Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:55, 4 November 2009 view sourceNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Statement by Ncmvocalist: also, ani is not the problem← Previous edit Revision as of 10:59, 4 November 2009 view source John Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/0/0): waiting for the statement from SkipsievertNext edit →
Line 312: Line 312:
*'''Accept''' due to other means not working and level of community concern. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC) *'''Accept''' due to other means not working and level of community concern. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''; it appears the case has been rendered moot at this time. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) *'''Decline'''; it appears the case has been rendered moot at this time. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', waiting for the statement from Skipsievert as requested by Sandstein when . --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


== Rcool35 == == Rcool35 ==

Revision as of 10:59, 4 November 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ottava Rima restrictions   4 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
Skipsievert   3 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
Rcool35   1 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.


Ottava Rima restrictions

Initiated by Ottava Rima (talk) at 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • : "With the proviso of course that the editor in question can still appeal directly to the community (if they feel the "point of contact" is obstructing them) or direct to ArbCom (who will, I believe, hear appeals against restrictions that both they and the community hand down)" Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008
  • (the whole thread)

Statement by Ottava Rima

I am appealing my editing restriction via what Carcharoth has described. I am appealing on the grounds of inappropriate actions in the closing and determining of these. 13:09, 25 September 2009, User:Jehochman adds my name to the editing restriction list.

He cites discussion this discussion in which he is involved. He does not cite the full discussion as seen here, which reveals that three people opposed it NuclearWarfare, Durova, and ChildofMidnight express direct statements that it was out of process and only two expressed direct support. There was no consensus to allow it.

After Jehochman started telling people that I was under restrictions, it was revealed that he put them up himself. This thread was started because of 1. lack of consensus on the matter and 2. he did not follow as what Carcharoth earlier states was part of the editing restriction: "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page?". Not only was there no assessment of consensus, there wasn't even a true proposal.

I asked on the talk page for it to be closed. Ncmvocalist said it was not an appropriate forum, even though it was stated it was not supposed to be there and Jehochman even said "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." at Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 on that same page. Ncmvocalist knew this, but also knew that there was disputes at ANI and even made threats regarding it (". Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009). I informed them that I asked Carcharoth to explain what he stated before at this thread. Before he could, an ANI discussion was opened.

RegentsPark closes the discussion as passing. He cites "22 supports, 8 opposes". He previous posted multiple times expressing opinions: , , , and . It was also pointed out on his talk page by myself that the actual tally was not 22 to 8 (73%) but 18 to 14 (53%). This is a far different gap than what he claimed existed.

I am asking that this sanction be lifted as out of process and that the actions of the two admin in determining their sanctions be investigated in their 1. involvement with the issue as a whole and 2. inappropriate use of determining consensus in such restrictions.

Statement by Jehochman

When I show leniency toward an editor, it often seems to bite me in the ass. In this case I gave Ottava a mild civility restriction instead of a well-deserved block. I urge the committee to investigate the underlying dispute, Ottava's behavior and what to do about it. The community has been incapable of ending the drama, largely due to Ottava's refusal to admit any sort of personal responsibility. There were blocks followed by unilateral unblocks. Next, I tried to fashion a sensible remedy for an obvious problem, but was opposed by those who think administrators should only block when faced with disruptive editing. I personally abhor the idea of blocking a constructive editor.

ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters. The community sanctions policy and process needs an overhaul. However, you cannot legislate these matters. Policy is for the community to decide. I've started a relevant discussion here should you wish to participate as individual editors. Jehochman 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Statement by Durova

It looks like RegentsPark misassessed the preferences. At least five editors either expressed preference for the alternate or specifically opposed the initial version, while only three expressed preference for the initial version. Without venturing an opinion about whether either proposal achieved enough majority to constitute consensus, it appears quite clear that if either sanction did it was not the initial version.

Listing within a collapsed section for clarity (and feedback in case I've miscounted or misread).

