Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence

Problems with Petaholmes' Evidence
I'm quite happy to defend my own statements and edits, but you don't think it's going a little far to attack me for edits that I clearly didn't make?

For instance, you say "Skyring claims that Australia was made a kingdom following federation. Reverted by Lacrimosus, see Talk:Canada for the reasons why this is original research." but shows that User:Gbambino made the claim that Australia is a kingdom. My contribution - my one and only edit to the article occurs with the next edit at where I correctly note that the Australian Constitution was an act of British rather than English law, as it was passed by the British Parliament, England having ceased to exist as an independent country some hundreds of years previously. User:Lacrimosus didn't revert my edit - he altered Gbambino's contribution.

Your mistake, and one you make several times, possibly out of incompetence rather than malice, is that you aren't linking to my edits, but to the edit following mine. Just because I was the last person to touch a page doesn't mean that I wrote every word of that version. In the case of Australian Republicanism my total contribution amounts to four letters, yet you are happy to attack me for a whole paragraph I didn't write!

Be fair, please! Pete 11:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you've fixed that. Now, could you please follow the very clear instructions regarding evidence and fix the following, which are also in the wrong format:    TBDSY's edits TBDSY and Adam Carr's edits. Michael Snow's edits. Willmcw's edits

And so on. Can you see the pattern here? You're complaining about the edits I make, but you don't show any evidence that I've actually made any edits. You show someone else's edits, and as I demonstrated with Gbambino above, the fact that I made a single edit to the previous version doesn't mean that I wrote the whole bloody thing!

I humbly suggest that you take a look at the project page, read the paragraph beginning "As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format.", take a look at the example and then follow the same philosophy. Pete 10:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, nixie! However, may I suggest that you take another look at your links for 27 Feb and 11 Mar? In the latter example you talk about my comments, but show a link to the edits of a different person. My edit is actually here, where I correct the statement about Sir David Smith's view. Smith moved from the "Two heads of state" view to the "Governor-General as sole head of state" view long before the vote and I later provided a link to his published statement confirming this on the discussion page. Pete 20:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Jtdirl's evidence.
Apart from trying to rehash the already lengthy discussion in evidence, the format is again a problem.

Be advised that I did not use Turnbull's words in the discussion referenced, so your claim that I misrepresented them is dishonest. It would help if you actually read the material before commenting on it. I now include the words of Turnbull, the founder and leader for many years of the Australian Republican Movement, to demonstrate that an authoritative republican spokesmen considers Australia to have a republican form of government. Nobody, least of all me, is denying that we also have a monarch, but the existence of a powerless and ceremonial Queen does not alter the fact of a republican government. The Republic article is instructive on this point, and I quote the current definition: "In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country."

That includes Australia. Turnbull notes that Australian sovereignty derives from the people. However, I also urge that the article be read in its entirety in order to follow the comments on how monarchy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Pete 19:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pete 19:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh God. You don't even know what a republic is.


