User talk:Wightknightuk

Hello, Wightnightuk, welcome to Wikipedia. What's your main account?

This account's complete editing history (in toto, three edits) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship question

Please take the time to read the article, and take note of the references. It is a Featured Article, having been identified as among Wikipedia's best. That means a number of Wikipedians have contributed to writing and reviewing the article and have agreed that it meets our standards for sourcing and accuracy (among other qualities).

There is statement that reflects the mainstream opinion that the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory. The statement is:

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims."

That is sourced to a footnote, currently number 3, which cites seven works. These are those sources and some of the relevant quotes from them:

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system";
Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450;
Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record.";
Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure...";
Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "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.";
Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant.";
Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory.";
Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."

Now if you want to further your research, take the time to read those sources. If you want to continue to argue that SAQ is not fringe, then you'll need to find an equivalent number of equally respected academics who have stated in print that the SAQ is not a fringe theory. I don't mean you find a number of examples of authors advancing anti-Stratfordian positions, and then use your own synthesis to say it implies a minority position. I mean you find a number of respected authorities on the subject who state as clearly as those above an opposite opinion. Then you'll be in a position to make a case about the fringe nature of the SAQ.

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect and humility, I feel that your argument is ill-conceived and the references you site do not support the point you wish to make. The issue at hand is the difference between what is a ‘fringe position’ and what is a ‘minority position’. How do we determine the difference?

What distinguishes a minority belief from a fringe belief therefore? It is not merely the existence of debate, that much must be obvious. Neither is it the extent of the debate, a ‘fringe’ view will remain so however widespread it becomes. The test is in the quality of the execution of the debate. Has the issue moved from the realms of pseudo-science into a field of academic study?

It is suggested that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the issue of whether or not William of Stratford was the principal author of the plays attributed to him, has moved from a fringe issue to a minority one. How can we verify that proposition? I would suggest there are three tests that one should properly apply:

1. Is there a significant population within the relevant academic community who consider the issue to be one that merits academic study? 2. Is the issue in fact one that commands or has commanded the attention of such academic study? 3. Is the issue one which has generated research by members of the relevant academic community?

Let us address those three issues in turn:

1. Despite the anecdotal evidence below, the only significant survey in this area was undertaken by the New York Times and has been referenced separately. In its survey of 265 Shakespeare Professors, the New York Times found that 6% felt there was good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon” and 11% felt there was “possibly” good reason.

In other words, 45 of the 265 Shakespeare professors responding to the questionnaire agreed that there was (at least) ‘possibly’ good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?”

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. 2. Brunel University has run an MA Programme in Authorship Studies, the first MA programme of its kind in the world, convened by Dr William Leahy. Concordia University has run Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. There is evidence therefore that the area has already commanded the attention of academic study.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. 3. So far as the question of research is concerned we have an abundance of materials to which we may turn. It is understood that works produced by ‘independent scholars’ may be regarded as weaker evidence of research in the field. Nonetheless, it is certainly worth mentioning at least:

‘"Shakespeare" By Another Name’ by Mark Anderson (Gotham Books, 2005); and “Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem”by Diana Price.

However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography. Of course, from a mainstream perspective the most significant work must be Shapiro’s “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" - James Shapiro, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Shapiro’s book is an oft quoted source that aims to challenge theories oppositional to the Shakespearean orthodoxy. However, the existence of such a detailed book, directly addressed to the issue at end, is strong evidence that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is being treated as a subject of interest to the established academic community.

People no longer write books to prove that the earth is round, there is no need and no-one would buy them. Shapiro felt the need to address the Authorship Question by conducting new research on the point and publishing his findings for an eager public. This is a vital and ongoing debate to which, paradoxically, the works of the Stratfordian scholars are providing credibility.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention.

For the sake of completeness, I should properly address your own sources. You referenced eight sources and provided quotes from seven. Allow me to address those seriatim. In each case we must consider whether the source supports the statement in respect of which it has been used that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’.

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system"; 1. Kathman states that he has a “Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Chicago” but he does not appear to hold any relevant qualification or higher education appointment verifying his credentials as an academic expert on Shakespeare. 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, albeit that the credentials of its author may be questioned.

Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record." 1. Gail Kern Paster was Professor of English at George Washington University 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source.

Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure..." 1. Alan H. Nelson is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, which is contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "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." 1. D. Allen Carroll is Professor Emeritus, Department of English, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, and is also contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate.

Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate.

Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..." 1. The quotation is simply irrelevant. It supports the general credibility of certain unnamed individuals within the Stratfordian camp, but it does no more. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it relates.

