Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Breaking 3RR by user Peltimikko		7 November 2009	{{{votes}}}
Hounding of Tothwolf		7 November 2009	{{{votes}}}
Ottava Rima restrictions		4 November 2009	{{{votes}}}
Skipsievert		3 November 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Breaking 3RR by user Peltimikko

Initiated by ellol (talk) at 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ellol, filing party
• Peltimikko

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I filed the Arbitration request. ellol (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• User Peltimikko was informed of the Arbitration request: [1], ellol (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Dispute resolution was attempted at the Freedom of the Press in Russia talk page, user talks pages of User_talk:Ellol#Suggestion_of_compromise and User_talk:Peltimikko#Response

Statement by Ellol

During an ongoing dispute about the structure and contents of the article Freedom of the Press in Russia that occurred between me and user Peltimikko, user Peltimikko made four reverts within 24 hours: [2] [3] [4] [5]. He seems to be well aware of the 3RR policy, as follows from his edit on my talk page.

My opinion of the dispute is that Peltimikko's version of the article is essentially POV-pushing, as some authoritative sources are ignored in or banned from the introduction and the first sections of the article Freedom of the press in Russia.

p.s. I was not aware of the place where 3 RR violations are reported to. Now I reported this case there: [6]. ellol (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Hounding of Tothwolf

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I have notified everybody. Trust me. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Tothwolf flaming out while announcing retirement
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Wikistalking_and_problematic_edits_by_User:Miami33139
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Questionable_bulk_edits_by_User:Miami33139

Statement by Jehochman

While patrolling WP:ANI I stumbled across a complex multi-party dispute that has been festering for over a month. Tothwolf claims hounding, collusion and malicious deletion nominations by JBSupreme, Theserialcomma and Miami33139. Those parties claim Tothwolf is "delusional" (Miami33139's words). There appears to be intense rancor on all sides with regrettably breaches of decorum by at least two of the involved parties. If you read the linked discussions, you'll notice the paucity of uninvolved editors willing to brave the long screeds and flames. I believe arbitration would help resolve this problem. The parties need structure, and they need uninvolved parties willing to closely review a substantial body of evidence spanning multiple articles and multiple editors. We do not have any other process that would provide suitable resolution. ANI cannot repel drama of this magnitude. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

@Spartaz: The parties chose not to engage in formal dispute resolution. Instead, they kept going to ANI, and their behavior is so bad, no uninvolved parties want to hear it. RFC is good for a single editor, but it cannot effectively handle a dispute where multiple editors are behaving badly. Things have gotten so toxic, I do not thing RFC is going to help at this point. It does not make sense to start four RFC's that focus on the same events and patterns of behavior. It will be more efficient to have a single arbitration case. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I will not say anything on this matter aside from this - Theserialcomma and Tothwolf have a history stretching back a few months; I've tried to amass enough diffs in a timely enough fashion for Tothwolf to use in any RFC/U, but after Theserialcomma butted into discussions I was having with a blocked user, I was obliged to try and disengage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Miami33139

ArbCom does not need to hear this.

Jehochman brings this to ArbCom with a statement that there is no other process that can handle drama of this magnitude. On the contrary, this is not drama of high magnitude. This boils down to a simple case of ownership. In the AN/Incident yesterday I repeatedly asked Tothwolf, or any adminstrator, how one specific diff of a minor edit presented a case of harassment by myself of Tothwolf. After ten repeats of this one question, Tothwolf responded, showing he had made three minor edits to the article in question, eight months before, and in a different section of the list. He did not back down from his claim that these minor edits, on different sections, eight months apart, were harassing him. This is a ridiculous claim on its face.

ArbCom could break this entire incident up into that response from Tothwolf to understand this issue. Wikipedia does have processes that can deal with ownership and false claims of harassment, and that is for any administrator to actually act when they see such obvious displays. Bringing this case to ArbCom will certainly become drama of high magnitude, because there are a dozen more claimants to be heard where Tothwolf has screamed "HARASSMENT!" A simple glance at his talk page shows a years worth of complaints of his etiquette from many editors.

Tothwolf has shown that he believes minor edits separated by eight months are harassment of him. An ArbCom case where he will bring forth hundreds of such diffs, claiming they all harass him, will frustrate everyone to no end. These claims are ridiculous. Send this back to the administrators and tell one of them to figure out how minor edits separated by eight months harass anyone, and tell them to make an appropriate response based on their judgement. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Diff that can settle the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_portable_software&diff=prev&oldid=324167183

If any Arbitrator can show me how that diff harasses Tothwolf I will leave the project. No need to open the case. If there is no explanation of how that diff harasses Tothwolf, you know what kind of non-evidence you will get if you open the case. Miami33139 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question by uninvolved Spartaz

Has it now become a tradition to skip the RFC and go straight to arbitration these days? Seems to be a worrying recent trend & is not for the good. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Ottava Rima restrictions

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

Involved parties

• Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [7]
• [8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [9]: "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
• [10]
• [11] (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 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: [12], [13], [14], and [15]. 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.

• Response to John Vandenburg - As I have stated here, it is harassing to be under such constant scrutiny, attacks, and the rest. I am not someone who has had a lengthy ArbCom which has determined that I should be under such. This is purely one quick decision following a few days of constantly creating threads on me that were filled with invectives and attacks by the same people. Restrictions like this are emotionally damaging. If you want to get rid of someone, get rid of them. Don't keep them around and play games with them. I am a human being. I have flesh, I have blood, and I have feelings. These "restrictions" are exactly what people have been doing for a while - constantly warning me on this or that, items the vast majority of the community would not even think were close to incivility in order, to put pressure on me and have a negative impact. I have managed to create 70 DYK, 29 GA, and roughly 8 (it hasnt closed but is close) FAs in a three month period where I was constantly threatened with blocks or received blocks. My talk page is constantly filled with the same people making claims over what can only be trivial matters. I have watched my language carefully, and it is obvious that people would instantly block me if I said even the slightest thing that was obviously incivil or a blatant attack. If I made this section I would have been blocked for at least a week. I can't edit under these circumstances as I have emailed ArbCom for the past three months about. The pressure from the same group of people to bully me into submission is unbearable. Either free me from these people and allow me to actually put my time and thoughts into writing without having to worry about the same group trying to bully me in some new way, or get rid of me completely so I don't have to bother with any of it. Anything in between is impossible to work with because it is an endorsement of the same behavior that seeks to ignore arguments or matters and instead focus on me. Allow me to be as productive as my potential has proven I can be, or make it clear that I can't benefit this place and get rid of me. I have already stated here that if any Arbitrator feels that I do not belong here, please say so. I will go. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Questions for RegentsPark - 1. What do you think about the discrepancy between 22 to 8 as you state and the 18 to 14 as I have pointed out at your talk page? 2. Do you feel that you were able to adequately close the page while a. having put forth your view already and affected the debate and b. had a previous dispute with me just prior to this matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Jbmurray - I don't think a full case is needed or normal for this. It would just go to motions on the matter where ArbCom can simply uphold the stuff as official, not uphold it, or impose whatever else. But if someone wants a full case then I'm sure they will do it too. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question to ArbCom - is it a coincidence that Folantin, Moreschi, Dbachmann, and Akhilleus kept appearing in various debates and Moreschi accuses me of disruption there? I would welcome such examination because there are three admin that have participated in outright attacks, disruption, POV pushing, threats, tag teaming, and the rest. Moreschi and his friends have done this for a very long time and they will continue to do something until 1. ArbCom desysops all of them for abusing adminship and 2. Puts forth tough restrictions that result in blocks if they ever do anything that appears to be tag teaming in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Carcharoth - I don't cuss, but many responding to me do. I don't call people stupid, but many people responding to me too. I don't ask for the same people to show up to countless pages and have my "back", but many people responding to me do. I have supported those who have caused me harm before, and have defended people like Mattisse or Peter Damian who have never done a positive thing for me, yet many people who respond to me have never went against one of their friends. I do not use socks, yet there is a blatant history of those against me using socks. I don't follow people to multiple pages, keep making tendentious attacks on minor matters without willing to listen or compromise simply to say that they have had a "history" of such actions which, if someone bothered, they would see the history is artificial. This is a common tactic against me. I deal with actions here, and I only make statements regarding the propriety or impropriety of those actions. I have worked on DYK, GA, and FAs with over a dozen people who are -not- my friends and who have completely different views from me, yet the people against me only work with those who agree with them and try to snuff out any opposition. After being targeted by the same people, as you can see on this DRV from April 16, 2008 on Swift's printers many who are present here and present in most of these discussions, for over a year, constantly being harassed, bullied, intimidated, and blocked by those in their circle, I was -still- capable of producing about 10 FAs, saving two FAs directly, putting up over 50 GAs, and having now 210 DYK. I was still able to produce 61 DYK, 8 FAs, and 27 GAs in a three month period in which there was either a WQA, an ANI, or some other form of harassment against me with the intent to get rid of me. Why is that? Because I fight through the pain, the harassment, the emotional harm because I believe in this damn encyclopedia. If I acted like this I would have been banned. Yet that group of people just because they are Moreschi's friends and they have Risker on ArbCom think they own this place. That thread makes me sick, and yet they didn't even have anyone willing to warn them. When I complained about one of John Vandenburg's mentees edit warring against me when I tried to follow a WQA alert about a group of people accusing me of "hating" another person, I asked John to intervene because the individual was on direct ArbCom restriction not to do -any- edit warring. This was one of Moreschi's mentees. What was John's response? That since the guy once did something on Wiki Source for me I shouldn't pursue the matter. Is that how things are done around here? An Arbitrator I once considered a friend tells me that someone clearly breaking the rules and causing me emotional stress shouldn't have anything pursued against them because they once helped me? That absolutely sickens me. I don't stalk people across various topics. I don't bust into multiple WQA and edit war or attack. I don't follow them constantly to ANI and gang up. I don't tag team, bully, or any of this. I don't tell people that it is appropriate to ignore clearly disruptive and emotionally damage behavior because they once did something for another person. If the community wants to ban me, fine. But there is only one thing the community can do if it wants to make up for the pure shit I've had to go through since last April. I was constantly intimidated, constantly harassed, berated, abused, sent threatening emails and had some of the most horrible and blatant hate on Wiki without even one person warning the individual. The only way I was able to keep from being blocked from Nandesuka's block is because two members of that group had me edit war against Haiduc on various pages dealing with Pederasty. I did their bidding only because I was tired of the constant blocks and harassment, and it made me sick. I worked with him to get Nicolo Giraud to FA to make up for the hell I aided. I am tired of this all. Either fix the corruption and protect me, or get rid of me once and for all. You want to blame me for this, Carcharoth, fine. Blame me. Get rid of me. The problems will continue, as there are dozens of editors that suffered from these same people in the same way, and there always will be. I fought through all the bullshit and managed to put forth good work. I could have produced at least 4 times the amount I had if I didn't have to constantly fight against this. You have brought me to cussing on Wikipedia, which I am strongly against. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry if the above is extremely hostile or combative. Your comments have extremely upset me and I can't even finish fixing "Ode on a Grecian Urn" which is at FAC because I don't want to be around here right now because of what you stated.

