Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Making allegations against other editors

2) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seeking community input

5) Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

6) Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living people

7) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interpersonal conflict

8) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Same as battleground conduct above I think.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Patterns of behavior

9) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Would say that if someone already has two topic bans and is named yet again in a new case, they should be indefinitely site banned.--MONGO 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavior during arbitration cases

11) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The committee has previously topic and site banned numerous editors at the conclusion of individual cases.--MONGO 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a good principle. Arbcom knows what tools they have in their pocket. On the other hand they have a responsibility not to do more harm than good when trying to solve a problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Case

1) The locus of this case is American politics. There have been previous cases in this general area. The locus of this case is more specifically particular contentious articles and particular problematical editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think the locus of case is more than simply American politics. I think that one has grouping of editors. These groupings see the conduct of other within their group differently than those outside their group. I think one can see this in the RFC/U, which was the original rational on bring this dispute.Casprings (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings that the locus of case is not only American Politics. It includes any topic with politically contentious aspects, including topic areas such as media, the environment, energy production/policy, gun control/rights, women's rights, abortion, climate change, capitalism, LGBT rights, in addition of course to politics.- MrX 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If Casprings is saying that the issue is conflict between "right-wing" editors (Tea Party supporters, gun rights advocates) and "left-wing" (Tea Party critics, gun control advocates) editors, then I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel

2) Arzel has:

• Edit-warred, in particular by blanking material with which he disagrees.
• Resorted to uncivil edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please provide evidence that my edit summaries are frequently uncivil to make this statement. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Collect

2) Collect:

• Engaged in uncivil and tendentious editing in connection with this arbitration case.
• Has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In a very high percentage of instances Collect is "Battle"ing against people who are dead wrong about how WP:BLP should be applied. This counts heavily in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence presented in the present case is related to BLP issues?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Forest and trees. The evidence so far are trees, I can't ignore the forest that is institutional knowledge when giving my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary Sanctions

1) The imposition of discretionary sanctions for all of American politics would be an extreme measure. As a result, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, subject any topic in American politics to standard discretionary sanctions without the need for a full case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not convinced by the evidence that this is necessary or desirable. Given the broad nature of the topic area, it could establish a bad precedent.- MrX 11:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is needed to check the spread of battleground editing from one area of American politics to another. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First sentence is 100% true. Unconvinced 2nd sentence is the way to deal with the first.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Casprings has proposed a slightly stronger form of the remedy, in which any uninvolved admin could propose discretionary sanctions and take it to the noticeboards. I disagree, as discussions at the noticeboards inflame existing passions. The alternative, which would be only to caution editors, would require that when the battleground editors move from the Tea Party movement and Gun control, new areas be fully re-litigated. Do you have a different suggestion, Cube lurker? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deal with significant violation of policy on an as needed basis at ANI using existing tools. Acknowledge that a certain level of disagreement is unavoidable. The world doesn't agree on these matters. We are no better than the world we live in. These articles will always be a little bit wild west unless we want to declare a winner.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel

2) Arzel is:

• a) strongly cautioned that the use of uncivil edit summaries will result in escalating blocks, without the need for a warning (because this finding is the warning).
• b) subject to the one-revert restriction on all edits in the area of American politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, please provide evidence that my edit summaries are uniquely uncivil, or more so that those like this from the supposedly good faith attempt at a resolution by one of the two editors that brought forth the original RfU. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert, you have yet to provide evidence that I "often" make uncivil edit summaries, and I have not had, to my knoweledge, any edit summaries redacted. What is your evidence that I make more uncivil edit summaries than do anything that you consider to be "occasionaly" useful? Arzel (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The remedy seems more or less appropriate, but the incivility and accusations are not only in edit summaries, but also on talk pages, and possibly in WP space as well. That portion of the remedy is too narrow in my view. A topic ban should also be considered.- MrX 11:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is to check blanking wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't propose a topic ban on Arzel in American politics because he occasionally performs the useful service of removing NPOV characterizations (such as "right-wing", stated in the encyclopedia's language). Uncivil edit summaries are worse than incivility on talk pages. First, uncivil comments on talk pages can be deleted. (It isn't the usual rule but can be done if they are personal attacks.) However, uncivil edit summaries can only be redacted, and then only if they are grossly inappropriate. Second, uncivil edit summaries are in article space rather than talk space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect

3) Collect is banned from the English Wikipedia for three months for battleground behavior and for tendentious editing in this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without commenting on the merits of this specific sanction, I would note that it is unlikely that a three-month ban or sanction of any kind is something the committee would support. I certainly wouldn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I can't endorse this at all. Collect has a unique style of communication that is pervasive, and he frequently involves himself in contentious affairs adopting the role of devil's advocate, but a site ban of any sort is excessive in my opinion. Perhaps consideration should be given to a topic ban from AN, AN/I, SPI, BLPN, ARBCOM, etc., but if too broad, that could unjustly impede his ability to contribute constructively elsewhere.- MrX 11:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't condone his behavior. But I think this would be going too far. Thenub314 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Three months is not a long time, and maybe a brief site ban would help him gain some perspective in light of the his disruptive conduct[1] in this case.

For the benefit of the encyclopedia, indefinitely topic banning Collect from the topic area of American Politics, broadly construed would appear to be necessary.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose.--MONGO 10:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seen Collect on the correct side of BLP too many times to support.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per Cube. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. (But I support a topic ban on politics.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel and Casprings

4) An interaction ban is imposed between Arzel and Casprings. This ban may be appealed every six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not needed as I have not initiated nor had any contact with Casprings in I believe over a year, prior to them bringing this Arbitration. Arzel (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Casprings

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Case

1) American Politics, especially pages and areas that are currently debated in the United States, is an extremely polarized subject area. In many cases, an editor’s political view will influence how they see content and disputes over behavior. This can result in a group dynamic over content and behavior. In such a polarized environment, it is difficult for the community to evaluate both content disputes and the behavior of editors. This dysfuntional group dynamic also transfers to other subject areas dealing with American soceity at various times and under certain condictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Robert McClenon: Not sure. Maybe requirements to identify oneself as uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages that are under sanction? Casprings (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry. Just formulating thoughts. But, I was thinking something along these lines. For content, if a user put up an RFC for content, editors that are involved in the page or subject area would not be allowed to !vote and must identify themselves as being involved beforehand. For conduct, if an issue is taken to WP:AN, no editors with a pervious history should have to identify themselves. These are not very well formed thoughts. Any thoughts yourself?Casprings (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am not asking them to do anything. I think there is a problem here and brought it up. I didn't know having a preset list of solutions was a requirement to file.Casprings (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Question to Casprings: What remedies do you propose? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages under sanctions? The concept of being involved or uninvolved applies to administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions. An administrator may not enforce discretionary sanctions if she or he has been editing prior to the misconduct. Mediators and arbitrators must likewise be uninvolved. What does Casprings mean? I don't understand the distinction, except as to official roles (admin, med, arb, maybe CU or OS). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: I agree that you do not have well-formed thoughts on what to do. (You filed this Request for Arbitration without requesting specific remedies, and without identifying any other conduct issues than those of Arzel). Are you asking for the ArbCom to impose some sort of remedies or enforcement with regard to user conduct issues in American politics, which is the locus of this case and is a polarized subject area, or for some change in the governance of Wikipedia that goes beyond American politics and covers other polarized subject areas as well? If the former, it appears to me (although I may not understand your intent) that you are asking the ArbCom to do something vague. If the latter, it appears to me that any reform is outside the scope of this case (and possibly of the ArbCom in general) and should go to Village Pump Proposals. I don't think that the ArbCom really wants to brainstorm a remedy to a polarized subject area, and that you are trying to encourage them to brainstorm. (Arbs: If you do want to brainstorm, go ahead.) Maybe you should brainstorm for them or for the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I think that any remedy that increases the use of the noticeboards for its application will make things worse rather than better. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but were you responding to something specific that I wrote, or was it a general comment?- MrX 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MrX

Proposed principles

Purpose

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. This is facilitated by assuming positive intent and engaging in honest, open dialog.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a collaborative project

2) Wikipedia is a collaborative project built by people united by their love of learning, their intellectual curiosity, and their awareness that they know much more together than any of us does alone. Editors are expected to calmly discuss and justify their actions when challenged. Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks erode the mutual respect essential for building a high-quality encyclopedia. Discussion is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors are expected to work toward resolving disputes