Of the seven quoted references, therefore: 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a questionable source. 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a reliable source. 2 are anecdotal evidence in support from reliable sources, but displaying bias by virtue of exaggeration, and contradicted by the evidence of an independent survey. 2 are simply antagonistic to the Oxfordian position and do not support the statement. 1 is a statement in support of Stratfordian Academics generally and does not support your statement.

On balance, therefore, the sources that have been referenced do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’. The additional sources that I have referenced, including the work of James Shapiro, evidences that the Shakespeare Authorship Question itself can no longer be disparaged and dismissed as a ‘fringe’ issue.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the references I cite have been the subject of several debates that you should be aware of before you try to criticise them. You may not substitute your own opinion for that of authors published in reliable sources. If you think that Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, edited by Wells and Orlin, is an unreliable source in this context, then take your concern to WP:RSN and see how far you get. Nor do you get to smear Professor Carroll by accusing him of bias, simply on your say-so. You have been warned about the discretionary sanctions that apply to Shakespeare authorship question and I will tell you now that you have almost certainly crossed the line with those sort of comments.

Secondly, you are mistaken in your proposition about how to distinguish 'fringe' from 'minority'. Here is the definition from WP:Fringe #Identifying fringe theories:

"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."

You'll find that authors like Erich von Däniken have written plenty of books such as Chariots of the Gods?, but the mere existence of a well-documented fringe theory makes it no less fringe. The view that extraterrestrial visitors were mistaken for gods is a very long way from the mainstream view held by scientists in the field, and that makes it fringe. That does not, however, mean that the books don't sell or that documentaries are not made about them. It is still a fringe theory, despite populist attention and serious academics taking the time to refute it. So it is with the many fringe theories propounded around the Shakespeare authorship question. The fact that David Ellis examines the question is exactly what I was referring previously when I suggested that the presence of debate is not evidence of support. You also need to get up to date: the University of Kent has not been post-titled "at Canterbury" since 2003.

Finally, you ascribe far too much importance to the NYT. It is simply inappropriate to suggest that the NYT uncontrolled survey counterbalances Professor Carroll's expert opinion. Additionally, you don't seem able to see that asking a question like "Is there any reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" is just as likely to gain a "possibly" response from the mainstream expert who suspects Fletcher's contribution to The Two Noble Kinsmen is greater than Shakespeare's as it is to gain a similar response from a fringe proponent who believes Shakespeare did not exist. The survey is a blunt and frankly worthless tool for drawing any conclusions about the fringe position of the anti-Stratfordians. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, on the subject of what is fringe, I have set out criteria that sensibly states what is required. We are not distinguishing here between what is fringe and what is mainstream. We are distinguishing between fringe and minority. The use of the term 'fringe' to describe the reasonably held beliefs of a minority of academics who are sceptical or agnostic towards the Stratfordian position is at best discourteous and at worst disparaging of those academics.

I also refer to WP:Fringe # which states: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are ... fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the ... fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." The distinction to be drawn here is that the opposing academic view is not fringe. There is a minority academic view that holds that the Authorship question merits attention. There are various fringe views which make a case for alternative candidates.

If you believe that my criticisms of your various sources have been properly addressed in other articles then I should be happy to read those views. However, I trust you will agree, on reflection, that the references to Pendleton, Sutherland & Watts and Gibson, whilst potentially relevant to the article overall, simply do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’ and should be removed.

So far as the position of Carroll is concerned I would invite you to consider whether the quotation is not so obviously an exaggeration as to merit further examination or qualification. Carroll stated that: "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."

Yet it is the very nature of the scholar to doubt, to question and to challenge. The NYT Survey demonstrates that a minority of relevant academics are prepared to question established theories, however firmly held. The testimony of Prof. Carroll, whilst perhaps accurate as to its sentiment, and I am sure made in the utmost good faith, can hardly be intended as an expression of statistical relevance. If it was, then his remarks should certainly have been accompanied by the sort of qualifying language which has been used in connection with the NYT article.

The word 'bias' in this context may have been ill-chosen. There are more appropriate terms for a person who is so entrenched in his view that he will not 'entertain the slightest doubt' about a subject. Let me go so far only to say that Prof. Carroll's statement suffers by the weight of its own obvious exaggeration.

The reference to David Ellis being "... "at Canterbury"" was a quotation from the referenced page of his publishers. Wightknightuk (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unforgivably arrogant of you to "set out criteria that states [sic] what is required". I've quoted for you what Wikipedians have agreed is the distinguishing feature of a fringe theory, so what makes you think your amateur analysis should supersede the combined opinion of a multitude of other editors? - most of whom have far more experience of how our policies apply. If it's fringe, it's fringe (and in this case it is), and the disrespect is shown by you to all the mainstream authors whose opinion you denigrate. It is not I, but they who treat the SAQ as fringe.

Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat. The same applies to my criticisms of published authors. I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

As a courtesy to others, and to prevent Sine Bot endlessly signing your posts, it is recommended that signatures contain a link to the editor's userspace. Could you please read WP:SIG for further advice, and adjust your signature so that it links at minimum to your userpage. If you are writing your name in text at the end of posts, please either use four tildas ~~~~ or click the signature box on the edit toolbar. If you have set up a custom signature in preferences, please uncheck the box marked "treat the above as wikimarkup", to allow the interface to link to your userpage via your signature. Alternatively - as you don't seem to feel the need for a multicoloured sig or one containing symbols, piped links or any other fancy formatting, you can simply clear whatever is in the signature box itself, and the software will automatically generate a signature with the appropriate links. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter - let me know if I can be of assistance with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Elen of the Roads] I am greatly obliged by your assistance in this matter. I had been signing with the appropriate four tildas, but there appears to have been an error with the relevant user profile settings. I hope I have now corrected this and the signature following this post should now publish correctly. Perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm that this is the case?

In any case, I am sincerely grateful for your courteous and helpful engagement in this matter.

Wightknightuk (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. I can confirm that your signature now appears to be functioning in the usual fashion - thanks for tweaking it. The username is red because you have not created a userpage (in case you were wondering) - there is no requirement to create one if you don't want. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please review the discretionary sanctions listed at Wikipedia:ARBSAQ#Final_decision, and you may as well read the whole page while you are there. If you engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article, you may be subject to a sanction without further warnings. Have a nice day, Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read the Final Decision and note the concern of the Committee about the way the article has been edited in the past and the conduct of all parties in that process. I am concerned here with the specific issue of whether the SAQ should properly be regarded as a fringe issue, particularly in light of the recent developments in the field,some of which post-date the committee's findings.

As ever, I am sure all parties would prefer to engage in a courteous exchange. I am sure that your remarks concerning sanctions against me were not intended in any way as a threat and should not be construed in themselves as disruptive editing.

I invite comments within the relative solitude of these talk pages in the hope that we might achieve some form of consensus outside any mediation or other dispute resolution procedure.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not beat around the bush. You're operating a single purpose account. This very much looks like a banned or sanctioned editor returning with a new account. You're behaving and editing just like the others. Either you stop behaving and editing like them, or you will be banned very shortly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Jehochman] You are wrong. I am not a banned editor and I have never been sanctioned. Suggesting that my comments come from some kind of biased position seems to breach WP:NPA.

I am new to Wikipedia as I am new to the Authorship Debate (although not, of course, new to Shakespeare). That does not mean this is an SPA. I have been interested in the Wikipedia project for some time. This is simply the first issue that inspired me 'into the abyss'.

I understand that this article has had a very troubled history. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that seasoned editors will respect WP:DNB and WP:AGF.

I am keen to progress the debate by reasoned argument and consensus. I re-iterate my good faith and lack of bias and I encourage active engagement. Wightknightuk (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information, it appears that the ongoing sanctions to which you refer relate only to "any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision". Would you please explain how you say I may be subject to further sanctions without notice?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What other accounts have you used? You are clearly not a newcomer. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Jehochman] You say "You are clearly not a newcomer". You make bold assertions without proper foundation. I have informed you that I am new to Wikipedia but in repeated violation of WP:DNB and WP:AGF you have refused to accept what I have told you.

Allow me to summarise: you have formed an hypothesis without supporting evidence; you have maintained your view in the face of contradiction and you have been unpersuaded of the truth despite the lack of any evidence to support your position.

Where on earth did you develop habits like that?

I repeat. I am new to Wikipedia. I have never had another account on Wikipedia. I am prepared to submit a sworn statement under oath to that effect and submit the matter for determination to a competent and independent authority if that becomes necessary.

Now I will ask you again, since "it appears that the ongoing sanctions to which you refer relate only to 'any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision'. Would you please explain how you say I may be subject to further sanctions without notice?"

If you persist in repeating unsubstantiated and disparaging claims about me I will have to consider reporting the matter. I trust that will not prove necessary.