Preferences of discussion participants between the two proposed versions
Prefer alternate as first choice, initial version as second choice
  • Skater
  • SarekOfVulcan
  • Hans Adler
  • 4wajzkd02
Procedurally oppose initial version, no opinion on alternate
  • Myself
Prefer initial version as first choice, alternate as second choice
  • John
  • Jeni
  • Wikidemon
Support either, with misgivings about unilateral nature of initial version
  • JohnWBarber
The initial version was not an "existing sanction" and carries no validity unless the community endorses it
  • Rjanag
Unclear
  • Philcha states that "an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an sanction" and that review should be done by an uninvolved administrator, but it is not intirely clear whether he intends that as specific criticism of this situation or an articulation of general principle.

It would be problematic to refer the matter back to the community. An aspect of the recent underlying dispute is of a sensitive nature.

There are at least two issues worthy of ArbCom attention: review of a closure which appears flawed and which the community is unlikely to reassess effectively, and review of whether a lone administrator may impose sanctions by personal initiative outside the context of arbitration enforcement. One or more named parties has expressed additional grievances which they may wish to raise within arbitration.

Some of the discussion at ANI sank to a level that does not reflect well on any of the participants. So respectfully requesting that (whatever each of us thinks or says in private) the onsite comments here please express a basic courtesy. Durova 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ncmvocalist

  • I am not a party to this case for a reason; I have no interest in it beyond that which I would show for any on-wiki dispute that needs to be resolved. That said, I want to clarify some of the facts I dispute in others versions (such as the filing party's).
  • My responses to Ottava Rima (Ottava) at Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions#Inappropriate_restriction were: . It is not my problem that Ottava repeatedly lets himself believe that threats exist where there are none - had he answered yes to my question, I would have explained to him where this was inevitably going (aka, here).
  • As Ottava failed to take it to ANI, I opened that which was closed by RegentsPark - notably, the only comment I made at that discussion was the opening one. There was neither any issues in the way I framed it or filed it, nor was there any doubts that I was merely exhausting this step; a formality to complete so that Ottava can, as he preferred, let ArbCom hear an appeal.
Prior interactions and relevant ANIs
  • There were some lines of semi-involvement now, or involvement in the past, that I'd like to note for the record. Prior to this, particularly recently, I'd noted Ottava should change his approach. See for example , . He appears to have evaded the concern . I also vaguely recall making some comments to Ottava at the Ryulong case regarding his approach in the case itself which arbs can look at. In August 08, I personally encountered similar conduct problems with Ottava, and regrettably, it came to the point that I needed to request a block - an administrator blocked him for 8 days; it was not overturned on any grounds. There may have also been a mentorship thing; not sure what became of that. See also this ANI. Before and after that, a number of other relevant discussions have taken place - see, for example, the ones I linked to at the ANI: Nov '09 ANI, Oct '09 ANI, Sept '09 ANI May '08 ANI, May '09 ANI, etc.
  • I am sceptical that an RfC/U will achieve much due to the number of claims (including those of uncivil conduct, administrator impropriety, etc. etc.) and the grudges/battlelines that keep being drawn at any community discussion relating to Ottava. Unfortunately, in this regard, it may be practically impossible for the community to conduct a focused discussion for very long at all on this. That said, I don't think this case can be limited to how each sanction discussion was conducted (and ended), without looking at the underlying conduct concerns, both express and implied, that may have led to the sanction discussions in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I strongly contend the assertion made by one of the responding parties that ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters - the way I framed the most recent discussion, and the way it went for the most part, is ample evidence that ANI is fine when it is used properly. Certain users refusal or uncertainty on how to conduct ANI discussions and impose sanctions does not make that system the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

  • If this request to have a case opened, I decline. It is not onerous to be required to avoid edits which are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. It is what everyone should be doing. Ottava has merely been put on notice. I would accept an appeal after a month or so of peaceful editing. John Vandenberg 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The Four Deuces

Skipsievert has come into conflict with other editors on articles relating to Economics and Technocracy. Technocracy is a movement that combines political theory, economics and philosophy and has organizations that support it. Editors have complained that Skipseivert edits Economics articles to give undue weight to Technocracy and edits Technocracy articles to insert a POV, and that his comments directed against other editors are inappropriate. Skipsievert has said that his edits are NPOV and accuses other editors of "tandem editing". RfC, RfM, ANI and WQA have all been attempted to resolve conflict but have been unsuccessful. Skipseivert is currently under discussion at both ANI and WQA. I am notifying all editors who participated in the current ANI and WQA and the recent RfM.

  • Reply to Protonk I wrote to all editors who commented on recent disputes concerning Skipsievert some of whom have little or no involvement in current disputes. On the other hand, there are editors I did not contact. Based on a comment on my page, I have also sent a notice to User:Nick carson. If the arbitrators accept this case, they will decide which editors should be involved. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

Old statement redacted for brevity.

Skip Sievert fits the profile of a civil POV pusher. In very few of his edits will you find outright hostility, defiance of process/policy, or extreme stances. But in many of his edits in conflict areas you will find a refusal to admit contradictory positions, a refusal to step away from the horse, and a dogged persistence which has deterred avocational editors in the topic areas of Economics, sustainability, technocracy and bio-economics.

Skip treats solitary objections to his positions as the actions of POV pushers and treats unified objection from a diverse group of editors as the actions of a conspiracy. This statement requires no inference. It is present in his repeated allegations that JQ, JK, and myself (among others) constitute a conspiracy of "mainstream academic economists" (which he defines as Keynesian, monetarist or broadly neo-classical to suit his fancy) to suppress diversity of views about the discipline (see broadly the recent AN/I, the abortive mediation thread and the bulk of WT:ECON from thread #11 down). He insists that editors opposing him hold some nebulous 'conflict of interest' (which bears no resemblance to our definition) which prevent them from speaking about the subject neutrally. I have personally observed this behavior (as an involved editor) on WT:ECON, but it is alleged to have happened for months at Sustainability and various technocracy articles (see this archived AN/I).

More to the point, skip's intransigence has had negative material results across multiple articles and topic areas. The mediation request (linked in the request above) foundered solely on skip's refusal to participate and refusal to disengage from the proposed guidelines. My participation on Adam Smith started with a GA review I conducted and ended largely due to skip's bizarre content demands (discussion is here, see the linked section and below). I haven't made substantive content contributions since then (aside from some image info) because the thought of having to run them by Skip is so distasteful. Multiple editors are going to tell similar stories. These stories are the tracks of a POV pusher. Someone with enough time and patience to gum the works up so much that editors with diverse interest (or occasional editors) begin to step back from the article. When enough people step away, the POV pusher nets complete control over content.

Arbcom's role here is simple. Determine whether or not relief is within the capacity of the community to grant, and offer it if the community cannot. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cmt re: indef block

See if it sticks before we start declining Protonk (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by llywrch

I agree with Protonk: this list of involved parties can be trimmed. My involvement in this matter is limited to being little more than a spectator: I offered my opinion & a gentle nudge, but have had no other relevant interaction with Skip Sievert or articles related to economics. AFAIK, the same could be said about Bali ultimate, whose relationship has been limited to posting to the WP:AN/I thread. All of that being said, based the visible frustration I've seen about this matter I recommend the ArbCom to take up this case in order to bring it to a speedy resolution.

Statement by Bali ultimate

Don't really see myself as a party to this - I just made a few comments in the latest AN/I thread on skip to the effect that i'm convinced that restrictions for Skip appear long past due (based on a 15 minute look at his behavior and his method of engaging content disputes). It's my opinion that he's a net negative to the project at the moment (whatever my opinion is worth). But I'm not involved in editing in the area that led to the dispute at all, and so have nothing more to offer here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CRGreathouse

I don't feel that I have wronged or been wronged by skip seivert. (Looking through his Talk page and my history, most of our interactions seemed positive or at least not particularly bad.) There does seem to be a need for an outside party or parties to address the issue, though; bad blood seems to run deep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Datheisen

