Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Skyring

What will be counted as valid responses?

The claim is that an editor has used certain processes to achieve certain ends in relation to the editing of an article. The point of an exercise like this ought to be to ascertain whether the claims relating to process are correct, not to engage with a continuation of the arguments about the content within a specific article. The place for arguments about the content of articles are on the relevant talk page. Eyedubya (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A Response to View by Prester John

Prester John:As an observer of the John Howard situation and as someone partially involved in the David Hicks article I contend that the evidence surmised above is not only erroneous and misrepresentative, but a bad faith nomination designed to intimidate and force through a false consensus. Skyring continually uses the talk page and has other editors such as myself and User:Shot info that engage in talk discussion. To try and frame this episode as Skyring acting out alone is a blatant falsehood.

Response: The phrase Skyring continually uses the talk page and has other editors such as myself and User:Shot info that engage in talk discussion. [emphasis added] clearly implies that the editor in question in some way controls, directs or collaborates with a small group of other editors to achieve his ends.

Prester John:Lets take point #1 from theJohn Howard accusation. Wm claims that this edit (on the talk page no less) is an example of bad faith. Let's read the edit in full; "The truth is that it was someone else's event, and even if he was invited, John Howard didn't attend. Thne way I see it, this is an attempt to put a paragraph about Kevin Rudd's policies in John Howard's article."........... I fail to see the bad faith in this instance.

Response: The bad faith claim is in relation to SkyRing's repetition of this argument, despite it being invalidated every time by the use of clear, rational argument by other editors. Furthermore, it is the imputation of motives to other editors which constitutes the original act of bad faith. The bad faith is merely compounded by repetition once the assertion has been exposed for its intellectual deficiencies and as bad faith.

Prester John:Accusation # 2, is that Skyring reverts against consensus. It is an erroneous assumption that there was consensus at this point, considering that talkpage discussion was in full swing.

Response: SkyRing has claimed consensus as the basis for his reversions, only his version of what there was consensus about is contrary to what the majority of editors working on this article agree upon.

Prester John:Accusation # 5 is that he argues the same point over and over again. While he is consitantly arguing the same line of reasoning you have to admit that it has some faily solid merit. For those that don't know, the article of John Howard, the conservative ex-pm of Australia, has long had POV warriors attempting to bolt in any scrap of slander that comes out in the press seconds after it printed. Skyrings argument is that Wm and other POV warriors were including an event that not only the subject did "not" even go to, but was not included in the biographies of any of thepeople who did.

Response: The assertions by SkyRing have been demonstrated by other editors to have no merit. They rely on a categorical error that once exposed cannot be sustained.

I'll leave others to respond to the other issues raised by Prester John. Eyedubya (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is prohibited

WP:EDITWAR states: Template:Quotation1

This policy doesn't seem ambiguous. Reverting should not be used as part of a content dispute. Where in Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines can we see that reverting is suggeseted as a means for an editor to " keep the article inline with the discussion..." on the talk page?

As part of his response, Prester John has suggested that I was involved in "edit warring" on the David Hicks. This claim is extremely weak. Are there any diffs to show this alleged edit warring? I don't believe that I applied a single revert in the article text during that period. What I did do, was edit the article in several different ways, many of which were simply reverted by Skyring to the previous version of the text. I regard my edits in this period to be a mild attempt to use a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and while certainly assertive I only pursued it for a relatively short period ot time and part of the process was approaching Skyring to seek negotiation:

• I ask Skyring to stop reverting and I supply helpful links to Policies and Guidelines [1]
• Having made a suggestion for proposed wording and having it ignored, I ask him to suggest a compromise proposal. [2]
• Don't waste my time [3]
• I ask him again for his proposal to move forward and wonder specifically which points he feels I haven't answered? [4]
• Skyring tells me to go away I feel disinclined to take you seriously. [5]

I believe these diffs speak for themselves in showing Skyring being obstructive to finding a compromise proposal and I may use them in a further statement on this Rfc project page at a later time.

