text:
Talk:National Union of Students (Australia)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017
Please change "Adelaide University Union SRC (AUU SRC)" under the section, "Union affiliation", to "University of Adelaide Student Representative Council". The Adelaide University Union and University of Adelaide Student Representative Council are different incorporated associations and don't share any part of their names. Thanks BeeJS (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017
Please change the former Officebearers to the new Officebearers seen below: Bruzzz10 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Factions section
@Salvationichor, I've reverted your reinsertion of the material you added to the factions section. Those source provided in support of the material aren't reliable for the claims being made. Per WP:ONUS you need to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the same or similar content. Please discuss. Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi, as per WP:RSSM student papers can be considered a reliable source if the subject matter is relevant to schools / their community. As the NUS is a student-led organisation, I believe that information reported by student media can be considered reliable, particularly when it comes to reporting on criticisms made by students of the NUS. Could you please explain why you believe that student media is not a reliable source for reporting on these criticisms? Newspapers like Honi Soit and Pelican
 * The articles by student media that I cited, were already cited within the factions section, I simply added extra information and removed information that I could not find reported elsewhere.
 * If your issue is my addition to the mention of vote binding, I would appreciate an explanation on why you haven't edited the section on NLS within the Factions section which currently lacks citations and currently includes the claim that the faction binds votes.
 * Would love to have some clarification on the issues you see so that we can come to a mutual understanding. Salvationichor (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:RSSM says "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community". These outlets are not Harvard Crimson and are not automatically considered reliable. See Talk:National_Union_of_Students_(Australia)/Archive_1 where there was some discussion on Honi Soit. I went to ANU so I personally know that Woroni (one of the sources you were adding) is a not reliable. In fact I've just noticed Woroni is still used in the article, added by editors prior to you, and should probably be removed. The Pelican peice is an opinion peice, only good for determining the opinions of those quoted and of the author. In generally student newspapers are as bad as or worse than tabloids. Full or gossip, inuendo and SFA fact checking. Refer to WP:RSOPINION. We don't build encyclopaedias on the basis of opinion pieces, where there is no reason to giving some weight to those specific opinions.
 * 2) Being a reliable sources for news on their school and local community, where a paper can be considered as such and here that isn't given, does not extend to being reliable about things external to those schools and local communities, i.e. NUS.
 * 3) Please don't ask me to WP:SATISFY you and edit the entire article for consistency. I have limited time, as I expect you do. We all do the amounts we are prepared to do on a voluntary basis. Bottom line, as far as I could tell only one reference in the new material you added, had anything on binding and that was only about Student Unity. Saying Student Unity binds is not the same as saying most factions bind.
 * Now if you want to dispute me saying these student newspapers are not reliable for the purposes that you were using them, you can raise it at WP:RS/N. Per WP:ONUS, you need to establish the reliability of the references where they are in question. TarnishedPathtalk 23:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you please elaborate on why you don't see Woroni as a reliable source? Their publications must be approved by a board and the paper is over 50 years old. Similarly, Honi Soit is nearly 100 years old and has 6 Directors of Student Publications who check over the paper each week prior to publication. Obviously, these papers are not the Harvard Crimson, but they can be considered the equivalent for their universities.
 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but from my understanding, your view seems to be that student media is automatically an unreliable source regarding the NUS.
 * Currently, the only citations under the "Delegates and factions" section are different student papers. If you do not believe that any of these are reliable sources, then I propose that we remove this section entirely as the information is unverifiable and much of it currently lacks citations (my previous edits did not add any additional sources but simply made clear where information had originated). However, I believe including information about the factions is important to provide context to readers as structural and financial issues for the organisation have been linked to factionalism. Salvationichor (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Salvationichor my previous edit summary was making a broad universal statement which I shouldn't have made. The issue I see with many student newspapers is that they engage in a lot of gossip. Additionally a lot the articles I've seen from them are clearly opinion pieces but they are often passed off as if they are straight-forward factual reporting, often with no indication that the articles are opinion. I know this firsthand with Woroni, having attended ANU for 5 years.
 * Looking at the references you added; Honi Soit, Honi Soit again , Woroni and Pelican Magazine , all of them are clearly opinion pieces and are not marked as such. They are passed off as factual reporting. This clearly marks them out as unreliable for anything other than the opinions of the authors and those they quote.
 * If you want to remove material that is inadequately supported I am not adverse to that. If you're going to do so, I'd suggest having a look at each source used and determining if there is a straightforward reporting of facts or if there is clearly language used in the articles which indicates that they are opinion pieces, in which case WP:RSOPINION applies. TarnishedPathtalk 05:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @TarnishedPath, so just to confirm I understand you correctly, your issue is primarily that you see the specific articles cited as being primarily opinion pieces? Would you be amiable to inclusion with a qualifier clearly asserting information as opinion e.g. "Honi Soit has said... "? My perception of these sources is that they factual reporting with opinion commentary intermixed in the article, for example reporting of delegate percentages for each faction is factual information reported.
 * I believe there is some value in reporting some of these opinions within the article as these student papers are the primary source of information for many students about the NUS and therefore are indicative of broader student perspectives on the NUS. Salvationichor (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are often of the sort you describe (facts mixed in with opinion). To the question though, yes that is the primary issue I see not only with those particular articles but with student newspapers in general. In regards to attributing the opinions, I really don't see the value of attributing to the opinions of nobodies. Their opinions have no great weight to them. TarnishedPathtalk 07:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Pelican article, some of the reporting is based on comments made by NUS delegates from the University of Western Australia in official reports to the UWA Student Guild Council as well as commentary provided by election candidates including a presidential candidate that was ultimately successfully elected and is currently in power. Additionally, past editors of Honi Soit have gone on to hold positions on the University of Sydney SRC. Therefore, I disagree with your argument that these opinions are held by "nobodies" as some of these people have been elected to represent students. Salvationichor (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was elected to ANUSA (the ANU student association) when I was an undergrad. It's not notable or particularly significant. I wouldn't try and insert quotes of my opinions in here (even if WP:COI wasn't a thing) because it would violate other core policies to do with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.
 * For myself, when it comes to attributing to opinions in political articles, I'm looking for the person with the opinion to be a columnist who's opinions are notable or a subject matter expert in politics (i.e., someone who has done postdoc training in politics or who lectures in politics) for me to think that opinion is worthy of quoting. The idea of attributing to undergrads doesn't cut it by a long way in my thinking when it comes to upholding WP's core policies.
 * We're not here to insert every last possible thing into articles. We don't need to include the WP:KITCHENSINK. TarnishedPathtalk 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If anything we should probably pear back the faction section given the lack of reliable sourcing and only include material which is reliably sourced. The inclusion of that section has been contentious in the past with some editors taking to completely remove it. Refer to the talk archive at Talk:National Union of Students (Australia)/Archive 1 for discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Salvationichor, I just went over the faction section and I immediately spotted some of the problems with using a source which is unreliable. In a number of places factually incorrect information was presented about NUS factions being affiliated with the party factions. TarnishedPathtalk 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah all good, I do agree with some of your points. I think inclusion of the Faction section is important simply because of how factionalised the NUS is / has been and therefore not including it would miss important context. Glad that we are both satisfied with the state of the Faction section now though.
 * Personally though I think that a SRC President's official opinion on a stupol matter during their time in office is noteworthy as they have the ability to act on that opinion and influence stupol on the basis of their opinion. Additionally, an SRC President is supposed to be the peak student representative for a given university, regardless of your personal opinion on whether or not they are representative.
 * I agree with you when it comes to articles on federal politics, but at a student-level I think the standard for a noteworthy opinion should also be appropriately adjusted. Salvationichor (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I'm satisfied with the section completely. You might have noticed I've tagged that ANU Oberver article as requiring better sources each time it is used. Most of that section relies on that one source. Better sources need to be found if they can and if they can't then the whole section might need to be completely rewritten to only cover material in the SMH and ABC articles or any others that can be found. TarnishedPathtalk 12:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am planning to further update it as it is always better to have corroborating sources where possible. I hadn't noticed that you had tagged it previously. Could you please explain your issues with the ANU Observer article? I view it as presenting a neutral viewpoint. Salvationichor (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A) it's an opinion piece. It mixes in opinion with fact. B) it makes factually incorrect statements that various student groups are affiliated with certain political bodies. Per Google the definition of affiliated is:
 * "(of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization."
 * That it mixes opinion with fact and doesn't clearly label that it's an opinion piece is bad enough. That it goes on to make factually incorrect statements is an even bigger problem. TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

