Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 23 June 2005

For arbitration to succeed, all parties must accept the fairness of the process and decision. At this point I would have to say that the process is on a path to failure.

I make the following observations:

• Proposed remedy 2.
  • "User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks"
    • Just how many times has Adam Carr been "admonished" to do precisely this? His talk page is littered with complaints and warnings. (Perhaps I should pull out a list of examples here.) Threats, insults and bullying behaviour should not be encouraged or condoned. The way to handle a bully is to stand firm with the support of authority figures.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.
  • "User:Skyring has been engaged in a content dispute regarding Government of Australia and related articles"
    • Yes, but I can hardly have a dispute all by myself. Take a look at the material. Every time someone actually starts talking about specific wording, Adam comes in with a fresh load of abuse and the process moves away from any progress.
  • "see Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia for a restatement of the issues under dispute by User:Adam Carr, (The result of the vote is at Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote)."
    • Adam's "vote" did not include an option for my position (which was that no change to Misplaced Pages policy was required), was heavily modified during voting by those voting (including being archived mid way through the process) and did not attract the minimum number of participants within the voting period (both specified by Adam). I restate my point about fairness of process and decision.
  • "The dispute is complex but essentially revolves about characterization of Australia as a republic."
    • The material on Australia being a republic is peripheral. I lost that one months ago, though I note that even leading republicans state that Australia has a republican form of government. The debate revolves around the head of state.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.3
  • "The debate to some extent turns on whether the Governor-General is head of state or the Queen, it being maintained that if the Queen is head of state then Australia is a constitutional monarchy by definition."
    • This is backwards. Nobody is disputing that Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Nobody says that the Queen isn't Queen of Australia.
    • The debate centres around whether the Queen can be described as the head of state when she doesn't represent Australia and her role in Australian affairs is minimal and continuing to decline. Even the Prime Minister, who loves the Queen dearly, still describes the Governor-General as the effective head of state.
• Proposed findings of fact 2.5
  • "Skyring's position is that regardless of the formal statements in the documents which relate to the structure of the government of Australia, its structure and form of government is, in fact, that of a republic."
    • That's not my position. My position on this minor point is that the Queen is the only non-republican aspect of Australian affairs. She exercises no power and has no role in Australian government. The Constitution, subsequent legislation, and High Court findings make it clear that nowadays Australian government is entirely within the hands of Australians, Australia is a fully independent and sovereign nation and that the United Kingdom is a foreign country.
    • My position is that there is a diversity of views as to who is the head of state.
      • The Prime Minister says that the Governor-General is the head of state
      • The Governor-General says that the Queen is the head of state
      • Constitutional experts say that both are correct in different ways
      • The Government itself alternates in its view
    • I think it is pretty clear that the situation is not cut and dried.
• Proposed remedy 1
  • "User:Skyring is banned for one year from editing any article (or talk page) which relates to the government of Australia."
    • Just how does gagging me change the reality? This won't stop the Prime Minister from saying that the Governor-General is the head of state. This won't stop the Opposition Leader from calling the Governor-General the head of state. Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.

I say that Misplaced Pages should describe the facts, not present a partisan position. Suppressing discussion on article content and condoning bullying behaviour merely sends a message that the process is flawed. Pete 21:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a book, or you could buy advertising on a major network? Misplaced Pages is not a forum for advocacy. Fred Bauder 23:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just said that. The Prime Minister's statements are on major networks. He's the head of government, he's won four elections in a row (defeating Adam's political party), he keeps on increasing his majority, he's actually a person of some influence and authority in Australia, and he says the Governor-General is the head of state. Don't you think the views of the head of the Australian Government belong in an article about Australian government? Be reasonable, please! Pete 23:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

While I think the remedy for Skyring looks about right, I'm concerned about whether an admonishment for Adam Carr will suffice. Adam Carr has been banned for 24 hours for personal attacks in a previous ArbComm case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche), and has, in relation to the Skyring dispute, expressed his view that personal attacks are justifiable and necessary when dealing with trolls. For example, when asked to avoid personal attacks on Skyring, Adam Carr states, "I am always courteous to legitimate editors, even when I have disagreements. But I deal with vandals and trolls as they need to be dealt with. It is only because some editors are willing to stand up to people like Skyring that Misplaced Pages is not an even bigger mess than it already is." . However, the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks page says, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." and "Personal attacks against any user - regardless of their past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit."

I don't believe Adam Carr deserves sanctions because of his actions, but might the ArbComm consider a remedy along the lines of requiring Adam Carr to actively commit to refrain from uncivil language and personal attacks, even with those he believes to be trolls? — Matt Crypto 23:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of Adam Carr's behavior but being on the carpet for "forcing" one "good" editor from Misplaced Pages (Jguk (talk · contribs), am a bit gun shy. Fred Bauder 18:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)