Wightknightuk (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify

Since I don't think you've quite understood the warning. The topic area of the Shakespeare Authorship question is subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions - remedy 1 in Wikipedia:ARBSAQ#Final_decision. Discretionary sanctions allow any administrator to first warn and then sanction an editor who is editing problematically in the specified area. Administrator Jehochman has warned you under discretionary sanctions not to "engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article." This would include posting to the various noticeboards in the way that you have done.

The position is now that should you make edits that advocate fringe theories relation to the topic, you could find yourself topic banned from the subject or blocked, without further warning. There is an appeal route against a sanction, but not against the warnings, which are customarily issued fairly freely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. Are either of you [Elen of the Roads] or [Jehochman] acting in the capacity of administrators in this matter? If so then it would be helpful if details of that status were included in any relevant "warning".

You state that "Discretionary sanctions allow any administrator to first warn and then sanction an editor". That suggests that both warning and sanction must be conducted by an editor. Any warnings should be specific as to their terms. Could you please indicate where an appropriate and specific warning has been made by an administrator?

I presume that the improper use of warnings/threats in circumstances such as this might also constitute a form of abuse. Perhaps you would clarify your understanding?

I appreciate that there is an unwillingness to accommodate alternative viewpoints generally in this article but the Stratfordian position would be far better served by being able to demonstrate a preparedness to engage.

Kindly note that cross-posting to different notice boards has occurred only in response to posts made by various administrators of the page in question. It would have been my preference for the discussion to have been kept to a single page.

Finally, I would like a response from [Jehochman] to my previous post.

Wightknightuk (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman is acting as an administrator, as he's given you an administrator warning. As for myself, although I am an administrator, I'm just explaining that what he has done is given you a warning under discretionary sanctions - as I don't believe you understood that. Now that he has done that, you could be sanctioned by him or another administrator not involved in editing the article (you'll be aware that I edited the talkpage to comment about the survey, so would be disqualified from issuing warnings or sanctions) should your editing be considered problematic.

There is no appeal against these warnings. Discretionary sanctions are designed to keep a tight lid on problematic areas. I suggest that you don't try advance the argument that the theory as defined in the article (ie that Shakespeare had no hand in the plays) is anything but fringe, unless you have far better evidence than that presented so far, as it looks like there is a high probability you will wind up being sanctioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Elen of the Roads] Thank you, you have explained the position in part but the (non)-identification of administrator status appears problematic. Moreover, the various parties with whom I have engaged since joining have themselves violated various codes and policies some of which has been pointed out to them.

Furthermore, [Jehochman] was clearly issuing warnings against me in the belief that I am not what I am. That is not so. I am what I am! Accordingly, any warnings issued by [Jehochman](who was himself guilty of WP:DNB and WP:AGF) must be regarded as improper.

However, a legalistic approach to this situation will not finally be helpful. We need to be more conciliatory. What I think would be helpful, and to the general benefit of WP, is to find an accommodation whereby the article is more consonant with the value of neutrality to which WP aspires. Hand on heart, I don't think any of the editors I have so far encountered could be said to have dealt with me in a proper and befitting way

Finally, however, you have suggested to me that "(I) don't try advance the argument that the theory as defined in the article (ie that Shakespeare had no hand in the plays) is anything but fringe". With respect, that has not been my position. I have addressed the position at length elsewhere. It has not been my case that the theory itself is "anything but fringe". However, there is a minority view (within the academic community) that accepts that the field of study merits academic enquiry. Respectfully, that is not the same thing at all as suggesting the theory itself is a minority theory.

I wonder, again in a spirit of conciliation, whether there might be merit in considering a different word. 'Fringe' is clearly heavily loaded and the feeling appears to be that 'minority' will give disproportionate credibility to the debate. Might I suggest there is merit in the consideration of the term 'Marginal'. It would on the one hand indicate a small minority and on the other point towards an argument that is at the very edge of acceptability. However, it is not 'fringe' in the same way as 'flying saucers' and 'faked moon landings' and other such nonsense might be said to be 'fringe'.

Context is all important, and to re-iterate, I would not propose that the term should be used in relation to any particular theory, but rather to the acceptance of the study of the theory. For example:

"There is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention". Alternatively, the inverse construction could equally be used, "Although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention, there is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field".

I should be obliged by your thoughts on this, after appropriate consideration. I would urge you to accept my contribution in good faith and to respond in kind.

