'doctors' who are officially employed in some established academy, in WP in general as well on both sides of this historical debate. Of course, there are rules and laws that try to put some '(wiki)legal' constraints in the debate, and to maintain this as an encyclopedia that accurately portrays the state of human knowlege on any specific issue. And nonetheless a lot of new knowledge is created also here, especially in talk pages and other forums (such as this one?). [Actually that is one of the features of this enterprise that keeps me coming back and diving and exploring deeper and deeper into it.] I wouldn't be surprised if Professor Shapiro himself is kept abreast somehow of the developments here on this debate, at least judging from his direct mention of Wikipedia in the conclusion of his last book.

And, of course, this a two-edged relationship: how WP relates to the academic world on the one hand; as opposed to how the academic world looks into the dynamic developments that occur here every day. On the one hand, knowledge that is stored here in the form of 'official' articles/entries, wants to be accepted and recognized as valid and authentic also in the academic world (even though rules and regulations there still prohibit explicit quoting from WP, as far as I know.) And rules and regulations here explicitly try to ban original research from 'official' articles/entries, so that the content can be some day somehow officially accepted inside the academies too.

[TO BE CONTINUED IF TIME PERMITS]

warshy ^talk 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have read the statement of Alan W above and have no recognition of the discourtesy or harm I seem to have caused him, as I have never addressed him, have no animus towards him, and apologize for any impression otherwise. Evidently my remarks followed a subject matter he opened up and I was replying to other editors. And I have stated elsewhere that it has been impossible to log in, by any means available and I have tried every permutation, so I identify my remarks by name. My participation in this webpage began with reading the article proposed for peer review. I found it to be anything but neutral academically or in tone. Objecting accordingly I incurred the ire of various members who replied in adversarial fashion. My attempt to forewarn the reading public, by use of a neutrality tag, that there was an irreconcilable strife making neutrality impossible was reverted repeatedly. In time I began to realize that any such action should be by consensus, and yet I noted no call for consensus in the workings of the article formation. This latter condition is contradictory and hypocritical to what I was being admonished to do, upon pain of censure or suspension. The situation was clarified when I realized that only certain sources and certain attitudes and conclusions would pass muster with the majority group, representing the status quo approach to this highly volatile subject matter. That subject matter in recent years has been enriched by extensive "Oxfordian" or "de Verean" scholarship,accompanied by a widening public recognition that the traditional Shakespeare story is suspect and predispositionally researched, i.e., only a certain range of subject and conclusion allowed. But none of this new material is considered legitimate by that standard for broadcast to the public. Hence my frustration with the system and suggestion that point-counterpoint formatting should be the method of presentation with contentious subject matter like this one. My suggestions and contributions have been uniformly rejected and condemned when not ignored. This reflects an extremely unproductive state of distrust among differing editors.

Assertions of Zweigenbaum

The following are examples of unacceptable treatment of the minority group participating in the webpage, Shakespeare Authorship Question: [84] “So far you've been nothing but a big waste of time.” - Reedy

[85] “According to your ridiculous ad hoc standard” - Reedy

[86] “Go away and tend to your own website. Wikipedia is not for you.” - From an Administrator no less!

[87] “The idea that these errors disqualify his book as a source for this article is ludicrous” - Reedy

[88] “Your depiction of my consulting Alan Nelson and your conclusions are just bizarre.” - Reedy

[89] “Droning on and on about it here does no good at all.” - Reedy

[90] “Good sense" is a key requirement here, which seems lacking - Reedy

[91] “Why you wish to be placed in that group of editors who won't honor their agreement, I don't know.” - Reedy

I will continue to add evidence as it is identified in the record and consolidated for presentation here. of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

SAQ will always attract problematic enthusiasts

Enthusiasts will always pursue their findings at the SAQ:

• Articles such as those relating to Shakespeare are the core business of an encyclopedia—these articles must be models showing what content policies like V, NPOV, and NOR can achieve.
• People enjoy investigating puzzles (examples: crosswords, whodunits, conspiracy theories). See puzzle investigator and SAQ enthusiast Barry R. Clarke, created by now-blocked Barryispuzzled, and illustrated at this 2006 mediation.
• Enthusiasts conclude that because Shakespeare did not have direct knowledge of many details described in his plays, he could not have written those plays. Yet it is more than 350 years since anyone had direct knowledge about Shakespeare, so no anti-Stratfordian arguments are based on direct knowledge.
• Someone who can "see" that academic consensus ^{SAQ footnote (permalink)} should be disregarded, will never accept that WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE should influence their behavior at the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
• Therefore, some form of article probation is required to ensure the policies outlined at 5P are upheld without exhausting good editors (my statement gave sufficient examples of recent inappropriate behavior, and the 2006 mediation link that I mentioned above shows that the issue is long term).