I've been little more than an observer as well, but given how saddening the entire situation is and I'm incredibly frustrated that it won't go away I don't at all mind a statement. At no point have I contributed to nor edited nor reverted a single thing on any of the pages where these conflicts seem refined to. I have no interest in the knowledge contained in them, and don't care what direction the articles take. Also, at no point have I socialized with any of the other parties listed. The first time I ran into Skipsievert was here, in an AfD where I came in and asked a pretty basic question. The end result was my being bitten to death, even though (ironically) I didn't side against Skipsievert in the AfD outcome. I saw some odd thigns on the talk page of another user in that discussion and then realized I had no place deciding what solicitation/canvassing was. That ended in one of the ANIs here where I very literally apologized for stepping in and commenting, but I had evidence I wanted to submit. I then walked away. Since then I've read a lot, and I question words spoken and actions taken by both "sides" in the past few weeks. My comments are always regarding a piece of evidence or a diff, and/or tying things into a guideline/policy. I can't imagine much in my posting history that would say otherwise. Since I have no idea how long these statements are supposed to be, I'll stop now versus go on for several hours. This needs to be addressed and no other venue has come up with anything, for the sake of all the passion and efforts of all contributors and tens of hours of research strange third-party observers such as myself have spent on these cases in a desperate attempt to try to help. After feeling like a gnome running around blowing a whistle trying to get people to calm down I'll do whatever I can do to help see it done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: For the sake of 100% transparency, despite earlier claims of zero interaction with other parties I found one instance where I had left a message for Sunray on day1 of my observations. It's a sympathy message as I had seen after reading possible incivilities directed toward him/her on a group project page. For how I have this pictured any loose bit of info might be used for various reasons so I figured this was easier. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlamDiego

Given the statement by The Four Deuces (the filing party) of the nature of this dispute to be Arbitrated, I am not sure that I should be listed as an involved party. I have done little or no editing of the two articles that he mentions, and have not much observed the behavior of Skipsievert in editing any articles. My involvement with the dispute is indirect, as it has spilled onto efforts by some parties to add guidelines at WikiProject Economics, which efforts have often been de facto attempts to extend or otherwise to rewrite actual Misplaced Pages policy. —21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(If Arbitration becomes sufficiently wide ranging as to cover the content of the debate over guidelines, or the conduct of participants in that debate, then I am an essential party.) —22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cretog8

Skipsievert and I have a fairly long history of heated interaction. My behavior/judgment has had lapses in that time. I agree with The Four Deuces about the origins of the conflicts, which are long-standing, but the issues have expanded. Skip pushes POV conflicts and exhausts or aggravates editors who try in good faith to work toward a consensus. In some cases this leads to editors giving up. Skip has argued to leave parts of articles unaltered because they've been stable for a long while, when in fact they were stable because other editors decided it wasn't worth the fight to clean them up. Other times, it leads to editors ceasing to treat Skip's contributions as serious good-faith efforts.

Skip's POV problem seems to mainly a matter of not recognizing the importance of weight. I'm not sure about this, because they have also indicated repeatedly that economics as a discipline should not be accorded the respect of "real sciences". This has been an issue in issues related (or apparently related, I'm no expert) to technocracy and thermoeconomics, but has expanded to broadly assign high weight to any criticism of economics.

The way Skip handles the POV problems is a serious issue, but how it extends to civility toward other editors makes it more serious. Skip accuses editors who have conflicts on multiple articles of wikihounding. Skip argues that those who agree in disagreeing with Skip are "tandem editing" or a "faction" and so should be treated as a single voice. There is some amazing unwillingness to recognize consensus.

As a parallel note, I suspect part of the difficulty in dealing with Skip is an issue of written language. It is often difficult to parse Skip's contributions and discussions, which would make reaching consensus more difficult in any circumstances. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

I was involved here as a result of the RfM as a result of an RfC drawing me to the economics group. Prior to this, I have known Skipsievert in relation to content disputes at Technocracy a number of years ago, where he was tendentious, but there was no major conduct issue. The recent situation is more concerning and Cretog8 articulates it well. Conduct, disruptive editing and disruptive discussion are the core. Large scale POV pushing would be resolvable without these other two issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Quiggin

This has been dragging on interminably, across a range of articles, as comments above have shown. Cretog8's summary is fairly good. In addition to damaging POV pushing, personal attacks and so on, I would mention Skip's assumption that anyone with expertise in a topic such as economics automatically has a COI. This is an extreme form of anti-expert prejudices I would hope Misplaced Pages has outgrown. In the absence of a lengthy ban, this is just going to drag on. JQ (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by AGK

Multiple unresolved ANI threads suggest to me that the community is finding it difficult to dispose of this particular case. Neutralising the conduct of a single editor should not be a task that the arbitrators find onerous. AGK 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Carolmooredc

Frankly I don't know why this has gone to arbitration since there have been more than enough complaints about Skip Sievert's violation of a variety of policies by a variety of editors, many of whom write from different economic perspectives, to trigger appropriate action. In any case, hopefully the result of arbitration will be an economics topic ban (and any other subject relevant to his favorite hobby horses) for at least a month, preferably 2 or 3, to cool his heels and study wikipedia policies. As I've written previously, I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, i.e., totally POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, and negative and accusatory comments if you try to remind him of Misplaced Pages policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Johnfos

I am one of the editors who has come into conflict with Skipsievert, mainly in relation to the Technocracy articles. Skipsievert is often involved in POV pushing, edit-warring against consensus, and personal attacks against those who don't agree with him. This has led to much time-wasting and in some editors leaving WP (or at least thinking of leaving) and others taking wikibreaks. I urge the committee to accept this case as many attempts at dispute resolution have been made, but there has been little progress, and the wider WP community is now looking for answers. Johnfos (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcq

I haven't been involved in editing the same article as Skipsievert and could probably profitably be removed from any more detailed discussion. I was interested in resolving a general problem the Economics project has of NPOV because some people feel very strongly about the importance of various aress or approaches. Where Skipsievert goes way over the line though is he seems to treat anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy and is unable to involve himself in a civilized dialogue. Perhaps if someone could talk with him that is not involved at all in economics they might be able to get some agreement about a less emotional approach in future. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Moreschi's action. His POV is fringe, he annoys the hell out of contributors, and a very large amount of effort has already been spent trying to get some reform. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I suppoose if he wants to try editing somewhere else for some months that could be tried and then let back if that worked out without incidents. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JayHenry

I strongly urge ArbCom to accept and resolve this matter. I am not a member of WikiProject Economics, nor have I participated in these disputes, but I do work on economics articles. This dispute is a significant problem During a recent economics FLC, I was unable to locate reviewers for a long time because nearly the entire active economics WikiProject was consumed attempting to resolve this dispute. I have worked with Protonk and LawrenceKhoo and chatted with Cretog and can say firstly that it's clear to me that their editing is consistent with NPOV. The irony about the POV accusations is that the economics editors don't seem to have a matching POV to push. I'm not very sympathetic to Keynesianism, and I'm relatively open to Austrian ideas, for example, and I suspect some of the others differ quite a bit, but I've never had any difficulty agreeing to basic facts, or working constructively with these editors even when we've disagreed, or finding mutually agreeable ways to word content. As testament to this are a number of Good and Featured Articles on which I've successfully collaborated with WP:ECON members who have disparate views. It is clear 1) there is no conspiracy and 2) who the POV pusher is. --JayHenry (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's resolution seems a mere hastening of the inevitable, and would allow WP:ECON members to get back to work. This was one of the most extreme cases of fringe POV pushing that I've ever seen (though I don't seek this stuff out). I say Fringe because it seems possible that some of the views in question were held by precisely one person in the entire world. --JayHenry (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sunray

For over a year now, Skipsievert has been causing disruptions to the editing of the Sustainability article. During that time there have been repeated personal attacks on other editors of the Sustainability pages. He has frequently engaged in edit warring against consensus and has, several times, brought collaborative editing of the article to a standstill. His tendentiousness and refusal to drop a point are highly disruptive. There have been many attempts at informal mediation, referrals to noticeboards and intervention by administrators. Nothing has worked. He responds to civil requests and attempts to offer feedback or advice as "personal attacks" and scorns attempts to establish policy-based editing groundules. Lately his pattern of personal attacks has accelerated, as evident in recent referrals to ANI. Something must be done to prevent this kind of destructive behaviour or Misplaced Pages will suffer immeasurably. I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case and be prepared to mete out appropriate sanctions for the good of the community. I will provide detailed evidence to support this summary if the case is accepted. Sunray (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Action by Moreschi
Moreschi has taken the action many have wished were taken long ago. Serious article editors of economics and sustainability pages are indebted to him. Sunray (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem

My involvement largely stems from a medcom attempt. Obviously, I will not be discussing that part.

After the AN/I thread, I made a note to folks to contact me if skip went out-of-bounds in their opinions, and I'll deal with it then. User:John Quiggen contacted me about this edit, and I responded on the article talk with this edit, which resulted in this response. All par for the course in any general dispute.

