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 the John 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:

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

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 moved my comment to the project front page Here to allow other users the option to record their endorsements of the view, in line with others' comments.  Lester  12:38, 7 March 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)


 * You misunderstand me, I think, Eyedubya. I'm not critical of "using past behaviour or behaviour in other contexts to critcise someone in a present situation." I think you have to look at people's behaviour holistically and that includes past behaviour in a full range of contexts. What I am critical of, though, is Lester always using the fact that Peter was banned for a year by the ArbCom as a baton and trying to inject it into conversation in order to corrupt and tarnish people's views of situations. Peter has sat out that ban, and if there is a problem with his behaviour and you lot want to ban him or sanction him in some way or whatever, then it needs to be based on things he's done since the ban. I'm certainly not critical of looking at behaviour across the full gamut of Wikipedia, but it needs to be focused on post-ban issues. Also, behaviour - by both sides - on the various administrative noticeboards is something that is entirely valid to the RfC. In fact, I would suggest that the harassment of Peter on the noticeboards is one of the things that caused him to become increasingly snarky about certain users - not that I'm excusing any bad behaviour but it needs to be looked at holistically. I still question the validity of the certification of this RFC. I really don't consider any of the diffs cited as evidence for certification are sufficient for this purpose. They look more like article discussion than genuine attempts to resolve any user conduct issues. Sarah 03:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your position. Without the history on WP that some other editors have, I can only comment on the present situation. My endorsement of the summary on this RfC is based on my experiences of repeated attempts to respond to SkyRing's arguments in support of his edits. As such, they are indeed primarily content-based. But you need to look more close at the combination of content, editing practices and personal commentary by SkyRing. If you follow the pattern of engagement, you will see the behaviour described: repetition of an argument that makes little sense in the face of a variety of rebuttals, accompanied by constant reversion without agreement, associated with a series of belittling comments. Eyedubya (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I don't think Peter is innocent - I have seen plenty of problematic behaviour myself, as has Orderinchaos, and I was around when he was banned last time. The problem we have is that we also see a lot of bad behaviour on the other side of the fence. I have said it many times before but it's worth mentioning again here - if it weren't for the actions of the other parties the likes of Prester John would have been banned long before now. The only reason he hasn't been is because of the equally bad behaviour on the other side which hamstrings us and interferes with us trying to deal with them administratively. This has been an often discussed issue among administrators over the last year. People should get a message from the fact that Orderinchaos's comment, endorsed by three Australian administrators, is the most endorsed statement on the page. Now, you might be fairly new to this dispute and so might Wm but you guys should understand that you have stumbled into a major, long term dispute that has grown from a monumental clashing of political ideology and clearly the ultimate goal of both sides is WP:OWNership of the Australian political articles. Both sides want to be rid of their political opponent and are constantly lobbying for sanctions against each other to the degree that arbitration and banning them from all administrative noticeboards has been discussed on several occasions. I would support an RfC against Peter under the right circumstances; I won't support one that involves bad behaviour on both sides and which I feel is geared at subduing an opponent. Sarah 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in much the same boat. Agree with pretty much all of Sarah's comments, particularly those in the third and fourth sentences above. To certify an RfC against an editor suggests that editor's conduct is the primary problem in the dispute, whereas I just see it as something of a diversion in the near-permanent squabble between a small group of editors, and in my observation he's neither the worst in the dispute, or even on his side of it - I think he actually learned something from his one-year ban, which is good to see. I know quite a few Australian admins were relieved when Christmas sapped the energy out of a particularly hostile stage in this dispute where everyone was taking everyone else to AN/I, in some cases several times a day, and making increasingly bizarre personal allegations, and we were being asked by overseas admins and others what on earth was going on in our project. Orderinchaos 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the "three Australian administrators": All the statements from the "three Australian administrators" (as described above) occurred during a rapid 7 hour period 2 weeks into this RfC, so I missed them some days ago when it occured, but will reply now:

To 'Orderinchaos': You mention some article content that may be better "left out" and disputants "move on". Can you elaborate what content you are referring to?

To 'Mattinbgn': You said that Skyring's behaviour is excused because some wiki users are continuously baiting him for ideological purposes. What ideology? Do you have diffs of the baiting going on?