NUS statements posted on social media
Hi, currently the NUS has been posting their official statements via social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram on their official social media accounts instead of through their official website. For example, the NUS's official statement regarding the ongoing genocide in Gaza was posted to Facebook and Instagram. I have noted that some Wikipedia articles have used social media posts as a source for information in the article. However, I do not feel that social media is generally a reliable source. Does anyone have objections to using social media as a source solely for the NUS's official positions on issues as an interim solution until their website is appropriately updated? Salvationichor (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 * @Salvationichor have a read of WP:ABOUTSELF and in particular some of the exceptions which rule out covering such material. TarnishedPathtalk 07:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking, I missed that page when I was scanning through existing policy. Some of the statements are limited solely to discussion of the activities of the NUS but the vast majority of them are not (like the statements that I linked). Salvationichor (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's the problem with a lot of WP:ABOUTSELF sources. In the material the subject often starts addressing other people and orgs. Even if all we're doing is inserting prose into the WP article which is about the subject and not about the other people or orgs, just putting the article as a reference is an invitation for readers to read about what the subject has to say about the other people or orgs. I tend to be a bit more conservative when it comes to ABOUTSELF sourcing given that a lot of WP:SELFPUBLISH sourcing is not considered reliable. TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggested method of referencing these sorts of statements then when it comes to the NUS official position on issues? I think that this can be important to include where relevant and it seems appropriate to refer back to a primary source in that instance for example, for a direct quotation. Salvationichor (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to reference NUS positions on something then I'd think it might be covered on the NUS website? If their website doesn't have a statement about it then I'm thinking to you shouldn't rely on the opinions of student newspapers about what NUS's position is on something. TarnishedPathtalk 12:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @TarnishedPath, as I mentioned in my initial message, the NUS website is very poorly updated with the 2023 officers still listed on the website instead of the 2024 officers that were elected at NatCon in December. For this reason, the NUS has taken to posting their official statements through their official social media channels. There is no reason that the official social media accounts should be treated any differently from the website. Salvationichor (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about that. Yeah, as I wrote above Social media is fine as long as the statements are coming from official social media accounts. Again though we're not going to cover what NUS is saying about others per WP:ABOUTSELF, we're only going to cover what they have to say about themselves. Also, those sorts of sources are primary sources and we should favour secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Financial mismagment allegation
@Salvationichor, you can't use Honi Soit in any manner which accuses people of crimes. Doing so is a WP:BLP violation. If the material is that significant it will be covered in the mainstream press. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi, as someone part of the Council of the SRC when that edition of Honi Soit was published, I can assure that the SRC's lawyers were quite confident of the contents of that article, and would stand up in court. Larger mainstream press outlets wouldn't bother with reporting on things like this, and so it would be best to take student journalism as sources for student politics, each existing within the student culture ecosystem. Pandainapeartree (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

5 February

 * 01:12, 5 Feb 2005
 * Skyring makes edits to Governor-General of Australia that reflect his POV. They are reverted by User:Adam Carr. Edit waring on page between Skyring and User:Dlatimer over the inclusion and interpretation of passages of the constitution continues until the page is protected on Feburary 14. After protection is was dePOVed again following edits by Skyring by User:Lacrimosus on March 9.

27 February

 * 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC),
 * Skyring tries to introduce the idea that Australia is a republic to the Government of Australia article. This is by no means a conventional opinion, Adam and User:Skyring engage in revert war on the 27th. Adam appears to win after 4 reverts, there is a discussion on the talk page about Skyring trying to introduce original research.

28 February

 * 04:39, 28 Feb 2005
 * Skyring makes changes to the artilce that had he had discussed in December that were shot down at the time as a minority view. He asserts that opinion is divided on who is the Australian Head of State (HoS). Edits are reverted by User:Ta bu shi da yu

 * 23:28, 2 Mar 2005
 * Adam Carr rewrites a section of the article to accomodate constititutional debate about the Australian HoS.

 * 00:44, 3 Mar 2005
 * Skyring and Adam revert war over the sentence, question of who is Australia's head of state is a matter of convention, Skyring changes convention to contention 3 times.

 * 13:55, 4 Mar 2005
 * Page is protected by User:Jnc, protection is removed on March 9.

11 March

 * 05:11, 11 Mar 2005
 * Skyring adds the word proposals to the following sentence Some opponents of the referendum proposals argued that the goal of, he and User:Michael Snow engage in successive reverts. He claims that his change is supported by concensus on the talk page, it does not appear to be. Adam removes the section entirely.

29 March

 * 23:41, 29 Mar 2005
 * Skyring asserts that the Australia has a republican government (original research) on Republic. Edits reverted by User:SimonP. Following 3 reverts the text is removed.

17 May

 * 22:26, 17 May 2005
 * Skyring changes HoS to monarch, and makes significant changes to the text. He and User: El C engage in revert war. Adam later reverts to a version prior to the changes

 * 00:55, 18 May 2005
 * User:Jtdirl makes an edit to artile based on fact. Skyring removes the new text and changed HoS to monarch again. More reverts ensue.

24 May

 * 04:53, 24 May 2005
 * Skyring changes Queen of Austrlaia to British monarch, a poition that is incorrect. More circular discussion on the talk page, more reverts to the article, page is protected, and unprotected on the 29th.

13 June

 * from 23:05, 12 Jun 2005, a few examples:
 * Skyring persues personal harassment of Jtdirl, reviewing all Jtdrils edits and making minor gramatical fixes, leaving edit summaries like Relieve some tortured language and A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English;  your idea of "plain madness" is out of step with the reality, which is in itself a sign of madness. These summaries and talk page messages are a personal attacks and appear to have been performed for harassment. Many of Skyrings edits are reverted by Jtdirl, and some of the articles appear to have ongoing revert warring between the two parties.

 * 11:11, 13 Jun 2005
 * Skyring leaves a message on Jtdirls talk page, here's a short section:
 * ''I've now seen enough of your work to be confident of two things:
 * 1. Any article that you created and hasn't been worked on by others is going to be of low standard, and
 * 2. You won't admit what is obvious to all.
 * This clearly violates WP:NPA.

 * 13:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Skyring leaves messages on the talk pages of Adam Carr and El C and (also involved in this case) and User:Djegan criticising Jtdrils editing.

A general comment for the ArbCom, I think it would be a good idea to go through the talk archives of government of Australia (not necessarily in any detail) to see how frustrating it is for other edits to deal with Skyrings edits against concensus.--nixie 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I would echo the request to peruse Talk:Government of Australia and some the archived discussions there, particularly Archive 6. A number of experienced Wikipedia editors others than the ones listed (including myself) have familiarised ourself extensively with this issue.  Skyring may be providing citations, but he is interpreting his sources in a way that no other editor supports, and seems to be more interested in argument than actually resolving the issue.  --Robert Merkel 13:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I raised a court case on the talk page, which is universaly held by Constitutional lawyers and legal accademics, (except by Skyring) to once and for all recognise the separation of the Australian and Brittish Queens (even though being the same person) and Skyring somehow totally re-interpreted it and ignored everyone else. Xtra 01:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General
The talk archives of Government of Australia show that I take care to present the views of authorities on this subject, not my own, and that cites are provided for my article edits. The charges of original research and POV-pushing are unfounded.