That marks my involvement in this dispute. 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

This is quite clearly a case of massive POV-pushing by someone with a quirky (WP:FRINGE - reviewing his contributons, I flat loved his theory that Adam Smith gave us Karl Marx, and we should have 2 whole paragraphs devoted to his synthesis to this effect in Smith's bio) set of beliefs who has far too much time on their hands. Skip has created a vast amount of content, most of which looks to be highly-technocrat biased: I see multiple AFDs for the more obscure subjects and a lot of cleanup work needed for the rest. Given the level of the disruption here, and the unwillingess of the editor in question to form any sort of compromise (or indeed budge an inch), I have blocked them indefinitely. Moreschi (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, with his unblock declined, he'll appeal to arbcom...as per others, I suppose a permanent topic ban from all economics-related articles, plus mentorship, might be fine. The topic ban would have to be permanent though, given the deeply cranky and obsessive nature of the views held, and it might just be easier to accept that the 'pedia not for him. Moreschi (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Geronimo20

My experience with Skipsievert is set out in the lead comment here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the entirely appropriate action taken by Moreschi, providing it sticks. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

Unlike some of the other people here, I've been able to decently collaborate with Skip on economics and ecological economics. We share environmental interests and skepticism of economics. I tend to be pretty relaxed about extra content in articles. Lately it seems that Skip has either been more aggresive or a few editors (eg LawrenceKhoo; Cretog8 have become stricter about weight. I support LK and Cretog8. When it comes down to it, Technocracy doesn't belong in the Great Depression article (recently added), nor does the obscure "biophysical economics" need to be described at length in the economics article. When we point this out to Skip, he says we're biased and conspiring. Given his stubbornness and inability to compromise, it seems that a ban may be the only recourse.

Skip also has the annoying habit of not using the "preview" button. We all make little mistakes, but he'll often take 5 edits to do what other people do in 1. The sloppiness annoys me because I like to troll through page histories. So maybe that biases my view on his behavior.

Statement by rtol

Skip Sievert knows little and understands less about economics, yet Skip regularly edits articles about economics. This leads to lengthy discussions, in which Skip first confuses the debate by bringing in all sorts of unrelated stuff before moving on to personal attacks. It is people like Skip that have lowered my opinion about Misplaced Pages, and that made me essentially stop editing articles myself. Skip should be banned, if not from Misplaced Pages then at least from the articles in the economics project. Richard Tol (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Travelplanner

The experience of editing with Skip on Sustainability has been, for me, a Red Queen's race in that it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. He has various ways of achieving this as noted by other editors above, what the different behaviours have in common is that the efforts of others are redirected from creating content to some dispute or other. I understand from the above that Skip has now been banned indefinitely by Moreschi, I guess now it's up to us to demonstrate how much more progress can be made as a result of this decision. --Travelplanner (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrencekhoo

I started actively contributing to Misplaced Pages when I noticed the poor quality of the economics articles compared to those in other disciplines (biology for example). I recently heavily curtailed time spent on Misplaced Pages because I found that I was spending most of my time in disputes, that were connected in one way or another with Skipsievert. The disputes made participating in Misplaced Pages very unpleasant, and were making me into not a 'nice person'.

The problem with Skipsievert as an editor is that he is disruptive in multiple ways. Others have mentioned that he pushes his fringe interests (technocracy movement and biophysical economics), making inappropriate insertions into various unrelated articles.(E.g. here) He then edit wars to keep them in and argues endlessly about WP:weight. He has also taken to denegrating mainstream economics, and preventing the removal of various obscure fringe views, having decided that anything non-mainstream must be better than mainstream. (Here he calls economics 'voodoo' ) Engaging Skip in a discussion is an exercise in futility, as he does not change his mind and will not compromise, and will argue and revert endlessly to his version. In Sustainability for example, he has reverted to his version of the lead countless times over the last eight months, even though the issue has been discussed to death, and he knows full well that consensus is fully against him. Additionally, Skip makes an art of ignoring evidence and consensus, gaming the system, and taking personal attacks to the edge of what will get him sanctioned. (See this for example:)