Re Other users' behaviour: There has been a lot of discussion about other users' bad behaviour, which is said to be worse than Skyring's. If that is the case, there are appropriate Wikipedia avenues to report the heinous behaviour of others. Here, it is a sideline, as this RfC is for the discussion of one user's behaviour, User:Skyring. Regardless, if user:Skyring was drawn into edit waring because of other users' behaviour, then he used the wrong method to respond (and should have instead reported those other users, but stayed out of the edit war himself). Lester  14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to the section addressed to me: I had in mind the whole copra issue. It's been my observation that that's been pushed heavily by one person (yourself) even when all debate on it ceased months ago, and the mediation failed basically because noone involved was particularly interested in the topic. It seems unnecessary to perpetually reopen old wounds. I know in discussions with others that I was far from the only person with this point of view. Also I don't think anyone is excusing or approving of Skyring's behaviour - just that this entire user conduct RfC seems to be an effort by one side to "get" the other when both sides are at fault and, in my view, the party being singled out is not the worst offender. Orderinchaos 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly Lester, it would reassure me that you were here in good faith if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. I have not excused Skyring's behaviour, which, along with others, has been unacceptable.  I said his "behaviour would be substantially improved if he/she was not continually baited".  What RfC is about is not apportioning blame and handing down punishment but finding a solution to a problem.  If the goal is to improve Skyring's behaviour, then the best way this could be done is for others to have a good look at their own behaviour.  For example, this is not the action of someone seeking to write NPOV articles on Australian politics.  I agree wholeheartedly with Sarah's comments above.  This RfC smacks of an attempt to own WP:AUSPOL and cherrypicking one editor out of the whole sordid mess and holding him out for sanctioning is something that I cannot support. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misrepresented what you said. It's interesting that when you are talking about bad behaviour, you are citing article content, in an article which had nothing to do with User:Skyring. The content you refer to was subject to a community deletion discussion, and that community process was not hindered by anyone. This RfC is a call to stop incivility, edit waring and a plea to use discussion pages properly. How can a reduction in edit waring and incivility be wrong or owning WP:AUSPOL? The RfC is a non-punitive way for the community to voice their opinions on another user's behaviour so that user can take head and modify the behaviour so hopefully no further action is needed. Taking out the waring and incivility will open the content process to the whole Wikipedia editing community, rather than one edit warrior. It's a cause worthy of support from the three admins. I think most people would welcome user:Skyring's content input, minus the waring and incivility, plus extra discussion. Regards,  Lester  02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec)Agree once again with Matt's comments. It probably needs to be emphasised that none of us are trying to justify or excuse bad behaviour and all of the administrators here have seen very longterm unacceptable behaviour from many parties, including but most certainly not limited to Peter. The RFC intro page makes it very clear that RFC is about discussion, compromise, and finding a way that will enable editors to work together; it's not about demanding sanctions, punishments, and trying to get rid of one's opponents. Hence "Requests for Comment" and not "Request for Remedies" or "Requests for Banning". I think it would help a great deal if people would start strictly following policy and guidelines, particularly NPOV, reliable sources, Verifiability, undue weight, BLP, Disruptive editing, WP:BATTLE, WP:NOT, etc and coupled that with absolutely no personal comments. It's probably asking too much to expect y'all to assume good faith but that would be nice too. Sarah 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "There has been a lot of discussion about other users' bad behaviour, which is said to be worse than Skyring's. If that is the case, there are appropriate Wikipedia avenues to report the heinous behaviour of others. Here, it is a sideline, as this RfC is for the discussion of one user's behaviour, User:Skyring," says Lester. Wrong. The RFC guidelines clearly state: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste." (emphasis on "all" in the original). Peter may be the named party here, but the fact is that the behaviour of all parties may be scrutinised here and the opinions expressed here condemning the behaviour of multiple parties may be used against those parties at arbitration. Sarah 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a catch-all has to be there to cover all possible scenarios of course. In this instance however, the desired outcome (see below, see project page) is fairly simple and doesn't require third parties to arbitrate. Whatever may be said of the behaviour of any of the parties in this RfC, even those Administrators who don't wish to endorse the RfC have stated that User:SkyRing's behaviour has been inappropriate. All that remains is for User:SkyRing to be a leader here and to say 'Fair cop, I'll do as requested', and let the future speak for itself. Further, he could raise an RfC about one or all of the other interlocuters that he feels have behaved worse than he has, or whose behaviour warrants such a public analysis. Eyedubya (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's really no point in Peter raising another RfC against other parties here because part of a user conduct RfC involves examining the behaviour of all parties. So this RfC is perfectly fine for discussing those sorts of issues. Sarah 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided it was directly related to Skyring(Pete)'s behaviour, and was the reason for his behaviour. If Skyring(Pete)'s edit waring, incivility and not using the discussion page to justify his reversions can be attributed to someone else's behaviour, then it would be relevant. An announcement (above) that anyone who posts here will have their behaviour under the microscope and brought up at Arbcom will serve to scare people from contributing to this discussion. Lester  09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sorry Lester you're wrong and you don't set the guidelines for this RfC, it's governed by community guidelines clearly explained on the front page. All parties in this dispute are open to having their behaviour examined, not just the named party and not just as an explanation for something Peter is alleged to have done. This is very clearly stated in the RfC guidelines. "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." Sarah 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, read it again - it doesn't say "that anyone who posts here will have their behaviour...brought up at Arbcom". Sarah 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: Reading the front page of this RfC and the RfC guidelines, the line 'may bring scrutiny on all involved editors' would seem to refer to the behaviour of all editors involved in this particular instance (i.e. in response to SkyRing's editing of John Howard and David Hicks and their respective talk pages) - not any other instances of editing behaviour by anyone involved with this RfC. So, while there are some faults on both sides among the accusers and defenders of SkyRing, if we return to the original summary of the RfC itself, perhaps we can conduct this discussion in a more orderly and focussed manner. If we don't have any meaningful boundaries, we'll get nowhere. It seems quite simple to me: regardless of any past behaviour by anyone involved in this RfC, what are the merits of the claims made in this RfC about SkyRing's behaviour in this instance, and does it warrant some kind of statement by SkyRing that indicates some acknowledgement or insight into why the RfC has been made? I note, for example, that no other editor has actually endorsed SkyRing's response to the RfC itself. A series of 'view by' sections from other editors have been submitted, vaguely defending SkyRing or having a go at other editors, but no-one has formally endorsed SkyRing's own response to the specific claims made in the RfC. Eyedubya (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, nobody has endorsed mine, either, but it was added to the main page late in the piece, and I worry that the comments about discussing other involved parties at Arbcom may result in less people involving themselves in this RfC. Lester  11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, although I agree with much of what you say with respect to this RfC, I felt I couldn't endorse it because of the 'evidence' imported from elsewhere against SkyRing. Its possible others feel the same who might otherwise have endorsed it. Eyedubya (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello 'Eyedubya'. After concerns expressed that some of the evidence I presented on the project page was too old, and going back too far in time, I have deleted that older evidence. Now it is just the recent evidence that remains. Regards,  Lester  19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Remedies
The idea of RfC is to *discuss* and to try to find a compromise. It is not a place to lobby for sanctions or "remedies". Even the expressed expectation that this RfC should result in remedies is very telling about the motives and the games at play. Sarah 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added comment about remedies due to my initial misunderstanding of what the RfC process was about. I would be much happier if user:Skyring's edit waring, incivility, and lack of discussion of his reversions ended as a result of the community input here, avoiding punitive remedies. I believe all the editors who endorsed the complaints about user:Skyring would be happy if his behaviour changed without further remedies. Thanks,  Lester  02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According the original RfC as posted by User:Wm, the desired outcome of this RfC was stated as follows: 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. Eyedubya (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "...avoiding punitive remedies" Regardless, we do not use "punitive remedies" on Wikipedia, so whether or not Peter changes his behaviour is immaterial to the issue of punitive sanctions because they're simply not going to happen. We use sanctions ie blocks, topic bans, bans, etc, to prevent disruption. We do not use them punitively and the WP:BLOCK policy expressly prohibits the use of punitive sanctions - the second sentence of the blocking policy says, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". Anyone wanting us to implement punitive sanctions on another user is going to be very disappointed. Sarah 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like doublethink to me! Surely, when a user is blocked from engaging with something on WP, then that is a form of punishment as far as the blocked user is concerned, even if its function in terms of other editors is to make editing more pleasurable, easier, smoother, etc. My understanding of Lester's meaning is that any remedies to be used in this instance should not deprive SkyRing of his ability to edit WP, since that is clearly what he enjoys doing and to deprive him of it would be perceived as punishment by him. All that's at stake here is something from SkyRing that demonstrates that he understands what aspects of his behaviour have been disruptive and a commitment from him to refrain from that form of behaviour. There is no way anyone, even Administrators, can make anyone behave in a particular way, that is always up to the individual. All that Admins can do is deny access to the enjoyment of editing. Eyedubya (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe Lester doesn't want to deprive Peter of his ability to edit Wikipedia when that is precisely what he has lobbied for for months and months on end. The point is that we don't block punitively, regardless of how it might feel to the blocked person and no administrator will respond to requests for punitive sanctions because they are expressly forbidden under policy. I agree with your last section as to the goal of RfC, but I really believe you are overestimating other