This is a case of "Wikipedia-rage". User:Adam Carr gives the impression that he can abuse other editors freely, he need not provide sources, and he can whistle up help to enforce his threats and bullying. I showed a link to the Commonwealth's own hardcopy government directory describing the Governor-General as the Head of State. Adam gave a response demonstrating that he considers himself the ultimate authority. This view is unacceptable in a Wikipedia editor, as is the idea that truth is found by calling up shills and holding a vote.

The dispute centres on Adam's populist view that the Queen is Australia's sole head of state. There are three distinct views on this amongst constitutional scholars, with the Prime Minister and Professor George Winterton holding alternate views, and any edit stating that the Queen is the sole head of state is POV.

23 December 2004

 * 00:26, 23 Dec 2004
 * Adam sums up his proposed debating stance: abuse and mindless reverts. He intends to defend the view that QE2 is the sole Australian head of state to the death.

27 February

 * 16:47, 27 Feb 2005,
 * I add the fact that Australia is a republic, using the definition supplied in the Republic article, plus several respected dictionary definitions. See the discussion. Malcom Turnbull states in the 1993 Report of the Republic Advisory Committee: "Australia is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people. The hereditary office of the monarchy is the only element of the Australian system of government which is not consistent with a republican form of government." (Vol 1, p1) After some discussion, I accepted the consensus view, though the article should note that Australia has a republican form of government, as the Queen's role in Australian government has vanished.

3 March

 * 17:57, 3 Mar 2005
 * Adam demands I answer his questions. I do so, honestly and completely. In the next edit he ignores the flaws I've pointed out and falls back on abuse.

8 March

 * 11:50, 8 Mar 2005
 * Adam concedes that the Parliamentary Library provides arguments for both sides of the debate. His view is that the identity of the head of state is convention, but if there are two sides to the debate, then it must be "a matter of contention", as I point out in the article, before being outvoted.

9 March

 * 16:54, 9 Mar 2005
 * After discussion where Adam misquotes the Constitution, I note that I am upset by his departure from academic practice and unprofessional attitude. His response: "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." At this point it is clear that Adam has departed from the accepted course of scholarly discussion.

 * 17:48, 9 Mar 2005
 * Adam makes it explicit that he considers truth a matter of voting rather than verifiablility.

11 March

 * 11:14, 11 Mar 2005
 * Adam agrees that my edit is correct, that Smith supported the referendum but not the proposals, but he adds abuse. Embarrassed at having to concede a point, he later deletes the section.

 * 15:09, 11 Mar 2005
 * Adam refuses to provide any sources for his edits, imagining that my repeatedly asking for cites is some sort of a "game".

 * 16:14, 11 Mar 2005
 * In response to my stating that it is not in me to let an error go unchallenged, Adam says "What is in you, and indeed what you are full of, is quite evident to all of us.". He does not, however, provide a cite for his edits.

 * 19:45, 11 Mar 2005
 * Adam injects gratuitious abuse into an otherwise civil discussion on wording. He uses the words "troll" and "masturbate" for the first time. He would be well aware of the example he is setting.

15 Mar

 * 08:56, 15 Mar 2005
 * Adam claims himself as a valid source, able to to "explain" and "interpret" the statements of others. This is against Wikipedia policy.

 * 15:33, 15 Mar 2005
 * Adam finally provides a source for his "explaining" and "interpreting" of the thoughts of the drafters of the Constitution. His verifiable source is irrelevant.

16 Mar

 * 00:07, 16 Mar 2005
 * Refreshed by Adam's good humour, I summarise the position and ask that he find it in himself to work for accuracy.

 * 16:04, 16 Mar 2005
 * Adam doesn't consider his comments to be personal abuse. Nothing excuses his repeated departure from the professional standards he claims to hold and his encouragement of other editors to do likewise.

30 Mar

 * 17:12, 30 Mar 2005
 * Correct errors in Republic article. After some discussion, acceptable wording is found and my version remains. Stating that Australia has a republican form of government is not original research, but it was inappropriate there.

18 May

 * 09:43, 18 May 2005
 * Changing the title of the Queen to Queen of Australia confirms her as Australia's monarch. That's common sense. Saying that she is head of state remains POV.

23 May

 * 10:41, 23 May 2005
 * User:jtdirl makes the surprising edit that the Queen is part of parliament. This odd statement, at variance with actual practice, is only found in the Constitution, which specifies in two places that the Queen is the Queen of the UK. Though the Royal Style and Titles Act gave her the title of Queen of Australia, legislation cannot override the Constitution. Adam refused to provide a cite for his edit.

 * A general comment on jtdirl's contributions. He is in the happy position of never being in error, or at least never having to admit it. The first sections of Archives 5 and 6 demonstrate this. Jtdirl mentions many sources, but only quotes from a few - those that reinforce his POV. Other views are ignored or misrepresented, like someone "proving" that Christianity is the one true faith through biblical quotes. An example of his tactics:
 * Professor George Winterton is widely accepted as an authority. He sums up the head of state question: An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion: Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The Governor-General is the effective or de facto head of state of the Commonwealth. Jtdirl's interpretation is thus: Winterton ... makes it clear that legally the Queen is head of state, which is the whole point of the argument here. Actually, Winterton does not say that the Queen is the head of state. He says the Queen is the "legal or formal head of state". It is that qualification which separates those who hold the "Queen as sole head of state" view from those who hold other views. Jtdirl ignores a valid alternative wording: Winterton makes it clear that effectively the Governor-General is the head of state.. The real point is that Winterton names and describes two heads of state, but jtdirl can only see one.
 * Jtdirl says in evidence that "(Winterton) explicitly says Australia has one head of state". May we see these precise words of Winterton's, please, not a POV "interpretation"?

28 May

 * 21:53, 28 May 2005
 * user:Cyberjunkie, who had been shilling for Adam on the Talk:Government of Australia page, sent me an "anonymous" message. He then made some edits to an article he had created several months earlier, as can be seen here and here. While this was amusing, Cyberjunkie's action is indicative of the level of discussion actively encouraged by Adam.

13 June
and subsequent.
 * 19:46, 13 Jun 2005
 * On noting jtdirl's poor standards of work in discussion and evidence presented here, I turned aside from other work and checked his previous Wikipedia material. I discovered that it was full of errors in fact and logic, poor spelling and tortured sentence construction; all well below a professional standard. I corrected many (but by no means all) errors. When jtdirl discovered this, he mindlessly reverted all my careful work, (thereby reinserting many errors into WP) and deleted not only my advice to him on his talk page, but a note to Adam, repeatedly reverting Adam's talk page despite my requests to him not to do so. and subs.
 * My corrections to jtdirl's material go beyond "minor gramatical fixes":
 * replace fictional "President of the United Kingdom".
 * correct mistake that has a presidential term expire seven years before it begins.
 * correct double negative that gives the Presidential Commission fictional activity.
 * jtdirl reverts without discussing errors
 * jtdirl unsuccesfully attempts to correct basic error in presidential inauguration in an article about presidential inauguration. I think at this stage I am entitled to say that the editor is struggling to present a professional product.
 * I correct both the original error and the new one.
 * jtdirl reverts again, thoughtlessly reintroducing the same error.
 * I correct jtdirl's error a third time.
 * jtdirl aroused my interest by his dishonest, abusive and evasive behaviour. I note even now that he is unable to admit any error, he presents my corrections as harrasment, and he tries to pretend I have a sudden interest in Irish constitutional affairs. I don't. I have an interest in finding and fixing errors, as can easily be seen by looking at my contributions prior to discovering jtdirl to be a rich source of easy pickings.