Wightknightuk (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the warning is to alert you to the ArbCom decision so that you have a chance to comply. We don't like to block people out of the blue. You've been notified, so now you are expected to follow what was decided, and you will be swiftly blocked or banned if you do not. Please stop wikilawyering and conspiracy theorizing. These are pointless activities. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop abusing talk pages, as you did here [1] and similar edits immediately before. This is it. Next time you go near that page to engage in advocacy, wikilawyers, or any sort of disruptive activity, you will be banned from the topic. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Jehochman] Sorry, did I miss your apology to me for your various breaches of protocol?

Your reference was unclear as to which talkpage you were referring to. Also you were unclear how my comments constituted abuse whereas the other protagonists did not. Could you please clarify?

I am not 'wikilawyering' I am trying to progress towards neutrality by a process of discussion and conciliation. I am happy to do that here if you are concerned to keep the talk pages less confusing for third parties stumbling across them.

I have suggested two alternative forms of a proposed insertion which I feel to be a reasonable form of attempt at productive discussion: "There is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention". Alternatively, the inverse construction could equally be used, "Although the preponderance of mainstream thinking is that the subject does not merit more serious attention, there is marginal support within the academic community for further study in the field".

Would you please let me have your considered view on this? Alternatively, if no-one will even consider the discussion of any potential amendments of however minor a nature am I to conclude it is your view that "we've built this page, please go away and leave it alone".

I have come in good faith and should be grateful for a good faith response.

Wightknightuk (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account is blocked indefinitely. It only edits Shakerspear authorship question, and does so disruptively. There are ArbCom discretionary sanctions in effect. Consider this block as falling under those sanctions, but also under the general purpose rule that disruption-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. This is most likely a sock of somebody who has been banned already or perhaps it is somebody new behaving exactly the same way. In either case Wikipedia does not need tendentious editors filling article talk pages with endless arguments and repetition, as this account has been doing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jehochman. Would you please clarify the terms of the block and the mechanism for appeal against the decision?

If you would be so kind as to post the links to make complaint for sanctions against administrators I would appreciate it.

Wightknightuk (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wightknightuk. I'm stepping in here to reply to your questions as Jehochman is most likely asleep at this time. You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Your best first place of call for complaining about an administrator is probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Or you could go straight to Requests for comment/Admins, but that would involve more work, so it might be sensible to run it by ANI first to see if it has any chance of gaining traction. I'd be frankly surprised if it did, in any venue, since you have persistently flouted the discretionary sanctions for the SAQ article. But you don't have to take my word for it; try it by all means, if you're able to post on any of the pages indicated; that is to say, if you succeed in getting unblocked. If you don't (the most likely scenario), you can e~mail ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead. My best advice, for any of these, is to keep your complaint brief and on point. Many admins tend to ignore lengthy and elaborate posts to WP:ANI; they're just too busy. Arbitrators are even busier. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Your battleground approach is one of the reasons I chose an indef block instead of a topic ban. You have been pursuing every possible argument in every possible venue in your quest to spin Wikipedia. The block is meant to spare our good faith editors the stress and waste of time that you have been causing. You can appeal here as Bishonen already stated. Jehochman ^Talk 11:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Against Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wightknightuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to appeal against the block (Block) that has been made against me. In this appeal, the term Page or Article refers to the Shakespeare Authorship Question and the Talk Page refers to the related talk page unless the context requires otherwise. All quotations refer to postings on the Talk Page unless an alternative reference has been provided. I have used the term Controlling Group to refer to those editors who together have demonstrated de facto control of the editing of the Page.

To assist the review of my appeal I have summarised first of all the grounds for the appeal and I have thereafter provided evidence in support of my argument together with links to that supporting evidence.

I apologise that this appeal may seem excessively long and also ‘legalistic’. However, in my professional life I am a lawyer and it is difficult to disregard an engrained attitude that favours critical thinking and the logical presentation of an argument. I am also aware of the previous difficulties with this Page and I am therefore mindful of the need to address with substance the arguments in this case.

SUMMARY OF APPEAL

My appeal against Block is made on the following grounds.

1. I acted at all times in good faith and in keeping with the principles set out to encourage faithful editors, I followed the relevant ArbCom ruling and in particular I:

a. followed the good faith guidance and instructions made by other editors;
b. attempted civil discussion on the Talk Page;
c. attempted to suggest compromises and build a consensus;
d. only raised the issue on either boards in direct response to the posts of the Controlling Group;
e. contributed positively to the general discussion on edits that I had not proposed; and
f. proposed alternative methods of dispute resolution and repeatedly requested a change in the tone of the discussion.