3) Neutral point of view is a foundational policy, not a license to delete large volumes of content that editors personally regard as biased. Editors are expected to improve content if they can; not simply delete salvageable text. If a user has a editorial dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The loci of the dispute are articles broadly related to American politics including subjects that have politically contentious aspects, but are not political on their face. The topic areas are diverse. In addition to politics itself, the dispute extends to articles about media, the environment, energy production and policy, gun control and rights, women's rights, immigration policy, abortion, rape, climate change, capitalism, and social issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arzel

2) Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Edit warring
• Incivility and Personal attacks
• Battleground conduct characterized by persistent reverting across a large number of articles, over a large amount of his editing history
• Failure to listen
• Soapboxing by politicizing content disputes

He has previously received warnings for personal attacks and edit warring, and has been blocked for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

MrX, Your most recent block (2014) was an almost exact identical scenario as my most recent block (2010). Arzel (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really.

• You reverted three times in just over 24 hours; then a fourth and fifth time two days later; I reverted once, then self-reverted. I then made an one actual revert.
• You were warned; I was not
• You were afforded the opportunity to defend yourself at the EW/N; I was not
• The blocking admin overturned your block; community consensus overturned mine
• The admin who blocked you is still active; the admin who blocked me retired under a cloud

You may want to check it out again.

I was not warned.

I was not afforded the opportunity to defent myself prior to the block.

Not sure what difference it makes that the admin resigned. The point is we both were blocked for non-edit warring incidents which were over turned. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Collect

3) Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Battleground conduct including

1. Impeding consensus by demanding higher-than-standard content sourcing, claiming WP:BLP violations where none exist, and by positing non-neutrally worded RfCs
2. Failure to follow the dispute resolution process by constructively responding to questions from other editors
3. Soapboxing by using his talk page and other fora as platform for discrediting the project, its governance, and some of its users

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Might add something about attempts to denigrate or misrepresent sources he can't dismiss outright.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Arzel

1) Arzel is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and all pages relating to, American politics, broadly construed. Additionally, Arzel is reminded that edit-warring is prohibited and that incivility, no matter how provoked, does nothing to improve the editing environment. Further instances of similar misconduct will likely result in serious sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Cube lurker

Proposed principles

Limits of Wikipedia

1) There are areas of dispute in the world at large. Users are expected to follow WP Pillars and Policies. However It must be understood that forcing people to agree is neither possible nor desirable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

2) The encyclopedia is built on the consensus model. This can be messy, but it's what we have. Editors who edit areas of real world controversy accept a degree of risk that they will encounter disagreements. This is not a licence for a free-for-all, but it must be accepted that disputes will occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Resolving of Disputes

3) Care must be taken while resolving disputes in areas of controversy. While disagreements are expected, when it rises to disruption administrator action will be needed. It is important however that the resolution doesn't remove articles out of the consensus model that is the foundation of the encyclopedia by effectively placing control of content in the hands of the few administrators who frequent WP:AE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by VictorD7

Proposed principles

Administrative restraint

1) As the "people's encyclopedia", Wikipedia is premised on the value of an open exchange of ideas from diverse voices, so admin should have a bias in favor of restraint when considering sanctions rather than risk stifling that organic collaborative process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Many types of useful editing

2) Useful editing comes in many forms, including reversions of inappropriate material. There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a high revert count.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Waging content battles through admin

3) Editors shouldn't resort to seeking admin sanctions because they didn't get their way in a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tolerance is warranted for heated exchanges on contentious topics

4) Occasional heated exchanges are to be expected on contentious issues, especially political ones, and should be tolerated. Descriptions of political bias that are at least within the bounds of reason (arguable) are part of the normal give and take in article discussions, and indeed may play an important role in keeping a page committed to NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that I disagree, at least if a "heated exchange" is one that involves personal attacks. It is both especially difficult and especially important to maintain civility when a topic is polarized. Descriptions of political bias are useful if they are focused at maintaining article NPOV, but not if they become personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is a gradation when it comes to "personal attacks"? Also, would you agree that in some cases people may view legitimate descriptions of behavior, which your own posting higher on the page acknowledges can be acceptable (indeed a useful corrective), as "personal attacks"? Wouldn't it be hard to enforce rules against soapboxing (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) if editors aren't allowed to admonish another editor for "soapboxing"?VictorD7 (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Specific, routine misrepresentations are detrimental to the project and should be unacceptable

5) However, an editor routinely making specific, baseless charges against others (like paid editing) or demonstrably, blatantly misrepresenting sources or statements poisons the collaborative process and is the type of misconduct for which admin sanctions exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed finding of fact

Locus of case

1) The case is focused on alleged misconduct by certain individuals within the very broad scope of US politics, covering many articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arzel

2) Arzel appears to adhere to 3RR, and his alleged "personal attacks" consist of him describing some posters' behavior or sources as "activism" or "POV pushing". That's mild by the standards of heated political Wikipedia exchanges, and, while a judgment call, reading through the presented links (which mostly show him reverting low quality, slanted edits) indicate that his descriptions are at least often credible. Wikipedia undeniably attracts countless soapboxers, and it's unclear how the NPOV policy is to be respected if there's a prohibition on identifying POV skew. The hope is that posters are honest and grounded in reality when making such judgments. That he frequently gains consensus for his moves underscores his value to the encyclopedia. If he crosses the line into abrasiveness at times, at worst this is a case of de minimis non curat lex, and selective enforcement for such widespread behavior would do the project more harm than good.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect

3) No misconduct by Collect was demonstrated, except for maybe being too quick to label an edit "vandalism", for which he apologized. Ubikwit's complaints stemmed from a single content dispute where Collect started an RFC and his view was supported by an ideologically diverse majority.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EllenCT

4) EllenCT is guilty of clear, concrete, and repeated misconduct across numerous pages, including:

• Baselessly leveling charges of "paid advocacy" against an editor
• Misrepresenting sources in blatant and undeniable ways
• Misrepresenting her stealth, contentious edit with a grossly inaccurate edit summary
• Energetically exhibiting tendentious behavior across Wikipedia
• Having an extreme battleground mindset, to the point where it shapes her user page

That her edits are so often rejected by RFC or strong consensus is a telling contrast between her and useful editors like Collect and Arzel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Arzel

1) No action against Arzel is warranted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect

2) No action against Collect is warranted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EllenCT

3) I'm not sure if EllenCT has ever even been formally reprimanded for her serial misconduct, so, while I doubt that would be sufficient to alter her behavior, at least it would be a step in the right direction. Escalating sanctions could be imposed if her abuses continue. Falsely accusing others of paid editing and constantly, objectively misrepresenting sources and statements corrode this project, and shouldn't be ignored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by EllenCT

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Everyone has political views. If your political views agree with those of the most reliable sources, which in the field of economics comprise the peer reviewed academic literature reviews, then it is acceptable to include them as fact or indicate that dissenting views differ from them. If your views are opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews, then you should not attempt to obscure, whitewash, or purge Wikipedia of the more reliable sources' views, and you should only include your views with some indication that they are opposed to the more reliable sources, and then only if they are mainstream enough to be shared with a noteworthy proportion of economists. You should not in any circumstances try to gang up on editors who are conforming to these policies in order to remove or inhibit their work or exclude them from editing. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Competence is required

2) Competence is required to edit. If you are unable or unwilling to search the peer reviewed economics literature reviews, or you find yourself so opposed to their findings that you are unable to abide by their status as the most reliable sources upon which the encyclopedia is based, then you should refrain from making substantial content contributions to articles about economics or politics. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content disputes between those agreeing with and opposed to reliable sources are behavioral issues

3) The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. When a content dispute is comprised of one set of editors who are adhering to the reliable source criteria, and another opposed to identifying the most reliable sources as such, then it is also an editing behavior dispute properly within the purview of the Committee. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement of reliable source criteria

4) Enforcement of the reliable source criteria is necessary to address serious conduct disputes which the community has been unable to resolve. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Accuracy

1) Editors opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews in economics have substantially harmed the accuracy of the encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground

2) Editors opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews in economics have shown that they are deeply committed to a battleground mentality towards collaboration, frequently engaging in WP:TAGTEAMs and attempts at bullying. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor retention

3) Editors opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews in economics have substantially harmed the ability of the encyclopedia to attract and retain the most productive editors in agreement with the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Political advocacy opposed to reliable sources

4) Editors opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews in economics have violated the NPOV policy because they sought to achieve political gains without support in the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