 * What I know or don't know isn't the point. I rely on the definitions of others, and if a republic is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people, as some definitions say, then Australia is a republic. The Wikipedia definition includes Australia - go tell whoever wrote this that they have their head up their bum. Edit it yourself, if you know so much. Pete 06:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * *sigh*. Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge on this general topic? And yet again you have completely misrepresented yet another source. (How many sources at this stage have you totally mispresented? Is there anyone you haven't misrepresentned at this stage?) Turnbull does not say that Australia is a republic. He makes the point, as his words make clear, that Australia cannot be a republic while having an hereditary monarchy. His point could hardly be clearer. Australia is a state ruled by its people. It has a potential to be a republic. But one thing is standing in its way: the existence of the monarchy. If it abolished the monarchy and replaced it with a democratically selected head of state, then Australia would be a republic. You really need an elementary course in basic constitutional law and elementary civics. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 05:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * *shrug* . Look, brother, even if your silver tongue and endless fount of flawless knowledge could convert me to complete agreement with your views, it wouldn't alter the fact that others disagree. We can't present our own views or do original research - all I need to do is point to those who hold alternate views, and if the four times elected Prime Minister of this nation disagrees with your POV, don't aim your arguments at me, because it won't change his views. Can you see this? Pete 06:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet he doesn't either. He's yet another of your pieces of evidence that doesn't mean stand up to scrutiny. He never ever said there are two heads of state. Like George and others, he pointed out, correctly, that the Governor-General is a "de facto head of state". As anyone who has even the slightest grasp of constitutional law, or indeed a medium standard of english knows, a de facto head of state is not a head of state; they are someone who acts like a head of state. It is something every first year law student of constitutional law knows. And as everyone with an ounce of understanding of constitutional procedures knows, a king or queen in a monarchy, a prince in a principality, and a president of a state in a republic, is by definition a head of state. It is automatic. So saying that the Queen is Queen of Australia means to everyone with even the slightest grasp of constitutions that she is the head of state. Howard knows that. Keating knew that. Everyone on the planet knows that. Except, it seems, you. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 07:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, what I know or don't know is immaterial. Professor Winterton says that effectively the Governor-General is the head of state, to use your phrasing. John Howard uses these exact words. Yet you try to cram words into their mouths. Neither says "the Queen is the head of state". They both qualify the term in some way. Your attempt to turn two heads of state into one by "interpreting" their words is laughable. Let me ask you this. If a man lives with a defacto wife but is legally married to someone in a distant country, then how many wives does he have? Pete 07:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This old rubbish again. The answer is simple. Legally he has one. As anyone with a grasp of law knows, the legal concept of a common law wife was abolished centuries ago. Once the woman he was married to is still alive and they have not his divorced, she and she alone is his wife, and if he dies she has all the legal rights of inheritance that flow from marriage, his "defacto" (sic) wife has no legal status whatsoever. What she may have in some jurisdictions is some legal rights as his partner, but most states do not recognise a non-marital partner as having any rights at all, and even those that do usually treat a non-marital partner as having lesser rights than his wife, should he already be legally married. But then, if you were as much of an expert on law as you seem to think you are, you'd know this already. It is rather basic stuff. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 07:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You know beans about Australian law, Irish. The defacto wife has much the same legal status as the dejure wife, especially where the legal marriage took place overseas under foreign law and the dejure wife remains overseas. An example from Northern Territory legislation:
 * ...the following matters are irrelevant:
 * (a) the persons are different sexes or the same sex;
 * (b) either of the persons is married to another person;
 * (c) either of the persons is in another de facto relationship.


 * I don't think I'm any sort of expert on law, by the way. I've never claimed to be an expert on anything, though you keep thrusting these words into my mouth.


 * You probably thought I hadn't noticed it, but I was giving you enough rope. Can we get back to the point I raised? The problem with your evidence? Remember? You claimed I misrepresented Turnbull's position. How did I do this, seeing as how I haven't quoted or mentioned Turnbull's statement from the RAC Report anywhere in Wikipedia apart from this project page? Your claim that I did something I clearly did not do is dishonest. Pete 09:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there no end to your chronic inability to read a primary source document and not completely misundestand it??? The law in questions makes it unambigously clear that


 * marriage is dealt with exclusively by a federal act from 1961.
 * The new Act is not dealing with marriage;
 * It is exclusively dealing with non-marital spouses and partners, and dealing with the rights of people in de facto relationships not defined within the legal parameters of marriage.
 * What you call defacto (sic) marriage" is not in the Act. Nor could it be. For it is illegal in Australia, as in most of the world, to contract more than one marriage simultaneously. It's called bigamy (even you'' can hardly get that bit wrong!!!).


