Hosta

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC).

Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User Kay Sieverding began editing in August, 2008. Since that time, nearly all of her edits have focused on a single article, pro se. Most of these edits have taken two forms: (A) personal stories (OR); or lengthy block quotes ("dumps") of caselaw and other publications which, broadly, advance a novel view of U.S. law. The edits to this one page number in excess of 200. Most have been reverted. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The best remedy would be an editing restriction, comparable to the one proposed previoulsy by user:risker - Kay Sieverding not to edit the mainspace article on this subject, or fundamental rights. However, this is beyond the scope of an RfC. Admins have already taken action to warn the affected user. The purpose of an RfC is to build a strong consensus from what is currently a weak consensus that the user is behaving disruptively, and to see if other uninvolved parties can attempt to help this user learn the wikipedia way. (Amended). ALSO, to see if anyone is interested, and thinks that they would be able to deal with, a user who is so recalcitrant, because it exceeds my abilities.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The only way to truly see how much this user has diverted the article is to view the whole history going back to August 25, 2008. However, I will attempt to provide as many representative diffs as possible.
What the article looked like before and after Kay's first four edits, which were reverted by an uninvolved edior.
Kay's next four edits, reverted by user:Arthur Rubin
Also typical: this diff shows the user adding tangential material;
Also, deleting references to people to whom she has a personal connection [1].
more irrelevant material.
Argumentative introduction of weasel words (a curious response to an argument on the discussion page).
And it continues even to this day, after informal dispute resolution has been tried, and tried, and tried [2].
Tendentious discussion on the talk page(s):

a. Accusations of "censorship": here and here.

b. Accusations of deletions (verifiably false by diffs) here and []

c. Wikilawyering [3]

d. Inept legal argument (a different kind of wikilawyering, but still ridiculous) here and here

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

wp:nor; wp:pov; wp:cite; wp:point
wp:coi

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Step one: Civil reminders from involved editors. [4]; [5];
Step two: Sternly-worded reminders of obvious policy violations: [6]
Step three: Civil reminders from uninvolved admins.[7]
Step four: Third opinion [8] (and further administrative caution]
Step five: EXTENSIVE user page discussion (too many diffs to even mention here), attempting to channel user productively.
Step six: Second unvinvolved admin issues an edict
Step seven: blocking. [9]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Efforts have been mostly unsuccessful. Kay did begin to discuss things on the talkpage, although much of it was a variant of wikilawyering. However, while paying lip service to Risker's "talk first, let others edit," edict, the user continued to spam the main article with dozens upon dozens of similar-looking edits, flooding the article with unverifiably-used primary source material, as shown above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Certify the basis. I think a different possible desired outcome would be better.. that Kay grasp how we do things here, stop being a WP:SPA and edit constructively and collegially. I don't know if it's possible, but it would be better if it were. That is what we all have been working for. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certify the basis, although I agree with Lar that it would be better if Kay edit constructively — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certify the basis. Famspear (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certify the basis of this dispute. Kay has been on the receiving end of one of the best examples of WP:AGF during the course of the past two months, with several editors working with her to try to help her understand Wikipedia policies and objectives. Instead of working to develop the level of objectivity required to edit from a neutral point of view, she has become more and more intransigent in her editing patterns and talk page discussions. This RfC is intended as a wake-up call to let Kay know that this is not an acceptable way to proceed within this project, and that she must adhere to the objectives and principles of the project if she wishes to continue here. Risker (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

1. I have no relationship w Barbara Schwarz. The listing regarding her has not been touched for a month or more. I think Wikipedia is wrong to report on her against her wishes but I have not interfered.

2. I do not think that Justice Scalia's discussion of the ability of non writers to write about law is tangental or should have been deleted, but I didn't revert it.

3. The Supreme Court wrote:

“It is not necessary to fully enumerate the privileges and immunities secured against hostile discrimination by the constitutional provision in question. All agree that among such privileges and immunities are those, which, under our institutions, are fundamental in their nature… Among the particular privileges and immunities, which are clearly to be deemed fundamental, the court in that case specifies the right 'to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state.'… In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418-430, 20 L. ed. 449-452, the court, after referring to Corfield v. Coryell, above cited, and speaking by Mr. Justice Clifford, stated that the right 'to maintain actions in the courts of the state' was fundamental…The final judgment in this case therefore denies a fundamental right inherent in citizenship, and protected by 2 of article 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it would not be supreme if any right given by it could be overridden either by state enactment or by judicial decision.” CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) "

but these editors deleted that from both the pro se self-representation page and the fundamental rights page. At this time the fundamental rights page does not even acknowledge that in this and other statements the S.C. even discussed access to courts as being fundamental and every reference to these series of S.C. decisions has been deleted on the pro se page too even when quoted by the American Judicature Society and the ABA.

4. I didn't bring up the anti injunction act and repeatedly opposed discussion in the talk page of materials other than references.

5. I didn't delete anyone else's references.

6. None of my references were inaccurate. kay sieverding (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kay sieverding (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)kay sieverding (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Outside view by User:Rocksanddirt

While not directly involved at all in this, I would second the comments of Lar and Authur Rubin, that User:Kay Sieverding edit the pro se article to stay on topic, and edit more articles in general.

Users who endorse this summary:

Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I can endorse a view that endorses my own comments but what the heck. If this causes a causal loop someone let me know. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Risker

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Alternative opportunity for a positive outcome

Kay Sieverding has made it clear that she believes the Wikipedia article with respect to pro se self representation should essentially be a one-stop resource for individuals interested in representing themselves in a United States court, and that it should include a broad expanse of information including many facts that, while they may be true, are only tangentially related to the topic. Her own objectives for the article are not in keeping with the objectives or principles of Wikpedia. Earlier in the course of working with Kay Sieverding, I suggested that she consider participating in Wikiversity, and asked User:WAS 4.250, an experienced Wikiversity editor, to review some of Kay's work and express an opinion of whether or not it would be within the scope of that project; WAS 4.250 responded with this invitation to participate and an explanation of how Kay's research and proposed content would fit into Wikiversity. Kay, however, did not feel her information was suitable for that project, and should be on Wikipedia.[10]

Some of Kay Sieverding's information has indeed been worked into the current article (with assistance from other editors, particularly with respect to formatting), and one section that she developed has been split off into a separate article (List of U.S. State constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts). At this point, however, she has tried to add essentially the same original research repeatedly in varying forms and with different arguments each time, against consensus and apparently without having grasped the editing and content principles on which Wikipedia is founded. I once again urge Kay to consider developing a project at Wikiversity, in which she would be able to develop her information in the way she feels most appropriate within the very different constraints of that project.