Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

<day1> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

Evidence presented by Petaholmes

5 February

• 01:12, 5 Feb 2005 [2]
  • Skyring makes edits to Governor-General of Australia that reflect his POV. They are reverted by User:Adam Carr. Edit waring on page between Skyring and User:Dlatimer over the inclusion and interpretation of passages of the constitution continues until the page is protected on Feburary 14. After protection is was dePOVed again following edits by Skyring by User:Lacrimosus on March 9.

27 February

• 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC), [3] [4]
  • Skyring tries to introduce the idea that Australia is a republic to the Government of Australia article. This is by no means a conventional opinion, Adam and User:Skyring engage in revert war on the 27th. Adam appears to win after 4 reverts, there is a discussion on the talk page about Skyring trying to introduce original research.

28 February

• 04:39, 28 Feb 2005 [5]
  • Skyring makes changes to the artilce that had he had discussed in December that were shot down at the time as a minority view. He asserts that opinion is divided on who is the Australian Head of State (HoS). Edits are reverted by User:Ta bu shi da yu

• 23:28, 2 Mar 2005 [6]
  • Adam Carr rewrites a section of the article to accomodate constititutional debate about the Australian HoS.

• 00:44, 3 Mar 2005
  • Skyring and Adam revert war over the sentence, question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention, Skyring changes convention to contention 3 times.

• 13:55, 4 Mar 2005
  • Page is protected by User:Jnc, protection is removed on March 9.

11 March

• 05:11, 11 Mar 2005 [7]
  • Skyring adds the word proposals to the following sentence Some opponents of the referendum proposals argued that the goal of, he and User:Michael Snow engage in successive reverts. He claims that his change is supported by concensus on the talk page, it does not appear to be. Adam removes the section entirely.

March 29

• 23:41, 29 Mar 2005 [8]
  • Skyring asserts that the Australia has a republican government (original research) on Republic. Edits reverted by User:SimonP. Following 3 reverts the text is removed.

May 17

• 22:26, 17 May 2005 [9]
  • Skyring changes HoS to monarch, and makes significant changes to the text. He and User: El C engage in revert war. Adam later reverts to a version prior to the changes

• 00:55, 18 May 2005 [10]
  • User:Jtdirl makes an edit to artile based on fact. Skyring removes the new text and changed HoS to monarch again. More reverts ensue.

May 24

• 04:53, 24 May 2005 [11]
  • Skyring changes Queen of Austrlaia to British monarch, a poition that is incorrect. More circular discussion on the talk page, more reverts to the article, page is protected, and unprotected on the 29th.

A general comment for the ArbCom, I think it would be a good idea to go through the talk archives of government of Australia (not necessarily in any detail) to see how frustrating it is for other edits to deal with Skyrings edits against concensus.--nixie 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would echo the request to peruse Talk:Government of Australia and some the archived discussions there, particularly Archive 6. A number of experienced Wikipedia editors others than the ones listed (including myself) have familiarised ourself extensively with this issue. Skyring may be providing citations, but he is interpreting his sources in a way that no other editor supports, and seems to be more interested in argument than actually resolving the issue. --Robert Merkel 13:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General

A look through the talk archives of Government of Australia demonstrates that cites are provided for all of my article edits. The charge of original research is unfounded.

This is really a case of "Wikipedia-rage". User:Adam Carr gives the impression in discussion that he can abuse other editors freely, he doesn't have to provide sources, and that he can whistle up a gang to help enforce his threats and bullying. I recently showed a link to the Commonwealth's own official hardcopy government directory which described the Governor-General as the Head of State without any qualification. Adam gave a response demonstrating that he considers himself the ultimate authority. This view is unacceptable in a Wikipedia editor, as is the idea that truth can be determined by calling up shills and holding a vote.

The crux of the dispute is Adam's populist view that the Queen is Australia's sole head of state. As there are three distinct views on this amongst Australian constitutional scholars, with the Prime Minister and Professor George Winterton prominent amongst those holding the middle view that Australia has two heads of state, I note that any edit stating that the Queen is the sole head of state is POV.

23 December 2004

• 00:26, 23 Dec 2004 [12]
  • Adam sums up his proposed debating stance: abuse and mindless reverts. He intends to defend the view that QE2 is the sole Australian head of state to the death, regardless of contrary expert opinion.

27 February

• 16:47, 27 Feb 2005, [13]
  • After notification, I add the fact that Australia is a republic, using the then current definition supplied in the Republic article, as well as several respected dictionary definitions. See the discussion. Malcom Turnbull states in the 1993 Report of the Republic Advisory Committee: "Australia is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people. The hereditary office of the monarchy is the only element of the Australian system of government which is not consistent with a republican form of government." (Vol 1, p1) After some discussion, I accepted the consensus view, though I feel that the article should note that Australia has a republican form of government, as the Queen's role in modern Australian government has all but vanished.

