Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deicas

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
User:Deicas has basically brought improvement of Paul Krugman to a grinding halt through his intransigence. His long treatises on his logic (and how everyone isn't using it) have completely clogged the article's talk page. In spite of numerous people (including a whole parade of otherwise uninvolved commentators) telling him that his arguments are faulty, he persists in simply ignoring the arguments made by others and refuses to admit that he has failed to prevail in the discussion. On top of this he besets us with annoying passive-aggressive demands for us to say things the way he wants us to say them and to behave according to his own idiosyncratic standards.

Desired outcome
In an ideal world I would like him to admit that he has lost this battle and realize that he has to interact with other people other than by drowning them in argumentation. My experience however is that very few people are willing to revise their behavior to that degree, so quite frankly I would like him to stop editing this article altogether.

Description
There are two present controversies about the article, both in my opinion symptomatic of Krugman's lightning rod status as a Keynesian economist in a political climate where conservatives have overwhelmingly attached themselves to various classical schools. I'm only going to speak to one of these, concerning the inclusion of a comment made by Gary Becker, who is one of the seminal figures of the Chicago school of economics, which is quite opposed to Keynesianism. Becker was interviewed in a podcast about the value of economic stimulus by the government, which is a hallmark of Keynesian policy; not surprisingly (at least to anyone with an ECON 101 level of exposure to the field) he opposed them. The interviewer then brought up Krugman as an eminent economist with a Nobel Prize who disagreed with Becker. Becker, in the course of responding, made a remark about how Krugman is not doing economic research now. It is this remark that was included in the article.

I objected to this inclusion as well as to comments from a couple of New classical figures whose allegiance was omitted. I listened to the podcast and made a partial transcript putting the comment in context and showing that, far from criticizing Krugman for not doing research, Becker was acknowledging Krugman's stature while nonetheless disagreeing with him. Everyone else who has examined this has agreed with my assessment and has held that the comment should not be included— except Deicas. His response has been a long stream of point-by-point rebuttals and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignoring of any adverse reply. He has forum shopped this to dispute resolution, which failed for all the same reasons, and then to AN/I twice. I asked for a topic ban there and was told that the bureaucracy must go through, and so, here we are.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Deicas's first demand to me to present my argument, after a couple of rounds of argument already
 * he ignores my response again
 * a leading "so you actually agree with me" question when I've made my disagreement clear
 * After a bit of back-and-forth between a couple of others, Deicas chimes in with his first demand for logic on this subject
 * ignoring my response, wikilawyers
 * someone replies, Deicas "logically" stonewalls
 * he declares what the consensus is, immediately provokes many objections
 * At this point, he heads off for a round of AN/I, where he is rebuffed
 * He didn't like that.
 * Someone else tells him he's not making his case; |Deicas attacks him for not showing good faith
 * Another round of "logic": mind you, the trillion dollar coin argument was going on in parallel with this
 * Deicas tries to manage the discussion
 * blow-by-blow repetition of his argument, ignoring that plenty of people have used other grounds for exclusion
 * another trip around the same track
 * another round of WP:IDHT

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Consensus
 * Undue weight
 * Disruptive editing and especially
 * Failure or refusal to "get the point"
 * repeating the same argument without convincing people

Attempts by certifier Mangoe

 * adding the partial transcript
 * further explanation; Deicas hadn't entered the discussion at this point
 * I remonstrate with Deicas
 * and again
 * and again
 * The point at which I lost patience and took it to AN/I myself. There was some process objection, which is why we are here.

Other attempts

 * first objection to Deicas's declaration of consensus
 * others join in
 * a trip to dispute resolution on the trillion dollar coin matter: I was less involved in that but made a comment on the overall issues with the article
 * User:Georgewilliamherbert started a "involved user comment" section concurring that the Becker comment needed to be omitted: . A bunch of other editors eventually chimed in to add their concurrence.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''



Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''



Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.