2. Whereas in response to my good faith efforts, the Controlling Group:

a. personally insulted and attacked me;
b. from my first exchanges, did not assume good faith;
c. unjustly accused me of being a prior editor;
d. unjustly accused me of being a sock or topic banned editor;
e. unjustly accused me of operating an SPA (whereas I am simply a new editor);
f. unjustly accused me of wikilawyering;
g. told me to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution;
h. accused me in bad faith of WP:IDHT as a means of preventing me making an effective contribution; and
i. did not follow Wikipedia’s model for dealing with Disruptive Editing.

3. The Block was itself excessive and demonstrated bad faith.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I would suggest that the case here is clear cut. I am a new editor who has joined Wikipedia in good faith and attempted at all times to follow not just the policies but also the principles that underpin Wikipedia.

I can really do no better than to quote Jimbo Wales in his encouragement to: ‘Make an edit! Make several edits! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales).

There is a fundamental truth that underpins this encouragement for good faith participation, again I refer to Jimbo Wales : Wikipedia can always use more faithful editors. It is, of course, a permanent work-in-progress.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales)
The actions of the Controlling Group have been entirely contrary to Wikipedia’s policies and principles and are harmful to its very purpose. The action of the blocking administrator, in this regard acting in concert with and as part of the Controlling Group, was both arbitrary and capricious and constitutes an abuse of his authority.

I would submit that the case in support of my appeal against Block is overwhelming and that the Block should be reverted with all due promptness.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

1. MY CONDUCT

In assessing my appeal I should like you to consider that I:

a. requested and followed the good faith guidance and instructions made by other editors

As a newcomer I would be delighted to receive any advice on etiquette from more seasoned hands. Feel at liberty to point me in the right direction and I will do my best to oblige.
Wightknightuk (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

... Could you please read WP:SIG for further advice, and adjust your signature … Thank you for your courtesy in this matter - let me know if I can be of assistance with it.
Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
[Elen of the Roads] I am greatly obliged by your assistance in this matter .… I hope I have now corrected this and the signature following this post should now publish correctly. Perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm that this is the case? In any case, I am sincerely grateful for your courteous and helpful engagement in this matter.
Wightknightuk (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I can confirm that your signature now appears to be functioning in the usual fashion - thanks for tweaking it ...
Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wightknightuk)

I am somewhat cautious of simply editing or deleting posts on the main page. Could one or more of the established editors please advise here on how best to proceed?
Wightknightuk (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

b. attempted civil discussion on the Talk Page

For example :
I would submit that the more general statement I have proposed reflects more accurately the field of study without supporting any particular viewpoint over another. I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.
Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are (we) able to agree that is an appropriate framework to move this forward? If so, then we could look constructively at alternative forms of words.
wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect and courtesy, I welcome the views of all editors of this page.
wightknight 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

c. attempted to suggest compromises and build a consensus

I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.
Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Would editors agree that summary to be a neutral consensus of the current state of the SAQ ?
wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

… perhaps you could clarify which version you prefer:
1. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him”
2. "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare Canon”
3. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him”
Or is there a better form of words?
Wightknightuk (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

d. only raised the issue on either boards in direct response to the posts of the Controlling Group

The first post on my own Talk Page on the subject was -
RexxS (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wightknightuk

The first post on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was -
Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

My post on the Wikipedia : Mediation Board, was made -
Request date 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC); Requesting party : wightknight
Only in response to Paul Barlow’s earlier suggestion that I should -
take your complaints to any relevant board.
Paul B (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)”

e. contributed positively to the general discussion on edits that I had not proposed

A proposal was made by a third party to which I made a comment on the Talk Page of which the following is an extract : ..Would not "scholars and other celebrities" or "scholars and other notable individuals supportive of the Stratfordian position" be more accurate?..
Wightknightuk (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The text has now been changed on the Page to include my suggestion:
“contributions recorded by actors, scholars and other celebrities;[199]”

f. proposed alternative methods of dispute resolution and repeatedly requested a change in the tone of the discussion.

“Notwithstanding that I am a new participant to this article, might I respectfully suggest three possible solutions:
(1) An improvement in engagement to allow the Page to reflect more accurately the state of the SAQ, albeit with due prominence and indeed pre-eminence to the Stratfordian position and the fringe nature of certain oppositional voices.
(2) An acknowledgment in the Lead that the Page has been developed and maintained by Stratfordians and that the views of other interest groups have not substantially been taking into account in the publication of this article.
(3) The provision of an appropriate 'walled-garden' within the article, including a relevant caveat or health-warning, such that other interests might have the opportunity to be properly represented without undue influence. Whereas the majority of the page would represent only the Stratfordian perspective, the 'walled-garden' might be an acceptable form of equivocation that would reflect the current state of flux within the SAQ community.
My preference would be for option 1, which best reflects the traditions of Wikipedia and its stated policies and principles. However, I am mindful of the troubled history and cautious of what might be achievable.
With respect and courtesy, I welcome the views of all editors of this page.
wightknight 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)”

2. THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTROLLING GROUP

In the consideration of my appeal against Block I would comment in particular in relation to the behaviour of the Controlling Group, as follows:

a. personally insulted and attacked me

Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat ... I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again.
RexxS (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you this, Wightknightuk: the tactics of attrition, distraction, and frivolous dispute resolution actions kept this article in the ghetto for years until just a over a year ago. They won't work anymore, so you might as well bring on your best substantive ideas—if you have any—quickly and directly and stop all this fiddle-farting around.
Tom Reedy (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an exercise in pole-vaulting over a rat turd
Tom Reedy (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2012

You have my permission to move on to another non-issue.
Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely you are intelligent enough to understand my comment.
Paul B (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How about learning how to indent your response beneath the appropriate post? As super intelligent as you are, it seems that you would have figured that out by now.
Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

you still don't get it, despite your apparently towering intellect ...
Paul B (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

b. from my first exchanges, did not assume good faith

If you engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article, you may be subject to a sanction without further warnings. Have a nice day,
Jehochman Talk 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush. You're operating a single purpose account. This very much looks like a banned or sanctioned editor returning with a new account. You're behaving and editing just like the others. Either you stop behaving and editing like them, or you will be banned very shortly.
Jehochman Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

c. unjustly accused me of being a prior editor

(of course we have every reason to suspect you may be an old editor reappearing under a new moniker)...
Paul B (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This very much looks like a banned or sanctioned editor returning with a new account … Either you stop behaving and editing like them, or you will be banned very shortly.
Jehochman Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What other accounts have you used? You are clearly not a newcomer.
Jehochman Talk 19:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Jehochman] You say "You are clearly not a newcomer". You make bold assertions without proper foundation. I have informed you that I am new to Wikipedia but in repeated violation of WP:DNB and WP:AGF you have refused to accept what I have told you … I repeat. I am new to Wikipedia. I have never had another account on Wikipedia. I am prepared to submit a sworn statement under oath to that effect and submit the matter for determination to a competent and independent authority if that becomes necessary.
Wightknightuk (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

d. unjustly accused me of being a sock or topic banned editor

Wightknightuk (talk • contribs). Possibly a sock, possibly not, but either way determinedly a proponent of the time-honoured principles of IDIDNTHEARTHAT .… could use some administrative eyes just in case he keeps refusing to get the message.
Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Shakespeare_Authorship_Question_round_the_billionth)

e. unjustly accused me of operating an SPA (whereas I am simply a new editor)

Shakespeare Authorship Question has picked another suspiciously skilled and knowledgeable SPA today,
Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Shakespeare_Authorship_Question_round_the_billionth)

Let's not beat around the bush. You're operating a single purpose account.
Jehochman Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only express bewilderment at being labelled a Special Purpose Account, when I am a brand new editor whose very first edits are under discussion. I was banned indefinitely barely three days after joining Wikipedia and before I even had the opportunity to consider making other contributions.

f. unjustly accused me of wikilawyering

Please stop wikilawyering and conspiracy theorizing. These are pointless activities.
Jehochman Talk 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

g. told me to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution

You are of course at liberty to take your complaints to any relevant board.
Paul B (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

h. accused me in bad faith of WP:IDHT as a means of preventing me making an effective contribution

In fact the opposition to my proposals was substantially from two editors (Paul B and Tom Reedy), which hardly demonstrates a consensus. At the time of my Block, the majority view on the Talk Page was that the existing wording of the article would benefit from amendment.