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 block. If you take this case, please investigate the underlying dispute, Ottava's behavior and what to do about it. The community has been incapable of ending the drama, to date. Ottava claims to have been harassed and hounded. I believe these counter claims should be looked at to see if they might be mitigating factors. Bad behavior by one side does not excuse bad behavior by another party, but it should not be ignored. Before my action there were blocks followed by unilateral unblocks. I tried to fashion a sensible remedy for an obvious problem; I personally abhor the idea of blocking a constructive editor such as Ottava.

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 ^Talk 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to remove Ottava's name from the list to avoid stigmatization if he observes site standards for one month. Thank you for the suggestion. If anybody has issues with Ottava's behavior, please notify me as a courtesy. If I am online I'd like to be consulted before any non-emergency block might be placed. It is my goal to help Ottava, not to set him up for failure. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get off the fence. I think this situation will improve if you give Ottava a bit of time and space. Immediate arbitration is not going to end well. He's had feedback and indicated some things to me privately that give hope that the matter could be resolved. If Ottava returns and problems resume, you can take up the matter. Meanwhile, I would implore all the disputants to stop applying pressure. There is no need. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima is a redlink. A passel of ANI threads is not real dispute resolution. It's wikiwarfare.Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [sic] 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. Durova³⁵⁵ 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SarekofVulcan's followup:

The comparison in this section examines only the individuals who expressed a preference between the two proposals. Other editors also supported and opposed without preference between the two versions. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To John Vandenberg:

One problem with that solution is that it implicitly validates an arguably invalid sanction, another is that neither proposed sanction is likely to succeed. Yes, we should all be civil. Look at the ANI thread and see what took place there:

• "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?... " (not posted by Ottava)
• "Start an RfC, or get off the pot" with the edit summary "or shit, or whatever" Further commentary: "I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue?" (posted by a steward)
• "Yes Ottava, and 'all of you' that that 'shut the fuck up' was directed at included you too." (not posted by Ottava)

The only one of those individuals who received feedback that perhaps that wording wasn't the best manner of expression was the steward, by me, at his user talk page.[16] And no, this is not an effort to exonerate Ottava. But it isn't viable to wait a month and then send an appeal while this simmers. It's been boiling over to admin pages about twice a week. Whatever else Ottava Rima does--and he isn't perfect--he doesn't sink to vulgarity. The situation is difficult already; it becomes even harder this way.

Ottava Rima crossed a bright line when he broadcast questions which could impact another Wikipedian's employability. There are ways of raising concerns about a fellow editor's conduct on sensitive matters, and I really don't approve of Ottava's course of action there. Now that it's been broadcast and said, it comes up again--not necessarily by Ottava. An arbitration case could manage that with adequate ground rules and clerking; the community can't contain that problem.

The best outcome would keep Ottava Rima free to contribute outstanding content and give him a measure of dignity--which the above vulgarities lack; he's a human being--while truncating the associated problems. Neither of the proposed solutions is likely to solve that because--and we've all seen this play out--the people who are at loggerheads don't want endless brinksmanship; they want to be free of the conflict and return to other priorities. The community debates would likely refocus to whether this snipe or that one crosses the line into blockable behavior. My graduate school training is in writing; Ottava's is in literature: neither of us need vulgar clichés to be cutting. There are different ways to interpret the civility policy. Consensus doesn't exist in this realm.

Neither of the proposed sanctions was developed as a result of discussion. One administrator tried to impose the first unilaterally, another presented the alternative with what appears to be good intentions and haste. I have an idea for an alternative proposal, which the heated discussions really haven't allowed an opportunity to pose or consider. Am quite worried that if the community handles this the result will be conduct RfC, "failed" civility parole, and siteban. Arbitration may be the only viable alternative. Durova³⁵⁵ 19:26, 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: [17] [18] [19]. 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 [20], [21]. He appears to have evaded the concern [22]. 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 discussions are framed 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)

Statement by Fowler&fowler

Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies. It is important for ArbCom to assert the primacy of the Wikipedia enterprise and of its rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon

I am impressed by Wikidemon's cogently argued statement. ArbCom would be wise to pay close heed to it. In my view, Ottava Rima has often employed the same stratagems in countering objections to his content contributions as he has in countering those to his incivility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I think it is fairly clear from the discussion that there is community consensus on some sort of civility restriction on Ottava rima even beyond the numbers counted in the !votes. A requirement that an editor be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors is generally a good idea and enforcing that is not a bad idea if the editor has been uncivil in the past and, of the various suggestions thrown around in the discussion, this one is the least onerous and has the advantage of being a restriction that is already in place. In this case, I think I've correctly called consensus and suggest that if the editor continues to focus on content and attempts to be civil in his dealings with others, there should be nothing to worry about.

I have had very few interactions with Ottava rima himself, the most recent one being on the Byron talk page. While I was surprised at the tone and tenor of his statements in that discussion, at no point did I feel that it was necessary to take the matter further or consider a block or ban (Ottava expressed the desire to take it further but, since he did not, I assume he did not consider the matter particularly serious either). I do feel that rudeness is detrimental to the goals of a collaborative volunteer project and that is the only way in which I consider myself to be involved in this issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has asked me to explain why I chose the original sanction over the alternative plan. The 'support difference' between the two was slight and the original plan was already in place and a great deal simpler. The alternative plan has clear support as well, but it is both more complicated as well as more punitive. Since there was clear consensus that there be some restrictions placed on Ottava, and since the original plan both has 'expressed support' and is as well the absolute minimum restriction that can be placed on an editor, I concluded that it has consensus support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to questions from Ottava rima I counted straight down, ignoring comments (unless they clearly stated a preference) in the Original thread section whereas your numbers include interpretations (for example, I would not have included the three editors who seem to be throwing up their hands at 'the whole mess' in the oppose section) across the entire thread. My views were expressed in purely general terms (I have nothing for or against you and, somewhat like you, feel that the community should either ban you or just agree to put up with you) so I see nothing wrong in my closing the thread. By 'previous dispute' I assume you refer to the Byron article naming dispute. I'm not sure why a purely content dispute, particularly a one-off thing that neither of us considered serious enough to take further, should preclude an editor from closing a thread of this sort. We would never get anything done if that were the case.

Regardless of the counting of 'votes', I would (if I were you and I do realize that I'm not you!) focus on the general opinion that your tone is less than civil. Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. Durova reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual Ottava, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. (My apologies for this digression, which is doubtless both uncalled for as well as unwelcome, but I can assure you that I mean well.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads

Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. I believe a significant component of Ottava Rima's incivility is that he rapidly goes from academic disagreement (which while it can be extremely heated is at least based on an examination of the evidence and/or interpretation that the other party is putting forward) to accusations of bad faith, disruption, conspiracy, socking etc, which it is hard to interpret in any light other than a personal attack, and which quickly either stifles debate or turns it into wikidramah. A very good, recent, and uncontroversial example (a discussion as to whether to rename the article about the poet Byron to Lord Byron)isTalk:George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move. I would recommend anyone interested to read it. The section is quite short.

Suggestions about the move were initially met by Ottava with sound academic and policy based responses [23][24][25] and so on for about half a dozen responses. Other parties joined the discussion, and one eventually placed a formal support for the proposal at hand [26]. At this point, Ottava Rima's behaviour changed. His next post [27] makes the first accusation of bad faith "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert." (By way of background, both have carried out a search of the academic database JSTOR, and are reporting different results - as it later transpired, from the use of somewhat different search parameters)

When the editor addressed protests[28] that this is "Bit, unnecessary, and rather uncalled for,"the next response from Ottava is a full on attack [29] "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." The person to whom this is addressed posts a lengthy reasoning [30] and Ottava's response again contains accusations of bad faith editing [31] "stop the nonsense. Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information."

