Case Opened on May 30, 2005.

Cases Merged on 25 June, 2005.

Reopened on August 1, 2005

Case Closed on August 12, 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by party 1[edit]

I am requesting arbitration against Skyring on behalf of the editors working on Government of Australia. Skyring disputes the content of the article; he wishes to introduce what I will describe as original research since he is yet to provide references for his assertions. His edits to the article are disruptive and usually start edit wars. An informal poll conducted by compilation of editor comments, see Talk:Government of Australia/archive 5, shows that 12/12 editors with an interest in the page and Australian constitutional law agree that Skyrings changes to the article are incorrect (for want of a better word).

User:Adam Carr has initiated a poll to make a policy especially for Goverment of Australia, I hazard to say in desperation after 5 months of ciruclar discussion on the topic, where Skyrings edits would be reverted on sight unless backed up with references on the talk page. I think this poll would set a bad presedent if it were to be implemented, and request rather that the ArbCom consider resticting Skyrings ability to edit on the subjects where he is being disruptive. I should make it abundantly clear that the concensus on the page, amongst people who are knowledgeable in this area is to revert Skyrings edits.--nixie 06:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

The dispute is a simple one. One user wishes to use definitions that don't exist in constitutional law. He claims as 'evidence' statements by academics and politicians that do not support his claims. All users in 5 archives have told him that he is wrong in law, in constitutional theory and that he is mis-representing the views of the leading experts he quotes. Detailed links have been provided, including primary legal documents, state documents, ministerial statements, formal speeches from international figures, quotes from academics, quotes from legal cases, etc. Yet he insists that the overwhelming view of all experts is "based on uninformed tradition or folklore" and when pushed, produces 'evidence' based on POV magazine articles and a link to something one minor lawyer once wrote. Everyone on the page is simply trying to find a way to stop his farcical POVing of an otherwise accurate article.

Re the rfc option - the user in question ignores everyone's views and rubbishs them, so is unlikely to pay the slightest attention to an rfc. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 18:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3[edit]

Australia is not, nor has it ever been, a republic. Skyring learned early on that he could not so crudely insert this original theory, and now he has resorted to gaming the system with ones slightly more subtle, but nonetheless, original. Refusing propper attribution or engaging in gross misattribution, the circularity ensues seemingly endlessly, needlessly taxing everyone's time and energy. El_C 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyring[edit]

My position is simple. The unqualified assertion that the Queen is Australia's sole head of state is one of three views on the matter, and is not uniformly representative of informed opinion. Unlike indigenous kingdoms where the monarch is a clear and undisputed head of state, Australia and other Commonwealth Realms have a powerful local head of state in the Governor-General. Kingdoms such as the UK, Norway, Netherlands etc. have no comparable figure who is given and exercises powers in his own right. I refer to a popular Australian Politics site for a summary of the three views. It should be noted that the current Governor-General supports the first view, the Prime Minister and several eminent constitutional scholars support the second, and the sizable monarchist population the third.

A Parliamentary Library Research Note contrasts the two extreme positions. It is worth pointing out that since the withdrawal of the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General in 1984, the Queen is unable to issue instructions to the Governor-General. I make no assertions as to which of the three positions is correct, I merely point out that there are three differing positions, and that making an unqualified reference to one specific person as head of state is not an NPOV position, regardless of whether that person is the Queen or the Governor-General.

I reject the accusations of edit warring. As can be seen from the history of the article, if I make an edit and it is opposed, I will direct other editors to the discussion page, where the point is discussed. I do not attempt to sustain edits against consensus, though I am more than happy to use the discussion page for discussion.

I cannot, however, feel much confidence in the ability of some other editors. The continued use of abuse, strawman positions, and evasion when asked specific questions strikes me as very poor practice. For example, the opening discussion in Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_5, indicates the normal practice of party 2 in this RfA. The poisonous and provocative tactics of Adam Carr strike me as particularly repugnant, especially as he has been asked several times to refrain from abuse. Pete 06:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/3/1/0)[edit]

Accept. I think there's a case to be heard, and I think there's been some issues on both sides. Being Australian, I've been around the fringes of this dispute, but I don't think it's necessary to recuse - but if one party or the other feels that it is necessary, I'll seriously consider doing so. Ambi 06:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, for consideration of content dispute Fred Bauder 10:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Fred, you know full well that is outside our mandate. Ambi 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - this is worded as a content dispute, plain and simple, and is thus outside our mandate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:27, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
- IMO as a recused arb, it's really one about a user putting in original research repeatedly and persistently over months without references - which is behavioural - David Gerard 14:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I urge its acceptance on grounds of persistent original research injection - David Gerard 14:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject ; put it through an RfC first. --mav 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, per David Gerard. →Raul654 18:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Reject, content dispute ➥the Epopt 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. David's reasoning is sound, and I can't see a RFC being useful - i've seen how many people have already commented. This reminds me of the Darwin-Lincoln dispute -- sannse (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged case[edit]

Reason: A campaign of personal harrassment, stalking personal abuse and attempts at bullying directed against me and which, while I was writing this, I was informed that he has directed in part against others also, who have stood up to him on his behaviour on Wikipedia.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request[edit]

Skyring

Other users aware of his behaviour:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried[edit]

Given the experience with Government of Australia, Skyring has shown himself unwilling to listen to anyone else, convinced of his own correctness, and sure that everyone who disagrees with him is a "bully", "ignorant", etc.

Statement by party 1[edit]

As the arbitrators are aware, Skyring has been the subject of a POV dispute on Talk:Government of Australia. You are currently dealing with this. I was one of the users who challenged him. Since then he has engaged in constant harassment of me. In one period 100 of 102 edits he did were of pages I had edited either immediately before or within a short space of time, accompanied by personally abusive edit summaries. He placed messages abusing me on among others the talk pages of User:Adam Carr and User:Djegan. Tonight I edited the page a two year old article, Vicarius Filii Dei to add in some images and do some minor textual changes. 42 minutes later he went to the page and added in a deletion notice.

His most recent act on a page I had edited was, as mentioned to propose deletion, which he categorised in the edit summary thus:

04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vicarius Filii Dei (Kick it off)

His appearance at the article was as follows:

(cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
(cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Among the comments he added to people's talk pages were [1] [2] [3] [4]

He described his comment on Adam Carr's page thus:

14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)

Throughout the period he appeared on pages he had never paid any attention to, simply because I edited it. He suddenly developed an interest in Irish local government [5], a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, the Irish referendum on the European Constitution [6], News Anchors [7], Viceregal thrones [8] where he announced his intention of deleting a template I had added to an article I had written from scratch (a user who has been waging a campaign against templates had just been voted down in his attempt to delete another template I had created. Suddenly Skyring was in to templates too!). Whether it was the residence of the President of Ireland or Papal Tiaras, Mary Robinson or the State Crown of George I, templates or even a temp page, if I went near it, he followed and then in many cases was publicly abusive.

I outlined more details at [9]. Petaholmes also outlines what is described as the "personal harrassment of User:jtdirl".[10] (Other users have emailed me over his behaviour using extremely strong language about Skyring and his antics, and urged me to raise it here.)

Finally, I note that in the discussion on the proposed one year ban from editing any articles relating to the Government of Australia, Skyring made the following threat "Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts." [11] In other words he is openly admitting that he will get around the ban by "finding some other editor(s)" to force his patiently incorrect opinion. Given that he is already under investigation by you, this request here should receive priority and be dealt with in tandem with the other, with one injection given for both. Otherwise, going by his past performance he will simply use the excuse of his ban on writing on Australian government topics, while simultaneously breaking it, to harass and bully others who have in the past stood in his way.

Since I started typing this, Petaholmes has contacted to inform me that "he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence." Clearly this campaign of harrassment is not a once off and won't be a once off. This user needs severe dealing with, possibly even the ultimate sanction, for his behaviour.

Statement by El_C[edit]

I feel bad since I should have been keeping an eye on this. I warned Skyring against making personal attcks in edit summaries (diff) and taking pains in upsetting Jtdirl. I consider Pete Skyring's VfD nomination & participation alone to have been made in extremely bad faith, undoubtedly as part of a campaign of harrasment targetting jtdirl — and I could not care less that Pete Skyring fixes some grammatical errors in the course of this, to prove his point. His contempt towards Essjay, which a cursory glance reveals to be one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism, only further underscores Pete Skyring's contempt for Wikipedia and its editors. I excerpt the unfortunate exchange, thusly:

