Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For arbitration to succeed, all parties must accept the fairness of the process and decision. At this point I would have to say that the process is on a path to failure.

I make the following observations:

• Proposed remedy 2.
  • "User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks"
    • Just how many times has Adam Carr been "admonished" to do precisely this? His talk page is littered with complaints and warnings. (Perhaps I should pull out a list of examples here.) Threats, insults and bullying behaviour should not be encouraged or condoned. The way to handle a bully is to stand firm with the support of authority figures.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.
  • "User:Skyring has been engaged in a content dispute regarding Government of Australia and related articles"
    • Yes, but I can hardly have a dispute all by myself. Take a look at the material. Every time someone actually starts talking about specific wording, Adam comes in with a fresh load of abuse and the process moves away from any progress.
  • "see Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia for a restatement of the issues under dispute by User:Adam Carr, (The result of the vote is at Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote)."
    • Adam's "vote" did not include an option for my position (which was that no change to Wikipedia policy was required), was heavily modified during voting by those voting (including being archived mid way through the process) and did not attract the minimum number of participants within the voting period (both specified by Adam). I restate my point about fairness of process and decision.
  • "The dispute is complex but essentially revolves about characterization of Australia as a republic."
    • The material on Australia being a republic is peripheral. I lost that one months ago, though I note that even leading republicans state that Australia has a republican form of government. The debate revolves around the head of state.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.3
  • "The debate to some extent turns on whether the Governor-General is head of state or the Queen, it being maintained that if the Queen is head of state then Australia is a constitutional monarchy by definition."
    • This is backwards. Nobody is disputing that Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Nobody says that the Queen isn't Queen of Australia.
    • The debate centres around whether the Queen can be described as the head of state when she doesn't represent Australia and her role in Australian affairs is minimal and continuing to decline. Even the Prime Minister, who loves the Queen dearly, still describes the Governor-General as the effective head of state.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.5
  • "Skyring's position is that regardless of the formal statements in the documents which relate to the structure of the government of Australia, its structure and form of government is, in fact, that of a republic."
    • That's not my position. My position on this minor point is that the Queen is the only non-republican aspect of Australian affairs. She exercises no power and has no role in Australian government. The Constitution, subsequent legislation, and High Court findings make it clear that nowadays Australian government is entirely within the hands of Australians, Australia is a fully independent and sovereign nation and that the United Kingdom is a foreign country.
    • My position is that there is a diversity of views as to who is the head of state.
      • The Prime Minister says that the Governor-General is the head of state
      • The Governor-General says that the Queen is the head of state
      • Constitutional experts say that both are correct in different ways
      • The Government itself alternates in its view
    • I think it is pretty clear that the situation is not cut and dried.
• Proposed remedy 1
  • "User:Skyring is banned for one year from editing any article (or talk page) which relates to the government of Australia."
    • Just how does gagging me change the reality? This won't stop the Prime Minister from saying that the Governor-General is the head of state. This won't stop the Opposition Leader from calling the Governor-General the head of state. Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.

I say that Wikipedia should describe the facts, not present a partisan position. Suppressing discussion on article content and condoning bullying behaviour merely sends a message that the process is flawed. Pete 21:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a book, or you could buy advertising on a major network? Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy. Fred Bauder 23:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just said that. The Prime Minister's statements are on major networks. He's the head of government, he's won four elections in a row (defeating Adam's political party), he keeps on increasing his majority, he's actually a person of some influence and authority in Australia, and he says the Governor-General is the head of state. Don't you think the views of the head of the Australian Government belong in an article about Australian government? Be reasonable, please! Pete 23:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Comments 2 Adam Carr's comments 3 New round 4 Ruling

[edit] Comments

While I think the remedy for Skyring looks about right, I'm concerned about whether an admonishment for Adam Carr will suffice. Adam Carr has been banned for 24 hours for personal attacks in a previous ArbComm case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche), and has, in relation to the Skyring dispute, expressed his view that personal attacks are justifiable and necessary when dealing with trolls. For example, when asked to avoid personal attacks on Skyring, Adam Carr states, "I am always courteous to legitimate editors, even when I have disagreements. But I deal with vandals and trolls as they need to be dealt with. It is only because some editors are willing to stand up to people like Skyring that Wikipedia is not an even bigger mess than it already is." [1]. However, the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page says, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." and "Personal attacks against any user - regardless of their past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit."