External harm

5) Editors opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews in economics have made edits which a reasonable person would likely believe could cause substantial harm because of their inaccuracy and political advocacy on topics of great reader interest and importance regarding individual opportunity and societal well-being. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence submitted by User:Ubikwit

Comments from around 05–10 May have been resolved. Comments from 13–14 May are duly noted. AGK [•] 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by Arbitrators: @Ubikwit: I quite agree with Srich32977. Although the scope does not formally exclude edits to Tea Party movement, and I do not wish it to, the committee is unlikely to place much weight on the edits you have entered into evidence. They have already been ruled on in a previous case, and therefore do not help us decide the current one. Please submit different material as evidence (and kindly also acknowledge this message). AGK [•] 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC) @Ubikwit: Not quite, but perhaps I have not made myself clear. When I said TPM diffs could be "flagged", I envisaged it being entered as a footnote to non-TPM evidence – not making up the entirety or majority of your submission. TPM diffs can be very briefly referred to, or older evidence and findings of fact from the original case linked to; for example, User X has did XYZ on <non-TPM articles>. See diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This continues a pattern from the TPM case; see diff 6 and TPM Findings of Fact 12 and 13. We aren't interested in edits to the TPM article, except if we need to be aware that, together with current evidence, they reflect a wider pattern in an editor's Wikipedia contributions. Remember also that I wrote much of the Tea Party movement decision (replacing an earlier pair of drafters), so I am likely to spot these patterns anyway. Have I made my position clear? AGK [•] 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Comment by parties: Comment by others: Most of the evidence submitted by Ubikwit pertains to Tea Party Movement edits. That topic, and the edits surrounding it, was "litigated" at Tea Party Movement. I do not see diffs which post-date the TPM arbitration closing. Even so, if there are post-arbitration problems with TPM-related editing, then such problems should be brought up for enforcement as TPM problems. With this in mind, I cannot see how Ubikwit's diffs help the committee in the present case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) @AGK: I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the evidence, but I should point out that I posted it as background to a pattern of behavior exhibited across articles on American politics. Moreover, I did so after seeking clarification on the scope, to which you responded as follows Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings. It now seems that you are contradicting your above-quoted response. Please clarify. As Mr. X demonstrates in some of his evidence, Arzel would appear to fly under the radar, eliding sanction by staying within 3RR, refraining from editing during Arbcom cases, etc. If the evidence I posted is not deemed as context but "an already litigated matter", then I would not have posted it in the first place had that been clear from the initial response I received. Thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) @AGK: OK, I see. I'll remove the material.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC) As Ubikwit has removed the submitted TPM evidence, I suggest archiving this portion of the Workshop. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Ubikwit has recently submitted a series of diffs related to current discussions on two articles. IMO the diffs simply point to rambunctious commentary by Collect, but nothing disruptive. If Collect would tone it down, and stop shouting on the talk pages, we would enjoy editing these articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure about the RfC, as it seems to be calling for a simple iVote based "consensus", which isn't exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is defined as. In that sense, it is disruptive of the discussion of the edits as it renders them mute in favor of a somewhat contrived iVote. Striclty speaking, calling for an iVote as a means to assert consensus could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the policy-based consensus building process, thereby subverting the integrity of the editing environment. I've just added a not to the relevant diffs that it was me that raised the possibility of WP:SYNTH concern, which has been the basis of basically all subsequent substantial discussion and editing--aside from the "labor unions" related statement. To characterize the act of starting the RfC as "rambunctious commentary" doesn't make sense to me. And when Collect is not shouting on the talk pages, his comments that I've referenced can be seen to be both dismissive, on the one hand, and evasive on the other. There is no discussion going on there. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I dislike the shouting and I wish Collect's comments were more focused. But: 1. These diffs are basically content discussions, and 2. Other avenues of dispute resolution have not been tried. (Arbitration is for behaviors "where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed".) I don't see that other dispute resolution routes have been taken with Collect. (I'm looking at the diffs you supplied and nowhere else.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I've already responded to the above assertion when it was raised in a query on my Talk page[2], but I'll expand on that a bit. Collect's editing on topics concerning American politics has struck me as highly problematic since I first encountered him on the Tea Party case. In that case I provided ample evidence of his obstruction by similar means. Now I understand policy a little better to more succinctly address his editing conduct. I fully agree with Mr. X's statement, "The evidence provided by Collect below is indicative of the argumentative, condescending obfuscation that typically makes politically-related article talk page discussions so fruitless where Collect is involved.", and my evidence provides direct proof of that in an ongoing discussion falling under the scope of this case. Thenub314 has also provided evidence against Collect with respect to current editing on an article for which an Arbcom case just finished a month ago. I note that the above related exchange pertains to evidence I had earlier posted concerning Arzel, with respect to which S. Rich lobbied that it should be inadmissible because it pertained to an already litigated case. Here, he is claiming that because the edits are recent and other means of DS haven't been pursued that the evidence is inadmissible. I find that to be an extraordinary attempt to narrow the scope of a case that was named in a manner such as to open up the field as opposed to limiting it to the conduct of a specific editor (Arzel), thereby facilitating and examination of the editing environment and dynamics in the topic area overall. Not meaning to not WP:AGF, but is S. Rich lobbying to have my evidence dismissed on false grounds? I note that he hasn't raised the issue with respect to the evidence presented by Thenub314, so maybe this is just targeting me? the only reason I could see for his wanting to do that is due to our interaction on the Plutocracy and [[Oligarchy] articles. I should note that S. Rich and I are basically on the opposite side of the issues in those discussions, though I thought we were editing in a basically collaborative manner. So I find this attempt to assert that my evidence against Collect is inadmissible to be problematic is several respects. That seems to me to be in stark contrast with his efforts here concerning the editing conduct of Collect, with whom he is generally in agreement on the issues, such as the RfC on the Plutocracy article. It would seem to me to be a matter for the Committee to determine whether Collect's editing amounts to policy compliant "content discussion" or not.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:50, 05:46, 07:14 14 May 2014 (UTC) It seems that this thread on my Talk page should be referenced here User_talk:Ubikwit#Arbcom_evidence. Note that one comment by S. Rich was made while I was in the midst of editing the above text. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:59, 15:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:Two kinds of pork

