Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
| Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==Richard Malim |
||
==={Write your assertion here}=== 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. |
|||
==={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. |
|||
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 |
|||
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
||
Revision as of 15:46, 19 January 2011
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk) |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
 | 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.
Evidence presented by 67.122.209.190
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)
- 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.
| Article | # edits |
|---|---|
| Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford | 145 |
| Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford | 98 |
| James Wilmot | 22 |
| Elizabeth Trentham, Countess of Oxford | 15 |
| First Folio | 3 |
| Colne Priory, Essex | 3 |
| User talk:205.250.205.73 | 2 |
| Anonymous (film) | 2 |
| Martin Marprelate | 2 |
| Total | 292 |
67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tom Reedy
The Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory, not a minority view, in academe
- Stephen Greenblatt wrote of "an overwhelming scholarly consensus" (NYT, Sept. 4, 2005).
- William Rubinstein, who proposes Sir Henry Neville as the author, is an academic historian and, despite his scepticism of the mainstream wrote, hard on Greenblatt's heels, "renewed interest in who actually wrote Shakespeare has occurred in the teeth of adamant and virtually unanimous opposition from nearly all established scholars of Shakespeare, especially those in university literature departments, to whom any discussion of an alternative Author is generally considered to be prima facie evidence of insanity." (The Social Affairs Unit, Oct 4, 2005)
- David M. Bevington, Professor Emeritus at Chicago Uni, in his Shakespeare: the seven ages of human experience, Wiley-Blackwell, published the same year, wrote of the virtually unanimous opinion of academics that the late plays were written after de vere's 1604 death, and thus the works cannot be ascribed to him.
- Stanford's Alan Nelson had written the year before, "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.'"(Tennessee Law Review Symposium, 2004, p. 151)
- In the same symposium, his colleague D. Allen Carroll, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for 35 years, the J. Douglas Bruce Chair in Literature at the University of Tennessee, and a period specialist also testified: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment', one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him." (Tennessee Law Review Symposium,2004, pp. 278–9) He also wrote in his The Great Feast of Language in Love's Labour's Lost (1976), "the play has always been the darling of the Shakespearean lunatic fringe", referring to anti-Stratfordians.
The Shakespeare authorship question has engendered a disproportionate number of repetitious noticeboard discussions that are increasing in frequency and intensity
29 April 2007 WP:AN/I. Smatprt reported for violating 3rr. Result: 24-hour block.
2 May 2007 WP:AN/I. Smatprt reported for violating 3rr. Result: 48-hour block.
12 July 2007 WP:AN/I (date has been altered to 14). Complaint by Smatprt against Felsommerfeld (later determined to be a sock puppet of User:Barryispuzzled) for operating an SPA for the purpose of edit-warring on the SAQ page. Result: both sides admonished for uncivility.
14 July 2007 WP:FT/N. Discussion of Smatprt edit-warring SAQ material (short). Result: complaint was at AN/I and shouldn’t be duplicated.
15 July 2007 WP:AN/I (date has been altered to appear earlier than the above case). Complaints of Smatprt’s editing behaviour at the SAQ article (20kb). Result: unclear, complainant was later determined to be a sock puppet for User:Barryispuzzled.
1 May 2009 WP:RS/N. Discussion on use of Shakespeare Fellowship (Oxfordian) materials as reliable sources (48kb). Result: no.
28 Sept 2009 WP:RS/N. Discussion on use of New York Times survey as a reliable source (66kb) Result: yes.
21 Jan 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on whether editor of Oxfordian paper can be considered a reliable commentator on the paper (short). Result: split.
24 Jan 2010 WP:AN/I. Tom Reedy reported for 3rr violations by Ssilvers after being warned by Smatprt. Result: Tom Reedy and Smatprt warned to stop.
25 Jan 2010 WP:FT/N. Discussion on whether the SAQ is notable enough to be included in the Fringe theory article as an example (34kb). Result: OK to add, but not with any degree of detail.
2 Feb 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on use of “The Shakespeare Authorship Page” (mainstream) as a reliable source (74kb). Result: yes.
15 Feb 2010 WP:RS/N. Meta-question on length of above RS Discussion (short).
22 Feb 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on use of Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles as a reliable source (37kb). Result: no.
15 March 2010 WP:AN/I. Discussion of SAQ and toxic atmosphere at SAQ talk page. Result: Admin intervention that eventually resulted in a merge order that produced the current SAQ page.
16 March 2010 WP:FT/N. Related to WP:AN/I discussion of 16 March 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.
21 March 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on using on-line class notes and OR as reliable sources (short). Result: no.
12 April 2010 WP:FT/N. Question about whether SAQ mention could be added to Chronology of Shakespeare's plays. Result: no.
12 April 2010 WP:NPOV/N. Discussion of alleged WP:ONEWAY violations of inserting SAQ mentions into other Shakespeare-related article. Result: unresolved; eventually went to mediation.
2 June 2010 WP:FT/N. Seeking an opinion on whether the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism and therefore should be allowed in the article as an example (35kb). Result: no.
30 July 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on whether a press release published by Business Wire can be used as a reliable source for the SAQ (short). Result: no.
10 Aug 2010 WP:FT/N. Discussion of alleged WP:ONEWAY violations of inserting SAQ mentions into other Shakespeare-related article. Result: unresolved; went to mediation.