 * Trust you to complete misunderstand the whole legal framework of the Act and introduce in your typically inaccurate language a term the draftsmen deliverately avoided lest the implication of 2 contemporaneous marriages lead to judicial review of the principles of the Act. Your inability even to read a primary document without getting the wrong end of the stick is hilarious. I have never come across someone before who misinterprets every single source he finds, misunderstands the key points, and gets the wrong end of the stick every time. Mindboggling. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 10:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You probably thought I hadn't noticed it, but I was giving you enough rope. Can we get back to the point I raised? The problem with your evidence? Remember? You claimed I misrepresented Turnbull's position. How did I do this, seeing as how I haven't quoted or mentioned Turnbull's statement from the RAC Report anywhere in Wikipedia apart from this project page? Your claim that I did something I clearly did not do is dishonest. Pete 10:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have mispresented Turnbull, Howard, Winterton, and almost everyone else you 'quoted' all through the debate, as well you know. The evidence has been repeatedly pointed out to you in 6 archive pages, by user after user after user. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 14:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point I'm making here on this page is that I didn't quote Turnbull at all in the discussion, but you have stated in evidence that I misrepresented him. Your claim that I did something I clearly did not is dishonest. How about you address the point I have repeatedly made instead of scurrying away. Again. Pete 21:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly said that Turnbull suggests that Australia is a republic.


 * No I haven't. Not even once. You said in evidence that I misrepresented him. As I didn't quote him at all until this project page, your statement is a falsehood. Pete 00:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He has repeatedly said it is not. Just as you have repeatedly said that Howard and Winterton have said there are two heads of state. They have repeatedly said there are not. You have repeatedly misrepresented a court case, repreatedly misrepresented things Adam said, repeatedly misrepresented things I said, repeatedly misrepresented other people's opinions. You seem incapable of actually interpreting anyone's words correctly. (Above you even misinterpreted a law about non-marital partnerships!). Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your antics are amusing, but I'm not buying your continued evasion on this. Can you address the point I have repeatedly raised, please? Pete 00:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another day goes by and jtdirl remains silent on the key point of this section. Perhaps he hopes I will grow weary of pointing out his falsehood.

Jtdirl claims in his evidence I misrepresented Malcolm Turnbull in discussion, but as I didn't quote Turnbull at all except in my own evidence on the project page, the statement that I misrepresented him is clearly a falsehood. I'd like to move on to clear up further points, but I'd also like to get jtdirl to address this point honestly. Pete 01:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to address this point, seeing as how you're on deck? You got it wrong twice over with this one. Not only did I not quote Turnbull previously, but I wasn't using him as an authority to say that Australia is a republic, as you misrepresent me. He makes a definitive statement that Australia is a state where sovereignty resides in the people, and I stated this above. Pete 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems
The only problems I can see with the evidence is that Skyring's posts are formatted incorrectly. You don't need to make a ==Level 2== heading for every date; please use ===Level 3=== headings. Harro5 05:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, mate. Pete 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infantile Exhibitionism
When are we going to get a ruling on this? So far the only effect of this referal has been to create yet another forum for Skyring's infantile exhibitionism. Adam 06:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patience, brother. Your Irish friend says he has more evidence coming. And what's the hurry? I've withdrawn from making any edits on matters of contention until this thing is done. Surely you don't mind if I have a say here - after all, you were instrumental in creating this project with my screen-name on it. Pete 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, my preference was to shut you down by taking a poll on who was right and then enforcing its decision. It was others who have chosen to drag things out with yet another talk-fest. Adam 03:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you do mind if I have a say here! As I recall, you bollixed up your poll and didn't get the ten participants you wanted in the time you specified, so you failed on your preference. Just have a bit of patience Adam. Pete 04:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to the poll being called off in favour of this arbitration process (which offered the chance of a broader consensus for shutting you down), despite my fears that it would drag on and on. I may yet be proved right. But one way of another, you will be shut down. Adam 04:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you have something to say, then this is the perfect opportunity to state your complaints against me to the ArbCom plainly and honestly with links to whatever material itches your scratch. Abuse and threats on the discussion page are indicative of a reluctance to work within the system.

Please, Adam! You've been whinging for six months, here is your big chance to stand up and be heard. Are you seriously going to squib it now? Pete 05:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My views are well known to the ArbCom. Adam 06:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you see the ArbCom process as a sham? All this evidence stuff and public deliberation is just for show and the whole thing can be fixed with a few quiet emails? Really, I wouldn't care to insult the ArbCom quite so blatantly as you have just done - what sort of a position have you put them in now? Pete 06:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)