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The evidence presented by Two kinds of pork is not really evidence, but more of a statement of opinion, and mere conjecture. For example, the assertion "... they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel." is erroneous in three ways:

1. I have no (personal) difference with Arzel. I believe the project does.
2. Brangifer and I have not operated in unison (as implied by the slash). My efforts to reach out to Arzel were made independent of Brangifer.
3. These diffs: [3] [4] are evidence of my serious and sincere efforts to address Arzel's conduct.- MrX 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you think Bradinfgers "attempt" was made in good faith, then that speaks volumesTwo kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that an RFCU is supposed to be a form of DR. One of the required elements is that users have "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". The example provided by Brangifer, a co-certified of the RFCU is the antithesis of a good faith attempt at a resolving an issue. As the primary drafter of the RFCU, I assumed MrX endorsed Brangifer's statement. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:70.36.142.114

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence has been presented by 70.36.142.114, unless you count the external link to a webcomic.- MrX 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm trying to stay out of this but since I'm mentioned, what I presented was a data point corroborating a theory that people with observations to contribute haven't been doing so, whether due to apathy, futility, being banned (Miles Money), aversion to potentially being caught up in dramacracy instigated by the case parties, or whatever. This gives me concern about the soundness of the to-be-determined outcome (we'll see). Of course I could only directly observe the internal thoughts of one editor (myself) and couldn't write about others, so my post was very limited. But, if (e.g.) you look at the ANI threads linked in the case filing, they have better diffs and sharper analysis than what I saw in the RFCU or in the arb case so far (admittedly some or all of them may be too old to use directly).

So for whatever reason, this case, despite coming from long-running and widespread tension in the project, is relatively quiet, maybe not giving enough data to arbitrate from. The conflict not only directly affects core areas of the project and maybe even the real world,[5] but it has fueled a lot of rigid policy development that then affects other project areas which have historically done perfectly well with looser policies (due to having better collaboration, less BLP impact, etc). So it's important stuff and yet people are keeping quiet. By comparison, the Date Delinking case was pure insanity, and about a conflict that almost nobody directly cared about, but one good thing about it was that all relevant info (and then some) was presented, and everyone with a perspective to bring took the opportunity to have their say.

