Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/10 May 2012/Shakespeare authorship

Where is the dispute?
You can find the dispute here and on the associated talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship The issues that have prompted the request are outlined under discussion threads: ~ New York Times survey ~ Shakespeare Authorship Question : Defining the question ~ Fringe vs Minority ~ Engagement vs Acknowledgment

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * Paul B
 * Elen of the Roads
 * Moreschi
 * Johnuniq
 * Bishonen

What is the dispute?
There is a tortuous background to this article which has been the subject of unpleasant debate and a previous arbitration. Sadly, the current editors appear to have learnt little from that debate and are engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and principles.

There is a refusal to allow any contribution which presents a viewpoint that is inconsistent with the position of the editors and the manner of editing is such as to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia in its objectives to serve the wider public by civilised collaboration. (Mark Anderson's article, highlighted on the Talk Page, refers ~ Anderson, Mark (August 2011). "Wikipedia's Shakespeare Problem". IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 16 October 2011. "Yet, despite widely publicized worries that the self-edited and self-policed encyclopedia might subvert authority, the opposite concern has also emerged. Does Wikipedia, in other words, provide a viewpoint that's overly mainstream, giving short shrift to controversial, minority, or heretical ideas?" (article))

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
I have tried to engage through constructive debate and negotiation on the Talk Page but I have been met with discourtesy and dismissal. After only a limited number of exchanges I was instructed to : "take your complaints to any relevant board (Paul B)" which is unhelpful and inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated policies and principles.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
I have suggested several potential alternative solutions (listed on the Talk Page) all of which have been rebuffed. I repeat my suggestions for ease of reference: "(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."

In summary, there needs to be a mechanism for explaining the authorship question in terms other than those determined by the currently controlling group.

It is to be observed that whilst Shakespeare studies generally should be regarded as the preserve of the mainstream, it is the view of the current editors of the Page that "This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians" - (Paul B : 10 May 2012)". In essence, this page is about the debate going on between the Stratfordians and the non-Stratfordians and the only position being presented is that of the Stratfordians. That runs entirely contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental ethos.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Providing a platform for structured mediation and the consideration of the ideas outlined above for the purpose of allowing a balanced representation on Wikipedia of the issues at hand, with a preparedness to impose sanctions on those editors who participate in the process but who do not demonstrate a preparedness to 'collaborate together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect'.

Discussion

 * To save mediators time I will mention that there is no justification for a case here. The issues raised have been explained in detail at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question—all that is needed is for the explanations to be read. This is a well known WP:FRINGE issue that is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, see WP:ARBSAQ. I am posting this so others don't have to find the links, but do not intend to comment further. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)