| Revision as of 01:26, 4 November 2009 view sourceGranitethighs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,213 edits →Involved parties: Added my details← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Skipsievert == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lawrencekhoo}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Cretog8}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|CRGreathouse}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Dmcq}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Fifelfoo}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|John Quiggin}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Morphh}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Protonk}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Skipsievert}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|SlamDiego}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Vision Thing}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Johnfos}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Xavexgoem}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Geronimo20}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Rd232}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|ImperfectlyInformed}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Carolmooredc}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bali ultimate}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Sunray}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Llywrch}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Datheisen}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Travelplanner}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Beagel}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bwilkins}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Rtol}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Granitethighs}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *ANI Archive571: | |||
| *ANI Archive523: | |||
| *ANI Archive467: | |||
| *ANI Archive264 | |||
| *ANI Archive261: | |||
| *ANI Archive256: | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| Skipsievert has come into conflict with other editors on articles relating to ] and ]. 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. | |||
| === Statement by Protonk === | |||
| Larger statement to follow. I think the list of parties can be trimmed a bit, but since there are more than one topic areas it will necessarily always be large. I reluctantly urge the committee to accept this case. Whether you accept it as a traditional "arbitration" where a finding is imposed on an unwilling party or as a broader conduct issue is up to you. Fodder exists for both approaches. ] (]) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| 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 ] 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 ] === | |||
| 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.] (]) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| 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. ]<small> (] | ])</small> 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| 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. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| Given the statement by ] (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 ] 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 ] === | |||
| Skipsievert and I have a fairly long history of heated interaction. My behavior/judgment has had lapses in that time. I agree with ] 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 ] and ], 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. ](]/]) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| 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. ] (]) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| This has been dragging on interminably, across a range of articles, as comments above have shown. ]'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. ] (]) 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by ] === | |||
| 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. ] 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by ] === | |||
| 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 ] and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of ], 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. ] (]) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| 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. ] (]) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Statement by ] == | |||
| 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. ] (]) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) === | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| == Rcool35 == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Taylor Karras}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Explicit}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|JpGrB}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| === Statement by Taylor Karras === | |||
| The first time I encountered him was on the ] 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, ] 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 ] all of them ending with that he cannot be blocked, I've even posted his IP on ] 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 ]. I'm just wondering if Misplaced Pages will do something about this. ] (]) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Reply to Brandon ==== | |||
| So can it be done as soon as possible? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) === | |||
| *'''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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - Concur with Newyorkbrad. ] (]) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' ] 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' ] (]) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - Concur with Newyorkbrad.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.