Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skyring

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• Skyring (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User Skyring has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that disregards consensus and shows a determination to maintain control of an article by continuously reverting content and filibustering on the article's talk page. He insists on imposing his own preferred wording in preference to wording that has wider support from the editors active in the article. The primary dispute presented here is from the John Howard article and further examples to indicate the scope and vigour of his tendentious behaviour are given in relation to the David Hicks article.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The desired outcome is that Skyring should cease reverting good faith edits and thus allow editors to edit the relevant articles without constantly facing combative behaviour. He should acknowledge that when a wider consensus exists, regardless of his personal view, it is appropriate to allow that wider view to be expressed if the edit is in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Concerns about alleged POV or notability should be addressed by positive modification of the text and by discussion, not by reverting. He should recognise that he has no authority to decide autocratically when an edit will be accepted into the article.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Editors attempted to make a simple statement of fact in the John Howard article that John Howard was the only former Prime Minister not to attend the Apology to the Stolen Generations. This has been prevented, up until recently by edit warring and filibustering. The article was protected while a raging discussion ensued for several days and with several thousand words exchanged.

Skyring sprinkles liberal amounts of conciliatory phrases through his comments and edit summaries but these are contradicted by his actual behaviour and other comments that have a more combative tone.

This behaviour disenfranchises editors who would like to be able to work within Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Currently it seems that the good will consensus model is completely broken for these articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

John Howard

1. Assumes bad faith 12:23, 18 February 2008
2. Reverts article text against consensus of other editors 1 2 3
3. Declares that he will apply a process of attrition to get his own way 10:29, 21 February 2008
4. Tendatiously reverts text on talk page to his prefered view ignoring opinion of other editors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5. Argues the same point over and over ignoring all countering points of view and demanding that his point has not yet been answered: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 and so on....

David Hicks

1. Reversion of other's edits: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2. Takes pleasure in disruptive behaviour
3. Deletes 3RR warning as "vandalism"
4. Misleading use of diffs to appeal 31 hour 3RR block
5. Insists on removing POV flag. 1 2

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:TEND
2. WP:EDITWAR
3. WP:CONS
4. WP:3RR
5. WP:GOODFAITH
6. WP:GAME
7. WP:NOT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Lester
2. Eyedubya
3. Lester
4. Gnangarra
5. Eyedubya
6. Wm
7. Lester

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Wm (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Eyedubya (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Gnangarra 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Lester 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Brendan [ contribs ] 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
2. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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. --Pete (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

View by 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.

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.

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.

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.

The David Hicks accusation # 1 is that Skyring "reverts" others edits. Skyring is editing to keep the article inline with the discussion that occurs on the associated talkpage. Is Wm suggesting that Skyring not edit the page at all?

Accusation # 2 doesn't seem to make any sense.

Accusation # 3 is that Skyring reverts a 3RR warning from his talkpage (something he is well entitled to do) from Wm who is at the same time edit warring on the same article

Accusation #4 is that Skyring using a "misleading" edit summary to contest a block. This accusation is the most peculiar as it not detailed by Wm what is so "misleading" and the eventual outcome was that Skyring was unblocked and the blocking admin admitted he was wrong and subsequently apologised. It is this accusation in particular that leads me to believe that this entire report is in bad faith and motivated by malice and an attempt to circumvent normal talkpage discussion.

Accusation #5 is that Skyring insists on removing a POV flag. I myself also removed this flag, following general wiki practice as the issue that the tag was originally posted for was resolved, with no article or talkpage action on the subject for more than a week.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Prester John (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Pete (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

View by Andjam

There have been heated arguments by people on both sides with regards to David Hicks, with people not being as civil as possible, and with some anti-Gauntanamo people making dubious claims using dubious sources. Ideally, the issue should be given a rest for a while, but if not, the behaviour of all participants should be under scrutiny.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. With qualification per my view below. Orderinchaos 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree. All parties to an RFC are automatically under scrutiny, not just the named party. Sarah 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

View by Orderinchaos

We've been here before - in late December the behaviour of some of the parties here was starting to get highly disruptive at AN/I, especially considering the incredibly pointless nature of the debate. I cannot in good faith certify an RfC on Skyring when some of his opponents have behaved worse. Furthermore there seems to have been little effort to settle the situation outside of highly combative forums such as the article talk page in question, AN/I, etc. Part of the problem in my view is that many of the issues being debated are in fact sidelines - they're not central to the articles but more play into longer-running disputes that in all likelihood have no solution. Parties should step back, think if continuing to argue on some of these points is really worth it (i.e. would the articles be any better or worse if the entire point was left out?), and move on. Orderinchaos 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Orderinchaos 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Any problems with Skyrings behaviour would be substanially improved if he/she was not continually baited by those who see WP as an ideological battleground. Mattinbgn\^talk 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I completely endorse the above comments by fellow admins Orderinchaos and Mattinbgn. I also question the validity of this RFC - the diffs cited for certification seem extremely dubious to me. Most look like discussion of article content rather than any real and genuine attempt to resolve any user conduct issues. I also don't like seeing Peter's past history used as a club to beat him with (see Lester's talk page comments). This looks to me like some of his content opponents using his past to build an extremely weak case with which to beat him with and then shopping it through RFC when the numerous ANI threads drew no real action from administrators and were eventually routinely ignored and dismissed due to the user conduct issues on both sides. Sarah 00:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Lester