parties and their motives/goals/purposes. Sarah 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please accept good faith. My complaints about User:Skyring in the past have been because of Incivility, as well as continuous reverting and deleting of content without proper community discussion. Those are clear breaches of Wiki rules. I'd be happy if user:Skyring continued editing Wikipedia without breaking those rules. I know you have supported Skyring's side in various content disputes (such as the John Howard article), but have a think about it, this RfC is of benefit to Skyring. If this issue can be solved by Skyring taking heed of the other editors' views, and ending the misdeeds mentioned above, then that means that the complaints don't get escalated to Arbcom. Sarah, you and I could spend our time writing pages about each others' behaviour, but I don't think that would help anyone, least of all Skyring, but that's up to you. Lester  22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "I know you have supported Skyring's side in various content disputes (such as the John Howard article)..." Peter and I rarely even edit the same pages and we have disagreed plenty of times in the past. Your implication is absurd. Sarah 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A response to View by User:Brendan
I must choose my words more carefully next time as it is frustrating to have words placed in my mouth so often. I never said that Skyring was a victim, I said his behaviour would improve if the other side in this content dispute took less of an ideological approach to the articles in question. Once again, RfC is not about finding "victims" and punishing "oppressors" but fixing a problem. The problem here is the fixed ideological attitudes that both sides to this dispute are taking. I see no reason to single out one side (i.e. Skyring) and analyse his behaviour in isolation from others when all parties are guilty of tendentious editing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute that all parties are guilty of tendentious editing, especially in regard to this dispute and I don't believe that any evidence has been presented to support this claim. Neither is this a dispute about differences in "ideological attiudes:". It is a disupte about one particular user showing a sustained disregard for Wikipeida Policies and Guidelines. Obviously the articles in question are contentious, obviously people have views about the subjects but as noted in WP:TEND: Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. It is the manner in which these differences in editors opinions are negotiated that is the problem, not the views themselves. WP:EDITWAR says that reverting article content in a content dispute is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process  and that Such hostile behavior is prohibited. Wm (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to Mattinbgn): Hello Mattinbgn, thank you for your comments. You are correct that there are many different ideologies in those content disputes, especially in political articles. I respect that you and I probably have very different ideas when it comes to content, but I hope that we can be nice to each other as all editors should be. I don't want to single out user:Skyring for different rules to the rest of us. All of us should be subject to the same guidelines for behaviour regarding civility WP:CIV and we should not go 'round reverting articles without discussion, as it says in Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. It's pretty fundamental to Wikipedia that proper and civil discussion takes place when there is disputed content. I don't ask you to agree with my content or any other editor's content, but I ask for your support for encouraging user:Skyring (and the rest of us) to adhere to those Wikipedia guidelines on behaviour. Thanks,  Lester  20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Message to user:Skyring
Hello, Skyring. I notice your edit a few days ago (here) at the David Hicks talk page, and wanted to say that this is a big improvement on prior discussions, as you have made an effort to discuss your proposed deletion before deleting it. Thank you.  Lester  05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing and incivility
I was hopeful that as a result of this RfC process that user:Skyring had improved his behaviour (I thought he had), but unfortunately the improved behaviour did not last. User:Skrying has continued to revert and delete the same line in the John Howard article that he was reverting before this RfC began. That line is "being the only living former Prime Minister". Here are some recent reversions: This reverting has taken place despite overwhelming community opposition. See diff of talk page] for example of Skyring 1. not stating exactly what he was doing, and 2. ignoring community opposition. In addition, I note tremendous incivility against editors who oppose his point-of-view in the John Howard and David Hicks articles: Calling other editors "obnoxious" is hardly civilised behaviour. Threatening opponents with Sock Puppet enquiries is something user:Skyring has done before, including to myself. See: Talk:Skyring/Archive0408.  Lester  21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18:15, 23 April 2008
 * 02:01, 25 April 2008
 * 02:16, 25 April 2008
 * 04:27, 30 April 2008 - scroll to discussion titled "Socks".
 * Lester, I suggest that you read carefully the comments above made by experienced Wikipedians. As for User:Eyedubya, I'm assembling diffs and will present a case for comment in due course, as I have every right to do. You may also care to review your own past behaviour; others may see your comments as a case of PKB. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring - I've just visited WP:Wikistalking to see what this neologism means, and I note that accusing someone of sockpuppetry on their talk page and threatening to reveal their identity are forms harassment. Eyedubya (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Lester, this RfC has been delisted and archived. It isn't a venue for you to provide ongoing commentary and assessment of Peter. If he has violated 3RR please take it up on the 3RR noticeboard. If he hasn't violated policy, might I suggest you try dispute resolution such as mediation or an article RFC. Sarah 06:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)