I don't believe Adam Carr deserves sanctions because of his actions, but might the ArbComm consider a remedy along the lines of requiring Adam Carr to actively commit to refrain from uncivil language and personal attacks, even with those he believes to be trolls? — Matt Crypto 23:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of Adam Carr's behavior but being on the carpet for "forcing" one "good" editor from Wikipedia (Jguk (talk • contribs), am a bit gun shy. Fred Bauder 18:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr seems to be a pretty sane and rational editor — I don't really see him as the type to indulge in melodramatic exits should the ArbComm insist he refrain from attacks on other editors (problematic editors though they might be). — Matt Crypto 15:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't dealt with him quite as much as I have. Adam Carr has the status of one of - if not close to the best - article writers on Wikipedia, and in the end, we're here to write an encyclopedia above all else. He's written many excellent articles from scratch, and is capable of salvaging truly bad articles and turning them into masterpieces like just about no one else. Having dealt with Adam extensively - we generally edit in the same areas - I have little doubt that if he were to be banned again, he would find another avenue for his contributions, which would be a complete and utter disaster for Wikipedia.

I certainly accept that there may well be the day that we do have to deal with Adam harshly, as if these incidents keep happening, he may well cross the line where any issues outweigh his contributions. That day is not today. I'm angry enough about the Jguk decision - and that was far beyond anything Adam's done here. Ambi 28 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Thanks, Ambi! I'm very glad you spelt it out. You have now repeatedly defended him for abusive behaviour. I quote from an email you sent to me on the 23rd of December 2004, in response to this same head of state question, when I complained of Adam's abusive behaviour:

"By the way, Adam is like that with everyone. It's his schtick. I think I've seen him be polite towards someone about once. ;)"

I didn't think that was good enough then, I don't think it is good enough now, and I don't think it is good enough six months in the future. Pete 30 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Ambi -- sure, I don't dispute that Adam is an excellent, valuable editor. However, it wouldn't hurt for him to commit to avoiding personal attacks on others, particularly as it's, erm, Wikipedia policy. I'm certainly not suggesting a ban or any such, but I strongly believe that even "star editors" like Adam shouldn't be completely above the rules. It's not a good thing if we start looking the other way when particularly valuable editors start infringing policies as important as "No personal attacks", and it strengthens the moral case of users like Skyring that they're being treated unfairly (although I believe Skyring certainly deserves sanction). — Matt Crypto 30 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Carr's comments

I have only just had this exchange drawn to my attention. Since I am a party to this dispute, might it not have been a good idea to tell me that a proposed decision had been promulgated?

Let me make some comments on the proposed decision.

• I have never engaged in personal attacks on any editor. Since I don't know any other editor personally, and know nothing about them other than what they write here, I don't see how I could make a personal attack on them even if I was minded to. My comments have always been directed at what they have written, at their conduct here, and at the political views they have espoused. I have certainly used strong language from time to time, but we are all adults here and I have got as good as I have given.
• What I have done is engaged in recent edit wars with three editors: Herschelkrustofsky, Skyring and Ruy Lopez.
  • In the first case I was (initially) almost single-handedly opposing a campaign by the LaRouche cult to take over parts of Wikipedia and spead their bizarre conspiracy theories and anti-Semite filth here. I make no apology for the tactics I used, which were vindicated by the subsequent ArbCom decision forcing Herschelkrustofsky out of Wikipedia. I am actually quite proud of this effort.
  • In the second case I and a number of other editors were defending the Australian history and government articles against Skyring, a persistent troll who insisted on imposing his personal crank theories on these articles in the face of unanimous opposition from all other editors and after exhaustive debate. I certainly found Skyring's obtuseness and deliberate obfuscation very annoying, and I probably used stronger language than I should have done, but my experience over nearly two years at Wikipedia has been that only aggressive resistance deters cranks and trolls. On the whole I think that this was a worthwhile campaign. (I think by the way that a year's suspension for Skyring is an excessive penalty, since he appears to have abandoned his trolling in recent months.)
  • In the third case I am engaged in defending the Khmer Rouge article against Ruy Lopez, who has persistently sought to intrude pro-communist POV into this and other articles under numerous identities (as I believe has been established in previous ArbCom cases). Having several close Cambodian friends and having recently been to Cambodia I find Lopez's shameless lies and apologetics on behalf of the Khmer Rouge mass murderers particularly disgusting, and I will go on telling him so for as long as it takes to get him to desist.