The discussion continues in a civil manner, with views on both sides. Another editor who disagrees with Ottava is met with [32] "Your persistence is the very definition of tenditious and incivil" (this is the editor's second post in the debate), followed by "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption"

The first editor makes another point, and suggests "I know you've done good work on poetry articles here on wikipedia, but, I think, your familiarity with the subject is causing you to lose perspective here." This is met with [33] "your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic. You already crossed WP:CIVIL and NPA attacks above. Does an AN or ANI need to be brought about because of your indecent actions?"

A third editor who has dared to disagree with Ottava suggests "our naming conventions are not predicated on what libraries call people". This unremarkable observation is greeted by Ottava with [34] "You should honestly be blocked for that because that can be nothing but trolling."

A different editor (not any of the three already referred to) asks Ottava to tone it down. [35]. Ottava's response so exemplifies the issue that it is worth reading in full. Bear in mind that up to this point this has been an academic debate, with possible sources advanced, and no-one has done any more than (a) disagree academically and (b) asked a couple of times that Ottava turn it down a bit, as he's not helping the debate.

I'm going too far? You are the one starting this whole nonsense. You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities. The two above should honestly have known better then to encourage your disruption. You have contributed nothing but disruption. Once it was mentioned that the LoC classifies him as George Gordon Byron, you should have apologized for starting this. The other two should never have bothered. That is enough to warrant a week long block against all three of you because you have proven that you are not here to contribute. It seems like a block would be the only way to protect the encyclopedia by those who don't actually care what the real classifications are or how people actually use them.

I submit that it is this cycle that it most disruptive to the encyclopaedia, and this which needs to be addressed. Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Ottava has been reminded to AGF with those who debate with him, and it is not unreasonable to reinforce this with administrative action should he start accusing academic opponents of lying, disruption, trolling, socking; or make threats to report them should they continue to debate a point.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I urge the Committee to accept this case without delay, so that the disruption evident on WP:ANI and on various editors talkpages may be diminished and the concerns raised - and the responses - can be reviewed without interference or influence. I would further request that an injunction be placed upon Ottava Rima upon acceptance of this Request that he limits himself to interacting with editors only on these pages, that he may only bring up one incident or instance with an editor once, that he evidences any rebuttal, that he comments only upon actions and not purported motives, mindsets, "cabals" or otherwise upon the characters of other parties. I would further request the injunction to disallow Ottava from commenting at the Admin noticeboards or on the talkpages of other participants of this case, or otherwise contacting them. In short, an injunction requiring Ottava to respond only on these pages, and only specifically in response to any one point - once.
I would comment that it was my intention to block Ottava Rima indefinitely for disruption, and Bad faith assumptions against those whose viewpoints he does not agree with, having concluded that he was continuing the behaviour recently expressed at ANI and on various editors talkpages. If this case is not accepted, I shall continue to review Ottava Rima's conduct in the light of JHochman's restrictions and my understanding of policy and will block (indefinitely, agreeing only that it should be lifted in the light of credible undertakings by Ottava to moderate his conduct) should I consider he is abusing the goodwill and collegiate atmosphere of the community. As I have some history of disagreement with Ottava I am certain he will declare me an "involved party" and thus incapable of acting in regard with him, and as I do not think it relevant there will likely be even more disruption resulting from my potential action. Under the circumstances, it would be best if this matter was accepted sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment in response to those by Carcharoth

I would like to note that I did not make my comments in order to exert extraordinary pressure in having a case accepted; I was intending to be honest in how I perceived the situation to be, that I had decided upon a block (and I use indefinite as a nuanced tariff, because it can be lifted as soon as its purpose is served) to diminish the continuing disruption, and that I stayed my actions because there was an RfAR initiated by OR which served the purpose better - if accepted. I also commented that if the Request was refused I would continue to review OR's - subsequent (for I try to be a fair beast) - interactions with editors in dispute resolution and sanction if I deemed necessary, with an honest realisation that the block itself might prove to be catalyst for an ArbCom Request for the reason given above. I would not care to give the impression that I will block OR should this request be declined for any reason other than further violation of project guideline or restrictions; I would much prefer that a defining of expected behaviour and practices on the part of all parties (including myself if considered appropriate) be made so OR can write articles alongside other editors and disruption contained. My comments were in no way intended as holding a gun to anyones head. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Elen has a good summary of the current issues above. When the Lord Byron discussion was taken to WP:WQA, I attempted to engage Ottava there, indicating that he might be personalizing the debate too much. When he complained I was defending inappropriate remarks, I listed 16 comments of his, including "You've heard of a library before, right?", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", and "Do you even do anything around here worth while". His response was that "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary." At that point, I blocked him for a week, since I believed that he was unable to work within Wikipedia civility norms at that point, and cited that diff. Ottava's initial unblock request was declined by Chillum, but a second one caused Deacon of Pndapetzim to reduce it to time served with a note that "Abrasiveness was mild".

Durova's summary above focuses on those who expressed differences between the preferences - for convenience, here's a summary of the whole discussion.

List as I sees it

Support alternate as first, current as second Ncmvocalist Skater SarekOfVulcan Hans Adler 4wajzkd02 Support current as first, alternate as second John Jeni Wikidemon Oppose both Baseball Bugs Jennavecia Master of Puppets IMatthew Black Kite S Marshall ChildOfMidnight Support either Folantin Akhilleus Excirial Moreschi TenOfAllTrades Antandrus J SSilvers Will Beback JohnWBarber ChrisO jbmurray Until It Sleeps Tarc Comments Count Iblis (proposed clarifying to "uninvolved admin") Durova (opposed first, iffy on alternate pending Ottava's response) Malleus Fatuorum (both suggestions are silly) Bwilkins (there's an issue, but took no position on restrictions) RegentsPark (what kind of encyclopedia are we building?) SandyGeorgia (community must deal with problems) Philcha (noted Bugs' and Lara's comments) Rjanag (no current sanction in force, but this discussion could lead to one)

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein

However, RegentsPark determined here that there was now indeed consensus for the original sanctions, per the new discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added that link to WP:RESTRICT, for reference purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment in view of Ottava's GBCW

I would urge that the committee take a long hard look at his assertions. If problems are truly running as deep as he asserts, it's incumbent upon us to fix them, and an Arb case involving all concerned is the best way to fix them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Excirial

First and foremost i would like to split this issue between Ottava as an article writer, and ottava as a debater. Seeing article writer Ottava i cannot do anything else but admire his/her determination for improving the content on Wikipedia. It is this kind of determination that improves the new and average class article's we have to featured status. As i have said time after time, and now yet again, this part of Ottava does warrant nothing but the highest praise, regardless of mans stance on the other side of the ottavian coin.

However, debater Ottava seems to be an entirely different story. Debater Ottava will persistently maintain his/her stance throughout a debate apparently without listening to any arguments other editors make. Moreover seemingly every argument disagreeing with him/her is immediately turned down as a personal attack - down to threats with reports ranging from ANI to arbcom.

To highlight this i would like to focus on two cases, though unfortunately many more exist. The first is his\her response sequence to RsX very early during the debate [36]. After Ottava asked her first question RxS responded saying "What a rediculous question". Is this helpful? Not really, but immediately stating "but your statement is uncivil" is not helpful either. i argued before that simply asking "Why do you deem it ridiculous?" would have requested an explanation from RxS, while at the same time being less aggressive. Instead the next two responses in this thread by Ottava are onliners that are a warning and a threat with an ANI report respectively.

This happens often. I compiled a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Ottava_Rima_user_conduct list of these issues during the earlier ANI debate to demonstrate the incredible ease at which Ottava uses the terms "Personal Attack" "Warnings" and "Reports" early or immediately into a discussion, resulting in a negative tone. The response to this was ottava claiming that i made a personal attack against him/her and that i should remove my accusations unless i provided diffs - of which 15 were added. While inquiring after this in the second ANI threat Ottava claimed "At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything". The only one disagreeing with me on those diffs was Ottava, with two other editors supporting my conclusions. Similary "Just kept going and going" is equally false, as i made just 1 comment in that entire threat - the initial one. In other words it would appear that Ottava denies any form of criticism on the sole basis of not agreeing with it himself / herself.

Personally i would conclude that this entire situation will prove only negative in the long run. Potentially losing an editor with Ottava's qualities as a writer is a grievous loss, but at the same time we cannot have an editor more or less driving away other editors as happened to chillum, judging on the ANI thread claims, some more editors. For me the only issue that lies at the core of virtually everything said against Ottava's is the aggressiveness and ease with which (s)he makes threats to other editors while denying any form of liability herself - actually even stating that any evidence prevented violates civility guidelines. Just leaving out the words "Warning" "You violate WP:NPA" and "(X) report) early into a discussion could change things for the better.

Finally, i deem the current community sanction as little more then a WP:CIVIL guideline rehash; Its function seems to be little more then a globally recorded UW-NPA warning, which should prove to be little to no hindrance with positive conduct. I can see no community disagreement as 20 voted support and 7 voted against. Ottava's counting of 14 oppose is essentially flawed. For example HalfShadow is counted as an oppose for stating "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?" - yet this comment was related due to the excessive amount of space the RFA discussion was taking. Protonk and SMC are counted similarly. Tarc is counted as an oppose, yet he clearly voted Support either. Finally i would like to note that 5 of the 7 oppose votes i counted stated that "It should be dealt with trough civility guidelines, rather then a separate rule" - Thus not being an oppose a sanction, but rather opposing the means. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unannounced statement by Mitchazenia

Well, this was a thing I kind of have seen coming. The restrictions that have been placed (or supposedly to be placed) are mostly a good thing for the future sense of the encyclopedia, as I do not see a community site ban as a good thing for the community. Its like sending a manic depressant to Rahway State Prison. Anyway, I would believe ArbCom would be a good place to take this, but if the decision is to return it to the community, I would be willing to go ahead and do (if it happens), be the appointed mentor for Ottava Rima. I am not usually comfortable talking to ArbCom in this matter, but if it means keeping a valued contributor to the site, I am willing to go for it, whatever restraints there may be. Anyway, just my statement, but having a lot of previous interactions, I should leave my input.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

About a month ago, I blocked Ottava Rima due to pestering User:Bishonen with a meritless user conduct AFD (the straw which broke the camel's back was recreating the RFC after it was deleted). The block was overturned in a matter of hours since the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker ended with no consensus (roughly 50% support for and against the block). The problems of pestering, and dragging out a dispute have not ended, the latest one being the campaign against User:Chillum, dragged out on Jimbo Wales' talkpage.

