[WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

Wed Mar 9 16:29:21 UTC 2005

Peter in Canberra wrote:

>I've just copped the latest in a long line of personal attacks from
>one particular editor who stands out for his attitude in a community
>where tolerance and restraint is generally the norm. I don't think his
>comments are justified, but even if they were, I would still take
>exception to the language:
>
>"Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate
>obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious
>misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and
>egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia#The_real_issue
>
>To my mind this is no way to conduct any sort of productive debate,
>and as a rather new editor I wonder just how much this sort of thing
>is tolerated.

I think this is a great example of a situation where conflicts over content 
intersect with personal attacks.  Since we have been talking about both, I 
think that it is worth talking about how the various views expressed by 
different people on the list-serve might apply to this case.

For starts, I will present two extreme approaches -- but I hope others will 
suggest more nuanced approaches.  I am not suggesting we of the list-serve 
formally intervene in this situation.  I am suggesting that if we consider 
different hypothetical interventions, it might help us arrive at a clearer 
understanding of current policy, or might suggest new policies.

First approach: No personal attacks, period.  In this particular exchange, 
Peter in Canberra (Skyring) has not said anything that would constitute a 
personal attack.  If this went to arbitration, Adam Carr would certainly be 
sanctioned in some way, and Skyring might not be sanctioned at all.

Second approach: We rely on the community to police the quality of the 
contents of articles.  Adam Carr tried to, in a reasonable fashion:

 From the article's talk page:

>Skyring has repeatedly accused me of deliberately misquoting the 
>Constitution. Here is section 2 of the Constitution, cut-and-pasted from 
>the Parliamentary website 
>(http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm).
>2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's 
>representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the 
>Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this 
>Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be 
>pleased to assign to him.
>Now: does Skyring dispute that this is indeed the text of the 
>Constitution? Does he deny that the Constitution says that (a) the Queen 
>appoints the Governor-General and (b) the Governor-General is the Queen's 
>representative? Given these two things, in what capacity does the Queen 
>appoint the GG? And in what capacity is the Queen represented by the GG? 
>If Skyring wants to deny that it is the capacity of head of state, he has 
>to tell us what other capacity could it possibly be. Adam 01:11, 9 Mar 
>2005 (UTC)

Skyring's response is, in my opinion, bizarre:

>You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You 
>said "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's 
>representative". This is not a fact. It is incorrect. (Skyring)

Now, I do not consider myself partisan in this matter -- but yesterday I 
did some checking and provided the list-serve with evidence that suggest 
that this claim, "the fact is the constitution says the CG is the Queen's 
representative."  Skyring did not respond to me; TBSDY did respond, but 
only to confirm my sense that Australia is not a republic.

Now, it seems to me that at this juncture the discussion can no longer be 
reasonable.  Adam Carr is not doing original research.  He is providing 
verifiable information and providing his source, the Australian 
constitution.  Skyring is not claiming that Adam Carr has violated our NPOV 
policy, nor our NOR, verifiability, or cite sources policies.  Skyring is 
simply saying that Adam Carr is wrong -- immediately after Adam Carr 
provided evidence.

Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam Carr is giving a 
reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the 
Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says.  So there 
are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not 
matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible.  I believe that either one of 
these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles.  Skyring 
won't budge, though.

So what is Adam Carr to do now?  From my own experience, mediation would 
not help -- when CheeseDream and I went into mediation, the mediator made 
it clear that he wasn't judging content but rather trying to help us work 
together.  But the problem here is not that Adam Carr and Skyring cannot 
get along or work together harmoniously -- that this may appear to be the 
case is only a side-effect of the real problem: Skyring is a problem editor 
who disregards evidence and flat-out rejects the edits of an editor who is 
following all of our policies.

Adam Carr becomes hostile:

>"SHALL BE HER MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? CAN'T 
>YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH? Adam 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, here is a crucial moment in the argument: Skyring does not respond 
with anything that would be considered a "personal attack."  But he 
continues to misconstrue Adam's position, and continues to insist on absurd 
principles:

>Calm down, Adam. Please. You misquoted the constitution, as I pointed out 
>above. I've quoted the exact words you used. In the same breath you 
>accused me of circular arguments, and I asked you to provide examples, 
>none of which have been provided. However, none of this seems to be 
>getting us anywhere. Others have provided useful directions on how to 
>proceed, and frankly I think you should either keep out of the discussion 
>for a while or try to aim for a more professional manner. Skyring 03:18, 9 
>Mar 2005 (UTC)

And it is at this point that Adam makes the personal attack of which 
Skyring complains.

So here is the second -- admittedly extreme -- position: (1) from the 
perspective of "content," what Skyring has written is as offensive, if not 
more offensive (since the whole point of Wikipedia is to develop a 
high-quality encyclopedia) than any personal attack, and (2) what appears 
to be a personal attack on the part of Adam Carr is simply an example of 
how members of the community, acting in their anarchic, unregulated way, 
try to protect the quality of articles after reasonable, polite efforts 
have failed.

I believe that both positions I have hypothesized are extreme.  I hope 
members of the list-serve can present alternatives, and discuss this case 
as a means for clarifying our ideas about policies and procedures.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701