User talk:Stallion Cornell

Please read before engaging in an edit war on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Shakespeare authorship question, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Last chance to avoid a block for edit warring

Despite my warning above, you have now for the fourth time in less than 24 hours removed the phrasing which mentions a "conspiracy theory".[1] Please self-revert before editing anything else, or I will block you for persistent edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Bishonen | talk 13:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

May 2018

Hi, Bishonen. I was writing a message on your talk page when you initiated the block to discuss this with you. It seems I didn't finish writing in time. Not sure if you'll see this - if you don't, I'll share it on your page when my block is over.

My most recent edits were actually in response to a conversation I was having in the Oxfordian theory page, and one of the edits was reflective of what seemed to be a consensus. Reading your message, I didn't realize I was in imminent danger of being blocked, as I wasn't reverting edits with the undo function but rather offering new edits that were more reflective of the source and the discussions I was having on the talk page. I didn't realize that any and all changes would be interpreted as reversions.

As to the stated reason for my ban, my issue with the sentence about the "conspiracy theory" was not the use of that phrase, but rather the use of a reference that in no way supported the assertion being made. Shapiro was being cited as evidence that Oxfordians often invoke a lack of evidence for the conspiracy as proof of the conspiracy's success. The cited source not only does not say this, it does not say anything remotely close to this. I said this repeatedly in the talk page to justify my edit, but I was reverted with the explanation that even if the source isn't actually saying this, there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing, so there's no reason to take issue with the current source's inaccuracy. That's sloppy scholarship.

The user who is repeatedly reverting my edits (is he also blocked for doing so?) seems to be under the impression that my goal is to legitimize a fringe theory and pretend that the Oxfordian theory has more credibility than it actually has. That is simply not the case. My problem is that the references in the disputed text are not accurately being cited.

In any case, I am trying to be as reasonable, forthright, and polite as possible. I look forward to further discussion.Stallion Cornell (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Stallion Cornell. I'll answer your comments that are directly addressed to me, but as for formally answering your second unblock appeal, I think an uninvolved administrator had better do that. You didn't realize "Last chance to avoid a block for edit warring" and "Please self-revert before editing anything else, or I will block you for persistent edit warring" meant you were in imminent danger of being blocked? I don't quite know what to say to that. Also, you really had better read the page Wikipedia:Edit warring, that you have been repeatedly linked to, to see what a revert is, because your suggestion that "any and all changes would be interpreted as reversions" isn't right either. I quote: "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." And "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. You have violated the 3RR (Tom Reedy has not), by reverting a fourth time after being warned. I figured you're not a very experienced editor, and also that you might possibly have missed my first warning when you reverted again, and that's why I warned you again, emphasizing that you had made a fourth revert, and giving you the chance to self-revert.

About resolving the disagreement: admins don't intervene in content disputes — well, sometimes they do, but that means they take off their admin hat and are no longer able to issue sanctions or otherwise "admin" an article, which I want to be able to continue doing. So I won't attempt to help you and other editors find common ground; I advise you to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for that. I'll observe, though, that I think your claims for consensus on the talkpage are highly exaggerated. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen Since this user has stated they will not edit war again, do you have any other concerns related to the block? 331dot (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have some concerns, 331dot. I think they've been editing fairly disruptively, and may be here to right great wrongs. But on the other hand, they're a pretty inexperienced user (only a couple of dozen edits between 2011-2017, before jumping into the controversial "Oxfordian theory" question), so I won't object if you want to unblock. If you're unblocked now, Stallion Cornell, or for when the block expires: please remember what I said about WP:Dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

The block was correctly imposed and in any case it is only for 24 hours. The unblock request doesn't seem to reflect a sincere desire for the user to reform his edits in the future; mostly it expresses disappointment that his version didn't make it into the article. This user was warned by Bishonen ahead of time with great thoroughness, for example here. The user has chosen to forge ahead boldly in the face of a lot of warnings, which may suggest they are here on Wikipedia to advance a personal point of view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, you are correct - I am an inexperienced editor, and I took your warning as warning against hitting the "undo" button, not against editing at all. That's stupidity and inexperience on my part, not a lack of clarity on yours.

As for my "righting great wrongs," I had no idea that changing two sentences to more accurately reflect a cited source would have such a sweeping universal impact, nor did I have any inkling that what I was doing was even remotely controversial. I am well familiar with the source in question, and when I read the article, I thought it appropriate to correct obvious errors in citing that source. I thought the whole process would take up five minutes of my life, tops. Again, that's my own naivete for which I alone am responsible.

EdJohnston, the only personal point of view I'm trying to advance here is that I don't think sources should be cited incorrectly. (My understanding is that Wikipedia feels strongly about that, too.) I confess to being blindsided by the hostility I've encountered in this process. I'm trying to be reasonable and civil in every respect.Stallion Cornell (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you please cite some of this hostility you say you have been blindsided with? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I mean hostility to the changes, not personal hostility. In particular, you have been polite in every respect. Nobody has called me names or insulted my mother.

I bristle, however, when my motives for submitting changes become the subject of discussion. Am I trying to right great wrongs or advance a personal point of view? Honestly, why does that matter if my edits are sound? It's as if my interest in the topic somehow makes me suspect and disqualifies me from improving the article.Stallion Cornell (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

lol. Well, to be honest your predecessors kind of ruined the welcome wagon for SAQ editors! If you read out the SAQ arbitration case (if you have a spare week or two!) you might get a little different perspective than you find in the SOF newsletter. My friend Paul Barlow said more than once he wished he could find a sane Oxfordian to help get those pages in shape. Who knows, maybe you're the one! The goal to shoot for is to value being a good Wikipedian over being an advocate of any particular point of view. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanity isn't my strong suit.Stallion Cornell (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship newsletter has followed developments on Wikipedia with some interest. Note that I'm not implying any connection between the editor Stallion Cornell and this newsletter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not? Then why bring it up? And just for the record (and not that it should matter) - I have absolutely no connection to the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship or their newsletter. It would be nice if the discussion could focus on the content of the page instead of the motives of those who want to improve it. Stallion Cornell (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)