I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class. Essjay · Talk 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Snopes doesn't list it. It may well be a longstanding myth but it's pure crap. Who really cares? Crackpots. As for jtdirl's edits - check out my contributions and you'll see what I was correcting. Pete 06:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize snops.com was exhaustive. This is symptomatic of how editors get treated when in the way of Pete Skyring's agenda. Since when did "who really cares" become a criteria for deletion/notability? The use of the word "crackpot" is telling, noting Pete Skyring's most infemous edit: Australia is a republic *** This editor has been nothing but discourteous to me, personally (recently, on this matter diff), on Talk:Government of Australia, where he had edited my comments, lengthening a two sentence quote to a whole paragraph, thereby he is seen to be suppressing my point (diff) —as seen in the following two diffs, more than once— and with a most discreditable impunity despite all protests (diff, and a 2nd time: diff). And in the realm of content, extremely eliptical, agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest. This latest stunt, while his current Arbitration on "crackpot" Republicanism in Govt. of Australia remains ongoing, is a mockery of Wikipedia, its editors, and this committee. I offer Jtdirl's my apologies for my oversight in neglecting to watch over Pete Skyring's proofreading (I have been rather preoccupied elsehwhere), and I call on this committee to put a stop to Pete Skyring's abuse of Wikipedia policy, starting with an immediate injunction. El_C 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring[edit]

jtdirl makes his hypocrisy plain. A glance at his contributions shows that he repeatedly abuses me both publicly and privately. As he does again in this RfA. That's one reason for me to keep tabs on his contributions. [12] (jtdirl attempts to justify his harrassment of me.) "his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law", "his dodgy claims" [13] "Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles","Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law" [14] "'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor" [15] "But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't even understand your own constitution" (list of edits to follow. Long list)

Checking out my contributions reveals one obvious point. I like hunting down errors and fixing them. I like this more than creating new articles or adding material to existing articles. I noticed from jtdirl's contributions when he weighed into the Government of Australia debate that his material was full of errors (for instance, he was unaware of Australian monarchist spokesmen and what their public statements had been, and he claimed two Governors-General had commented on events in 1999, not knowing that they had died in 1991 and 1993 respectively).

So after patrolling RC for a while I thought that I might go and check out jtdirl's edits as a more fruitful source of errors, and I found the mother-lode! My edits speak for themselves. Spelling mistakes, syntax reconstruction, grammar and style fixes galore, but also corrections of some really ludicrous errors. Several times jtdirl reverted my corrections, thereby reintroducing the same old errors.

Petaholmes is worth following around to tidy up her spelling mistakes, but she's not in the same league. (list of edits to follow. Short list)

(I must say that I take my hat off to Petaholmes! She complains that I'm stalking her, but if you read her statement below, she's busy trawling through my LiveJournal blog for stuff to use here! Way to steal the moral high ground, nixie!)

And yes, I looked at Vicarius Filii Dei, read through it and was unimpressed. It's pure crackpottery and doesn't belong in WP. Snopes.com covers a multitude of myths, but doesn't bother with this one. So I created a VfD for VFD and yes, I made the comment "Kick it off". As I had done with other new articles such as [16] or [17]. I had imagined that the reference to "kicking-off" a football game was plain.

I am not surprised that jtdirl is moaning about "harrassment". He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Wikipedia if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

Comment:

He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Wikipedia if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

A warm glow of virtue ?(!) The contempt and instransigence of Pete Skyring truly begs belief. He is not satisfied with attacking Jtdirl in his statement, but also feels compelled to add a snide, disparaging remark against Catholics. I charge that he is out of order and out of line. This is an insult to the Wikipedia community, a mockery of this procedure, its participants, and the committee. El_C 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I "feel compelled", do I? What interesting terminology. How very Freudian. I personally do not feel "compelled", despite your projections.

Wikipedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."

That's the bottom line. The aim is not to create a bureaucracy. The aim is not to create a clubby community where everyone agrees with everyone else. My edits speak for themselves - they are directed towards correcting errors and thereby improving the quality of the Wikipedia.

And I'd like to point out that charging me with attacking other editors whilst making an abusive and insulting attack against me is the height of hypocrisy. Look to the log in your own eye, brother! Pete 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was rather insane. You sure seem compelled to me. Quite the VfD you got there, btw. El_C 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. It's your perception. Don't tell me what I "feel", because it's your feeling, not mine.