General
I concur completely with Petaholmes's submission. My observation regarding Skyring's contributions is that they have been based on wholescale misrepresentations of facts. The above evidence given by him shows a clear evidence of that. Turnbull did not say that Australia is a republic, nor does his words suggest that, as any even slight acquaintence with his writings shows. What he actually means, and what he is universally interpreted to mean, is that Australia, given that Australia is a state in which sovereignty derives from the people, should not have an hereditary monarchy, as that is inconsistent with its status of popular sovereignty. Its status should be that of a republic, and abolishing the monarchy would make it a republic. He never said, and is never anywhere interpreted to say, that Australia is currently a republic. Skyring misrepresented what he said and based clearly factually wrong edits on that misrepresentation.

While one misrepresentation could be categorised as indicative of confusion on the part of the contributor. Constant continual misrepresentation of source after source after source has been the hallmark of Skyring's contributions. It is hard after reading the scale of the misrepresentations (some of them jawdropping in their audacity - as anyone with even the slighest elementary knowledge of laws, political science and constitutions knows, one simply cannot be a republic if one is a constitutional monarchy, for example. It is like saying one is a cat and a dog) to conclude that the mispresentations were just a cynical game to deface an encylopaedia article with patent nonsense just to annoy other users. Users invariably started by pointing out the errors in his writings, presuming it was a genuine mistake. However after a couple of attempts, everyone, one by one, came to conclude that the edits weren't genuine but were just a cynical game of vandalism to see if he could get away with it.

A classic example of his gross distortions of documents occurs in his evidence above, where he writes
 * User:jtdirl makes the rather surprising edit that the Queen is a component of the Commonwealth parliament.

It is actually written in black and white in the constitution.

 * Then he writes This odd statement, quite at variance with actual practice . . .

Every Australian law starts off with the line "BE IT THEREFORE enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia . . ."

I could go on (we all could go on and on) pointing out the fundamental errors of fact, interpretation, analysis, context, relevance, etc in his contributions. Users have filled six archives pointing out his errors. Even here he gets elementary facts wrong (how can someone so convinced that he is a constitutional expert not even know what the opening line of every Australian law is?) His response invariably is to mispresent sources, quote comments out of context and demand evidence to prove things that have been repeatedly proven, while refusing to offer evidence in return, and when finally he offers some evidence, it turns out to mean the exact opposite of what it says it means, or that the source is not compatable to other sources given in terms of credibility, eg, while others could quote primary documents, legal documents, letters patent, statements by Attorneys-General, his "evidence" in one instance was something written somewhere by some junior lawyer.

And, though users have been queuing to point it out to him, in legal terminology de facto does not mean is, it means in general terms acts in reality as. So he continually misrepresents a careful phrase by Professor George Winterton about how the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General is de facto head of state (ie, acts as, not is) as meaning George is saying Australia that Australia has two heads of state. Nobody familiar with George's writings, with what he has said, and with the way he said it, interprets George's words that way. He explicitly says Australia has one head of state, not two. Every major academic, every major lawyer, every constitutional expert, everyone with a grasp of elementary use of english constitutional law, and everyone on Wikipedia but Skyring says he is completely misunderstanding at best, deliberately mispresenting at worst, George's words. (BTW I know George and know for a fact that his views are the opposite of what Skyring says.)

To see the full story, as Robert says above, you need to read the archives of the debate, in particular Archive 6. Quite frankly accepting Skyring's edits, on the basis of flimsy evidence and dubious interpretations, when all the convincing evidence points in the other direction, would have been the equivalent of giving Emperor Norton I equal billing as Abraham Lincoln in pages on who was the US head of state in the 1860s, on the basis that a few people (tongue-in-cheek) called Norton His Imperial Majesty and that the word Emperor is on his tombstone!!!

Personal abuse and harrassment by Skyring
Because I am refusing to play his verbal games (as have others; everyone at this stage has given up even trying to communicate with him after past negative experiences) Skyring has decided to 'up the ante' by targeting me for abuse. He has spent most of his time doing nothing other than editing anything I edit, even marginally, no matter what the topic, and make changes, some of them as minimal as changing a quotation mark, and leave personal abuse.

Abusive comments
For example, focusing on my Irish origins, onto a page I had edited (marginally) he wrote

Talk:Irish referendum on the European Constitution

According to [1] (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/po.html), Portugal is bigger in area and population than Ireland [2] (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html). I don't think too many people would say that Portugal is a major European state. Nice try. Pete 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Adam's talk page added the following.

In one case, Donald Regan I had only entered the page to fix a text box. Yet Skyring suddenly developed an interest in Ronald Reagan's former Chief of Staff, having suddenly developed an issue in the Irish presidency, Irish presidential ceremonial, crown jewels, the European Constitution, Dublin Corporation, journalistic terminology, and even a type of car (which I just happened to have visited to make a minor change when setting up a link!!!), all miraculously just after I had written something about them.

Some of it is even comical, like his 'reporting' me to an Irish editor for supposed poor english in an article. The user in question pointed out to him that (a) there was nothing much wrong with the article, (b) all I had done in the article was add a template, and (c) the user himself was in fact the author of the article, not me!

Where I was discussing something with other users, he would suddenly appear to add a snide comment.

As an example of his campaign of harrassment, take a look below at just some of his contributions. I have bold italicised the pages I had not touched or which are not about me. Everything unbolded I had edited recently on wikipedia just before Skyring's sudden interest in them too, even if on occasions only in a minor way, like adding a frame to a picture. The list is in the order of his contributions. Nothing has been edited out of the list. This is the list of all the articles he has "worked" on (in a manner of speaking) over the last few days.