Yes, so back to basics: Is it true that according to Wikipeida policies, reverting in a content dispute is prohibited? Wm (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Offline for a few days

I regret that I will not have Internet access at all over the next 5 days. If I seem strangely silent over this period, that is why, not because of any unwillingness to continue this process. I look forward to returning sometime around next weekend. Wm (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by User:SkyRing

SkyRing: Some few editors, whose views can best be described as far left fringe, are attempting to slant Australian articles to their preferred polemic. I'm travelling at the moment, and my internet access is spotty - a fact I've made public in my blog over the past few weeks, and possibly determines the timing of this attack - so I don't have time to go hunting up diffs for the many personal attacks (notably by User:Eyedubya) and the examples of spurious argumentation used at tiresome length. A look through the talk pages of John Howard and David Hicks demonstrates the attempts of a few to justify the inclusion of informetion of low relevance or couched in misleading terms, typically without obtaining concensus beforehand. While I can understand the frustration of some editors, I remain firm in opposition to Wikipedia being nibbled bit by bit away from being a neutral or balanced encyclopaedia. (Emphasis added]

Response #1: Its not clear why SkyRing has used the term far left fringe, since the RfC summary makes no mention of a left-right political bias, merely that SKyRing has attempted to impose his own ideological position on the John Howard and David Hicks articles. However, this comment is telling in respect to what is at stake for SkyRing in terms of his editing behaviour. If he perceives NPOV edits as far left fringe then where does that position his own POV? Presumably to create a 'balance', he must shift the wording to the far right fringe.

Response #2: The assertion that some editors are attempting to slant Australian articles to their preferred polemic isn't borne out by an examination of the contributions of the editors in question. For mine, a cursory examination will reveal that my edits are not limited to Australian articles, nor are they of a polemic nature. Mostly, they are concerned with factual content, accuracy and relevant information pertinent to the article's subject matter.

Response #3: SkyRing's suggestion that the timing of this attack is driven by knowledge of his absence from consistent internet access is yet another example of his imputations of subjectivity and bad faith on the part of other editors. He presumes that other editors are sufficiently interested in his whereabouts to monitor his blog in order to find a suitable time to launch a co-ordinated attack on him. Certainly, I can vouch that this is not the case as far as I am concerned, I do not monitor SkyRing's blog for any reason, let alone to see when he's going to be weakest. However, the similarity between this slightly paranoid view advanced by SkyRing and the comment by Shot Info that SkyRing has other editors needs to be noted for what it may be worth in the context of this process.

What comment by Shot info? Care to supply a diff? Shot info (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - that should be 'comment by Prester John'. Eyedubya (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. FWIW, sometimes it's better to tone down the ptolemics as it doing so dilutes the message. Shot info (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AN interesting Freudian slip or some kind of malapropism there? Ptolemy + Polemic? Eyedubya (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Response #4: SkyRing has singled me out with his charge of personal attacks yet its clear from the record that he is the initiator of such behaviour with a number of editors who have tried to resolve differences of POV with him. His tactics involve belittling other editors by suggesting that they are 'not to be taken seriously', mocking their usernames ('OneEyed') or that they 'lack the intestinal fortitude' to 'stay the distance' - clear challenges designed to intimidate other editors or provoke them into similarly un-civil exchanges. Some editors inevitably do respond in kind, and then SkyRing complains that he is the subject of personal attacks.

Eyedubya (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by user:Lester

I respect that user:Skyring (or any user) may disagree with content that others have added to Wikipedia. Regardless of content, what we have is a problem with the methods and behaviour that user:Skyring employs to attain his desired outcome. This involves 3 issues:

• 1. Reverting
• 2. Not discussing in an appropriate manner
• 3. Incivility (which is part of problem #2).