(I moved this post from the discussion page to the front page, in line with others' posts)

My view is an expansion of the original RfC complaint, as I wish to show more examples of the type of behaviour outlined in the original complaint. 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. Relentless incivility combined with intimidation (which is part of problem #2).

(Edit: 09 March 19:34 / I deleted mention of a previous dispute after discussion with other editors, to keep this within recent times)

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 referenced 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.

Continuous Incivility + Intimidation: Part of user:Skyring 'Not Properly Discussing' is his prolonged incivility combined with intimidation. If it was just an occasional lapse I wouldn't mention it here, but Skyring's incivility is relentless and totally derails discussion pages. I have often seen other editors drop out of discussions as a result of this high-level continuous incivility. We all sometimes see content that we don't agree with, and sometimes editors make a one-off comment that may be a bit uncivil, but user:Skyring regularly employs incivility as a tool to intimidate other editors from discussing. This tactic is highly disruptive, and a prolonged violation of WP:CIVILITY.

Example #1: (Reverting) 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 uncivil edit summaries which don't describe what the edit was:

• 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 (above) 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 combined with Intimidation) On John Howard article regarding content relating to 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."

This was one of hundreds of examples of user:Skyring deleting referenced content soon after it was added.

Example #4: (Incivility combined with Indimidation) Article: John Howard regarding 'PNG Copra' content: The PNG issue was hot topic, with many editors for and against the content. OK, you might expect another editor to "bite back" with an occasional uncivil reply. However, this example is more than a one-off, and the incivility is combined with intimidation, used as a tool to completely derail the discussion. User:Skyring needs to learn that discussion is the only way to resolve controversial issues, not edit waring, not incivility. Please view this example -> >>John Howard Discussion Page re:Papua New Guinea content<<. 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 both marred by incivility. Prior to the above example of incivility, user:Skyring was invited to a Request for Mediation on the very subject, but refused to attend (>>LINK<<), preferring to engage in more incivility on the talk page instead. Due to Skyring's incivility, another RfM was attempted in Jan 2008 (>>LINK<<) which Skyring again refused to attend. The only way to solve a hotly disputed content issue is to get everyone civily discussion it, which Skyring refused to do (see examples below of my personal approaches to invite user:Skyring to those RfMs).

Remedy: User:Skyring's modus operandi of continually reverting articles as a first resort is unacceptable and unfair to other editors. User:Skyring must start using the discussion page as a first action in a content dispute (rather than reverting), and end the relentless 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. The dispute will not need to be escalated if User:Skyring follows this suggested remedy. Lester 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Comment Modified 07 March.

Attempts to resolve behaviour disputes with User:Skyring

I also wish to add my personal messages to User:Skyring, attempting to find a resolution to disputes:

12:14, 28 January 2008

10:56, 28 January 2008

02:06, 27 October 2007

04:19, 11 October 2007

01:57, 5 October 2007

I believe discussion is the only way to resolve such content disputes. Lester 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Lester 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Brendan [ contribs ] 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Brendan

Any suggestion that Pete/Skyring is a victim here (eg, by User:Mattinbgn above) is ridiculous. Skyring is the one who persistently plays the man and throws content discussions off-track by ignoring the issues/handwaving/baiting people with snide reparte (having even admitted as such when questioned on it on numerous occasions by describing it as his "sense of humour"). In better interests of the encyclopedia, this unproductive behaviour needs to be addressed.

It is a very easy thing for those who have not been at the pointy end of Skyring's uncivil conduct to suggest "no harm, no foul" or "storm in a teacup". But in my view, based on the materials presented here and my experience of him on articles and talkpages, he has targeted certain users from the outset, building an illusion in his mind that they are "far left fringe" (as he states above!) and bases his conduct towards them and their contributions upon that maligned perspective. Tolerance and tacit endorsement of that flagrant unrepentant conduct, best described in my view as bullying, does absolutely no-one any credit and is not conducive to reputable processes of consensus building and collaboration. That's what's at issue here. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional view by Wm

I had put these diffs on the discussion page and feel that they should be part of the Rfc body as they clearly show Skyring refusing point blank to discuss the David Hicks article dispute referred to in the opening statement of this Rfc.

From Skyring's talk page:

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

On the article talk page I ask Skyring to stop reverting and I supply helpful links to Policies and Guidelines [5]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wm (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.