There has been far too much of this behavior. If Ottava Rima is not under a valid civility restriction, then I would urge the ArbCom to at least impose one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

My thoughts on this case are recorded here. I would like to see consistency in ArbCom deliberations and proposed solutions, considering there are other similar and even more difficult cases "brewing" through lower levels of dispute resolution. With respect to Ottava, I will point out that, in addition to his very high level of FA contributions, he has been the only editor-- on several occasions-- to identify important points in a FAC; at times his tenacious character can be quite beneficial, and I note that previous ArbCom decisions have allowed "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" to continue in a case where another editor makes good contributions at a level lower than Ottava's. Like Ottava, that editor sometimes identified key issues in a FAC and frequently appeared at ANI; unlike Ottava, that editor sockpuppeted twice, has never written an FA or a GA, fails to AGF, and targets other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Amended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it looks like this case may be accepted, as part of reviewing the "standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions" and that "the community handle(s) this sort of thing poorly", I hope ArbCom will consider what can be done about the culture at AN/I, to make it more productive. Why is drama fed and escalated by some of the very editors to whom we trust the tools, when simple, polite answers can stop it? If admins are enforcing "civility", shouldn't they also be following it? Why is Ottava able to carry on in a friendly manner with other top content producers, even when they disagree? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fowler & fowler

Re: "Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies", that door was opened by ArbCom itself. Did you object to a "special dispensation" in that case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

Proposed changes to AN, AN/I and RFC/U are being discussed and implemented; this may help break some of the logjams in the dispute resolution process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Will the arbs please try to recognize that the kinds of comments that Carcharoth makes on cases tend to make him appear impartial, which is very upsetting to people enduring an Arb case? They come here, expecting a full and fair hearing of all evidence before conclusions are drawn and what sounds like warnings are issued. There seems to be misunderstanding of what "arbitration" is about; please, Carcharoth, learn to make more impartial statements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Folantin

Having recently become aware of some of the mistaken assumptions surrounding Ottava's real-life identity, and how those mistaken assumptions may have contributed to the hounding of Ottava, I don't find your use of the word "paranoid" accurate. I won't repeat those mistaken assumptions here, as they aren't worthy of further exposure. I find the language in your latest post unnecessarily inflammatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Wikidemon

I concur with some-- not all-- of Wikdemon's latest post. My feedback in this case is based upon at least four similar cases, some still brewing through lower levels of the dispute resolution pipeline, and the need for consistency in deliberation and decisions regarding editors who make good contributions. ArbCom rendered an ineffective decision in a similar case that will come back to bite them in the butt in at least three other potential cases. I submit that there is one simple difference between the decision rendered in a past case, and the other three cases I'm aware of: the Wikipedia pillar of

Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

If ArbCom allows editors who consistently fail to AGF and engage in pointy targeting of other editors and processes, even if at only a low-level of irritation that chases off many other good FA writers and reviewers, how will ArbCom decide these other cases, where the editors do truly act in good faith? You, ArbCom, have opened a door that, to my knowledge, was never opened before; now you must decide how to live with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

Compare and contrast: Ottava Rima's philosophy of editing (formerly his mentorship guidelines) versus his actual behaviour on Wikipedia.

Extracts from the "list of guidelines that I [i.e. Ottava] have committed myself towards":

• On conflict: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL problems and to work on WP:Consensus, I shall seek to avoid conflict whenever possible. Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues [...] I should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often. - Ottava Rima"
• On consensus: "In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority. - Ottava Rima"
• On discussion: "In order to stay neutral and refrain from committing personal attacks, I shall speak politely, not judge other people's words harshly, assume good faith, and believe that everyone can and wants to contribute to a discussion. I shall try to keep an open ear and an open mind, and realize that my perspective is only my own, and that I should be willing to listen to others. - Ottava Rima"
• On talk page discussion: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL issues, I will no longer refer to any rule violation and will not refer to any of the guidelines in a manner that calls into question another user's actions. I shall instead seek to discuss issues in a non-hostile manner and desire compromise without putting others on the defensive. - Ottava Rima"

Now Ottava seems to be complaining that he might be forced to follow his own editing philosophy.

Update

Well, it looks as though Ottava has "left" Wikipedia, at least until tomorrow ("I am gone. I don't know when I will be back, but it wont be tonight"). Once he's milked the sympathy vote on his talk page and shows his face again I'm perfectly prepared to examine his paranoid fantasies if necessary, although I'm not sure I've really grasped them [37]. I find the allegation the fuss over the Persian Empire page has something to do with Geogre's desysopping (an event I was barely aware of) quite bizarre. I mean, I've been editing Iranian history articles since before Ottava appeared on Wikipedia so maybe when I revised the Iranian content on the "18th century" page it had something to do with that (I had no idea it was even on Ottava's watchlist; had I known, I would almost certainly have avoided it). But according to Ottava Rima, after Geogre's "desysopping I [i.e. Ottava] went from being someone they [the cabal] would leave alone and occassionally drop a small bit of support to protect in political fights back to the pariah I was. Shortly after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18th_century&offset=20090822111219&action=history ". So he's implying some sort of connection there. Or maybe he's just covering up his own stalking of me...--Folantin (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Sandy is talking about and she has declined to explain herself further so I'll just let my "inflammatory" defence of myself stand. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation by Sandstein

Recommendation withdrawn per SarekOfVulcan's clarification

I recommend that the Commitee decline to hear this appeal against the civility restriction imposed by Jehochman for the two following reasons: The restriction is not binding on Ottava Rima. Administrators, unlike the Arbitration Committee or the community as a whole, have no authority to unilaterally impose binding sanctions on editors. A proposal by me to give them such authority is not currently supported by community consensus. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Sanction indicates that the "restriction" was imposed unilaterally and did not subsequently obtain community consensus. It is therefore an empty statement against which no appeal is needed. But, being void, it should be removed from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so as to prevent confusion, preferably by an arbitrator or clerk. The restriction is entirely redundant to existing policy. Because it does not restrict Ottava Rima any more than the existing conduct policies do, the Committee does not even need to accept the case in order to determine that the "restriction" is indeed void. The "restriction" merely states that Rima may be blocked if he is uncivil or otherwise disruptive. But administrators are in any case authorized to block editors to stop them from disrupting Wikipedia. Therefore, even if it were binding, the "restriction" would not actually restrict Rima any more than all editors are already restricted by existing policy. Should any block occur based on the "restriction", that block would need be construed as, and would be equally valid as, a block for the violation of the applicable conduct policy.  Sandstein  16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek, for the link to the second discussion. So this seems to be a validly imposed, if a bit pointless (per John Vandenberg below) community restriction. Because it remains redundant to existing policy, it's probably not worth an ArbCom case to discuss on the merits.  Sandstein  17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Rationalist

I stumbled across Ottava after he removed [38] a pronoun I had placed [39] on an article. (I didn't realise at the time it had been a featured article). I thought the tone of his comments rather abrupt and somewhat too forceful, but on reflection he was quite right to revert some of my edits, e.g. here. [40]. I then had a look at some of the work he has done and it is quite impressive.

I popped round today to say hello and then stumbled across all this. I can't pretend to have followed every detail, but it would be a great shame to lose Ottawa. I strongly agree with Sandy Georgia's comments above. We should not confuse forceful and abrupt and strident criticism with disruption. That's all from me. The Rationalist (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor The Four Deuces

I came across Ottava rima in an ANI where editors wished to insert very poorly sourced information about Oscar Wilde. RegentsPark mentioned a dispute where editors wanted to call Byron "Lord Byron". In both cases Ottava rima was correct, not a POV-pusher. It is unfortunate at Wikipedia that good editors can be frustrated by a group of editors who have a fringe POV. All of these issues should be dealt with through normal content dispute resolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jbmurray

Mostly per John Vandenberg and per Folantin. These editing restrictions seem no big deal. They merely enjoin Ottava to follow the code of conduct urged on all editors, and which he himself declares as his goal. The only wrinkle is that Ottava is to have his name on this list for an indefinite period of time which, as he points out, is a form of stigmatization. Why not prescribe a timeframe (one month, six months, I don't mind), after which, if all goes well, the restrictions can silently lapse with little drama or fuss. If there were a place to !vote for that solution, I would happily do so. Given that one of the problems that affects Ottava is the fuss and palaver that surrounds him, I hardly think an Arbcom case helps.

