[WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

Wed Mar 9 20:46:42 UTC 2005

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:29:21 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:

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

Yikes! It appears that way, doesn't it?

If you were to go back through the history of that particular talk
page, you would see that Adam at one stage misquoted a line of the
Constitution, substituting "is" for "shall be", at the same time using
boldface to emphasise his opinion that it was a fact that the
Constitution said it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10919875]

I corrected him and there was some discussion, Adam quoting the
correct text and apparently unable to detect the misquotation I'd
pointed out. He then began a new section, divorcing his argument from
the misquotation I'd complained about:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10942255]

There was some more discussion, and then Adam deleted most of the
discussion page. I presume he added it to the existing archive though
I have not checked. This edit made his original misquotation vanish
from ready gaze:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10949293]

I responded, and then Adam made the comments to which I earlier objected:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10950314]

In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a
pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly
towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia
is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from
the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned
republic" is appropriate.

-- 
Peter in Canberra