It is surprising that user:Skyring persists with this behaviour, considering the penalties that have been imposed on him in the past. For example, an Arbcom hearing >>LINK<< imposed the following remedies:

• (user:Skyring) banned for one year from editing any article (or talk page) which relates to the government or governance of Australia
• (user:Skyring placed on) personal attack parole
• (user:Skyring) banned from Wikipedia for two months for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors
• Skyring is admonished to be more civil and to cease attempts to provoke other contributors

Even long-term bans and a block imposed by Jimbo Wales himself has not deterred user:Skyring from this behaviour.

Reverting: User:Skyring, when he doesn't like content recently added by other editors, uses the revert function as his first action. This is a stand-over tactic to force his own way over the editing community. The revert button should only be used in cases of blatant vandalism or content that poses the risk of libel lawsuits. The content user:Skyring reverts clearly doesn't fit into that category. User:Skyring spends a lot of time reverting others' good-faith edits, including material that has been meticulously referenced from reliable sources. Please refer to Wikipedia: Deleting Useful Content. User:Skyring's persistent reversions inhibit the ability of other editors to contribute or to be involved in the formation of Wikipedia content.

Not Properly Discussing: Discussion should be Skyring's first action. Unfortunately, user:Skyring fails to use the discussion pages in an appropriate manner. If an editor takes the serious action of reverting the article and deleting the content that another editor has worked very hard on, he should at the very least initiate a discussion at the time of the reversion to justify that reversion. User:Skyring never bothers to initiate the discussion at the time he reverts, which shows contempt towards the efforts of fellow editors.

Incivility: Part of user:Skyring 'Not Properly Discussing' is his continued use of incivility. When user:Skyring does use the discussion pages, it is often accompanied with tremendous incivility towards fellow editors. I have often seen other editors drop out of discussions as soon as the incivility begins. We all sometimes see content that we don't agree with, but there is never an excuse for incivility. User:Skyring regularly employs incivility to intimidate other editors from discussing. This tactic is highly disruptive.

Example #1: Insertion of Flag on John Howard article: User:Skyring, who promotes himself on Wikipedia as a member of 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy', entered into an edit war to insert flags into the John Howard article. Note the terrible incivility in the edit summaries:

• 23:37, 12 November 2007 Skyring's edit summary: "Smack the crusader"
• 23:54, 12 November 2007 Skyring's edit summary: "That's one each, buddy. Not going to count a drive-by crusader."
• 23:59, 12 November 2007 Skyring's edit summary: "Looking at his edits, he's getting a lot of reverts. Let's get some input and discussion and consensus, rather than mindless reversion."

The third edit summary from user:Skyring called for discussion, however this was misleading. There was an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page >>Here<< which user:Skyring did not join (there were many other editors discussing it there). I realise user:Skyring has discussed the benefits of flags on monarchist pages and elsewhere in Wikipedia, however, if he's going to launch into a full scale edit war, he's got to discuss it on the article's talk page.

Example #2: Edit war over POV tag on David Hicks article:

• 04:12, 22 February 2008 Skyring deleted the POV tag which had been added by 'WM'
• 04:15, 22 February 2008 User:Merbabu restores POV tag, asks 'Skyring' to discuss
• 05:29, 22 February 2008 Skyring deleted the POV tag a 2nd time

How can user:Skyring claim to have consensus among the editing community when he even edit wars with more than one other editor over the 'POV tag' itself?

Example #3: Incivility on John Howard article regarding Children in Detention: Skyring reverted the article and deleted its referenced content only 20 minutes after it was added:

• 01:51, 17 October 2007 Skyring's edit summary: "Get consensus for this first, please."

This was accompanies by a tirade of incivility on the artle discussion page:

• 04:53, 16 October 2007 Quote from Skyring: "May I suggest that you write it in a balanced way that won't be immediately reverted? Save everyone time and trouble, you know?"
• 00:33, 17 October 2007 Quote from Skyring: "I can't say that I'm looking forward to six weeks of battling away as extremists attempt to refashion this article into a magnificent piece of election advertising, supported by opinion pieces from party staffers. And when things get tight, guerrilla tactics and IPsocks make an appearance."
• 00:38, 17 October 2007 Quote from Skyring: "Your behaviour is a significant and ongoing problem, simply because you cause disruption, sparking edit wars and long pointless discussions. Your history is plain to see: everything you touch turns into an argument."