In an article such as Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, the view that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays should be described neutrally. The article needs to make clear that the arguments are rejected by academic consensus, but the Oxfordian arguments should be fully explored. However, Shakespeare authorship question must accurately reflect the best sources: the reader should be in no doubt that whereas there are certain Oxfordian arguments, the consensus among academics in the relevant discipline is that Shakespeare wrote the plays.

Response to Protonk

The RSN discussion (archived here) was conducted at two levels. Superficially, it looks like a question regarding whether the NYT survey was a reliable source for a certain statement. However, the involved editors know this survey was organized by an anti-Stratfordian ^ref (someone who promotes the view that Shakespeare did not write the plays), and that the survey has frequently been misused to promote anti-Stratfordian views. Of course the NYT survey satisfies reliable sources to verify some assertions, but the issue concerns precisely what assertion is reasonable.

The survey has these problems:

• The respondents were those that "teach Shakespeare" to undergraduates and graduates—they are academics, but they do not publish results of research into the relevant history, so they are not subject experts whose SAQ opinions satisfy WP:SOURCES. The survey should not be used to imply that researchers within the field have significant doubts about Shakespeare's authorship.
• The survey asked if there is good reason to question whether Shakespeare is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon (6% yes, 11% possibly, ±5% sampling error). That question is loaded because there is good reason to believe that Shakespeare was not the principal author of some works (for example, Titus Andronicus, Two Noble Kinsmen, and Henry VIII). Furthermore, "possibly" is an attractive response for many academics who, when politely questioned, would be inclined to agree that possibly our knowledge of historical events is incomplete.
• Crucial questions (such as, "is there good reason to believe that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays?") were not asked.
• It is likely that many of those who did not respond to the survey have no doubt about Shakespeare's authorship (while those with a doubt would be inclined to respond). That factor, together with the "primary authorship" issue, probably inflated the 6% "yes" response.

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. ^{SAQ footnote (permalink)} 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. ^{diff1, diff2} 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 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 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." ^diff My 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", ^diff repeated as "false allegation by Johnuniq". ^diff

From 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 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 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. ^diff 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 totally prohibited; an unjustified claim of abuse is in itself abuse)". ^diff

NinaGreen's article editing

Please find this section, with lots of diffs, here.

NinaGreen's talkpage editing

Nina's posts on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question are highly stereotyped and instantly recognisable as being hers, through a combination of features such as these:

1. Accusations without evidence or example, especially against Tom and Nishidani, of wikilawyering, owning, bad faith, dishonesty, insults, bias, attempts to get "Oxfordian" editors banned as soon as they set eyes on them, [92], lying, and the new favorite "defamation"/"defamatory", as in these brief posts which each repeat "defamatory" five or six times. (Note added 10:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC): This pattern has not ameliorated any during the arbitration itself, as demonstrated by this recent very comprehensive analysis of my own character.)
2. Rhetorical questions and bitter exhortations to "administrators" to do something about Tom's and Nishidani's alleged abuse. Despite the plural form, I guess these administrators are me, since I've long been the only admin who'll go near the page. (Excepting always LHvU, but he has merely lurked.) [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
3. Repetition ad nauseam of favorite points and favorite phrasing. Redundant, tedious, wearying. In my post "Tendentious editing" I try to make her see the general point by adducing eleven Nina quotes which are practically the same, but she ignores this. Her repetitiousness makes Talk:Shakespeare authorship question intolerably long (it now has to be archived every five days, I think) and essentially unreadable.
4. Insists on replies to queries but ignores the replies when they come; note how this thread ends.
5. Misunderstandings of plain matters, which turn out to be impossible to clear up, as in this dialogue.
6. Reference to what "Wikipedia policy" requires/allows/does not allow. As a user of seven months, Nina is understandably no expert on policy, but she extemporises upon it as if she were. "According to Wikipedia policy" is one of her favorite phrases, compare Paul Barlow's evidence ("endless obfuscations and misrepresentations of policy"). At first, I attempted to help her understand the central policies, as well as the policies she herself refers to the most, and the spirit of them, in simple terms, but now, inured to her combative responses to anything of that nature, I no longer have any notion that she wants to know.