Statement by uninvolved editor The Magnificent Clean-keeper

In response to The Four Deuces": Nobody, absolutely nobody said he is a bad editor. Disagreements at article's talk pages are normal and a daily occurrence. His article editing is not the issue here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this case is now likely to be accepted, I concur with user:Chillum's first statement[41].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)

• IMO; I see some classic behavior: Ones one feels to be on the "loosing" end of a dispute s/he is trying to tilt it towards an other issue; (Which is NOT the issue here; Maybe a side issue that could (and should be) looked up and brought up separately but not here "as a main point for distraction".) Let's focus on Ottava's behavior which for me started at Jimpo's page (and I really do not care much or at all about his past interference with other editors). If he [Ottava] chooses to stay away so be it. That shouldn't prevent us from discussing his behavior in regards to other editors and neither should it prevent ArbCom to make up their mind and rule. If the editor in question decides to stay away and not defend himself, too bad (for him) but at the end, this is his decision to make.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

statement by Moreschi

For the love of God, please accept. We need to have Ottava's claims of admin meatpuppetry, mass tag-teaming and tool abuse exposed for the nonsense they are. Plus, a proper delving into his disruption at Persian Empire, Orlando Furioso and elsewhere would definitely be helpful as a microcosm of how he operates. Moreschi (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yada yada yada. Apparently I and many others need to desysopped and prevented, on pain of block, from ever meatpuppeting again! Oh dear!

Come on, how does anyone take this nonsense to be vaguely rational? Moreschi (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Chillum

Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed. Chillum 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

This case would be a good opportunity to clarify several issues, including how the civility policies apply to productive editors. That keeps coming up in community discussions of civility blocks. Another issue is non-personal attacks. Is it a violation to say "you're an idiot" but permissible to say "you guys are idiots"? (That same issue extends to topics where there are complaints about tag team - some consider references to a "team", implying coordinated POV pushing, as a personal attack.) Finally, there is the question of deciding when a community ban has been enacted.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

While I wish it was possible to step back a bit and have an RfC before things are brought to the committee level, it's pretty clear that both Ottava and those who are displeased with Ottava share a desire to have a definitive answer to certain questions. With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea for the committee to take this one up... eventually it will have to, and taking it on sooner rather than later will certainly spare the community a modicum or two of ill will that would inevitably come about by waiting until later. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

If this is accepted, and I rather think it should be, another topic that would be good to visit is accusing others of meatpuppetry. Agreeing with another user frequently does not make the first user the second's meatpuppet, and constant accusations to the contrary are far more disruptive than a few swears, yet we continue to block people for profanity while letting unsubstantiated allegations rain down. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I urge the committee to be very cautious about taking this case and, if it does, to avoid usurping the community's power to enforce standards of civility without offering something more effective in return, and to avoid Arbcomm's becoming the unwitting tool of an all-too-familiar tactic some sophisticated but contentious editors use to avoid scrutiny: when under pressure, create so much noise and unpleasantness through administrative process that none think it worth their while to deal with them. The issue underlying all the facts is simple. Taking at face value the evidence offered by all, Ottava Rima, a productive content editor, has offended community norms of civil collaboration with other editors by repeatedly insulting and haranguing those he/she disagrees with, to the point that many editors are annoyed and upset. In response OR says they are a pack that is ganging up, and various supporters claim that demands for courtesy are a form of repression or censorship, or double standards. The community, in the form of an administrator's conclusion following a couple AN/I threads, took that all into consideration and laid down a decision, that OR must be more courteous or else they may be blocked temporarily to avoid disruption. Must an editor say "please", "thank you", and "excuse me", or is that a repressive demand for conformity? Has one particular editor crossed the line, and if so what should be done with them? These are community decisions to make, not something to legislate by committee. The administrative process is sluggish and indecisive enough as it is, and is easily derailed as in this case by editors who cry censorship, conspiracy, and accuse the accusers, and like-minded critics who question the ethics of any administrator who dares intervene. If anything we need a system that is less self-reflective and cautious, and more decisive and quick. If every editor whose behavior so upsets people they are asked to stop were to make an Arbcom case against the enforcing admin, we could never enforce civility demands, and admins would be even more reluctant than they are now to do anything.

I say this as one uninvolved (as far as I know) in the latest flap, although I faintly remember being the target of some scorn at some point over a civility request. I am unfamiliar with OR's content edits. I'm aware of this only when disputes in article and talk space spill over into the meta-pages, and from a distance it looks like a bar brawl spilling onto the streets outside. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I broadly agree with Chilum when he said, "Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed." If the Committee decides to accept the case, I would encourage them to resolve it via case and not by a series of motions. There is evidence that I would like to introduce that wouldn't be appropriate at this time but would be more suited for a /Evidence page, and I would imagine that the same would be the case for others as well. NW (Talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

I think I've said before that I am concerned about factionalization on Wikipedia. Last week, had anyone asked me "So, do you think there's a pattern of people taunting 'the wrong crowd' on ANI?" I would have answered "No". This week, I would answer "Maybe", and that is worrying to me. I am concerned both that a set of people have aligned as a current opposition party on ANI and are not assuming good faith about admins anymore, and that those people are being provoked or taunted in inappropriate ways.

We are in many crucial ways measured by how well we treat the people we disagree with. There has been a tendency for people aligned in opposition to feel persecuted when there was not necessarily much more than a normal reaction to their own actions. But we've had abusive admins, abusive non-admin ANI regulars, etc. When opposition parties and in-crowd regulars treat each other with disdain, when we no longer see admins and regulars AGFing and treating even exceptionally provocative users with respect, then we're losing.

This is neither a blanket indictment of an 'in crowd' nor a statement of support for the cabal-out-to-get-us theories. However - I am concerned that it's gone beyond a couple of incidents into a pattern. It's very difficult to handle patterns like that at the normal administrator or ANI consensus levels. Arbcom should rightly take this up, and consider both if the provocative opposition have been too provocative, and whether they have been subjected to more hostile responses than are reasonable of late. The answers to both questions may well be yes, which will satisfy nobody, but at least will set the stage for corrective actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Could some clerk please ask Ottava to cut down on his responses so his statement vaguely complies with the word limit? Moreschi (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unless directed by an arbitrator, I'm not terribly inclined to do so, since his initial statement is under the word limit and we haven't traditionally enforced the word limit on responses, since Arbitration is peculiar in that we don't permit threaded discussion. I'm open to being overruled by an arbitrator or more experienced clerk, of course, but it's important that the Arbitrators get an idea of what this request entails. Since some of Ottava's responses are to arbitrators or to ArbCom as a whole, I'm disinclined to require he shorten those responses. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/1)

• 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 ^(chat) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept to review all aspects of the matter, including the standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to hold temporarily in light of Ottava Rima's apparent wikibreak announcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Newyorkbrad. I don't think that declining the request will fix the situation in a way that provides long term resolution. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. As NYB and FloNight allude to, I don't think giving it to the community will move this any further than it has. Gotta be nipped in the bud. Wizardman 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - the community handle this sort of thing poorly. ArbCom don't have a great record either (there are several other editors who make good content contributions but are abrasive when interacting with certain others, and are famed for so-called "special treatment"). However, it looks like it falls to us to try and resolve this. I would make an appeal to Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions. I would also urge those who may have unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so, as that may be noted in the case, and if a consistent pattern emerges over several cases of editors who feud with other editors, that will be just as damning. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ottava, the point I was making is that LessHeard vanU's statement that he intended to block indefinitely swayed me to accept. Part of arbitration is deciding what course of action may be best for the encyclopedia. I don't think highly productive content contributors should be indefinitely blocked without other options being explored first. If an admin says they intend to block indefinitely and urge the case be accepted on that basis, then the situation has, in my opinion, escalated to the stage where ArbCom need to step in and resolve the dispute, to (as the phrase goes) "examine the conduct of all parties". My reference to unnecessary escalation was directed at LessHeard vanU's statement about indefinite blocks (since we obviously don't want a situation to develop where admins state their intention to indefinitely block in order to get cases accepted), and also some other comments made here, such as Moreschi's failure to take this seriously. Sandy, I will respond to your point on your talk page, if you don't mind me moving that point there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Accept - the issues here are long overdue for arbitration. Also per NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; this issue has been festering for some time, and the conduct of the parties needs to be examined. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per the comments of my colleagues; whether or not Ottava Rima decides to participate in this case, it appears there are sufficient editors on all sides of this question to ensure that appropriate evidence is brought forward on the salient points. Risker (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Skipsievert

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

Involved parties

• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cretog8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CRGreathouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dmcq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fifelfoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Quiggin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Morphh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnfos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geronimo20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rd232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Llywrch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Datheisen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Travelplanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beagel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rtol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Granitethighs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick carson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AdenR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Lawrencekhoo
• Cretog8
• CRGreathouse
• Dmcq
• Fifelfoo
• John Quiggin
• Morphh
• Protonk
• Skipsievert
• SlamDiego
• Vision Thing
• Johnfos
• Xavexgoem
• Geronimo20
• Rd232
• ImperfectlyInformed
• Carolmooredc
• Bali ultimate
• Sunray
• Llywrch
• Datheisen
• Travelplanner
• Beagel
• Bwilkins
• Granitethighs
• Nick carson
• OhanaUnited

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:ANI#Attacks at AfD
• WP:WQA#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings
• WP:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
• WP:Requests for comment/Skipsievert
• ANI Archive571: [42]
• ANI Archive523: [43]
• ANI Archive467: [44]
• ANI Archive264 [45]
• ANI Archive261: [46]
• ANI Archive256: [47]

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 involved in other disputes I may not have contacted. Based on a comment on my talk page, I have also sent a notice to Nick carson and OhanaUnited. If the arbitrators accept this case, they will decide which editors should be involved. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Skipsievert I asked Cretog8 to notify Skipsievert of the arbitration request[48][49] because Skipsievert asked that I should not post anything to his talk page.[50] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on indefinite block I agree with the indefinite block.

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.