Added: I'm glad that evidence is still appearing and the evidence closing date is apparently not being enforced. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence in RFC/U about Arzel

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Robert McClenon The statement that I "often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries." is simply false, and to my knowledge I have never had one redacted, so that insinuation is un-called for. I would ask that this statement be struck. I do often remove NPOV violations and UNDUE weight issues, especially within BLP articles, but your review seems limited to only cherry picked edits. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arzel frequently blanks properly sourced information because he considers the sources biased (although they are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards). This violates Wikipedia policy, and shows a refusal to accept a community interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel sometimes performs the useful service of removing unsourced characterizations, such as labeling a commentator as "right-wing" (which should not be done in encyclopedic language, but only when quoted). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries. Uncivil edit summaries are possibly even worse than incivility on talk pages, because uncivil edit summaries cannot be reverted, unless they are so inflammatory as to justify redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Because Arzel sometimes performs a useful service, but is often disruptive, some sanction less extreme than a site-ban or a topic-ban from American politics is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence in Casprings

Comment by Arbitrators:

When was the last contact? AGK [•] 11:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have initiated zero contact with Casprings in a very long time. There is no evidence of a current conflict between us. Arzel (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@AGK:I think the last contact was when I filed the request for Arbitration. I think the last interaction of any sort was my attempt to have the RFC closed at WP:AN, here. As far as over actual content, it would proberly be at the WP:FA reviews of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012.Casprings (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arzel and Casprings are two editors who do not like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

An interaction ban between Arzel and Casprings is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To quote the interaction ban policy, "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I am not sure of what interaction between me and Arzel is a problem or disrupting for others. What problem does this solve?. Casprings (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of VictorD7's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While admitting that corporations pass some of their taxes along to consumers, User:VictorD7 insists on a graph he says was produced by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which assumes the opposite in an attempt to make taxes look progressive. Then he complains (e.g. by citing this diff) about my support of the http://itep.org graph which is based on the most accurate forecasting models and shows taxes as regressive for the top 1%. And then he tries to accuse me of saying he's a paid editor because he keeps inserting the sponsored graph instead of the graph derived from data.

The only point of view my edits such as [6] push are that of the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY and mainstream sources. I am able to see his perspective that [7] appears to be pushing a more mainstream point of view, because the peer reviewed secondary sources are so diametrically opposed in many cases to the world view of the editors who often oppose my contributions.

This edit to trim the United States article of material which was less likely to be of interest to readers in a very large article based on current events was undoubtedly proper, and was roundly supported. EllenCT (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's all you have to say? Your repeated mischaracterization of my (irrelevant) personal position on tax incidence was already debunked with quotes via link in my evidence section. Not that it matters, but PGPF, which is a perfectly valid source for verifiable material (much better than many you've added), simply drew a handy chart based on Tax Policy Center numbers ([8]), so you must mean "the TPC chart". It doesn't matter who drew the graph. Wikipedia editors are allowed to draw graphs themselves, and do so all the time, including the graph ([9]) you kept trying to insert into various articles that used the partisan lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice as its source. The TPC's figures closely follow independent results by the CBO and IRS and are widely cited. The outlier is your CTJ/ITEP graph, which has a dramatically skewed internal federal component the other sources disagree with, isn't corroborated by another source, and mostly just appears on liberal blogs. Your own graph doesn't attribute corporate taxes to consumers either, its producers even explicitly arguing against doing so, and yet you persist in pushing this irrational red herring to excuse the discrepancy. You have yet to support any claim you've made on this topic with a single sourced quote. Let me know if you ever find one, or want to apologize for falsely accusing me of paid editing. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you presented any evidence contrary to my claim that the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews indicates that corporations pass about half their taxes on to their customers or consumers or labor? (All three groups mostly overlap and all individually comprise a majority of the population.) The only way to make taxes appear to be progressive for the top 1% is to use any of the admittedly many sources you have found opposed to those WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed sources. I have never accused you of being a paid editor, but I have pointed out that you repeatedly insert material which you know was produced in order to advance a political objective and is opposed to the conclusions of the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? So you just happened to accuse me of inserting "paid advocacy" and statements "paid for" by a particular group a few months after you made these comments, where you definitely were discussing paid editors?

