Alexpope

Authorship Edits

Please keep them coming - NO ONE can order ANYONE off ANY page. This is a common tactic among the Stratfordian camp - they have a history of bullying people off the page. Don't succumb to it!Smatprt (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Welcome back. Since you are new (I think) to wikipedia, you will probably want to look at some of the general policies. For example, WP:lead has important info about what Wikipedia policy is on lead sections. Also - any help you can give providing page numbers to some of the earlier Ogburn stuff you added would be most helpful! Thanks again - Smatprt (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Good friend. I think I did some good by playing "bad cop - good cop" with our hostile colleague. When he attacks my punctuation rather than my ideas, he sounds pretty desperate. Apparently some other knowledgeable friends have had some influence, too. The improved version is vastly better than the first one, although I see we have another apoplectic Stratfordian trying to intimidate us. There's great value in sticking together. You are doing a really marvelous job. I'll help when I can. I'll check up on WP: lead. Thanks. (talk) Did I do that right?

Thanks for sticking with it. Can you do me a favor and add page numbers to the various Ogburn and Looney references? It would help the article and address one of the long-standing problems. Otherwise, someone might just start deleting them out of hand. It would be a great help, so if you can assist.... Thanks! Smatprt (talk)

Encyclopedia Britannica

I posted this to the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging

Alexpope, could you be so kind as to quote some samples from the Britannica article, which I do not have readily available, which illustrate the moderate NPOV which you are suggesting should be a model for the article? Thanks.----BenJonson (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Given that I see you resuming contentious agenda editing on the Shakespeare authorship page, I am formally adding your name as a party to the impending Arbcom case (see WP:RFAR). As an uninvolved administrator who is going to be watching the field for signs of disruptive editing, I am also warning you to avoid edits that will be perceived as tendentious, uncooperative or as edit-warring. Any edits which, to the eyes of a reasonable outside observer, must give the impression of being motivated by anything but a sincere attempt to find a commonly acceptable neutral representation of the academic state of the art may be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are an administrator, then you must be aware of the Wikipedia standard of fairness and objectivity. I have simply corrected some misstatements by Stratfordians about what anti-Stratfordians believe. The blatant attempts to discredit those who sincerely love Shakespeare but disagree with the traditional orthodoxy is certainly contrary to Wikipedia standards of objectivity and credibility. Why are the posters to the authorship site resorting to ad-hominem attacks? What has happened to civility in these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpope (talk • contribs)

What you describe as "correcting" of "blatant attempts to discredit" the anti-Stratfordian side, most other editors will perceive as an attempt at falsely presenting the anti-Stratfordian and the mainstream view as being on a par, which is not what we ought to be doing in our coverage of WP:FRINGE topics. For instance, where you changed the sentence "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief" to "Many Stratfordian historians consider it a fringe belief" [1], you appear to want to hide the (well-established) fact that those who do so are in fact solidly the mainstream, not just among a specific "Stratfordian" camp, but across the whole relevant academic field. This is what makes your edits appear tendentious. Since you are also perfectly aware that this tendency of yours is not supported by editorial consensus, your edits are disruptive.

Note that I am still speaking here as an uninvolved and neutral administrator – which doesn't mean I must or should remain agnostic as to the quality of your editing. This is my best effort at assessing, fairly and objectively, whether you have been making an honest attempt at working constructively towards a generally acceptable coverage of the topic in line with our policies. Unfortunately I am coming to the conclusion that you have not. (As for alleged ad-hominems and civility, those complaints have nothing to do with what I was telling you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

AP. I think that piece on the Workship page should properly be placed on (shifted to) the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence page, though I'm distracted by watching Nadal and Tomic and write this in haste.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong placement

Greetings. Nishidani is correct that you placed your statement on the wrong page. It should be placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Evidence and removed from the workshop page. Smatprt (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi Alexpope,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [2]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)