Nina's talkpage demeanour is distinct from normal talkpage or internet behaviour, and whether or not she's here to build an encyclopedia, her actual impact on the encyclopedia is negative. In my efforts to help her become a useful Wikipedia editor I have found her quite unreasonable (as in, impossible to reason with) and in active flight from any learning process about how to contribute appropriately. Here are some further examples of edits with the mannerisms listed above: they're all recent. [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104].

My attempts to advise Nina

Tact is not my best blade, so perhaps I might as well have refrained from trying to advise Nina and persuade her to edit more collegially. (On the other hand, it doesn't look like the tactful User:Johnuniq has enjoyed any triumphs of persuasion either.) I've tried to contain the urgent problem of repetitiousness and redundancy by suggesting a voluntary ban to Nina on the amount of her posting, [105] but this merely offended her (understandably, I guess) and brought Moonraker2 to the fore as her champion. Nina claimed that "Tom Reedy has posted at least as many times on the SAQ Talk page as I have, and I would be willing to wager that his total word count exceeds mine". (I'd for sure win that wager.) Being a reasonably experienced editor, I've also ventured to try to help by explaining to Nina about the famous "comment on content, not on the contributor" adage, directed her to WP:NPA (but I don't have the impression she ever clicks on these things) and, exasperated, I've even thrown her and her helpers into a state of outrage by mentioning blocking. The last provoked them greatly; [106] Moonraker2 suggested I needed to "recuse myself"(as an admin on the Shakespeare pages, presumably) since my impartiality was in doubt, MoreThings that I was playing a baffling game and probably actually trying to stop Nina talking about content and start her talking about editors (?), and Warshy, not to be outdone, that I might have rabies. My attempt to explain about Tendentious_editing was no hit either (diffs later).

Nina's helpers

A few diffs to illustrate the typically confrontational discourse of the helpers:

Moonraker2:

• [107]

• Moonraker2 invaded my userspace and my statement, which was part of this request for arbitration, and remains pompously unapologetic despite both clerk and arb admonishment: [108] [109] [110] [111] (me?) [112] [113]. Note that these diffs may cause vertigo, as Moonraker2 has confused the matter deeply by changing his own words several times without any indication of having done so.

Warshy:

• Implies it's a goal in itself to prevent SAQ from becoming a featured article: [114] [115]

• Warshy has attacked Nishidani in a way that I wouldn't have expected from an editor of 5 years' standing with a clean block log. Here's an example dialogue: [116]
• Warshy's post on Bishonen and rabies is kind of surprising also, coming out of the blue from a user with whom I had had no previous contact, in virulent response to a post by me to Nina, on Nina's user talk: none of it anything to do with Warshy. [117]

MoreThings:

• [118]
• [119] (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.)

Zweigenbaum

• [120], also illustrates evidence by numerology

WP:FRINGE and Shakespeare

However, as I said in my Request statement, a ban of NinaGreen is not the main matter before the committee; the future fate of the Shakespeare articles is. These pages should be the jewels in the English Wikipedia's crown, which is impossible if they're produced on a battlefield where every word is contested by aggressive SPAs who live only for seeing their favoured authorship theory receive Justice. We need a solution that sticks. If the Climate Change sanctions are working well, perhaps something like that? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC). reply

Note on MoreThings' evidence, section Cauldron Bubble

I'm aware that NinaGreen, Warshy, Moonraker2, and MoreThings dislike my use of the term "Nina's helpers", but I don't know what else to say. I need a way to refer to people who chime in on her talkpage to support her, but those users seem to take me to refer to some RL friendship/conspiracy or other skulduggery (" cahoots"). [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] That's to me so far-fetched that it leaves me with no idea what word they would prefer. I tried to find a neutral term, and lit on the admittedly rather inelegant "helper", which I thought inoffensive and as free as possible of any associations at all; and they're as outraged as if I'd said "Nina's hired guns". Please just tell me what word you'd like me to use: heroes? hajduks? samurai? Give me a term and I'll use it. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC). reply

I comment here on a narrow issue only

Because my name was mentioned above, and as my comments before appear to have had some impact in some people's minds, I am taking the fairly unusual step for me of making a comment in an ArbCom case.

I am not going to comment on any of the broader issues in this case, but only on the very narrow question of my comments on ScienceApologist's close of the merge discussion, now long since archived.

I think the close by ScienceApologist was mistaken

ScienceApologist closed the debate and declared that "A merge is appropriate". This despite a strong majority of participants commenting in the other direction, and perfectly legitimate arguments on both sides of the question. I call attention in particular to the comments of User:BenJonson.

Having said that, I support a strong degree of thoughtful discretion on the part of editors, and do not intend to suggest in any way that there was wrongdoing on the part of ScienceApologist. It was just a decision that I would have taken differently and thought should have been reversed. (And, today, it seems that it wasn't followed anyway, so no harm done.)

Asking me for advice and advising me is not wrong

The direct relevance to this case is whether Smatprt's approach on my talk page constituted inappropriate wikilawyering or forum shopping. I feel very strongly that it did not. I would not want us to create an environment where users feel uncomfortable asking me for advice. In this case, he did not ask me to overturn community consensus, nor even to enforce community consensus by overturning a decision that he viewed as contrary to it. He asked me to review it, and asked me how to appeal it. There is nothing wrong with that.

Things would be different if I commonly used my reserve powers to make policy in arbitrary and random ways, but as is well known, I do not. I have been a Wikipedian for a very long time and do have some experience in various matters, and it is perfectly fine for people to come to me for advice, as well as to advise me on matters of potential interest.

Therefore, to conclude: on this one very narrow point, I would suggest that this particular point be dropped from the case by ArbCom as being not particularly relevant.

This has gotten a lot more complicated since I last looked at it! Bloody hell. Right. First thing I want to do is address Tom's mention of me. He is correct insofar as I do tend to get involved in the various discussions here at Smatprt's request, however, my initial entry into the debate was very much my own. I watched the development of an argument between Smatprt on one hand and Nishidani and Tom on the other, and I freely chose to chime in on Smatprt's side because I believed (and still believe) him to be in the right. As with Ssilvers though, I have no relationship with Smatprt beyond Wikipedia. Just to clarify that. And thanks for the compliment Tom, very much appreciated.

My whole position on this thing has been very simple from the start. I actually disagree with the Oxford school of thought. I don't believe that there is some other writer of Shakespeare's texts, and I don't support any of the theories which suggest there is, which gives me a good degree of objectivity on this issue. And I also freely admit, that I'm far from being anything even resembling an expert on the SAQ. However, that's not the point. The point is that the SAQ is a valid field of study (I did a couple of classes on it in college). One of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors' (I use that term with tongue firmly in cheek) here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it, but this is no longer tenable with the publication of Shapiro's Who wrote Shakespeare? Here's a relevant quote from Laura Miller's review of Shapiro's book:

Shapiro does not doubt the Stratfordian view himself. But he does differ from his colleagues in insisting that the quarrel ought to be publicly addressed.

That's it in a nutshell. Burying the details of the various theories behind the SAQ makes no sense to me, irrespective of ones personal position regarding them. The SAQ is a very real area of research, and deserves coverage on Wikipedia.

The other point is that Smatprt is constantly accused of forwarding an agenda and POV editing. However, the two people who make this accusation more than anyone else, Tom and Nishidani, seem to me, just as guilty of it as anyone else, perhaps even more so. When I did some work on the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, I reduced a pre-existing paragraph about the anti-Stratfordian theory to a single sentence, and even that was deleted several times despite it's relevance to the section in which it was placed; as if all mention of the SAQ must be purged. I agree with what Johnuniq says; the issue isn't one of removing the SAQ, it is one of presenting it neutrally, and in such a way that the reader realises it's not a commonly accepted theory. But it is still out there, and will probably continue to be for some time to come.

I hope this is the right place to express my dismay over the direction that Wikipedia articles about the authorship question are taking. Any article about this subject seems to be under attack. I first got involved when I read a Wikipedia article that requested citations. I spent the better part of one day looking up the citations, thinking I was making a good and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. To my great surprise, all my efforts were erased by the Stratfordian editors who seem to be using the authorship entry to debate the topic rather than to define it. I made reference to Charlton Ogburn, Jr., whose seminal work, published by Dodd Mead and Co. in 1984, had analyzed the authorship question thoroughly, showing profound knowledge of Shakespeare's works. He devoted a section to the candidate traditionally assumed to be the author, pointing out the reasons why so many distinguished authors and critics over the past two centuries had doubted that the Stratford businessman was the same person as the author of the plays and poetry. The Stratfordian editors dismissed Ogburn's very scholarly work as not being acceptably mainstream. Well, DUH! He was dealing with a controversial issue from a fresh perspective, so of course he did not merely repeat the conventional assumptions, but questioned them. It is unconscionable to delete references to Ogburn, who has far greater credibility on this issue than a person who is already convinced that nothing more can be learned about Shakespeare by re-examining the assumptions that have turned the Bard into an idol. I made a few other corrections and clarifications, but I grew tired of the contempt, especially toward Smatprt, whose editing seemed very knowledgeable and fair. Here is an example of the ad hominem attacks that have made me doubt the intentions of the editors who have driven out moderate voices by their blatant insistence that only the traditional views deserve to be heard. for example,This remark from the workshop sounds very hostile to me: "It took 3 or 4 years to liberate the "authorship question" from the cold dead hand of the civil POV-pusher Smatprt, something that the joined forces of the community and LHvU have now finally accomplished (for one year only, though; S will be back)" Now I see that the lead into the authorship item denigrates the scholars who disagree with them, using such snide assertions as "a small but vocal and visible group" and "fringe theory". One article even claims that anti-Stratfordians do not use the documentary evidence that Stratfordians do. That is totally false and prejudicial. Now I see that they are vandalizing any article that mentions Edward de Vere, who seems to be the candidate they love to hate. I don't have time for extended argument, although I do love Shakespeare and hate to see the malicious discrediting of sincere Shakespeare lovers who have an honest disagreement over the nature of this most admirable of writers.

In russet mantle clad

FP's block of Nina! Did you see that? Suberb! This is what he said:

I've looked at your contribs and decided they're not up to snuff, so I'm blocking you for 10 days. I'm not going to provide a single diff and I'm not going to link to a single policy. I've taken into account a few comments but I’m not going to tell you which ones. I'm linking to an essay but I'm not going to tell you which parts of it describe your lamentable behaviour.

Yes, we're on the very eve of arbitration, but I'm afraid with you on the loose the entire project is in peril. I'm yanking my handle.

Phew! Fantastic block! Armageddon averted. The project rumbles on. It does seem a bit odd that Nina hadn't made a single article space edit for 3 days. And you’d think that if her talk page antics were that bad—10 days bad—he’d be able to rustle up the odd diff or six. Still, whatever. And he even made unblocking conditional on a unilaterally imposed topic ban! I didn't know they could do that. What a guy!

And I see that old Nuclear Warfare is simply bursting to detonate. Isn’t he the guy who cast the first neutron bomb at smatprt?

Beyond the Fringe

As far as I can tell, the central charge here is that anti-Strats in general and Nina Green in particular are POV-warriors. In my opinion it’s wrong to claim that Nina has tried to push her own POV into the article. The Oxfordian position has huge holes in it, not the least of which is the 6 feet-deep one in which his corpse resided while he was writing Shakespeare’s plays. I’d be the first to cry foul if I thought Nina was trying to have our article say that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. That’s not what she’s doing. This is the page as it stood before the wheels came off. I suggest that you scan the page and look at Nina’s contributions. Make up your own mind whether she’s POV-pushing.

Most of the discussion on that page concerns the use of fringe belief—a colloquialism which is at once emotive and imprecise. What does the SAQ article mean by “all but a few Shakespeare scholars…consider it a fringe belief”? If it means simply that they see it as “an idea that departs significantly from the mainstream” then why not say that? Nobody would argue with that definition. The SAQ article prefers fringe belief because it connotes lunatic fringe. Nina realised that and so she argued to have it removed from the lead.

The debate on that page goes something like this:

• Nina : Only one individual is cited for “Fringe belief”… David Kathman … and he’s an associate of Tom.
• Tom: Okay. Here is a list of RS who use not just fringe belief but “Lunatic Fringe”
• Nina: One of those so-called RS is actually somebody who writes about soccer.
• Nishidani: Well what about one from Peter Milward? He has impeccable credentials.
• Nina: Okay what’s the source for quotation from Milward?
• Tom: I’m not telling you. You’ll have to find it for yourself.

There were niggles and digs from either side, but the underlying debate is perfectly fine. Neither side is POV-pushing (or both sides are). And as far as I can see that applies to most, if not all, of the other debates that SAQ regulars enjoy so much.