18 Aug 2010 WP:RFM 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.
21 Aug 2010 WP:AN/I. Complaints of Smatprt’s behaviour at the SAQ article (26kb). Result: Complainant was determined to be a sock puppet for User:Barryispuzzled and blocked.
8 Oct 2010 WP:AN/I. Discussion of Smatprt’s editing behaviour (190kb). Result: Smatprt topic banned from Shakespeare-related articles for one year.
23 Oct 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on using fringe (Oxfordian) publications to source biography article on Edward de Vere, 17 Earl of Oxford (45kb). Result: no.
1 Dec 2010 WP:RS/N. Discussion on use of Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles as a reliable source (12kb). Result: no.
24 Dec 2010 WP:AN/I. Report on Zweigenbaum for edit-warring on the SAQ page. Result: warning.
3 Jan 2011 WP:NPOV/N. Disputing overall neutrality of the current SAQ article. Result: abandoned by uninvolved editors, one of whom said complainant was “just trolling” (30kb).
12 Jan 2011 WP:RS/N. Discussion on whether sources used for current Shakespeare authorship question article are biased and therefore unreliable. (12kb). Result: no result.
14 Jan 2011 WP:AN/I. Complaints of NinaGreen’s behaviour on SAQ talk page. Result: dropped because case filed at Arbcom.
(More to come)
Certain editors only appear at SAQ discussions or disputes when Oxfordians need support
15 March 2010. Account with two edits total, one to vote against SAQ merge proposal.
Ssilvers is an excellent editor with more than 71,000 edits to his credit, mostly in the areas of opera and musical theatre. He only appears at Shakespeare authorship articles and talk pages when Smatprt needs support. Excepting a few minor edits such as punctuation and formatting, here are all of his substantive contributions to the Shakespeare authorship topic, which show a pattern of following Smatprt’s lead (he was a major contributor to Smatprt’s Wikipedia biography).
12 Jan 2010; 24 Jan 2010: Tom Reedy reported for 3rr violations by Ssilvers after being warned by Smatprt. Result: Tom Reedy and Smatprt warned to stop; 12 Apr 2010; 13 Apr 2010, 13 Apr 2010; 14 Feb 2010; 15 Apr 2010; 17 Feb 2010; 1 Sep 2010; 1 Sep 2010; 1 Sep 2010; 11 Oct 2010.
Evidence presented by Becritical
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.
- 205.250.205.73 (also NinaGreen)
- User:Tom Reedy is an SPA for Shakespere and very closely related articles. [3]
- User:xover is an SPA for Shakespere and very closely related articles. [4]
Evidence presented by NinaGreen
Proxied by request on behalf of NinaGreen, who is blocked, by AGK [•] 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Original RfAR Statement by LessHeard vanU
|
|---|
| Note: The collapse boxes were added by me. AGK [•] 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this. However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article. Examples;
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. These new accounts, quoting Wiki policy ("Consensus can change" is often cited), require existing editors to concentrate upon making the same good faith responses to the usual points, lest there are claims that process is being flouted or that the points are not able to be countered and that consensus should reflect the presented POV. Other attempts to address concerns regarding behaviour and attitudes of various editors have been met with stonewalling, allegations of (admin) bias, and counter claims upon other editors; there is an almost complete absence of any attempt to engage upon or mitigate inappropriate interaction. There is a small (and diminishing) core of dedicated contributors trying to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view within a subject against a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers - there needs to be a proper evaluation by ArbCom and the provision of restrictions which will enable editors to concentrate upon improving the article and deprecate efforts to promote viewpoints. 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Alan W
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)
Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.
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 ( [8][9][10][11][12]). (Note that the logged-out editing appears to be due to technical problems and was not an attempt at sockpuppetry.)
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. [13]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by SamuelTheGhost
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)
Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU
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)
{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.
Evidence presented by Xover
The SAQ has attracted long-term and sustained disruption from its supporters
The adherents of the Shakespeare authorship question and the individual candidates 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. Rather than link to specific article/talk edits I'll refer to the overall SPI archive page for the chief example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive (see also categories and links from Barryispuzzled). This editor used a sockpuppet account to take an extremist stance based on the mainstream view and attack Authorship adherents who favour a different candidate (Oxford), and then used a different sockpuppet account to jump in and defend the editor he'd just attacked, with the overall goal being to create as much disruption and chaos as possible to leave his main account free and unnoticed to promote his own favoured candidate (Bacon). This was part of a deliberate campaign to game the system at GAC (GA review, later GAR review). This particular editor had been at it since 2006 (albeit not as disruptive during that whole time) and until he was banned in at least four separate SPI instances in 2009/2010.
Note: The intent of the above is not to tar all Authorship adherents with the same brush as the Sock above—in fact, attempting to deal with this Sock-account has been one of the more productive collaborative efforts between the editors involved on all sides of this conflict—but rather to demonstrate that the problem is not chiefly the immediate one with the editors currently engaged on the SAQ page. It is a long-standing and on-going problem that causes significant disruption, poisons the atmosphere to the point where assuming good faith and reaching consensus becomes impossible, and drives away good and productive editors.
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==Richard Malim
==={Write your assertion here}=== 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
{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.