Example #4: Incivility on John Howard regarding PNG Copra: The PNG issue was hot topic, with many editors for and against, however, user:Skyring needs to learn that discussion is the only way to resolve controversial issues, not edit waring, not incivility. Example: PNG Discussion. The entire discussion from user:Skyring was uncivil, but here's a selection:

• Quote from Skyring: "Please don't be a dork and waste everyone's time. For ease of convenience we can accept that all editors are using the same arguments and making the same points and have the same positions as last time, and that the previous discussion may be referred to for those who are unfamiliar with the case, or who are short of memory. There. Your question has already been answered at great length and in great detail. As you know already. It is Lester's behaviour that is the problem. As you know."
• Quote from Skyring: "Obviously your opinions haven't changed since last time this was discussed at length, a relatively short time ago. And, if I make Lester's behaviour an official issue, it's not you who gets to decide. Lester's history of disruption and POV-pushing is easily demonstrated. There is no apparent reason to revisit the issue"
• Quote from Skyring: "I think it's time to look at what else Lester has done recently and start building a case for sanctions. I had hoped that he'd learnt to work as part of a team, but no, he still doesn't get it. Look at how he opened this section - because nobody will be voting for or against John Howard, the rules have changed. What rubbish. Wikipedia is NOT a political battlefield to sway votes. It's an encyclopaedia, and people come here looking for information, not propaganda."

This discussion, and an earlier one on the subject were marred by incivility, hence my 2 attempts to invite Skyring and other editors to a Request for Mediation (RfM) to discuss the content in a civil environment (which Skyring refused to attend).

Remedy: User:Skyring's modus operandi of continually reverting articles as a first resort is unacceptable and unfair to other editors, and any remedies should look at preventing this behaviour from continuing in the future. Remedies should also aim to force user:Skyring to use the discussion page as a first action in a content dispute (rather than reverting), and to end the incivility towards fellow editors. Skyring currently stays under the radar of the WP:3RR watch (generally staying under 4 reversions), but his continual reverting of articles is still disruptive and needs to end.Lester 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A response to View by Andjam

I think most people will readily agree that these two articles are contentious. It may also be acknowledged by many, that all of us from time to time, may respond in an inappropriate manner when a dispute arises (although I have always found yourself to be extremely civil). It is however incumbent upon each of us that, when criticised for our behaviour that we should engage with that criticism, and if in honesty we find that we have been found wanting, make a sincere effort to revise our behaviour and act in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is the sustained and belligerent nature of Skyring's disregard for policies that has made this Rfc necessary. He has been asked several times to stop reverting in a manner contrary to Policies and Guidelines, however he has completely failed to engage with this criticism, and we see that he has still failed to do so. Wm (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A response to View by Orderinchaos

I had to look up 'AN/I' to find out what it is, meaning the reference to 'some' of the participants in the dispute/s should perhaps be a bit more specific, rather than dismissing the whole matter by tarring us all with the same brush as if we are all WP's version of 'vexatious litigants'. Of the 6 editors who effectively endorse this process, and the 4 who have been participants in it, how many of them have been also been 'disruptive' on AN/I? Am I the only one who hasn't been involved in such behaviour? At the same time, I'd note that citing behaviour in that forum is a version of the very thing that User:Sarah is critical of while endorsing Orderinchaos' views - using past behaviour or behaviour in other contexts to critcise someone in a present situation. Eyedubya (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have never posted to the AN/I for any matter on any user ever. I raised a AN/3RR on Skyring on February 8. This is the only 3RR I have ever raised in over 5 years of participation. My first contact with Skyring was on the David Hicks article on about the 3rd of February.Wm (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)