I fully endorse the block made and urge Arbcom to take this case if the block is overturned. LK (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Moreschi's block is grossly inappropriate. If a break is needed from the dispute then perhaps a temporary ban for Skip from economics article during the proceeding might be helpful. But to indefinitely block someone who has not even had a chance to weigh in on an arbitration proceeding concerning them is inexcusable. That Coren would let it go without objecting is also very troubling. As noted by other parties, several of the editors involved in this dispute have behaved in ways that are inappropriate. Some restrictions or mentoring may well be needed for Skip, but a unilateral indefinite block by an involved party (who thinks it entirely appropriate to make personal attacks) at this stage is completely unacceptable. It should be noted that other troubling behavior by Moreschi's is already the subject of an ongoing ANI thread and concerned discussion elsewhere. He may well need his own Arbcom hearing. There is a proper way to handle disputes and this is absolutely not the way to treat good faith editors no matter how much we disagree with their perspective or opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Good work, Moreschi. When the body of an editor's work has been unproductive, and they appear immune to feedback, we regrettably must stop them from doing further damage. We should not require ArbCom intervention in every case of disruptive editing. Jehochman 10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/0/0)

Rcool35

Initiated by Taylor Karras (talk) at 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Taylor Karras

The first time I encountered him was on the Roc-A-Fella Records article where he was changing details, I thought it was someone harmless but this is where the bad part comes in, he keeps adding and citing websites which have a questionable amount of notability. Primarily he has vandalized the article Nas and his albums. He has also been found to bump the album's rating by .5 and has also directly copied text from copyrighted sources. When he was banned, he created sockpuppets to evade his ban and he is now using his dynamic IP to evade his ban and also make him unbannable (since the IP's are numerous) The user's attitude is even worse. In my attempts of resolution, he kept bragging on about how he's a man and has pecks and how I'm just a guy in a mother's basement (I'm not). Even when I provided him links to Misplaced Pages policies and ways he can get himself unbanned, he just replied with a smirky remark. While he has promise, he is uncivil and ignorant and he is not fit to be a Wikipedian unless he changes his ways.

Discussion with Newyorkbrad

Comment. While I agree with your stance, none of the community has taken any action on him. I've made multiple requests on WP:ANI all of them ending with that he cannot be blocked, I've even posted his IP on WP:AIV and it went by unnoticed. While I have most of the pages he vandalizes on my watchlist, his IP changes daily and I don't have time to place every single IP he uses on WP:AIV. I'm just wondering if Misplaced Pages will do something about this. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Brandon

So can it be done as soon as possible? Taylor Karras (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Explicit

Statement by JpGrB

Comment by Brandon

99.147.216.0/22 and 76.197.240.0/20 can be anon blocked without too much collateral. Those ranges should take cover the majority of the IPs the user has access to on their home connection. Brandon (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

I've refactored this to move everyone's comments to the proper section - RFAR doesn't do threaded conversation like elsewhere, we ask that comments be made in your own section only. Thanks. Hersfold 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

  • Decline. I understand the filing party's level of exasperation with this user's misbehavior and sockpuppetry. However, as the statement correctly notes, Rcool35 was blocked indefinitely a few months ago, and for the reasons stated above, is unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. Because the user is blocked indefinitely, any new accounts or IPs that he uses should also be blocked, especially if they continue engaging in the same misconduct that led to his being blocked in the first place. Because there doesn't appear to be any dispute that Rcool35 is unwelcome on Misplaced Pages and will stay blocked, I don't see what further meaningful action the Arbitration Committee could take, and therefore I don't think that there is an actual dispute for us to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you suggest we should do? If any checkusers with rangeblock expertise are reading here, please feel free to take a look into this situation and see if we can implement that without too much collateral damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I have drawn this discussion to the attention of one of the checkusers and asked him/her to review the information in this request to determine if preventative action may be appropriate. Risker (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - Concur with Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Wizardman 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - Concur with Newyorkbrad. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline; the community already handled the matter, and while I understand that enforcement is made difficult by the fact that they keep hopping around IPs, there is nothing that the committee can do in practice to help: we have no technical means at our disposal beyond what checkusers have in their toolchests and no sanction stronger than the community ban already in place. — Coren  04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)