• I am "admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks." I think my overall record at Wikipedia will show that I am in general courteous to genuine editors. I have spent a lot of time and effort helping many editors with their articles, as my archived Talk pages will show. I enjoy robust political debate and I both give and expect frank commentary and criticism, but that is not the same as personal attacks.

• I am happy to give an undertaking to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks. But I maintain my view that defending an open-access encyclopaedia against the swarms of trolls, vandals, cranks, cultists and ideologues who want to contaminate it with their rubbish requires constant vigilance and vigorous counter-attack. I have in the past made a proposal for structural changes to Wikipedia that would reduce its exposure to people of this kind and make this kind of resistance less time-consuming. Since these proposals have not found support, I must operate within the present structure.

• I think Wikipedia is a noble project and worth defending against these hostile forces. If I am sanctioned for doing so, I will not withdraw from editing, but obviously I will be less inclined in future to make an effort to defend articles against trolls and cranks, and so will others. Wikipedia should be supporting genuine editors who try to maintain standards and defeat wreckers, not sanctioning them. If Wikipedia is not willing to defend itself it will not succeed, and will not deserve to. Adam 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

  Adam -- first, I think it's a good thing that Wikipedia editors provide a robust defence of articles against trolls and cranks, and I admire those who do. However, I also believe that it's possible to deal with such users without resorting to rudeness and personal attacks. Moreover, you seem to have a different view of what constitutes a "personal attack" from myself. You say above, "I have never engaged in personal attacks on any editor." But, for example, I would argue that a statement to Skyring such as "your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness" is nothing but a string of personal insults. (Whether your comments are true or not is, to a large extent, not the point). I honestly think that ultimately the best defence against persistant problem editors is action (reverts, RFCs, ArbCom etc), not insults. Your contention would seem to be that incivility and rudeness is sometimes a necessary tool of the vigilent Wikipedia editor. I don't agree with this, and I believe the Wikipedia community disagrees as well: Civility and No personal attacks. — Matt Crypto 09:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New round

I realized that there sees to be an older case, and a newer round of its remedies has been opened about a week ago. I would like to see that the recent behavior of editor Jtdirl be checked at the same time. I have seen some of the recent "quarrels" between Jtdirl and Skyring, in talk pages of articles and naming conventions I have been working at. It seems to me that Jtdirl has all the time made rapid actions to provoke the quarrel further. I belioeved that an editor whose ban is over, is regarded as having fulfilled the punishment, but after seeing those actions, I am not sure about that. As it has seemed to me that Jtdirl founded all his adverse actions on the (already ended) banning, and not on objective criteria. Some may even opinionate that there is an element of provocatoon made by Jtdirl to the present difficulties. Arrigo 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jim (Duffy) seems to be always having edit wars with about a dozen people at once, usually over fairly trivial matters. I checked one of the IP addresses he thought was me and it came out to be Sweden. But that's by the by.

I commented earlier today on Jim and me and you may read my comments here.

Anyway, it looks like just about everyone hates me, from Jimbo on down, so I've seized the opportunity to make a few more edits. I'm particularly pleased with the photograph I uploaded here. Pete 07:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruling

Although I think Skyrings behaviour has been anti-wiki and unnecessarily disruptive at times, I'm not sure a year ban for the harassment it is the best solution. I think a shorter ban, and the application of "harrassment patrol" much like a personal attack patrol where he could be blocked for deliberate provocation of other editors (most specifically Jtdril) may be a more fair solution. His edits since the block from Jimbo seem to be constructive.--nixie 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)