Another point of contention has been a New York Times survey of 265 Shakespeare professors. Six per cent thought there was reason to doubt Shakespeare’s authorship and eleven per cent thought there possibly was. Strats want to play down the survey, anti-Strats want to highlight it. It’s fine for both sides to argue their case. Neither is POV-pushing. At the moment the survey is buried in a section headed Television, magazines, and the Internet.

Another one: Mark Rylance, the inaugural artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe, and Sir Derek Jacobi are leading lights in something called the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition. The Coalition started an on-line petition dubbed The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. The Declaration currently has 1927 signatories, 341 of whom describe themselves as academics. What should the article say about the Coalition and the Declaration? Debating that question is not POV-pushing.

There’s a tendency to forget that the article is not there to answer the SAQ. It’s not there to decide who wrote Shakespeare. It is there to give the reader as much information as possible about all aspects of the SAQ. You can’t have an article about the Loch Ness Monster which hides the pictures of Nessie. In my opinion, we shouldn’t have a SAQ article that hides the SAC and the survey. And we need to find a better form of words to describe the scholarly consensus.

WP:FRINGE can trap even experienced editors into thinking that it identifies a subset of articles which have their own rules and exemptions. Paul, above, can’t locate the part of WP:FRINGE which legitimises Nina’s demand for an RS for fringe theory. It’s here: “The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability.”

Cauldron Bubble

Three years ago Bishonen was talking happily of “My rewrite at SAQ". Outrageously, she was frightened off the article by smatprt. But all was well earlier this year when she was able to give strong support to smatprt’s removal from all things Shakespeare. With smatprt’s demise pending, Bishonen declared that she would like to see all of his articles, including SAQ, deleted because they are inherently POV.

Smarprt was gone, but there were more battles to fight. On Christmas Eve Bishonen told AN/I that she’d like to block Zweigenbaum. Annoyingly, she was "too involved to use any admin tools on that article", having removed a POV tag. GoodDay helpfully suggested that Zweigenbaum be blocked to get his attention. Trebor felt editors were collaborating and the page might be better left unprotected, but Bishonen should do what she thought best. Bishonen thought that a helpful suggestion and used her tools to protect the page and end the war in which she was engaged. Understandably, she'd thought it best to wait for the tag to be removed before adding the protection.

Unfortunately, the lads at AN/I hadn't really taken the hint, so big, strong LHvU found himself shoved centre stage. Not relishing the idea, yet not one to let I dare not wait upon I would, B&SLHvU soliloquised thus.

Meanwhile Bishonen had become uninvolved. She was now so uninvolved that she was able to tell Nina: "I may block you from editing", in bold, no less. Warshy, Moonraker2, and I responded to that warning. As a result we are now known to Bishonen as “Nina’s helpers”.

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.

The root of the problem

I am more interested in Oxford than in the SAQ page. Here are my edits to both: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1, 2, 3. Several merely link a new page I have created, such as Thomas Fowle, Benedict Spinola, William Damsell, George Delves, 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, Oxford and 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 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 request page but later deleted):

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 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 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.
Moonraker2 ( talk) 08:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Self-indictment, with a few clumsy sobstory excuses.

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. Nishidani ( talk) 06:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

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. Nishidani ( talk) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

For the record I only made one edit to that page, and it has nothing to do with the complaint made in the edit summary given above. Nishidani ( talk) 04:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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."

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 [127]. This was before I started editing anything having to do with Shakespeare and it’s been going on ever since. [128] [129] 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. [130]. I fought back by escalating dispute resolution [131] and failed. Ultimately, I ended up 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”. 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. 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, [132] a view held by a number of other editors. [133] [134]

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 [135] 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 [136] on one of the 20 odd pages where deletions of sourced material occurred.

• I was accused of bullying and making personal attacks, [137] but no diffs were provided. As requested, I provided diffs that these personal attacks actually came form the other side. [138]. Another editor confirmed my allegations [139]. 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. [140] The problem is - I have always agreed with this statement, and said so previously. 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. [141] [142] [143] 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 [144].

• 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: [145], [146] and [147]. 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. [148]

• 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, [149] 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, Smatprt ( talk) 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

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, here is the ANI thread which forms the main background to Smatprt's topic ban. It's pretty long, I'm afraid. Still. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC). reply

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.