• In re SS's block: The only reason I can see at this point to unblock him would be to participate in this case -- & only to post here. Having stated that, out of fairness to all parties I won't grant such a request, but I am willing to forward any comments or responses he may want to make here. (Skip, you can email me his statements through my user page.)

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)

• I support the decisive and appropriate action taken by Moreschi.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 4 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[51], 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[52][53] and then realized I had no place deciding what solicitation/canvassing was. That ended in one of the ANIs here[54] 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[55] 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)

Response to Skipsievert

I'm particularly discouraged to see Skipsievert not understand of the situation here[56] and why I investigated it. I see a request at an undelete was made. I even see what Nancy's reply was, but it still wasn't actually undone. Instead of making a new page where she had said it would probably be okay, you sidestepped it and improved upon an article of a different spelling. I don't know why since you had been given an apparent okay, but it's still technically a dodge. You even linked for Nancy the exact article you wanted to recreate, but didn't use that one. As you had been blocked at that point I considered it worthwhile to see if there was any blatant vandalism made in the final hours. I saw that all, decided it wasn't vandalism, but since it was largely lacked citations compared to your normal standards and because something is not automatically a suitable source because it's the New York Times; in this LBP source he has two very short quotations and nothing more. Just because you claim it an all-affirming source does not mean it is. A PROD was placed because the overall citation and notability level was low, it was then removed here[57], where I then replied to that user and gave him my complete support here[58] after explaining the matter to him. And yes. I openly said here[59] that there were POV/COI concerns. Smartest thing? No, but since every single page in the "see also" section has you as a primary contributor and no few other connections in a topic there a 2-year history of argument about on and off of Wikipedia? I think my logic isn't hard to follow. There has been concern in here as well, about the total number of articles caught up in this all. If I were actually on some massive campaign to destroy you efforts, don't you think I would have been trying a little harder. I looked at that one single article. An article so important that you worked on it instead of getting in an initial statement to this inquiry, and then ironically complained about any comments being placed here too quickly. You deleted the arbitration message to you here[60] and for 3-5 full hours you worked on this article instead of commenting on this case. I don't know if my priorities list would be the same, no matter how important a single article was to me.

Oh, and there's this[61], where a long-term sock abuser asks you about the situation and you seem to be braggin gabout your defiance because you think it's what you're convinced is "right". If you still cannot comprehend the core concept of consensus in Wikipedia and why that means it cam be unethical to fight alone, then I don't know what could ever change that view. To others reading, those sorts of comments might look innocent on the surface but as a common trademark. Say how righteous it is to go it alone and at the same time complain that it's not "right" if more than one person disagrees with you. You cannot define righteousness or justice yourself. At Wikipedia we use consensus. Because consensus has continuously been ignored is why how this reached this depressing last step. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Block

Though I still don't care about the actual result of the content, after seeing this much response of users citing years of abuse of both article content and other editors my opinion list was shrinking. Then, when given the chance to defend him/herself or offer at least some basic apologies, Skipsievert instead came in and in effect yelled at anyone who dared to challenge, instead of actually making a statement. If a user refuses to humble and ignores any neutral tone in a process this important, I highly doubt they will ever actually respect someone's end opinion or official decision on anything. Despite a novel worth of diffs and argument complied as possible evidence, Skipsievert clearly feels it unnecessary to overlook his/her actions that led to this. That one lone voice has destroyed so much content, scared to many other editors away, caused so much stress and wasted hundreds of volunteer hours. Even then, the only response for statement is a huge Non-apology apology. It would be extremely hard to get me to think otherwise now, after making such a large portion of your non-apology apology statement specifically regarding me. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the block since it's obviously avoided some disruptions already, but if a projects/portals/articles list can be created of places where Skipsievert has been doing most bullying I wouldn't oppose just those area topic blocks.

Having reviewed as much information as I have now online, off, and in publications, I'd actually be frightened for some of the project communities that would be subject to more abuse. They've put up with enough, and although I'm the only non-contributor user flagged down by Skipievert specifically, I'm not going to be bullied off the bigger picture. Skipsievert's statement says we should all look at the wider view? We all could, but every single person with a statement here could likely write lengthy statements combining thousands of diffs. Even if everyone were allowed to do that, it would be even more evidence of a desire to block action instead of confirm to consensus. Overall broadness in scope and fairness is good, but in the end it's just another delaying tactic on top of all the ANIs and articles that have had delays and blocks shoved onto them. The only part about this dispute reaching this level is that delaying can't be continued. If it's been frustrating for me to see only a month of this, I don't know I could survive 2 full years on Wikipedia in the fact of the disruption like some here have. Editors that have stayed together for this long should be canonized. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) add-onedit; ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Skipsievert (2nd/Final)

After your response regarding the posting of off-Wikipedia content that another editor had attributed to you, I knew there would never be any compromise here. It's true that that can't be entered as straight evidence, but it is allowed to be used in consideration of final statements. All evidence suggests that you're lying. Instead of admitting for the first time ever that you'd done something at all questionable or confusing or wrong in any way, you seem insistent that it wasn't you on the external web forums. Even though in some of that you refer to yourself in relation to your specific Wikipedia efforts, others there speak of your work on Wikipedia, the writing style and grammar use is extremely similar, and the subject of all the linked material is of the exact same topic as one project of concern here, you won't just admit to it.

In fact, never in any discussion have you remotely hinted at any sort of regret or admission of poor judgment, giving non-apology apologies at best (ex: "I'm sorry you though I wasn't NPOV"). Your words are absolute truth and are infallible, you never say anything remotely rude or inappropriate yet you're allowed to scold outside parties in discussions with passive threats in edit summaries. I'm not sure why you think there have been no warnings, since every single ANI and other concerned filed against you might have been grounds for a block in some cases. You mention one instance of self-initiated informal mediation, yet you continuously delete most comments from your talk page and you refused to participate in an official mediation. Can you even explain why you need to be unblocked at this time? What else would you do on Wikipedia that did not involve disputed topics? Your edit count breakdown shows nothing away from articles and user talk. All 10 top edited in the "Wikipedia" space are to incidents filed against you. Basically, where can you offer proof of being a conciliatory team player? Having your own opinion is just fine, but Wikipedia is community and we work as a group and place our consensus into the encyclopedia. If you can't agree to that fundamental idea, which the history has extensively shown, Wikipedia is probably not the place to express your knowledge. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:26, 7 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 Wikipedia 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)

• There seems to be something of a race condition here. Skipsievert's original request for an unblock was declined on the ground that any decision to unblock should rest with the Arbitration Committee. Meanwhile, some members of the Committee believe that Arbitration is unnecessary given the block, and others appear to be waiting to see whether there is an unblock before deciding whether to proceed with Arbitration. —10:44, 5 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)

SlamDiego makes what appears to be a good point. I have no opinion on whether the block prior to ArbCom was appropriate (don't know how this stuff generally goes), but there shouldn't be a Catch-22 preventing the unblock. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:56, 5 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)

Second User:SlamDiego. User:skipsievert deserves a genuine capacity to appeal. I have my own opinions of what the result should be; but, procedural fairness comes first here: the right to appeal must be genuine.

This means that I am advocating Arbitration or the downgrading of the existing ban to a Temporary or a Specified Topic Set basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 5 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 Wikipedia has outgrown. In the absence of a lengthy ban, this is just going to drag on. JQ (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse the block imposed by User:Moreschi, which should be permanent in the absence of an unqualified commitment to reform and a lengthy period of mentoring. JQ (talk) 08:28, 4 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 Wikipedia 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)

• I also support the decisive and appropriate action taken by Moreschi... Johnfos (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by Skipsievert

We seem to be getting into detailed discussions now, and so I would offer the following additional comment... There has been very little discussion of the Technocracy articles in Skipsievert's statement to the committee, yet that is the area where he has probably done most damage over the years. Skipsievert's own brand of pro-technocracy views have seriously unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. There are many scholarly books written about Technocracy, but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. There is also a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles, see here and here, and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. And there are many separate articles on minor Technocracy topics, such as Technocracy Study Course, which again represent repetition and just seem to serve to increase the footprint of Technocracy issues on WP. Some of these articles have gone to AfD recently, and Skipsievert has verbally attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles (see for example here). For all of these reasons I think the present block is appropriate and should not be overturned. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by Carcharoth

Yes, we do need to ask why it has taken so long for the community to dispose of the Skipsievert matter. There were some short-term blocks early on, and a conduct RfC in 2008, but little came of this, and I get the impression that the editors involved burnt themselves out, and wanted no more to do with SS. Johnfos (talk) 19:38, 6 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 Wikipedia 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)

Topic ban

Moreschi and others have said that if Skipsievert is unblocked a topic ban from economics-related articles would be in order. That ignores his disruption of the sustainability article. To maintain order, there would have to be a topic ban for the Sustainability article as well. But that would leave him free to wreak havoc elsewhere. The indefinite block is a better solution. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on statement by Skipsievert

Those who have been dealing with Skipsievert will not be surprised by his comments. He says little that could justify either unblocking or a hearing by ArbCom. Instead, he goes on the attack, making unfounded comments about the editors of the sustainability article. He then proceeds to ride two of his favourite hobby horses: Oversourcing the article with UN sources and Granitethigh's book.

His allegations of a "political POV" on the part of the sustainability editors have been made many times, but he has never provided a shred of evidence to support these claims. This is typical of his approach. State an opinion, then restate it over and over again ad infinitum.

He claims that the Sustainability article relies excessively on UN sources, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). This is a good example of Skip's pattern of disruption by adopting the IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance. After making the claim about the MEA tendentiously, the matter was referred to the Reliable sources Noticeboard by Travelplanner in March, 2009 [62]. Following considerable discussion the consensus of the editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was that the sourcing was appropriate [63]. Skipsievert did not accept this outside opinion, argued the point with one of the RS/N editors, was asked to provide sources to justify his opinion [64], failed to do so, but continued to press his POV [65], and has done so dozens of times since, including even in his unblock request.

With respect to his claim that sourcing Granitethighs book was a conflict of interest, he himself referred that one to the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. The comment there was that this was "not clearly a COI problem" [66]. Despite the fact that Skipsievert was the only one maintaining this POV, Granitethighs decided to withdraw the citation. One might think that the issue would thus be moot. However, not with Skip. He has raised this matter many times since, including even in his unblock request.

There is nothing offered in his request to justify unblocking him, IMO. In fact, he has demonstrated the wisdom of maintaining it. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 5 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 Wikipedia, and that made me essentially stop editing articles myself. Skip should be banned, if not from Wikipedia 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)

Response to Skipsievert

Since Skip brings up the issue of an editor of Sustainability who wrote a book and then cited that book, let's have a look at this from another perspective. Skip objected to this [[67]] [[68]] and referred it to the[conflict of interest noticeboard] where it was found that there was no issue. Despite this finding, he has brought it up again a few times [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]] [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]][[78]]...by which time GT had removed all references to his book from all articles, however this did not stop Skip raising the issue a few more times [[79]] [[80]] [[81]] [[82]] and now he is raising it again on this page. Does that qualify as vexatious?--Travelplanner (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with TP here, this is definitely a prime example of his persistence in pursuing previously resolved disputes and resulting disruption affected. Nick carson (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrencekhoo

I started actively contributing to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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' [83]) 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:[84])

LK (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully endorse the block made and urge Arbcom not to overturn this block. The amount of disruption and time wasted by Skip far outweighs any productive activity from him. As further evidence of the necessity and appropriateness of this block, I note that Skipsievert has also been banned for disruptive behavior from various other internet forums as well:

• http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=1527&start=30
• http://www.revleft.com/vb/skip-sievert-vs-t60289/index3.html
• //technocracynet.eu/backup/old_net/20_4_07/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3818&catid=44

LK (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Skipsievert

Skipsievert below makes a false accusation that I have canvassed and have "gone from page to page mustering people for various blocking or sanctioning while at the same time starting an arbitration". I have never initiated any administrative action against Skipsievert, and I have never even informed people on their talk pages about actions against Skipsievert. The only action I took that may be considered canvassing, was that I left one short two-line message on the Economics Wikiproject talkpage informing the project that Skipsievert (who is a project member) was the subject of an ANI complaint (which I did not bring or participate in bringing). I did this while participating in a mediation (on a completely different matter) that included Skipsievert as a participant. I removed the message when Ryan Postlethwaite, Chair of the mediation committee, expressed his view that the message was inappropriate. LK (talk) 15:57, 5 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 [85] (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 AdenR

I do agree that Moreschi's block is grossly inappropriate. I'm especially disappointed by how involved he is and still took it upon himself to block skip indefinitely and include personal attacks. I also see most of skips edits content based. I'm still a little new here but if content or presentation is an issue, such as giving undue weight to a particular issue, then shouldn't that be handled in content dispute? I mainly agree with ChildofMidnights suggestions for skip. This is totally inappropriate.AdenR (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to collect

I agree with what user:collect states about the sustainability article. That was my initial reaction when I first fell on the article. I proposed to rename it to something else and cut it down to a definition and links to other areas that can relate to sustainability when I first got their, around April...I think. Something I don't think Skip has ever suggested. Then I was Immediately attacked as being a sock-puppet for Skip by the team of users controlling the article Travelplanner, sunray, and Granitethighs. I was found innocent. Their behavior along with others here are bad. The page history shows this. I also find it disappointing that an Admin here named Ohana constantly illustrates notions that I am connected with skip. This shows poor judgment and lack of assuming good faith on their part. It is well noted that Ohana is part of the editing team on Sustainability.

Response to Ohana

" fact, the very 2nd edit of AdenR was to Skip's talk page"...Yeah, That would be very smart of me to do if I knew skip and was his meatpuppet. That is Ridiculous Ohana. I asked him for help because I saw how horrible the article was during that time. Guess what...my main suggestions about the last paragraph of sustainability was used....that is obviously shows I contributed a good deal to it. What about GT's book. Did you get a copy of it too?

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 ^Talk 10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Granitethighs

• Comment on Moreschi Action. At this stage to enter into a discussion on content would simply prolong what has already been prolonged. Action on behalf of the WP community must be decisive, and Moreschi has done what is necessary.

Statement by completely uninvolved Collect

The Sustainability article is, on its face, an advocacy article, and not particularly well-suited in the best of times for the Wikipedia project. Indeed, it is quite like the article issues concerning Scientology where articles basically treated Scientology as gospel. This current action is a shot-gun approach not well-formed, and certainly ArbCom has better items to discuss than an editor who each person agrees has been civil. ArbCom members should decide whether such advocacy articles belong in Wikipedia in another case, but this one looks capable of being as messy or messier than is seemly. I have not participated in any way in the articles at issue. Collect (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by OhanaUnited

As an editor in Sustainability article, it's very unfortunate that our aim towards GA and FA is hindered by Skip, and also lately, AdenR. Whenever we tried to improve the article, Skip always jumps in and said it's against consensus. However, he never realized the point that he's the only one (until AdenR arrives) that's "odd man out". Skip frequently engages in wikilawyering, using the word and not the spirit of the policy/guideline to win disputes. Whenever he loses an argument, he will employ the "I didn't hear that" strategy. By citing comments against his view as incivil and personal attack, he will removed comments on talk page even when the comment itself is neutral-worded, to try redirect the attention. This is a violation of talk page guidelines, which ironically he often cites as reason to merit such comment removals. Other uninvolved parties have tried to calm things down, by placing 1RR restriction on Skip in March 2009. Yet he still engages in 1RR violation.[86][87] Editors in the Sustainability article circle also felt a probability that AdenR is a meatpuppet of Skip, and filed 2 reports of sockpuppet investigation at SPI. Even though no blocks are issued as a result of either SPI case, other clerks have noted the tendency of "tandem editing, or editing in concert with a similar point of view". In fact, the very 2nd edit of AdenR was to Skip's talk page, before engaging in editing the Sustainability on the 7th edit. We have never seen 2 individuals who agree with each other on every decision for over half a year. There was also a proposed topic ban for Skip and AdenR, which fizzled when Skip excused himself from editing the Sustainability for "a few weeks". Indeed, Skip did not edit Sustainability article and only engages in talk page discussion while AdenR engages in all the editing to the article. As I have been an SPI clerk for quite a period of time, I strongly believe that these behaviour are very suspicious.

And commenting on Moreschi's block on Skip, I wholeheartedly support this action and wished some admin had done this earlier. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Gruntler

I do not wish to add to the POV discussions above, but rather to focus on discussion page behavior. Skip disagrees with others stubbornly, as noted above, but also unpleasantly. He spends an inordinate amount of time lecturing other people on his interpretations of Wikiquette and Wikilaw, making accusations and taking offense, telling people their opinions don't count, and bringing up past wrongs (real or imagined) rather than focusing narrowly on the issues at hand. It makes working with him unpleasant and time-consuming. If the current block is overturned, I urge the committee to accept this case. Gruntler (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Skipsievert

Copied from his user talk page by  Sandstein  21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement to the Committee which includes an unblock request

It was all done quickly without an overview, the person that did the block was mockingly derogatory also and did it with a distinct negative flourish. Not good. I was not given a fair hearing, I did not even make a statement or get to explain the actual issues as I see them in regard to the Sustainability article or some of the Economics articles and factions of editors on both those that edit. Neutral point of view issues, which on the surface might not make sense, but if looked at deeply are in play in this and overlapping over zealousness on both those articles topics as regarding weight and peoples opinions of control of content, fringe and reliable sourcing, were issues.

A group of editors in a literal sign up team on here, the Sustainability article with a political pov., many of whom are currently piled in here, do not seem to accord value to other than sources that are filtered through a complex set of hoop jumping on that article mostly regarding a political pov. This is an example of one of my edits that this group are arguing about with an extreme political pov, almost comical the way they oversourced it all the way down the page (scroll down and look), but in light of all this now maybe this illuminates things here? That is the type of thing they reverted over.

There were conflicts of interest also, a current group member having been an educational member of the U.N. who is a part of this process now in the sign up team as noted by himself here, and also a main contributor to the article Granitethighs wrote a commericial book which highlights the U.N., that he eventually admitted having sent to other team members, this book was spammed also in my opinion, into multiple articles also on another articles as well, and this book was put into the Sustainability article as a ref/citation in two places and sanctioned by the sign up editing team led by Sunray, and multiple other participants here above, TravelPlanner etc. I finally got this removed after a huge struggle. This book was apparently not written about or notable but in my view forced on the article by the team. I would say a conflict there, a major one when an author comes to Wikipedia, decides at the same time their book is published to redo the article on Sustainability Granitethighs first edit, and then sends out copies of his book to Travelplanner, Sunray, and myself and others. I blew the whistle at that point. Yes, I am a whistle blower, and at that point the sign up team turned against me and started canvassing any and everyone else connected such as Lawrence Khoo for a slug-fest and started multiple investigations for sock puppetry etc.

Look at my major history of improving articles. I was laboring away on these two little stubs I found yesterday, when I was blocked this, and and this. I specifically checked with Nancy the person that deleted the first article as to the Hall one, and note the commentary by another person that piled into this arbitration for deleting this article in this diff. where Datheisen, makes a statement assuming the very worse faith, could someone tell Nancy about this? This shows my intentions there on Nancys discussion page. Datheisen wants this article deleted because it is somehow associated with me? Look at this article Charles A S Hall. This guy just held a major conference that was reported on by the N.Y.Times here and he is one of the top people in this field... so what is going on here Datheisen? I urge anyone to take off the tag for reasons given, this article is reffed and sourced, there seems to be some other problem going on not related to guidelines and policy here. Does it really look like the work of someone who is not adding to the value of the Wikipedia project? I have not been warned on my talk page for several years about any conduct from an Admin. The last edit I did was to revert a vandal on the Adam Smith article. I patrol against vandals in general.

Also aspects of this thread, and its attendant people involved, had a lot to do with this situation and its creation here at Arbitration Wiki economics article Project page. This had to do with weight issues in regard to sourcing, in regard to what was referred to as fringe, and strong emotions on the part of people that wanted what they refer to as mainstream sourcing, having more weight than normal reliable sources. This is the most basic issue of how it was that Lawrence Khoo, John Quiggin, and Cretog8 came to remove information from various articles that was reliably sourced. They were then reverted by an Admin Gwen Gale, and my edit restored in this sequence of edits, to the main economics article page and Lawrence Khoo not myself was asked not to edit war Please stop edit warring. It is also noted that Cretog8 who gave me this simple message here, was also the person that alerted me to the Arbitration on my discussion page.

Further it is distinctively noted that Lawrence Khoo and others connected as admins here (Protonk) are very well aware of these issues, as Lawrence Khoo was warned of edit warring on his discussion page, about the edit he made, which removed sourced info, which was later restored by an Admin. Glen Gale. Lawrence Khoo has gone from page to page mustering people for various blocking or sanctioning while at the same time starting an arbitration,... he canvassed against myself elsewhere... at least according to the administrator trying to deal with Mediation related to sourcing and weight issue.. as this may explain.

My suggestion. Unblock me. Take a look at the larger picture, which I just drew a tiny amount of, and think about larger issues. skip sievert (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Second statement by Skipsievert

Sent to me by Skipsievert per e-mail and confirmed in a second e-mail that this is meant to be posted here. See also his talk page.  Sandstein  07:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-# Comment - While it seems clear that some form of restriction is needed for Skipsievert (possibly short of an indefinite block, which is a very blunt instrument), it is possible that some of his concerns have merit and other editors need to be restricted as well and have their conduct examined. The conflict of interest accusations in particular need to to be objectively assessed, if only to get to the truth of the matter one way or the other. If Sandstein could continue to copy Skipsievert's responses here (or negotiate an unblock purely to participate here) that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of rig-a-ma-roll to communicate by transferring emails etc. I am not liking this, and may not do it again. Unblock me now. This is a little like a chapter from The Trial except not as interesting.

Yes, well what about the forum shopping, canvassing, overt efforts, made over a couple of months, by a group of mainstream economists or people that edit in that direction led by Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin with help also now from Richard Tol, that have orchestrated this farce along with Sunray the leader from the Sustainability article with Travelplanner and Ohana, and Nick Carson and Granitethigs... all of whom supported another Roger Cross's book Granitethighs as he sent his book out to the other members he is the author,all the while this group... over a period of time, enlisting as ostensible meat puppets... whether so called progressive liberals or others, that seem to have a marked despising for Libertarians... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Skewing_of_the_Great_Depression_article as does Lawrence Khoo and friends which they consider unweighty as they also consider Biophysical economics issues not notable and go about removing information related to those issues that is reliably sourced.

The core of the sign up team on Sustainability here is amply represented here as are the most pointed conflict of interest to pov aspects of the Wiki Economics project seen here removing information, one of many places that he and user Johphos, are going now from article to article connected to energy related economics information. All this seem obvious yet?

Lawrence Khoo has again transferred old information in this dredging up of off site from internet blogs from several years ago, which he has repeated above in the proceedings here... this using an off site information attack in the proceedings here and more bad conduct in this proceeding. Also Skipsievert is an avatar name, and is used by more than one person on the internet. A Sievert is a unit of radiation. So this is particularly a personal attack here in the proceedings by Lawrence Khoo. Please remove the three links above. Bad conduct.

Snide comments from posters here, and that includes Jzg, who also misses the actual point of what is going on in my opinion and Jehochman also that I attempted a good faith mediation with on my own early on here and this seems like a case study of sweeping things under the rug. I have always edited n.p.o.v. - I happen to have interests. Does that mean that I should not edit things I am interested in?

That would preclude Khoo and crew from economics articles also and Sunray and Nick Carson/U.N. worker from connected articles, so it is clearly mistaken if I edit N.P.O.V. and use reliable sourcing that I be precluded here as to articles. I do not accept a topic ban because in effect that would eliminate my editing. Can be this be understood now in context to the proceedings? Energy economics is economics. Ecological economics is also.

I would not desire an apology from the Arbitration here, as to the way this has been handled. When a dedicated group of pov pushers that edit pov conflicts of interests can gather together to harass and wikihound another editor an obvious problem exists.

I am asking to be unblocked. With NO restrictions.

I am not a conspiracy person as other personal attackers have said or implied here either, such as user ImperfectlyInformed. That was a nasty personal attack using himself as the role of diagnosing. In the future maybe some of the issues I have brought up can be looked into. In the mean time an apology is not needed. Just the unblock. I see what happened. A concerted effort was made... is being made to conform information to mainstream standards and accord mainstream weight or a political pov in some cases, as opposed to reliable sourcing and normal methods of policy and guidelines. Conspiracy??.. no, just an editing faction that no doubt thinks they are truth giving or right as to their approach.

Yes... if I am blocked from editing on ecology or economics I would not be able to write, source, and make a presentation of interesting material like this Charles Hall - [Charles A S Hall]] which I was busy doing, when an over zealous, in my opinion, Admin blocked me while making a derogatory comment.

How did this come to this, when I was never even warned by an Admin. on my discussion page? Have not been warned for nearly three years about anything that I can remember? I suggest the unblock... and then a close examination of what is going on. Then let the chips fall where they may later. Using a tool like this to make someone stop editing articles because a group of people for what ever reason disagrees as to whether some of the information is of value or not, seems like a bad way to proceed with anything. How does one get to indef. block without a warning about anything... on their user page? This stinks, for a lot of reasons. Unblock. I have no idea whether the formatting on this will come out right since I am doing it as an email

Statement by Simonm223

Skipsievert's edits were quite tendentuous and he would simply refuse to acknowledge statements that disagreed with his own. Sanctions are appropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Frankly I am surprised we haven't simply shown Skipsievert the door by now. I have lost count of the number of times his conduct in relation to Technocracy articles has been raised, and it is very apparent that he has an external agenda which he is here to promote, to the extent that his entire Wikipedia career appears to me to be one long POV-push. Guy (Help!) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nick carson

I have been involved with the rewrite of the Sustainability article since the beginning and have been on the receiving end of Skipsievert's disruptions for a great portion of this time. Editors have both individually and collectively approached him in a multitude of ways to attempt to resolve his disputes and solve problems in general. He has been unresponsive to almost all of these attempts of resolution/problem solving. He interprets WP policies to afford what little quantifiable backing he can and remains selective in what policies and guidelines, official or anecdotal, he chooses to reference, often citing trivial or borderline humourous WP guideline pages.

I have also attempted to open a dialogue between myself and Skipsievert on our user talk pages to try and achieve some transparency, clarity and honesty between us in an effort to potentially resolve many issues simultaneously. These attempts were removed by Skip from his user talk page and blatantly ignored the fact that I was attempting to resolve the issues on a one-to-one basis in full transparency and honesty. So many other avenues to resolve the outstanding issues have already been pursued and the ultimate disruptions, if anything, have increased. Thus I support the current proposed action. Nick carson (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/3)

• Accept due to other means not working and level of community concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; it appears the case has been rendered moot at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, waiting for the statement from Skipsievert as requested by Sandstein when denying the unblock request. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Coren. If block's overturned I'll take a look. Wizardman 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Hold for a couple of days awaiting developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Decline unless the Community can not find consensus about a long term remedy that will make the articles stable through community sanctions (editing restrictions or block). So, will hold and watch for a few more days. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - While it seems clear that some form of restriction is needed for Skipsievert (possibly short of an indefinite block, which is a very blunt instrument), it is possible that some of his concerns have merit and other editors need to be restricted as well and have their conduct examined. The conflict of interest accusations in particular need to to be objectively assessed, if only to get to the truth of the matter one way or the other. If Sandstein could continue to copy Skipsievert's responses here (or negotiate an unblock purely to participate here) that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Now decline. Reviewing some of the responses to Skipsievert's response, I see that there appears to be less merit to his concerns than might have been thought. I will note though that "claims that the Sustainability article relies excessively on UN sources" is not something for the reliable sources noticeboard, but more a claim that relying excessively on one source means an article may not be presenting the neutral point of view, and giving undue weight to a single source. What I suggest is that Skipsievert's indefinite block be allowed to stand (or a community ban formally discussed), and the community of economics article editors and the community of administrators, ask themselves why it took this long for this matter to be dealt with? And in addition, whether there are other editors causing similar problems, and a similar lack of will to deal with them? I would say, in passing, that people who have published on the topic of the articles in question, or who work for groups campaigning or lobbying in the area in question, absolutely need to openly declare this when editing the article. Finally, if Skipsievert wants to edit other topics that are completely unrelated to sustainability and economics, then I suggest he request an unblock on that basis, and the community impose a stringent topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)