Peter in Canberra wrote:
I've just copped the latest in a long line of personal attacks from one particular editor who stands out for his attitude in a community where tolerance and restraint is generally the norm. I don't think his comments are justified, but even if they were, I would still take exception to the language:
"Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_Australia#The_real_issue
To my mind this is no way to conduct any sort of productive debate, and as a rather new editor I wonder just how much this sort of thing is tolerated.
I think this is a great example of a situation where conflicts over content intersect with personal attacks. Since we have been talking about both, I think that it is worth talking about how the various views expressed by different people on the list-serve might apply to this case.
For starts, I will present two extreme approaches -- but I hope others will suggest more nuanced approaches. I am not suggesting we of the list-serve formally intervene in this situation. I am suggesting that if we consider different hypothetical interventions, it might help us arrive at a clearer understanding of current policy, or might suggest new policies.
First approach: No personal attacks, period. In this particular exchange, Peter in Canberra (Skyring) has not said anything that would constitute a personal attack. If this went to arbitration, Adam Carr would certainly be sanctioned in some way, and Skyring might not be sanctioned at all.
Second approach: We rely on the community to police the quality of the contents of articles. Adam Carr tried to, in a reasonable fashion:
From the article's talk page:
Skyring has repeatedly accused me of deliberately misquoting the Constitution. Here is section 2 of the Constitution, cut-and-pasted from the Parliamentary website (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm). 2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. Now: does Skyring dispute that this is indeed the text of the Constitution? Does he deny that the Constitution says that (a) the Queen appoints the Governor-General and (b) the Governor-General is the Queen's representative? Given these two things, in what capacity does the Queen appoint the GG? And in what capacity is the Queen represented by the GG? If Skyring wants to deny that it is the capacity of head of state, he has to tell us what other capacity could it possibly be. Adam 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Skyring's response is, in my opinion, bizarre:
You stated that the Constitution says something it clearly does not. You said "the fact is that the Constitution says the GG is the Queen's representative". This is not a fact. It is incorrect. (Skyring)
Now, I do not consider myself partisan in this matter -- but yesterday I did some checking and provided the list-serve with evidence that suggest that this claim, "the fact is the constitution says the CG is the Queen's representative." Skyring did not respond to me; TBSDY did respond, but only to confirm my sense that Australia is not a republic.
Now, it seems to me that at this juncture the discussion can no longer be reasonable. Adam Carr is not doing original research. He is providing verifiable information and providing his source, the Australian constitution. Skyring is not claiming that Adam Carr has violated our NPOV policy, nor our NOR, verifiability, or cite sources policies. Skyring is simply saying that Adam Carr is wrong -- immediately after Adam Carr provided evidence.
Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam Carr is giving a reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says. So there are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible. I believe that either one of these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles. Skyring won't budge, though.
So what is Adam Carr to do now? From my own experience, mediation would not help -- when CheeseDream and I went into mediation, the mediator made it clear that he wasn't judging content but rather trying to help us work together. But the problem here is not that Adam Carr and Skyring cannot get along or work together harmoniously -- that this may appear to be the case is only a side-effect of the real problem: Skyring is a problem editor who disregards evidence and flat-out rejects the edits of an editor who is following all of our policies.
Adam Carr becomes hostile:
"SHALL BE HER MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH? Adam 02:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now, here is a crucial moment in the argument: Skyring does not respond with anything that would be considered a "personal attack." But he continues to misconstrue Adam's position, and continues to insist on absurd principles:
Calm down, Adam. Please. You misquoted the constitution, as I pointed out above. I've quoted the exact words you used. In the same breath you accused me of circular arguments, and I asked you to provide examples, none of which have been provided. However, none of this seems to be getting us anywhere. Others have provided useful directions on how to proceed, and frankly I think you should either keep out of the discussion for a while or try to aim for a more professional manner. Skyring 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And it is at this point that Adam makes the personal attack of which Skyring complains.
So here is the second -- admittedly extreme -- position: (1) from the perspective of "content," what Skyring has written is as offensive, if not more offensive (since the whole point of Wikipedia is to develop a high-quality encyclopedia) than any personal attack, and (2) what appears to be a personal attack on the part of Adam Carr is simply an example of how members of the community, acting in their anarchic, unregulated way, try to protect the quality of articles after reasonable, polite efforts have failed.
I believe that both positions I have hypothesized are extreme. I hope members of the list-serve can present alternatives, and discuss this case as a means for clarifying our ideas about policies and procedures.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701