"Support"; "paid advocacy is a conflict of interest with summarizing truthfully." [10]

"So if you have the cash, you think the right to respond includes raising an army of mercenary meatpuppets to oppose volunteers, but those volunteers must not expose the meatpuppets or their paymasters? Of course you do, because it means money in your pocket. Shame!" [11]

"I have seen too many attempts at whitewashing to ever feel comfortable consulting or participating in the creation of an encyclopedia which tolerates paid advocacy editing. There is no way to insure that anonymous editors will summarize truthfully when they are being compensated by the subjects of their topics. I believe WP:BRIGHTLINE should be elevated to policy."[12]

You didn't have any of that in mind when you made these accusations, even when I'm one of those you've falsely accused of "whitewashing"?

"VictorD7 isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers?" [13]

"User:VictorD7 so incessantly attempts to portray otherwise, and he knows it. This repeated insertion of paid advocacy must end." [14]

"I strongly disagree with VIctorD7 and have no confidence in his ability to accurately identify or summarize the reliable sources. He has repeatedly attempted to insert the same paid and inaccurate advocacy which leads to the state of affairs described in the study's findings." [15]

Because I and others certainly took your emphasis on "paid" to mean the same thing you meant when you used that language last fall. If you really weren't accusing me of being paid to edit, then you should have said so when I gave you the opportunity to clarify it on your talk page, instead of refusing to do so. [16] When I observed that others have been accused of paid editing before, you even replied by saying "People have been more than just accused of it. Do you think I owe you anything?" Yes, at the very least you owed me a clarification. Now it's a moot point. You said what you said, and left the impression you wanted to leave.

Regarding your evidence comments....

1. To clarify, are you claiming that labor (wages) and consumption (purchases) are the same thing, or at least roughly equivalent for tax incidence purposes? Keep in mind that everyone consumes, including corporate owners, so your "overlap" comment is a non sequitur. These attributions classify tax burden by activity, with very different results for tax burden by income level depending on which activity is deemed to carry the burden. It's like income taxes versus consumption taxes; the same people mostly pay both but one is typically progressive while the other is typically regressive due to the nature of the activity being taxed. VictorD7 (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2. Do you finally acknowledge that your own CTJ/ITEP source attributes corporate taxes to corporate owners, and therefore treats it as a "very progressive" tax, just like the CBO, TPC, and other sources you rail against? (proof here: [17]) VictorD7 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Oh wow, I see you let the truth slip out here before deleting it. "You took two weeks to deny that you were a paid editor after I asked you directly with a {{Ping}} on WP:ANI, which you cited in your evidence, and you made many intervening edits in the middle of April. Why did you wait so long to deny the accusation? [18] Of course I denied it immediately ([19], [20]), but at least we've firmly established what you were accusing me of. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that you have been inserting manufactured advocacy contrary to the consensus of the peer reviewed secondary sources, but who knows whether you personally are paid to insert it. Since you don't have a shred of evidence that you aren't editing against the consensus of the most reliable sources in an attempt to insert the paid advocacy, after having discussed the issue for about a year, why should it matter whether you personally are paid to do so or not? EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know then you shouldn't have accused me of paid editing. You've posted no sources that support anything you say, "peer reviewed secondary" or otherwise, your claims about me are clearly false, and you failed to answer any of my questions. I really hope arbitrators read this. VictorD7 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do either of you have a diff of the ANI "Ping" referred to in [21]? I don't see it in VictorD7's evidence presentation at first glance. (Note: I commented in the mentioned ANI thread that BrownHairedGirl closed.) 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (Added: it might be this, hmm.) 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I assume she's referring to. I linked to it above, in my evidence section, and on the ANI thread you mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you both aware that you are referring to a question which I completely deleted because I wanted to check the dates? EllenCT (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I pointed that out and have been using the same diff you just posted. You deleted it after you wrote and posted it. The deletion doesn't detract from the elucidation it provides. It's telling that even now, as in your edit summary, your only concern with what you had written was "the dates". VictorD7 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Which do you think is the more serious accusation, that you willingly and repeatedly have been trying to insert a graph which portrays the tax incidence of the top 1% as progressive and that you admit has been produced by a lobbying foundation widely engaged in astroturf efforts (e.g. [22][23]) or the question as to whether you have personally been paid to do so? Because I will happily withdraw the latter question if you can provide any evidence contrary to the former. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: