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)