Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skipsievert

Request for comments regarding the conduct of user skipsievert.

=Statement of the dispute=

The editor skip has added or remove content to support his own POV and promote his own agenda disregarding secondary sources. He also engages in personal attack on other editors. He does not wish to cooper at with other editors. 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
We would prefer if skip would place his edits on the discussion board and support them with reliable secondary sources first. The edits should then be discussed and when we have reached agreement, we can enter the edits. He should not continually alter pages without discussing the changes first and without support from secondary sources.

Description
This is a list of some of the conduct of skip that we consider may be in violation of wikipedia's policies and guide lines.

1. Removing or adding content that does not reference secondary sources.

2. Removing or adding content because it dose not agree with his POV.

3. Entering content to promote himself and his own agenda

4. Does not wish to cooperate with other editors

5. He continues with his behaviour even after being blocked

6. Personal attacks on other users (both inside and outside wikipedia)

Evidence of disputed behavior
These are just some examples

1. Removing or adding content that does not reference secondary sources
Skip does not accept any source other than the Technocracy Study Course (TSC) or other information from Technocracy Inc. before 1970. His POV is that if it is not in the TSC or stated by Scott it is not technocracy. This leads him, for example, to enter content because the founder of an organisation says so despite lack of support in secondary sources (argument form authority).

Secondary sources can be used to put doubt on this addition.

Examples of his disregard for secondary sources that leads to him adding or removing content can be found here:

 "it does no good to quote two fiction books on the subject"

"All the books quoted here are peoples fictionalized opinions."

“That is the source I have cited, Technocracy Study Course Since the movement is predicated on it, and the movement is operating from it, I think it is 'the' source to cite.”

more here:



2. Removing or adding content because it dose not agree with his POV
“There is no direct European Technocracy movement … Technocracy was designed for the North American continent only, and is not applicable to European use” and “There are a group of people from Europe that call themselves 'Technocrats',”

links not agreeing with is POV he removed.





another example here:





3. Entering content to promote himself and his own agenda
Such as adding links to his blog sites or his organisation called “Technocracy Inc.” (which was just him).

“Another legal corporation Technocracy (CHQ) 44.94 -93.29 exists also” (which was just him). Also on that diff there’s an example of him trying to promote his book, which, as its mainly plagiarism, is not acceptable as a reference He also removed “(official website)” from the link to the office Technocracy Inc website.

4. Does not wish to cooperate with other editors
Example:



“This is a ridiculous request. I have no part in it.“

5. He continues with his behaviour even after being blocked
See here



see here:





6. Personal attacks on other users (both inside and outside wikipedia)




bongo here is the same person as skip.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
An attempt at mediation here: 

This failed but skip refused even to part take in mediation (as he has done here).

Other attempt can be seen here:





Applicable policies and guidelines
Civility

No personal attacks

Vandalism

Attack page

Neutral point of view

Banning policy

Edit war

Verifiability

Etiquette

Profanity

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Isenhand (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Luxaquitaine 17:07, 10 February 2008 (CET)
 * Hibernian (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:MrKimm (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (CET)

Response
This is a ridiculous request. I have no part in it. I consider this to be harassment by disgruntled users and an attempt to censor or control articles in question.

The issues are thus : Isenhand is Dr. Andrew Wallace. He is the NET director. He is writing about himself and his group. The information in the Network of European Technocrats article goes to their self published information. All of this group is promoting only their own self written and published information. Isenhand the NET director started and constantly edits this page about the Network of European Technocrats with other NET website leaders. Hibernian is Ross Murphy a participant in the NET site. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy

He works together with Isenhand/Andrew Wallace to control the NET article and other articles on Wikipedia http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&quot;War&quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum

That is admitted on their website the NET forum.

That is a conflict of interest. I am not really interested in the Network of European Technocrats article in a serious way at this point and think it should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - Wikipedia.

Because the users here including Andrew Wallace the chief administrator of NET and his group... including an editor named Technocrate who answers to Isenhand's desires in editing (shown on his talk page he only reverts with no imput) and because Andrew Wallace Director of NET is in an obvious conflict of interest here with his self published book made to generate income for NET http://www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering ... along with Hibernian who is editing as a current registered member of the NET website and the whole thing reeks of special interest and control of the content of this article by the very people that are involved in the website organization known as NET. There are others involved also from NET that are doing those edits.

The way that this request for comment is phrased is like a group asking for a confession. It is ridiculous and really very odd. I stand by all my edits and have to look at this request and the way it is negatively phrased for all the work I have done here as worse than a joke. I consider it harassment. I consider it nothing more than a group of people that are trying to control an article and trying to get rid of any and all that want to make the article objective. My only interest in the NET article and the other articles mentioned is to keep them objective and accurate. Other editors have for some time resorted to personal attacks and name calling. That is not in the proper spirit of constructive communication that should go into a realistic cooperative effort on making information here well done. skip sievert (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luxaquitaine User talk:Luxaquitaine who has signed on to this request is a member of NET (Enrique Lescure their treasurer is the name of User:Luxaquitaine). Network of European Technocrats I consider what he and the other NET users here are doing.. Isenhand/Andrew Wallace who is the NET Director... and Ross Murphy or Hibernian also a registered NET user.. to be harassment.

Yes Luxaquitaine's name is Enrique Lescure and he is the Director of Finance for NET. That is a conflict of interest as an editor here on the NET website article. Also he is part of a team assembled by Isenhand/Dr. Andrew Wallace to control and in my opinion censor the article Network of European Technocrats I can demonstrate that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia

This is a thread with Enrique Lescure in it on NET http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=10&id=5961#5989 NET Re:ideas for the prototechnate to make capital. - N.E.T. Forum

And another. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&id=4203&catid=20&limit=15&limitstart=0 Network of European Technocrats - Re:Information for payment - N.E.T.

The gist of this situation is this.

A Team of people from a website Network of European Technocrats created an article on wikipedia. Now they want to control the article. So far the members that signed on to this Request are all registered members/users of NET. Ross Murphy/Hibernian...http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65

Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy/forum user of NET Andrew Wallace/Isenhand...Director of NET. User:Luxaquitaine NET treasurer/Enrique Lescure.

Now this is a group of people organized by Andrew Wallace to control information on the article mentioned. No doubt they can draw from their membership and find any number of people on their blog/forum to come to the Request and sign it for them. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&quot;War&quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum

Their own website details a plan to control the information. Forming a group to control the information. As said they are the self published writers that have put up the information and the site is a money making site. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=10&id=5961#5989 NET Re:ideas for the prototechnate to make capital. - N.E.T. Forum

another example http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&id=4203&catid=20&limit=15&limitstart=0 Network of European Technocrats - Re:Information for payment - N.E.T.

another example http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&quot;War&quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum

All this means to me that a group of people now trying to play act with a fake consensus are trying to control the content of 6 or 7 articles in an effort to make money by directing traffic to their forum/blog. That falls under advertising which is something that is prohibited on wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)