As for VFD VfD, if people want to keep it that's fine, and I'm pleased to see the system working as it should. Looks like I misjudged the genuine interest of people in mythbusting. To my mind the whole crackpot myth can be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscription. Plain common sense, but hey, if people really want a whole article with pictures instead of two lines in the Papal Tiara article, that's OK. My apologies to all the keen mythbusters and I've changed my vote there to make it a unanimous Keep. Pete 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I did no such thing. As I said, [y]ou sure seem compelled to me. El_C 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read what you wrote again. Please. Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I was not telling you anything, I was addressing the committee, which I suggest that, henceforth, you limit yourself to doing. El_C 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I point out to the committee the blatant hypocrisy of El C's comment above? Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boasting of your contempt for other Wikipedians in a public forum (which you link to from your user page so I can only assume that you want people to go there) seems like very relevant information, and speaks to your general contempt for the norms of behaviour here.--nixie 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the behaviour of you, jtdirl and El_C, one might imagine that breathtaking hypocrisy is the norm. Sure, my LiveJournal is open to the public. So are Wikipedia contributions, and really, you can hardly complain that I am stalking you by looking at your official contributions here when you go offsite and not only hunt back through my personal blog but you also quote bits out of it. Be reasonable, please! Pete 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tired rhetoric, shallow innuendo, trivial diversions; the facts speak clearly, and they have been thoroughly documented above & elsewhere. El_C 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just step into my shoes for a moment, brother. From my point of view, you're doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing. You want me somehow wikipunished but I'll bet if I kick off three more RfAs for the above three clear hypocrisies, you'll complain that it's all terribly unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. Look into your own heart and ask yourself if the hatred you are directing my way is something you'd care to be on the receiving end of? Pete 04:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not directing any hatred your way, I take exception to that accusation. You are free to take any action you see fit against me. El_C 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with Skyring, who has shown himself to all who have dealt with him to be arrogant, obnoxious and incapable of recognising that when everyone who has dealt with him points out that there is a problem with his behaviour, there may well be a problem with his behaviour. I will however point out three facts:

He sees nothing wrong in targeting 'enemies' of his, attacking them, and following them around from page to page harrassing them. If he did that in person he would be reported to the police for stalking.
While seeing nothing wrong with his behaviour of targeting his critics personally, Skyring regards it as unacceptable when El-C reads something he had written about Wikipedians in a public forum that he himself has advertised on his own user page, with a link provided by him to enable Wikipedians to read his page.

Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?'[18]

In two places, when debating the proposed sanction against him for his conduct on Australian government pages, and in the external page he himself links to his own Wikipedia page, he points out that he can get one or more other 'users' (ie, himself as someone else) to push his editing agenda, or that he can also sign on anonymously and do exactly as he wants, irrespective of what sanction is imposed on him here.

His aim in life is to get me booted off Wikipedia so I don't embarrass him any further. Yeah, like that would work. Wikipedia allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day. What could he do? Complain that some bastard was making him look like an idiot? [19]

Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts. [20]

Clearly, having shown contempt for other users and contempt of NPOV he has also demonstrated clear contempt for the rule-making and rule-enforcing standards on Wikipedia. As a result one can but question whether a partial ban, either from certain types of edits or certain pages, would be effective. DW and Lir showed similar contempt for other users and Wikipedia rules. Should Skyring, on the basis of his threats to get around any sanctions imposed, be treated like the above two individuals, and so have a longterm ban imposed, coupled with an instruction to revert any edits by him under assumed identities on sight? FearÉIREANN^(talk) 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Petaholmes[edit]

After adding harassment evidence to Skrings other RfAr, he proceeded to edit four other pages that I had worked on that day, including one I was still actively working on and was yet to spell check. Previously he and I only have one page that we both edit. Since he didn't barrage with the same personal attacks that he did Jtdirl I was unsure If I should add it to the evidence. The wikistalking did concern me, first for the irrational reason that I was being followed (though I think most resonable wikipedians would feel the same way); second for the reason that I was being targeted and scrutinized unfairly due to involvement in the preceeding ArbCom case; and thirdly these behaviours certainly point to deficiencies in expected behaviour including Wikipedia:Civility. I also find it quite odd that Skyring thinks he is doing the project a service by policing and enforcing his Wikijustice on good users, it would seem to go against the spirit of the Wiki. This quote from his LJ is rather telling As you know, I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, where my tastes lie more in the direction of stamping on errors and egos than in adding to the body of knowledge, June 16. The personal attacks on Jtdirl are unacceptable.--nixie 09:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)[edit]

Merge into existing case. This may require a temporary injunction. Ambi 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Accept but don't merge. Fred Bauder 11:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do we need two cases on the same user for the same dispute with the same people? The only difference is that things have gotten more aggravated. Ambi 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 21:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Merge ➥the Epopt 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge - sannse (talk) 12:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Not a soapbox or forum[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion.