*	06:13, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Australia (Reverted edits by 144.139.33.132 to last version by Cyberjunkie)  *	05:29, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Moon landing (top) [rollback]' 13:35, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Áras an Uachtaráin (Å®Origins) *	09:43, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Port Arthur Massacre (Å®Conspiracy theory, firearm control...) (top) [rollback] *	09:38, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Port Arthur Massacre (Commonwealth has no power over firearms, SLRs not banned outright)  03:07, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m President of Ireland (Å®Official residence, anthem, style and address)
 * 00:13, 15 Jun 2005 (hist) (New) Talk:Irish referendum on the European Constitution (top) [rollback]
 * 00:10, 15 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish referendum on the European Constitution (If Ireland is a major state, then everyone is.) (top) [rollback]
 * 06:51, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:El C (I think I've made my point, judging by your reaction. Thanks.)
 * 06:24, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:El C (My meter went into the red zone!)
 * 05:05, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Irish Crown Jewels ("gay" meaning homosexual not a word in 1907 currency.) (top) [rollback]
 * 04:49, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Presidential Standard (Ireland) (sp) (top) [rollback]
 * 04:44, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:El C (Å®Poor standards)
 * 04:41, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:El C (Å®Poor standards)
 * 04:23, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Pope (rv)
 * 03:19, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:El C (Irish articles)
 * 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Dublin Corporation (Å®19th century reform)
 * 01:38, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Dublin City Council (Å®Current party strengths on the Council) (top) [rollback]
 * 01:37, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Dublin City Council (Å®The Lord Mayor)
 * 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Crown of Queen Mary (Crown not worn at QEII coronation.) (top) [rollback]
 * 01:28, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Crown of Queen Mary (The wife of your son is your daughter in law. By definition.)
 * 00:53, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Constitution of Ireland (Å®A republic?) (top) [rollback]
 * 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Governor-General of the Irish Free State (decided to boycott and humiliate)
 * 00:36, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Looking for a kind way of breaking the news) (top) [rollback]
 * 00:20, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Coronation Crown of George IV/Temp (Correct spelling error. Lot more to go!) (top) [rollback]
 * 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars (No suche word as "troope". Puzzled why jtdirl keeps reverting to mistakes!) (top) [rollback]
 * 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m State Crown of George I (better wording) (top) [rollback]
 * 00:13, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m European Constitution (Request source)
 * 00:01, 14 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Honours of Scotland (Correct "are adored with pearls" to "are adorned with pearls") (top) [rollback]
 * 23:57, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Coronation (Religious beliefs can't be extinguished by act of parliament! A bit of sense, please.) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Landau (car)
 * 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Viceregal throne (Ireland) (syntax correction) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:46, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Áras an Uachtaráin (Quotes) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:42, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Fix error) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Fix repeated error. See talk.) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Adam Carr (Reinsert my message to Adam)
 * 23:31, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Council of State (Ireland) (Correct an error. Again.) (top) [rollback]
 * 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (jtdirl, please don't remove my messages to Adam. That's up to Adam and I.)
 * 23:24, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Áras an Uachtaráin (Correct error. Presumably all these famous people *were* guests, rather than still resident!)
 * 23:20, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Blue Hussars (Correct poor spelling. Lotta work to be done on this article!)
 * 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Council of State (Ireland) (First of many minor corrections)
 * 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Correct increasingly incorrect garbage.)
 * 23:09, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Djegan (Low standards on some Irish articles)
 * 23:06, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Adam, this thing should be settled before I take it further. could you please take a look at jtdirl's material and talk sense to him?)
 * 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jtdirl (We need to talk about this.)
 * 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)
 * 14:16, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Douglas Hyde (Å®Footnotes)
 * 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Douglas Hyde (Å®State funeral)
 * 14:12, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Douglas Hyde (Å®State funeral)
 * 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Douglas Hyde (Å®Senility rumours)
 * 14:06, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Douglas Hyde (Å®'Fine and scholarly old gentleman' says Roosevelt)
 * 14:05, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Douglas Hyde (Å®President of Ireland)
 * 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Douglas Hyde (Å®Background)
 * 13:39, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Áras an Uachtaráin (Å®Visitors)
 * 13:17, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Council of State (Ireland)
 * 13:07, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Relieve some tortured language.)
 * 13:04, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Å®Government of Eamon de Valera)
 * 13:02, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Crown and monarch are distinct entities.)
 * 13:01, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Corrections. Is there a source for the last sentence in this section?)
 * 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Governor-General of the Irish Free State (Correct errors, relieve torttured language.)
 * 12:48, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Official Seal of the President of Ireland (Remove careless word) (top) [rollback]
 * 12:47, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Official Seal of the President of Ireland (Fix minor errors. A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English.)
 * 12:44, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Official Seal of the President of Ireland
 * 12:42, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Commission (Ireland) (Clarify convoluted language.)
 * 12:40, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Presidential Commission (Ireland) (Å®Powers)
 * 12:37, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Coronation Crown of George IV/Temp (Å®Usage)
 * 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Coronation Crown of George IV/Temp (Å®Origins)
 * 12:25, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) State Crown of George I (spelling and grammar)
 * 12:18, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Honours of Scotland (Minor corrections.)
 * 12:14, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Honours of Scotland (spelling errors)
 * 12:11, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jtdirl (Poor standards)
 * 12:09, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Fix up a tortured sentence.)
 * 12:06, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Spelling)
 * 10:34, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Coronation (Fix minor errors)
 * 10:17, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Landau (car) (Å®Coachbuilding)
 * 10:16, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Landau (car) (Å®Automobiles)
 * 10:15, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Landau (car) (Landau ballet)
 * 10:08, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (POUK)
 * 10:04, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Presidential Inauguration (Ireland)
 * 10:03, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Call for standards.)
 * 09:58, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Move "n".)
 * 09:57, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (I doubt that even the Irish Constitution has presidential terms that expire several years before they begin!)
 * 09:54, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (A "troop" is a military unit, a "troupe" belongs in the circus)
 * 09:52, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (spelling)
 * 09:50, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Spelling and grammar. Some professional standards, please!)
 * 09:49, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (Do we have the period in which this occurred?)
 * 09:48, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (logical gap)
 * 09:46, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Presidential Inauguration (Ireland) (UK President little known outside enfeebled minds. POTUS inserted.)
 * 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Donald Regan (top) [rollback]
 * 07:58, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Donald Regan
 * 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:News anchor (Å®Merger) (top) [rollback]
 * 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Viceregal throne (Ireland)
 * 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Viceregal throne (Ireland)
 * 07:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Blue Hussars (Å®Presidential escort)
 * 07:32, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars (Å®Presidential escort)
 * 07:30, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars (Å®Uniforms)
 * 07:29, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars (Å®Uniforms)
 * 07:28, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars (Å®Uniforms)
 * 07:27, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m Blue Hussars
 * 03:16, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m President of Ireland (See discussion page before mindless reverting, please!) (top) [rollback]
 * 03:10, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) President of Ireland (See discussion page for agreed terms - it was YOUR idea, galah!)
 * 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:President of Ireland (Use of "her" to describe Presidency) (top) [rollback]
 * 02:04, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) m President of Ireland (rv to last good version by Skyring - Irish President is a woman)
 * 00:05, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) President of Ireland

Meanwhile anonymous individuals just happen to be appearing either to defend Skyring (only to disappear and never to be heard of again) or to make allegations against me.

I have no wish to have any dealings with Skyring, whom I regard as troll. He seems to have taken offence at my refusal to play his wordgames on talk pages. Having made it quite clear what I think of him I have no intention of having anything to do with this individual. When he gets bored trying to intimidate and harrass me, he will no doubt move on to someone else. Individuals like that should not be on Wikipedia.

Evidence presented by {Wingbearer}
GENERAL

I have been asked to cast an eye over this matter. The material is in a format reminiscent of “hypertext” with its forest of links. It is hard to follow, although the “signatures” aid in understanding the flow of discussion. It would be extremely difficult to present this in court in a raw form.

The “Wikipedia” looks to be competently done in the main, however it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies when examined in detail. Top marks for a good idea, but a FAIL if the intention is to produce a reliable reference work.

PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE

On reading this copious material I wish that I was being paid to do so and that I could examine the parties in court where they could be compelled to answer questions. It would be preferable for these people to sit together around a table and discuss their issues face to face. By debating from behind a shield of Internet anonymity, they say things they would not say in real life.

“PETE”

One of the quickest ways to antagonise an impartial audience is to be snide, sarcastic and “smart”. When used with hostile listeners, it is a strategy of failure, regardless of whether the evidence is reliable and factual. Nitpicking and triumphantly exposing errors are not going to win over the good will of those who do not relish admitting error. A tick for failing to respond to abuse and provocation. Good research, poorly presented.

“ADAM”

This witness would be in contempt of court in short order. Open hostility, threatening behaviour, inability to recognise higher authority, inability to present cites, partisan encouragement of other parties etc. The charge of “Wikipedia-rage” as an analogy to “road-rage” is apposite.

“JTDIRL”

Any competent lawyer would give this witness an extremely uncomfortable time in cross-examination. His ignorance of the very material in which he presents himself as an expert is plain. For example he is unfamiliar with the leaders of the Australian monarchists and their public statements made during the 1999 referendum debate. His material on Irish affairs is colourful but irrelevant. He refers to cites which are not provided. Some statements are gobbledygook: “''George quite normally draws the distinction between the de jure and de facto roles, as would any professional lawyer. However he goes further and qualifies even the de facto claim, lest anyone misunderstand him as claiming there are two heads of states, when he makes it clear that there aren't, by saying that even the de facto role is restricted internally within the Commonwealth, by speaking of the Commonwealth, but not of Australia. In other words, the Governor-General acts as, not is, the head of state, but only within the constitutional and legal framework as defined by constitutional and statute law, as well as Letters Patent, within the structures of the Commonwealth. He does only what legally he can do internally. But in no sense, even de facto is he the embodiment of Australia, merely of the governmental structures internally of the Commonwealth''.”

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

No other parties are as prolific and prolix as these three. Several positions are exhibited, ranging from those strident in their declarations, reminiscent of those who stand at the back of crowds to call out in support of their champion, to those who seek calm and rational consensus.

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AS HEAD OF STATE

Nobody who saw Sir William Deane at the service for the victims of the Swiss Canyoning tragedy, or officiating at the opening of the 2000 Olympic Games, would claim that he was not the embodiment of Australia and Australian values, merely of “internal governmental structures”. Speaking as a professional lawyer, I can say that the question has never been asked of the High Court as to who is the Australian head of state. I think that if the question was ever put, then the answer would depend on the context of the case, for example if the 1975 dismissal of the Prime Minister had ever engaged the attention of the High Court, it might have been found that Sir John Kerr did not act as the delegate or agent or representative of any office other than his own. But I cannot speak for the High Court, who change their opinions with each new appointment.

It is commonplace to see the Governor-General described as the Head of State in the media through headlines and editorials. Letters columns debated the issue during the referendum campaign and my own local paper continues to run correspondence on the question. Politicians routinely describe the Governor-General as the Head of State. The Opposition Leader during the Peter Hollingworth affair said this: “''SIMON CREAN: Of course I do because I've known him over many years and he has done important work for the community. I also have sympathy for the circumstances of his wife and I expressed those to the Governor-General at ANZAC Day. But, you know, there's a whole lot emotions going here. But the truth of it is we're dealing with the Head of State and the Head of State cannot be a person who has covered up for child sex abusers.” http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s863541.htm John Stubbs, another figure of impeccable Labor credentials said in his 1989 biography of Bill Hayden: “On 16 February 1989, Bill Hayden, who was a month old when his parents were married, was sworn in as Australia’s Head of State''.” (John Stubbs, “Hayden”, William Heinemann, Melbourne, p3).

The matter became political during the referendum campaign, with those advocating a Yes vote saying that this would give us an Australian as Head of State, and the monarchists asking for a No vote saying that we already had the Governor-General as Head of State and he was an Australian.

It is typical of Australia that the government itself is unsure of the answer. The official Commonwealth Government Directory alternates between describing the Queen as Head of State and the Governor-General as Head of State. Both have had “runs” of several years!

The best that can be said is that opinion is divided, and that though either side can marshal up a range of arguments, it is a nonsense to dismiss the arguments of their opponents. A Parliamentary Library Research Brief summarises the positions. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1995-96/96rn44.htm

There is also a middle ground of the opinion that the Queen and the Governor-General are both Heads of State, usually stating the Queen is the symbolic figurehead while the Governor-General does the job. Supporters of this view do not say that one or the other is the head of state. They use terms such as “formal” or “notional” or “effective” or “symbolic”. I have seen this last term used to describe both the Queen and the Governor-General, which is indicative of the diversity of opinion on this matter.

CONCLUSION

I am glad that my job is not to provide a final definitive wording! I would direct that all parties come to an agreement and that they do so with politeness and respect for each other, and that if they cannot do this then they are not fit to edit a kindergarten newsletter, much less an encyclopaedia.

Evidence presented by Robert Merkel

 * Wingbearer, would you mind clarifying who asked you to look into this matter? --Robert Merkel 07:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no User:Wingbearer. People who are not Users are not entitled to arbitrate disputes between Users and certainly not to "direct" them. I suggest "Wingbearer's" screed be stricken from the record. Adam 11:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forget about what Adam said, this "evidence" is totally irrelevant to the case at hand. This is about a user's conduct, not about further arguing his cause. Xtra 11:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having reread the contribution of 'Wingbearer' there are suspicious aspects to the contribution which raises the serious question as to whether a sockpuppet is being used on the page. But then, given the contempt showed for factual accuracy, legal definitions, quotes and Wikipedia consensus rules, I suppose contempt for this process here is to be expected by one of the parties to the dispute here, with the appearance of someone with no editing history, no identity, etc to 'bolster' (supposedly) one side of the argument. Indeed, typically, that user is intent on forcing that mysterious individual's 'contribution', the only conveniently to defend them amid the universal criticism of their behaviour, by reverting to install their stuff even though its presence here breaks the rules of RfA. But then, having broken so many other rules, guidelines and ignored so many facts, what's another breaking of the rules to them. If that individual is in any way related to the apparent sockpuppet, would that warrant a ban for that individual? Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 20:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Tedtownsend

Ted Townsend was born in Santa Barbara, CA on 24 December 1967. He is the only resident of Santa Barbara that has Friedreich's ataxia, a rare autosomal recessive disorder. He has been a wheelchair user since 1988.

He is followed by Susan Perlman at David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA.

In 1992 he studied at a campus of Shandong University in Jinan, Shandong Province, Peoples Republic of China(中华人民共和国) for three months. It was a education abroad program through Santa Barbara City College. The program, titled 'The Three Faces of China,' was a political science and anthropology program. They visited various locations in the PRC, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

Currently, he is a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). Ted is currently a Global and International Studies major.

title: User:Tedtownsend


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 4/5 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

"wiki-stalking"
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.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 14:27 (UTC)
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Mutual discourtesy
1) Both User:Skyring and User:Adam Carr have sometimes been discourteous    Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 12:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Content dispute
2. User:Skyring has been engaged in a content dispute regarding Government of Australia and related articles, see Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6 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). The dispute is complex, but essentially revolves about characterization of Australia as a republic.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 23:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Debate
2.2) Extended debate has occurred at Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_1, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2, Talk:Government_of_Australia/archive_2 (incomplete)

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 00:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Head of state
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.

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 00:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Australian Republican Movement
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"

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Skyring's position
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 "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)"

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Citations by Skyring
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).

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Adam Carr's position
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.

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 12:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

State of the article Government of Australia
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 despite the exclusion of User:Skyring's participation by the other editors of the article, see

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) I considered this for some time, it is rather too close to a content decision imo. However, I would say this is the consensus opinion of the various participants (other than Skyring of course), and on that basis I will support.
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC) - I agree with sannse that it's close to the line, but everyone save Skyring seems to agree so I think it's OK
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:52 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Wiki-stalking by Skyring
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"

Support:
 * sannse (talk)
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Blind reverting by Jtdirl
User:Jtdirl reverted many of User:Skyring's edits, taking the articles back to versions with spelling mistakes and inaccuracies in several cases:, , ,.

Support:
 * sannse (talk)
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do support this, though preferably in conjunction with 2 and 3 - while this would have sufficed on the first case, the second requires stronger action. Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) added "or governance" for clarity
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Skyring banned for wikistalking
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.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 22:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 04:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

2.1) 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.

 * Support:
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 17:36 (UTC) 3rd choice
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC) too long, although if another similar case occured with Skyring, I would be voting for longer that this
 * Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Too lenient, in light of recent events. Jayjg (talk)  18:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Too lenient. James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Skyring banned for a week
2.2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for a week for wiki-stalking.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 18:34 (UTC) First choice
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * Too lenient. This remedy is a disgrace. Ambi 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC) - concur with Ambi
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * Too lenient. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Too lenient. James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Skyring banned for a month
2.3) 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.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC) second choice (An attempt at compromise on the ban length)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 19:03 (UTC) 2nd choice
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:01 (UTC) - 2nd choice
 * second choice ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * Too lenient, and serves no purpose whatsoever. Ambi 29 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)
 * Too lenient, in light of recent events. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC) - not sure, this still seems a bit lenient.

Skyring placed on personal attack parole
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.

 * Support:
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC) - particularly the comment about Jtdirl being a "low quality Irish writer"

 * Oppose:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC) This is unbalanced, with the relatively few personal attacks documented by Skyring in the evidence.

 * Abstain:
 * Not sure that this would be useful, as per sannse. James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC) - given what he had to put up with, his reaction is understandable, but none-the-less he should not do it again.
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Jtdirl reminded of good editing practice
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.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 16:15 (UTC)
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC) - Same as above - "given what he had to put up with, his reaction is understandable, but none-the-less he should not do it again."
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 16:15 (UTC)
 * Only in conjunction with ban and parole. With the new evidence from the merged case, I don't think this is enough on its own. Ambi 28 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 June 28, 2005 19:58 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Provision for temporary ban
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)

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

General
The proposed remedies arose out of my attempt to research this case which involved reading of the extensive efforts of Skyring to make his point over and over and over. Fred Bauder 13:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

 * If 4 is a majority, everything likely to pass has passed. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:38 (UTC)
 * agreed -- sannse (talk) 29 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 12:15 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

 * With 3 arbs inactive, 5 is a majority, so the new measure has enough to pass →Raul654 21:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support closing it again. James F. (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 21:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Mamadou Niang

Mamadou Hamidou Niang (born 13 October 1979) is a Senegalese former professional footballer who played as a striker. He has represented Senegal at international level, participating in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 African Cup of Nations. He is the older brother of Papa Niang, who is also a professional footballer.

Troyes
After beginning his career with the Le Havre youth team, Niang turned professional at 18 years of age with Troyes. He had a mixed beginning to his career with his first season featuring ten Ligue 1 starts, all from the bench, the following season would show little improvement with 17 starts and only 3 league goals.

Loan to Metz
A loan period with Ligue 2 club FC Metz allowed him to hone his skills, contributing 5 goals in 12 appearances and helping Metz return to top flight French football for the 2003–04 season.

Strasbourg
Jean Fernandez, the Metz manager, tried to make the loan deal into a permanent move but failed and Niang left Troyes for Strasbourg. The arrival of Danijel Ljuboja, to Strasbourg at the same time allowed Niang to form an important strike partnership until Ljuboja moved to Paris Saint-Germain. Niang didn't score again for the remainder of the second half of that season.

The 2004–05 season saw Mickaël Pagis arrive at Strasbourg, and a fruitful new partnership was formed, with the pair linking up for 27 goals in the league. This partnership helped Strasbourg make it to the Coupe de la Ligue final, where victory over Caen gave Strasbourg their second Coupe de la Ligue trophy. Niang scored Strasbourg's first goal as they won 2–1.

Marseille
In 2005, Niang moved to Marseille for a reported fee of €7 million. He was joined six months later by Mickaël Pagis. Niang finished the season as Marseille's top scorer with ten goals but Marseille lost the Coupe de France final to Paris Saint-Germain.

Niang was selected Marseille player of the month by the fans for May 2008.

Niang would go on to finish the 2009–10 season with 18 goals in Ligue 1, making him the highest scorer in the league and Marseille's highest scorer with 28 goals in all competitions.

Fenerbahçe
Niang signed a 3+1 year deal with Fenerbahçe on 14 August 2010 for a fee of reported €8 million. He made a great start with Fenerbahçe when he scored seven goals in his first six league appearances. Niang scored his first hat-trick for Fenerbahçe on his 5th appearance when they won 6–2 against Kasımpaşa. He helped his side win the 2010–11 Süper Lig, scoring 16 goals in 29 appearances.

Al Sadd
On 6 September 2011, Niang was sold to Al-Sadd for €7.5 million.

On 19 October 2011, at the 2011 AFC Champions League semi-final match against Suwon Samsung Bluewings, he scored the controversial, un-sportsmanlike second goal for his team. Al Sadd should've sent the ball back to the Bluewings since the play was suspended when the home team's player was injured. However, while Suwon's defense stood still thinking their goalkeeper will get the ball back, Niang stole the ball and went past the goalkeeper to score. The goal induced an intrusion of a home fan and a huge melee of both players and bench. The controversy got bigger when Al Sadd's player Keita took a swing at a home fan. Even though his goal was against general notion of fair-play, Niang argued that there was no problem with his goal, and that it was Suwon who played without manners, inducing melee between two teams. After all, AFC did not conclude this issue justly, by giving disciplinary actions to Suwon only, Al Sadd getting absolutely nothing, not even Niang or Keita. He then got himself sent-off in injury time for kicking the ball away when he was flagged offside, receiving another yellow card in addition to his previous, meaning he could not participate in the second leg in Doha.

Beşiktaş (loan)
On 31 January 2013, Niang moved to Turkish side Beşiktaş on loan until the end of the season.

On 3 March 2013, he scored his first goal and contributed with an assist in a 3–2 win against his old club Fenerbahçe securing 3 points for his team in the final derby ever on İnönü Stadium.

Arles-Avignon
On 28 August 2014, Niang returned to France to sign for Arles-Avignon, having been overseas for the last four years.

International career
Niang represented the national team at the 2006 Africa Cup of Nations, where his team took fourth place for the third time in history.

International

 * Scores and results list Senegal's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Niang goal.

Honours
Troyes
 * UEFA Intertoto Cup: 2001

Strasbourg
 * Coupe de la Ligue: 2004–05

Marseille
 * Ligue 1: 2009–10
 * Coupe de la Ligue: 2009–10
 * Trophée des Champions: 2010
 * UEFA Intertoto Cup: 2005

Fenerbahçe
 * Süper Lig: 2010–11

Al Sadd
 * AFC Champions League: 2011

Senegal
 * Africa Cup of Nations fourth place: 2006

Individual
 * UNFP Ligue 1 Player of the Month: May 2005, December 2005, December 2007
 * UNFP Ligue 1 Team of the Year: 2007–08, 2009–10
 * UNFP Ligue 1 Goal of the Year: 2009–10
 * Ligue 1 top scorer: 2009–10
 * Marseille Player of the Season: 2009–10

title: Mamadou Niang


text:
Season of Glass (album)

Season of Glass is the fifth studio album by Yoko Ono, her first solo recording after the murder of her husband John Lennon. Season of Glass, released in 1981, reached number 49 on the US Billboard 200 albums chart, making it Ono's highest-charting solo album to date.

A music video was created for "Goodbye Sadness" featuring footage of Lennon and Ono together. The video was screened on the first episode of Saturday Night Live's seventh season.

Background
The album was released less than six months after Lennon's death and deals with it directly in songs such as "Goodbye Sadness" and "I Don't Know Why". Lennon and Ono's son Sean Lennon features on "Even When You're Far Away", recounting a story his father used to tell him.

The front cover features Lennon's bloodstained glasses (worn on the day of his death) positioned next to a half-filled glass of water, with a view of Central Park in the background. The choice of album cover was considered controversial by the record company: "I used a photo I took of John's blood-stained glasses on the record cover. The record company called me and said the record shops would not stock the record unless I changed the cover. I didn't understand it. Why? They said it was in bad taste. I felt like a person soaked in blood coming into a living room full of people and reporting that my husband was dead, his body was taken away, and the pair of glasses were the only thing I had managed to salvage – and people looking at me saying it was in bad taste to show the glasses to them. "I'm not changing the cover. This is what John is now," I said."

- Yoko Ono

Reception
Season of Glass charted at number 49 on the Billboard 200, making it Ono's highest-charting solo album to date.

Billboard magazine gave the album a positive review, describing the album as Ono's "reaffirmation in life", containing a sense that she will "brave the crisis". Billboard also described the album as having "a minimum of quirks" and sounded more commercial than any of her previous albums. The songs "I Don't Know Why", "Goodbye Sadness", "Turn of the Wheel" and "She Gets Down on Her Knees" were chosen as the best cuts from the album.

Music journalist Robert Christgau stated that "damn near every song [on the album] is affecting". He described the transition from the "retrospective irony" of "Extension 33" to the "cut-off vulnerability" of "No, No, No" as "positively gut-wrenching".

In a review for the 1997 reissue, Ryan Schreiber of Pitchfork called the album "a landmark in musical history" that "[encapsulated] Yoko's sadness" as well as the sadness felt around the world by John Lennon's death. He added that the album showcased Ono's "remarkable strength" and described the bonus demo recording of "I Don't Know Why" on the reissue as "harrowing".

Pitchfork's Jayson Greene reviewed the album a second time in 2023, giving it a higher score of 8.8 compared to the website's original 7.7 score in their 1997 review. Greene described the album as a "survivor's statement" and the song "I Don't Know Why" as "harrowing and plainspoken" and "Goodbye Sadness" as "heart-rending". He noted that the songs "Goodbye Sadness", "Toyboat", "Silver Horse" and "Mother of the Universe" featured Ono singing "gorgeous, long-breathed melodies [...] while the music gently rocks and sways". Greene stated that the songs on Season of Glass were "lullabies to hope, delivered with the beatific calm of a dying opera heroine's final aria". He did however feel that the omission of "Walking on Thin Ice" was "like a glitch in the historical record" and should have had a place on the album.

Pitchfork listed Season of Glass as one of the best 200 albums of the 1980s.

Reissue
The 1997 Rykodisc reissue added bonus tracks of the single "Walking on Thin Ice" and an a cappella demo of "I Don't Know Why", recorded the day after Lennon's death. Demos of Season of Glass songs recorded with Lennon in the 1970s were also released as bonus tracks with other Ono reissues, including acoustic versions of and "Dogtown" and "She Gets Down on Her Knees" on Approximately Infinite Universe, "Will You Touch Me" on Fly and "Extension 33" on A Story. The unreleased 1974 album A Story also contained several songs that were later re-recorded for Season of Glass, namely "Dogtown", "She Gets Down On Her Knees" and "Will You Touch Me". It was also released by Rykodisc in 1997.

Remixes
Three songs from this recording were reworked by other artists on the remix tribute album Yes, I'm a Witch in 2007. Anohni reworked "Toyboat", The Apples in Stereo reworked "Nobody Sees Me Like You Do" and Jason Pierce from Spiritualized reworked "Walking on Thin Ice".

In popular culture
Holly Miranda covered "Nobody Sees Me Like You Do" as a B-side to her single "Forest Green, Oh Forest Green" and on her EP Choose to See, which was included with the purchase of her 2010 album The Magician's Private Library.

Personnel

 * Yoko Ono – vocals, cover photography, design
 * John Lennon – guitar, keyboards
 * Sean Ono Lennon – "A little story"
 * Hugh McCracken – guitar, Jew's harp on "Dogtown"
 * Earl Slick – guitar
 * George Small – keyboards
 * Tony Levin – bass guitar
 * John Siegler – bass guitar on "Mindweaver" and "Mother of the Universe"
 * Andy Newmark – drums
 * Arthur Jenkins Jr. – percussion
 * David Friedman – percussion, vibraphone
 * George "Young" Opalisky – soprano and alto saxophone
 * Michael Brecker – tenor saxophone
 * Ronnie Cuber – baritone saxophone
 * Howard Johnson – tuba
 * Tony Davilio – conductor, keyboards; guitar on "No, No, No" and "Toyboat"

Technical
 * Frederic Seaman, Jerry Caron – production assistant
 * Ed Sprigg – engineer
 * Christopher Whorf – artwork

title: Season of Glass (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobits media information

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Chobits media information
This seems to just be a listing of ISBNs and products; seems more like Amazon.com's thing at best, instead of being encyclopedic. Delete. A Man In Black 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * weak Keep I think this has a place integrated into an article of another name.... gren 09:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * There is no mention of Amazon.com or any direct links to it.
 * This article contains information such as opening and ending theme songs, episode titles that are usually included in the main article for an anime article. According to the history page, it has existed since Jul 2003, so I supposed people here have agreed that it would be better to spin off this portion into a separate article, just like Chobits characters exist on a separate page.
 * It is not uncommon to mention the publishers of books. If the ISBNs offend you, and you decide to remove the ISBN identification from the article, that would make the article less convenient as a source of reference. However the article is more than ISBN, and the article is not about Amazon.com.
 * —69.214.227.145 09:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing I'd be bold and delete if it were part of the Chobits article; it's raw source material, not encyclopedic information. And who said it was advertising Amazon? I was just saying that this sort of information isn't part of Wikipedia's purview; Amazon was just an example of a site that would have this kind of info. A Man In Black 09:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. While it is an interesting idea — if Wikipedia did not contain mention of works with non-expired copyright — that is certainly not the case for Wikipedia. It is extremely common for anime/manga articles, save stubs, to include titles listings of chapters/episodes and/or OP/ED theme songs (e.g. Naruto (manga), Bleach (manga), Mai-HiME articles... pretty much any other with enough length). If the ISBN numbers are offensive, you can remove it but you're just making the article less informative. —69.214.227.145 10:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not offensive; this is just raw source material instead of being encyclopedic comment, and seems to be more Wikibooks' thing than Wikipedia's. Looks like the consensus is going against me on this, but at least now I know. A Man In Black 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * keep; but rename, and perhaps demerge the episode list from the book list. Dunc|☺ 11:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup may be needed. This article is similar to Monty Python mediagraphy, List of Star Trek novels, List of Star Wars comic books, and other articles in which we list all of their books, CD's, TV shows, films, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. - DS1953 22:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Diktatūra

Diktatūra (meaning "The dictatorship") is a patriotic metal band from Lithuania. Most of their lyrics feature topics such as fatherland, honor, war, patriotism and Lithuanian traditions.

The band formed in the mid-1990s, and at first played far right songs; some were about football hooliganism and white power skinheads. The first members had pseudonyms: Slibinas (Dragon), Kaminas (Chimney) and Indėnas (Indian). These members recorded two albums, Metas (1996) and TvarkOi! (1997). The third album was recorded by four musicians, of which only Slibinas remained from the first lineup. Eventually their song lyrics became less radical; mostly about patriotism, war, honour, traditions and culture, but also about beer and street fighting. Some songs, especially from the album Kitokios Dainos (2003), are not related to these subjects. A few years later Diktatura became a simple patriotic rock/metal band.

Metas, 1996 (Time)
No CD version, only MC.
 * Guitar, vocal - Slibinas
 * Bass, vocal - Kaminas
 * Drums - Indėnas

TvarkOi!, 1997 (In Order!)
No CD version, only MC.
 * Guitar, vocal - Slibinas
 * Bass, vocal - Kaminas
 * Drums - Indėnas

Tuzinas, 1998 (Dozen)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Guitar - Slibinas
 * Drums - Kurmis

Mūsų - Jūsų, 2000 (Ours - Yours)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Drums - Noreika

Pasaulis Apsivers, 2001 (The world will turn upside down)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Drums - Šiaulys

Žemė, 2003 (The land)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Drums - Noreika

Kitokios Dainos, 2003 (Different Songs)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Drums - Noreika

Baltai, 2004 (Balts)

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Guitar, another vocal - Kaminas
 * Bass - Gedukas
 * Drums - Mažius

Lietuvai, 2006 ("For Lithuania")

 * Guitar, vocal - Pinčiukas
 * Guitar, - Kaminas
 * Bass - Čeburas
 * Drums - Sakalas
 * Arunas Kibartas - smuikas

Neliksim užmiršti, 2008 (We won't be forgotten)

 * Pinčiukas - Guitar, vocal
 * Kaminas  - Guitar, vocal
 * Čeburas  - Bass guitar, vocal, baroque flute (recorder)
 * Sakalas  - Drums

title: Diktatūra


text:
File:Electricsix.fire.jpg

Electric Six 'Fire' album cover, originally downloaded from: https://music.apple.com/us/album/fire/1028834736

Fair use rationale in Electric Six
This image meets Fair Use standards because:

 * It is in a low resolution that makes reproduction unfeasible;
 * It illustrates the work of the band in question;
 * It is being used solely for educational purposes, to illustrate the album as aforementioned;
 * It doesn't infringe in any way on the rights of the band, record label, or others to profit from album sales
 * There is no way to illustrate this album in the same manner with a free image.

Fair use rationale in Fire (Electric Six album)
This image meets Fair Use standards because:

 * It is in a low resolution that makes reproduction unfeasible;
 * It illustrates the album in question;
 * It is being used solely for educational purposes, to illustrate the album as aforementioned;
 * It doesn't infringe in any way on the rights of the band, record label, or others to profit from album sales
 * There is no way to illustrate this album in the same manner with a free image; this is easily the most demonstrative image for the album.

title: File:Electricsix.fire.jpg