3 March

• 17:57, 3 Mar 2005 [14]
  • Adam demands I answer some questions of his. I do so, honestly and completely, but note that our personal opinions do not matter. In the next edit he fails to respond to the flaws I've pointed out and falls back on abuse.

8 March

• 11:50, 8 Mar 2005 [15]
  • Adam concedes that the Parliamentary Library is providing arguments for both sides of the debate. His expressed view is that the identity of the head of state is a matter of convention, but I point out that if there are two sides to the question, then clearly it is a contested view. A "matter of contention", as I point out in the article, before again being outvoted.

9 March

• 16:54, 9 Mar 2005 [16]
  • After some discussion in which Adam misquotes the Constitution and I point out his error, I note that I am upset by his departure from academic practice and unprofessional attitude. His response: "Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it." I think at this point it is clear that Adam has departed from the accepted course of scholarly discussion.

• 17:48, 9 Mar 2005 [17]
  • Adam makes it explicit that he considers truth a matter of democracy rather than verifiablility.

11 March

• 11:14, 11 Mar 2005 [18]
  • In a rare moment, Adam agrees that my edit is correct, that Sir David Smith supported the referendum but not the proposals, but he adds in some more abuse. Embarrassed at having to concede that I am right, he later deletes the section entirely.

• 15:09, 11 Mar 2005 [19]
  • Adam refuses to provide any sources for his edits, imagining that my repeatedly asking for cites is some sort of a "game" and he states that he refuses to play any more.

• 16:14, 11 Mar 2005 [20]
  • In response to my stating that it is not in me to let an error go unchallenged, Adam says "What is in you, and indeed what you are full of, is quite evident to all of us.". Ho does not, however, provide a cite for his edits.

• 19:45, 11 Mar 2005 [21]
  • Adam injects some foul abuse into an otherwise civil discussion on wording. He uses the words "troll" and "masturbate" for the first time. As an editor of some experience he would be well aware of the example he is setting.

15 Mar

• 08:56, 15 Mar 2005 [22]
  • Adam explicitly claims himself as a valid source, able to to "explain" and "interpret" the statements of others. This seems to go against Wikipedia policy.

• 15:33, 15 Mar 2005 [23]
  • Adam finally provides a source for his "explaining" and "interpreting" of the thoughts of the drafters of the Constitution. His verifiable source, whilst satisfying in itself, is of little relevance, though the humour is appreciated.

16 Mar

• 00:07, 16 Mar 2005 [24]
  • Refreshed by Adam's good humour, I summarise the position and ask that he find it in himself to work for accuracy.

• 16:04, 16 Mar 2005 [25]
  • Adam doesn't consider his comments to be personal abuse and states that he "could show you personal abuse". I have seen some of this personal abuse to which he refers in the form of anonymous edits to his user page, and whilst Adam has my every sympathy in this respect, it still does not excuse his departure from the professional standards he claims to hold and his encouragement of other editors to do likewise.

Such unmitigated wank I never did see. Adam 10:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Jtdirl

General

I concur completely with Petaholmes's submission. My observation regarding Skyring's contributions is that they have been based on wholescale misrepresentations of facts. The above evidence given by him shows a clear evidence of that. Turnball did not say that Australia is a republic, nor does his words suggest that, as any even slight acquaintence with his writings shows. What he actually means, and what he is universally interpreted to mean, is that Australia, given that Australia is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people, should not have an hereditary monarchy, as that is inconsistent with its status of popular sovereignty. Its status should be that of a republic, and abolishing the monarchy would make it a republic. He never said, and is never anywhere interpreted to say, that Australia is currently a republic. Skyring misrepresented what he said and based clearly factually wrong edits on that misrepresentation.

While one misrepresentation could be categorised as indicative of confusion on the part of the contributor. constant continual misrepresentation of source after source after source has been the hallmark of Skyring's contributions. It is hard after reading the scale of the misrepresentations (some of them jawdropping in their audacity - as anyone with even the slighest elementary knowledge of laws, political science and constitutions knows, one simply cannot be a republic if one is a constitutional monarchy, for example. It is like saying one is a cat and a dog - to conclude that the mispresentations were just a cynical game to deface an encylopaedia article with patent nonsense just to annoy other users. Users invariably started by pointing out the errors in his writings, presuming it was a genuine mistake. However after a couple of attempts, everyone, one by one, came to conclude that the edits weren't genuine but were just a cynical game of vandalism to see if he could get away with it.

Evidence

(The evidence will be added in tomorrow. I am out of time tonight.)