Passed 6-0

Courtesy[edit]

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users.

Passed 6-0

Limited bans on editing[edit]

3) Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities.

Passed 6-0

"wiki-stalking"[edit]

4) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.

Passed 5-0

Findings of fact[edit]

Mutual discourtesy[edit]

1) Both User:Skyring and User:Adam Carr have sometimes been discourteous [21] [22] [23] [24] Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2#Arguing_with_trolls [25]

Passed 6-0

Content dispute[edit]

2. User:Skyring has been engaged in a content dispute regarding Government of Australia and related articles, 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). The dispute is complex but essentially revolves about characterization of Australia as a republic.

Passed 6-0

Articles affected[edit]

2.1) Other articles affected include Governor-General of Australia and Republic.

Passed 6-0

Debate[edit]

Passed 6-0

Head of state[edit]

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.

Passed 6-0

Australian Republican Movement[edit]

2.4) There is a Republican political movement (ARM) which advocates change of the government of Australia to a republic Paper "We are on our own: the global and historical context of an Australian Republic"

Passed 6-0

Skyring's position[edit]

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 [26] "I say that Australia is a republic because the best definitions of the word include Australia, and because Australia has been described as "a crowned republic" since Federation. It is hardly an original view. Skyring 20:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Passed 6-0

Citations by Skyring[edit]

2.6) Skyring cites certain websites as authority for his position, Palmer's Oz Politics, see also "An Australian Republic", Alexa rank about 300,000 "Who Must Open the Sydney Olympic Games?" (see 2000_Summer_Olympics#Day_1_-_September_15).

Passed 6-0

Adam Carr's position[edit]

2.7) Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General [27].

Passed 6-0

State of the article Government of Australia[edit]

2.8) The current version of Government of Australia seems to adequately and accurately set forth the nature of Australia's government and the situation of its head of state, see Government_of_Australia#Head_of_state despite the exclusion of User:Skyring's participation by the other editors of the article, see [28]

Passed 6-0

Extended talk page discussion[edit]

2.9) Due to User:Skyring's extended discussion of certain points Talk:Government of Australia has become quite inflated with voluminous archives.

Passed 6-0

Wiki-stalking by Skyring[edit]

3) On 13 June User:Skyring followed User:Jtdirl, editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by Jtdirl (see contributions for 13 June). While it is not possible to fully assess intent, this action, and some of the edit summaries used, seem designed to provoke: "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor"

Passed 5-0

Blind reverting by Jtdirl[edit]

User:Jtdirl reverted many of User:Skyring's edits, taking the articles back to versions with spelling mistakes and inaccuracies in several cases: [29], [30], [31], [32].

Passed 5-0

Remedies[edit]

Limit on editing by Skyring[edit]

1) User:Skyring is banned for one year from editing any article (or talk page) which relates to the government or governance of Australia.

Passed 6-0

Skyring banned for two months[edit]

2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for two months for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.

Passed 4-1

Skyring banned for a month[edit]

2.2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for a month for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.

Passed 4-1

Skyring placed on personal attack parole[edit]

3) User:Skyring is placed under a one-year personal attack parole. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Passed 4-1

Adam Carr admonished[edit]

4) User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks

Passed 6-0

Jtdirl reminded of good editing practice[edit]

5) User:Jtdirl is reminded that the best response to attempts to provoke is not to be provoked, and that valid edits should not be blindly reverted.

Passed 5-0

Skyring admonished[edit]

6) User:Skyring is admonished to be more civil and to cease attempts to provoke other contributors.

Passed 5-0

Enforcement[edit]

Provision for temporary ban[edit]

1) In the event User:Skyring edits any article (or talk page) which relates to the government of Australia he may be banned for a short period by any administrator (1 day for initial offenses, up to a week for repeat offenses)

Passed 5-0

2nd Decision[edit]

Case was re-opened per a request from Jimbo Wales in August 2005

Remedy[edit]

Skyring banned for wikistalking[edit]

2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.

Passed 5-0, 22:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)