[WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

Wed Mar 9 21:34:43 UTC 2005

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
> think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore
> opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are
> upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the
> community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate
> his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.

Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside
your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into
attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true. Nevertheless, as
he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for
yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several
others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace
fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a
question of your own, rather than an answer. You have accused Adam of
misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very
precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have
different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no
reason for your view.) You've been told repeatedly what the community
consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the
article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute.
Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails
to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't
addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or
withdrawn your argument.

As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have,
I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I
believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor
no desire to see him blocked.

Sarah