You say that "the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear". However, I have so far only seen responses from two such regular editors, one of whom acknowledged there was an issue to address. I am not familiar with [Pater Farey] but his comment was not antagonistic to my proposal.
I think it takes more than two editors to establish a consensus. Does anyone else have a perspective on this?
Wightknightuk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of good points made here by Wightknightuk over the last several days. Am I allowed to say that, or would this be considered talk page abuse?
DeVereGuy (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were looking for a consensus? Although I appreciate Tom Reedy's point about "regular editors" seems to suggest that in this crowd of equals some are more equal than others. I presume it is understood that on WP everyone speaks with an equal voice?
In any case, clearly this is not about 'votes' but rather achieving a consensus, an appreciably more challenging exercise!
I genuinely feel there is an unintentional error that would benefit from correction. Paul B seems to have acknowledged at least that there might be an issue. I have made two suggestions. Does anyone have another alternative?
Wightknightuk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wightknightuk, I think almost any change over the existing wording would be better. My immediate preference would probably be some combination of your 2 and 3, perhaps "...traditionally ascribed to the Shakespeare Canon" or something like this. My real problem is that the reception you have received on this talk page and elsewhere, so poisons the atmosphere that it is hard to have any reasonable conversation. I didn't want to get into every one of your excellent points at this time, I just wanted to add my support and hopefully keep the process going, and I was directly told that I was unhelpful by Paul B. The attitude here is really what doesn't help us much and I don't see how anything useful can happen while it continues.
DeVereGuy (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would support changing of the wording in the lede to:
"about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally ascribed to the Shakespeare Canon." This would have an appropriate link to the Shakespeare Canon page/article in WP.
warshytalk 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WITHIN TWO HOURS OF OTHER EDITORS VOICING SUPPORT FOR MY SUGGESTIONS, MY ACCOUNT WAS BLOCKED INDEFINITELY.

This account is blocked indefinitely …
Jehochman Talk 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

i. did not follow the model for dealing with Disruptive Editing.

Respectfully, if the editors genuinely felt that I was engaging in Disruptive Editing and they had been acting properly and in good faith, they would have followed the guidelines set out at:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors)

In particular, the Controlling Group did not comply with any of the following recommendations:

1. In some extreme circumstances a rapid report to WP:ANI may be the best first step; in others, a fast track to a community ban may be in order.
2. But in general, most situations can benefit from a gradual escalation, with hope that each step may help resolve the problem, such that further steps are not needed:
3. First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor.
4. Assume good faith.
5. Stay very civil.
6. Do not bite the newcomers
7. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage.
8. To be most successful at ANI, your own history must be clean.
9. At all times, stay civil, and avoid engaging in multiple reverts yourself.
10. Review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
11. Continue attempts to engage new editor in dialogue.
12. If more editors are involved, try a Request for comment.
13. Suggest Mediation.
14. If mediation is rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue:
15. Notify the editor you find disruptive, on their user talkpage.
16. Avoid being unnecessarily provocative.
17. Remember, you're still trying to de-escalate the situation.
18. File a case for the Arbitration Committee to review.
19. Base it strictly on user conduct, and not on article content.

3. Sanctions

Whilst within the discretion of an Administrator to impose an indefinitie ban, Jehochman had no grounds for assuming that I was a sock or a banned editor. He should properly have considered : a temporary block or a topic ban before imposing an indefinite ban. The fact that he did not do so demonstrates that the ban was made in bad faith.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wow, now that's a wall of text if ever I saw one. I've read it, but I think it is all essentially missing the key point. That key point is that there is an Arbitration Enforcement resolution in place on the subject of the authorship of the works attributed to Shakespeare - and that is not open to debate here.

Your editing has clearly been in defiance of that resolution - repeatedly and apparently deliberately. If you disagree with the resolution, then there are ways to contest it - but you must not unilaterally choose to ignore it based on your own opinions and your own analysis, and edit how you personally see fit.

A number of people have explained this to you - editors, admins, arbcom members - yet you have ignored every one of them and have continued to edit as if you are right and can unilaterally override the decisions made by the Wikipedia community.

Should you address your own behavioural problems here, and convince a reviewing admin that you will cease and desist in your approach such that you can be unblocked, you can then try to address the ArbCom resolution that you appear to think you should not be bound by.

But nothing you have said convinces me so. In fact, just about everything you have said convinces me of the opposite - that you will continue with your battlefield approach and have no intention of abiding by ArbCom resolutions or community decisions if you believe that you personally know better.

So at this time, I'm afraid there is no way I can unblock you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can guarantee you that the above block request will not be actionned favourably - did you even read the guide to appealing blocks? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing this unblock request - making a note here, as it will take a little while to summarize my thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want a perfect example of how to spin a blunt comment into "[he] personally insulted and attacked me" compare:

(Wightknightuk's spin:) Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat ... I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again.

with what I wrote:

(In reply to Wightknightuk's criticism of published sources:) Nobody gives a dingo's kidney about your criticisms. They are worth nothing here, nada, zilch, diddlysquat. The same applies to my criticisms of published authors. I assume you haven't read WP:No original research. Go and do that, and when you've understood it, then we can talk again.

Civil POV-pushers are a pain, but spinners are the worst kind. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed the misrepresentation of your comment - the misrepresentation of the situation in general was pretty blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]