Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Proposed decision

message: I have only just had this exchange drawn to my attention. Since I am a party to this dispute, might it not have been a good idea to tell me that a proposed decision had been promulgated? 
Let me make some comments on the proposed decision. 
*I have never engaged in personal attacks on any editor. Since I don't know any other editor personally, and know nothing about them other than what they write here, I don't see how I could make a personal attack on them even if I was minded to. My comments have always been directed at what they have written, at their conduct here, and at the political views they have espoused. I have certainly used strong language from time to time, but we are all adults here and I have got as good as I have given.
*What I have done is engaged in recent edit wars with three editors: Herschelkrustofsky, Skyring and Ruy Lopez. 
**In the first case I was (initially) almost single-handedly opposing a campaign by the LaRouche cult to take over parts of Wikipedia and spead their bizarre conspiracy theories and anti-Semite filth here. I make no apology for the tactics I used, which were vindicated by the subsequent ArbCom decision forcing Herschelkrustofsky out of Wikipedia. I am actually quite proud of this effort.
**In the second case I and a number of other editors were defending the Australian history and government articles against Skyring, a persistent troll who insisted on imposing his personal crank theories on these articles in the face of unanimous opposition from all other editors and after exhaustive debate. I certainly found Skyring's obtuseness and deliberate obfuscation very annoying, and I probably used stronger language than I should have done, but my experience over nearly two years at Wikipedia has been that only aggressive resistance deters cranks and trolls. On the whole I think that this was a worthwhile campaign. (I think by the way that a year's suspension for Skyring is an excessive penalty, since he appears to have abandoned his trolling in recent months.)
**In the third case I am engaged in defending the Khmer Rouge article against Ruy Lopez, who has persistently sought to intrude pro-communist POV into this and other articles under numerous identities (as I believe has been established in previous ArbCom cases). Having several close Cambodian friends and having recently been to Cambodia I find Lopez's shameless lies and apologetics on behalf of the Khmer Rouge mass murderers particularly disgusting, and I will go on telling him so for as long as it takes to get him to desist.
*I am "admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks." I think my overall record at Wikipedia will show that I am in general courteous to genuine editors. I have spent a lot of time and effort helping many editors with their articles, as my archived Talk pages will show. I enjoy robust political debate and I both give and expect frank commentary and criticism, but that is not the same as personal attacks. 
*I am happy to give an undertaking to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks. But I maintain my view that defending an open-access encyclopaedia against the swarms of trolls, vandals, cranks, cultists and ideologues who want to contaminate it with their rubbish requires constant vigilance and vigorous counter-attack. I have in the past made a proposal for structural changes to Wikipedia that would reduce its exposure to people of this kind and make this kind of resistance less time-consuming. Since these proposals have not found support, I must operate within the present structure. 
*I think Wikipedia is a noble project and worth defending against these hostile forces. If I am sanctioned for doing so, I will not withdraw from editing, but obviously I will be less inclined in future to make an effort to defend articles against trolls and cranks, and so will others. Wikipedia should be supporting genuine editors who try to maintain standards and defeat wreckers, not sanctioning them. If Wikipedia is not willing to defend itself it will not succeed, and will not deserve to. Adam 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
*: Adam -- first, I think it's a good thing that Wikipedia editors provide a robust defence of articles against trolls and cranks, and I admire those who do. However, I also believe that it's possible to deal with such users without resorting to rudeness and personal attacks. Moreover, you seem to have a different view of what constitutes a "personal attack" from myself. You say above, "I have never engaged in personal attacks on any editor." But, for example, I would argue that a statement to Skyring such as "your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness" is nothing but a string of personal insults. (Whether your comments are true or not is, to a large extent, not the point). I honestly think that ultimately the best defence against persistant problem editors is action (reverts, RFCs, ArbCom etc), not insults. Your contention would seem to be that incivility and rudeness is sometimes a necessary tool of the vigilent Wikipedia editor. I don't agree with this, and I believe the Wikipedia community disagrees as well: Civility and No personal attacks. — Matt Crypto 09:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam Carr's comments

message: I realized that there sees to be an older case, and a newer round of its remedies has been opened about a week ago.
I would like to see that the recent behavior of editor Jtdirl be checked at the same time. I have seen some of the recent "quarrels" between Jtdirl and Skyring, in talk pages of articles and naming conventions I have been working at. It seems to me that Jtdirl has all the time made rapid actions to provoke the quarrel further. I belioeved that an editor whose ban is over, is regarded as having fulfilled the punishment, but after seeing those actions, I am not sure about that. As it has seemed to me that Jtdirl founded all his adverse actions on the (already ended) banning, and not on objective criteria. Some may even opinionate that there is an element of provocatoon made by Jtdirl to the present difficulties. Arrigo 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New round 

message: Although I think Skyrings behaviour has been anti-wiki and unnecessarily disruptive at times, I'm not sure a year ban for the harassment it is the best solution. I think a shorter ban, and the application of "harrassment patrol" much like a personal attack patrol where he could be blocked for deliberate provocation of other editors (most specifically Jtdril) may be a more fair solution. His edits since the block from Jimbo seem to be constructive.--nixie 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruling