Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:55, 1 October 2015

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Unbiasedpov

Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user: Unbiasedpov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are topic banned from 2002 Gujarat riots related articles, talk-pages and discussions anywhere on wikipedia. See [1].

Administrator imposing the sanction: Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by Unbiasedpov

Background:-

99% of my editorial time was spent on Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots talk-page. I have spent very little in article editing. Majority of co-editors have seen merit in my concerns on at-least 1 occasion. (Clarification added: I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years. I have edited many many articles. 99% mentioned here is not 99% of time on Wikipedia but 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Here are few sub-sections i started on talk-page:-

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Multiple-Issues

Despite intimidation and bullying, I have been very civil and respectful on talk page. I was constantly seeking consensus and made updated proposal based on feedback received. In an attempt to seek common-ground. I also started Rfc and Mediation request:-

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#RfC:_-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F

Charges against me:-

Charge#1 (Talk-Page):-

Repeatedly making,& updating, proposals on talk-page and failure to find consensus on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2 parallel fora example1 [3] and example2 [[4]]

Explanation of charge#1 example1:

I am updating proposals based on feedback received. For example:-

Original proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Updated proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings

Explanation of charge#2 example2:

As shown in example#2.I did edit,and add extra comments, but i always signed them.I have understood that this might cause confusion;Hence, I will refrain from such practice in future. My intention were to add clarity and accuracy. See the full impact of example#2 edit here Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Remove_quotes_from_Lead

Charge#2 (Edit-Warring):-

edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections [5] [6]

Background:-

Edit-warring example, provided in charge#2, is about Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement and two other failed verification citation. I am show-casing Embree statement for sake of simplicity but please read entire subsection Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings for clarity.

I have spent 99% of time time on talk-page. What-ever edit i did were promptly reverted without use of talk page:-

See" Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Earlier, I was advised to use WP:BRD policy;Hence, I have tried to use WP:BRD in this edit-warring example provided in charge#2.

Explanation of charge#2:-

Current3 Article content:-

"Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless"

Problem with Current3:-

From the talk-page "I,Unbiasedpov, have read citation [43]. Current3 omitted half of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement. Here is complete sentence from citation [43] "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack it was organized and carried out under orders from Pakistan".

In the book,Embree states that there is no-proof of Pakistan involvement in Godhra train burning and Wikipedia:2008_Mumbai_attacks. Embree does not imply "entirely baseless". More-over, "no proof" is not same as "entirely baseless". "No proof" means "Absence of Evidence". "Entirely baseless" is more like "Evidence of Absence". "Absence of Evidence" <> "Evidence of Absence". Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit#1:-

In edit#1 i Replaced current3 half-statement with full-statement "Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire;However, The official account declares without proof that attack was carried out under direct orders from Pakistan."

My Edit#1 was reverted. So, I used WP:BRD and did Edit#2.

Edit#2:-

In edit#2 I left original current3 half-sentence intact and added "Failed verification" tag to it.

My Edit#2 was also reverted and I was banned from topic.

I know i am not supposed to comment here but this is the best place to clarify misunderstanding.

Clarification:- I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. 99% mentioned above is not 99% of time on Wikipedia. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope un-involved admins @Gamaliel, Beyond My Ken, Dennis Brown, JzG, and Liz: will look at the merit of my edits and review at-least 3 edits or talk-page proposals. Most of my edits fall in two categories:-

correct misinterpretation of cited source.

point out dubious citations which violate WP:RS and WP:Thirdparty policy.

For example, My last edit, explained above, is about citation of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree. Please read the explanation above. Please check the citation here
https://books.google.com/books?id=u48rUnVEHbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Routledge+Handbook+of+Religion+and+Security&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMI38yA-ZOIyAIVy5eACh325ANP#v=onepage&q=godhra&f=false
.Ping me for questions.

Backgroud Information:-

This article "2002 Gujarat Riots" have 4859 edits[[7]]

The top two contributors to this article are both sock-puppet/abandoned accounts [[8]] [[9]]

In 07/2013, Top-Contributor & Sock-Puppet accountUser:Darkness_Shines re-wrote the entire article. Even today, Article is practically a Darkness_Shines's version[[10]]. This version contains many dubious citations violating several wikipedia policies. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to a typical proposal:-

My proposals resonates with majority of editors but there is always one,or two, editor opposing it.

For example,User:Kautilya3 agrees with me on proposal2 but if i make that change the disagreeing editor will revert it. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On CCT citation discussed by User:Kautilya3:-

CCT is a primary source published by Teetsa Setalvad's CJP Citizens for Justice&Peace(not a reputable publisher). Both,Setalval & CJP, are a party to the dispute. Supreme Court of India monitored Investigation report SIT carries adverse remark against both;Thus,CCT citation violates WP:RS, WP:Primary and WP:Thirdparty policy. See talk page of article for details. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, There are several errors in original article statement "The Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT), headed by Teetsa Setalvad concluded that ....the attack by a mob was part of a government conspiracy to trigger riots across the state".

Firstly, CCT was not headed by Teetsa.

Secondly,CCT never implied that godhra attack was a govt. conspiracy to trigger riots.Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

Here is my complete explanation for the topic ban, which I had posted on the userpage when I imposed it:

You have been sanctioned because of continued disruptive and POV editing, slow but persistent edit-warring, and being unresponsive to feedback despite numerous warnings. In particular, despite earlier advice on how to discuss the issues constructively, you again repeatedly made multiple broad and overlapping proposals [11], [12] (which inevitably failed to find consensus) in parallel fora; changed the proposals even after others had responded; and edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections [13], [14]. Your conduct and repetitive arguments are disruptive, consuming an inordinate amount of other editors' time (on either side of the issues), and frankly preventing progress from being made (eg, this section) on a topic that requires more sober, neutral and collaborative editing.

For context, please see:

This RFC and the previous and following sections on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. Pay particular attention to the date of the posts (you'll have to check the talk-page history to truly appreciate what a mess that RfC was). Also see this parallel request for mediation.
This advice I posted at the userpage when I closed the RfC.
The immediate next discussion started by user on article talkpage (again look at talkpage history for full picture). Also see this parallel request for mediation.

If there are any questions I can help answer, just ping me. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

As one of the involved editors that tried to engage with Unbiasedpov, I can vouch for the fact that the editor's participation on this page has been incredibly disruptive and taxing, owing to the poorly thought-out and poorly explained proposals, inadequate understanding of the reliable sources on the subject as well as of Wikipedia policies, and just pure tendentiousness. Abecedare clearly told the editor to make one clearly thought-out proposal at a time (Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Multiple-Issues). But multiple overlapping proposals were again made Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Proposal: Make Godhra train burning sub-section accurate. Look closely at Proposal3 and see what you make of it! But, after people patiently looked at them and provided their comments, the editor once again altered the proposals [15]. At this point nobody knew what sources he was talking about. Then the editor seems to have added the sources here [16] (which somehow escaped my notice) and then proceeded to make changes to the article [17] without waiting for any further input.

The essence of the editor's push is that the Government's view should be represented. The CCT (the Concerned Citizen's Tribunal, headed by a highly respected former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India) is labelled as a "dubious primary source", even though it has been cited in pretty much every high quality reliable source on the planet. Ainslee T. Embree, who was again mentioned above to buttress the editor's own view point, states: "Accounts about how the violence began are contradictory. The official account of the Gujarat government provides a starting point..." and then goes on to narrate the official account. The editor wants to pick up the elements of this account and present them as Embree's view point. This is clearly a misrepresentation, and the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

Even if the editor's proposals had merit, this is clearly not the way to go about implementing them. If Abecedare's advice of one-proposal-at-a-time had been followed, perhaps some progress could have been made, and the editor might have learned something in the process as well. In the Multiple-Issues section of proposals, the editor listed 35 sources, with no mention of publisher or date, and no sense of whether they qualify as reliable sources. These are clearly efforts to overwhelm and intimidate rather than to convince. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Unbiasedpov

An editor (any editor) who spends "99%" of their time on one article's talk page is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, they're most likely here to push a POV. (Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing.) When the editor has chosen a name such as "Unbiasedpov", it's a good bet that their POV is anything but unbiased. I put this in a class with those editors who choose usernames with "truth" in them - they're generally here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and generally end up getting topic banned from their preferred subject, indef blocked, or site banned. I don't see anything in the specifics here to make me think anything different about Unbiasedpov. Their appeal should be denied. BMK (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that Unbiasedpov's 85 edits to the article and talk page represent 20% of his overall edits (418). He's only made more edits to one other article (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom). (Also, a reminder to Liz that as a fairly newly-minted admin, she can now put her comments in the uninvolved admin section below, and doesn't need to hang out up here with the rank-and-file rabble any more!) BMK (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel That open bar could explain a lot! <g> BMK (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Unbiasedpov

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

My thoughts are roughly the same as BMK's. I'm not inclined to consider lifting this unless this user is able to demonstrate productive editing outside this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I can speak in a very general way: The whole idea of a topic ban (versus an indef block) is that we assume good faith that an editor can in fact contribute in a positive fashion in areas not related to where they have had behavioral issues. If they don't choose to edit significantly in other areas, it really doesn't give us a measuring stick to gauge the likelihood that they can return to full editing without incident. For that matter, if someone is only interested in editing a single thing, that is sometimes a red flag anyway, as their interest may be more about advancing a cause or idea (read: POV) rather than to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. As a rule, I tend to object to lifting a topic ban on anyone that is only interested in editing a single page or a small group of pages, for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those percentages are wildly incorrect, according to the the edit counter, Unbiasedpov has 36 edits to 2002 Gujarat riots and 49 edits to Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. The question is, were those 85 edits to the discussion and article disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the username says it all. This is a Warrior For Truth. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK is right, join us down here Liz. We've got an open bar and leather recliners. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just contributing an observation as an editor, rather than weighing in as an administrator. I see A/R/E admin decisions as an area for experienced administrators. But I'll accept the comment move as it seems like a neutral change. Thanks for the patience, I'll get my admin-training wheels off in a bit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his other contribs, or a sampling really, shows the numbers aren't that useful. He contributes is somewhat similar areas, and he will be able to do just that then appeal after a few months without incident. And welcome to below the "result" line editing, I'm confident you will do just as well as anyone here. You're always welcome to make observations rather than take a position in any case you are uninvolved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend declining this appeal, having read the statements by User:Abecedare and User:Kautilya3 and noticing that User:Unbiasedpov has not provided a convincing answer. His topic ban is only from the 2002 Gujarat riots, not from all of WP:ARBIPA. The discussion of these riots has been troublesome in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gob Lofa

No 1RR violation. Closing without prejudice to any future request if there are complaints regarding Gob Lofa's long-term conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Gob Lofa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case : for double violation of 1RR restriction on Troubles related articles within the past day.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

At The Troubles:

10:40, 20 September 2015 - changed Northern Ireland to "the Northern Ireland polity", a subjective term that they have been trying to put into articles mentioning Northern Ireland.
21:58, 20 September 2015 - restores after I partially reverted their edit. They also use a misleading edit summary to justify it.

At Provisional Irish Republican Army:

12:39, 20 September 2015 - likewise adds in subjective term "polities".
22:09, 20 September 2015 - restores "polities" under the reasoning of "Adopting part" of my edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

02:38, 14 August 2015 - blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR at Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

06:19, 13 August 2015 - notified of Discretionary Sanctions in regards to Troubles article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has known for a good while that their intent to either change Northern Ireland's description to "polity" or add it in when it is not even needed is contentious and that it has previously been contested on various articles, yet they continue to do it. Examples being 31 August 2015 and at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (30 July 2015, 1 August 2015, 5 August 2015, 6 August 2015) - where they were reverted by three different editors and got no agreement for their edit on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18]

Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gob Lofa

Statement by User:Mabuska

Hi. From what I understand and have seen, articles to do with the Troubles are subject to a 1RR restriction regardless of article talk pages and what exactly is disputed, and the user in question knows of the restriction and breached it twice in one day. There was no talk page discussion on the revert that led to Gob Lofa's previous ban for violation of 1RR, and that was simply over a page move template. The talk pages on the last two articles I provided diffs on above have discussions on the matter prior to these edits meaning the editor knows the edit is contentious yet still make them. But I am not complaining here about the content but the double violation of 1RR in a 24 hour period.

The use of the term "polity"/"polities" has been flagged as contentious by the fact that three editor including myself, and all of us of different political viewpoints, at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 reverted Gob Lofa. There is no consensus on what term to use, however the editor has been trying to push their own adjective, and one that demeans the status of Northern Ireland, which is commonly called many things (country, statelet, state, province etc.) but polity is not one of them, and when it does make an appearance it is usually in Irish nationalist circles as a degrading term. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, any breach of 1RR in the Troubles restriction area, regardless of the exact content or whoever is right or wrong, or even if it was well-intentioned, results in near immediate sanctions especially if an editor, such as myself and Gob Lofa, already know of the restriction. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, discussions have been held (Talk:Civil_Authorities_(Special_Powers)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1922#NI_description and Talk:Ulster_Volunteer_Force#Polity.2Fprovince), where Gob Lofa essentially provides nothing but personal opinion and misquoted sources. As other editors can attest to elsewhere, when Gob Lofa is involved dicussions they tend to go round and round in circles regardless until other editors either say enough or just stop responding, for example: [19], [20], Talk:Bobby_Sands#Community, Talk:History_of_Northern_Ireland#NI, Talk:Unionism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unionism, Talk:Birmingham_pub_bombings#England.2FBritain. They also have a habit of demanding answers to their questions even when they have been answered and tend to go off topic and focus on editors instead. Discussions with Gob Lofa largely tend to result in a lack of anything productive, with other editors working things out/agreeing amongst themselves.

As discussions have been held it would have been proper for Gob Lofa to not decide to go elsewhere and make the same edits regardless. There is no good reason for them to be going about changing the status of Northern Ireland when they know it has been reverted elsewhere meaning it it contentious, and changing what has stood in articles undisputed for ages just because they don't like it. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HJ Mitchell:. It is usually only controversial when people don't fully understand what it is a province of, with most mistaking it to mean a province of Ireland, when it in fact means a province of the United Kingdom. Though quite a few of them would argue against the term so they can deny it is part of the UK. Though Gob Lofa has also replaced "states" in regards to NI and ROI with polities as one of the 1RR vio's above shows, so it's not just that term. Ironically Gob Lofa has no problem with using "state" in regards to Northern Ireland when making claims of "state power" in regards to the UDR.

To make an edit and then restore it after it has been reverted within 24 hours as far as I have seen over the years is classified as a breach of 1RR. If it is not then I feel aggrieved at the 24-hour ban I got in the past for restoring an essential Histmerge template to an article that Gob Lofa had removed, with my first edit classified as a "revert" for simply changing an incorrect merge template added by another editor in good faith to a histmerge. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I can understand that reasoning on 1RR. However on that I am now more pressed to ask... was my own 24-hour 1RR block justified despite the fact I only made one revert? My first revert was claimed by the blocking admin as this, when it was simply a maintenance process correction. The "second" revert, or to me the only revert, was this. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking and smalling as it is not directly related to this discussion and it's in the past and the letter of the law was properly followed. I would also request that this Enforcement Request be closed as "no action to take" as I misinterpreted the 1RR rule. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gob Lofa

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Can someone briefly explain is contentious about the word "polities"? Where is the talk page discussion with this editor about this matter? I really don't want to sanction someone for violating a consensus when no one has tried to explain this consensus to this editor, outside of some edit summaries. That said, this editor does not have an impressive record in this area and has a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's questioning whether or not it is appropriate to violate this restriction. It obviously is not. But it is just as obviously not appropriate to refuse to engage in discussion during an editing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a 1RR violation. I see Gob Lofa making an edit, the edit being reverted, and Gob Lofa reverting back—which is a single revert, and not a violation of the 1RR. There could be a case to answer for the "polity" edits if this has been going on for a while and there has been significant discussion (I only see two or three editors participating in the discussions linked). Certainly it's not a common description of Northern Ireland, though "province" is not without its own controversy. Note: I do at times edit in this topic area, but my interests are mainly in the role of the British armed forces. I'm not well-acquainted with any of the editors involved here, and have no opinion on the content issue being debated. Nonetheless, I will move my comment if there is any good-faith objection to my commenting as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mabuska: There is also the general controversy over nomenclature of the nations of the United Kingdom (cf. the argument over whether Wales is a country or a principality). It's not directly relevant, I'm just pointing out that wherever there's more that one way of describing something, especially when politics is involved, there's an argument to be had.
  Actually, a 1RR violation does require two reverts. If, for example, I add a sentence and you remove it, then I re-add it, I haven't violated the 1RR; if you were to remove it for a second time, you would have violated the 1RR, as would I if I reinstated it a second time. This has always been the interpretation of 1RR that I've used and that I've seen at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: This has been open for a while. Do you wish to present evidence of an ongoing pattern of disruption, or are you happy for this to be closed with no immediate action taken? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @HJ Mitchell: I have been away for a few days. Yes I am okay for this one to be closed. I will wait until Snowded gathers up their evidence and compliment it with my own for a fuller case to be brought forward. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VictorD7

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning VictorD7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP2.

Note: I am copying VictorD7's WP:AN3 complaint and the three responses including mine verbatim here because an administrator instructed to do so as shown below. EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a block for EllenCT. While being careful to avoid violating 3RR, EllenCT has repeatedly edit warred against consensus and several different reverting editors over the past couple of weeks to install the same changes she wants in two sections in the United States article, Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [32] she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example [33] she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it.

EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [34], and should be familiar with the rule.

When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, [35] "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts.

This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ([36] [37] [38] [39]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire United States article) presumably fall under the discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, which Ellen should be familiar with as a party in the former. Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... take this to AE because this is too convoluted for this forum --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning VictorD7

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by VictorD7

I'm not sure what sanction EllenCT is seeking against me or what precisely I'm even being accused of here. I reported her to the Edit Warring noticeboard after days of her persistently edit warring against multiple editors and promising to keep doing it and now she's seeking action against me here as if in retaliation and/or to distract and deflect. The ANI attempt to sanction me she mentions was months ago, opposed by a majority of respondents for being partisan nonsense, and allowed to fall into the archives (one editor finally closed it but the close was reverted by the agenda driven initiator; after that people largely ignored it). EllenCT is actually guilty of the serial POV pushing she falsely accuses me of. But I only mentioned that in the above report to provide context to the very real and recent edit warring she's been conducting on the United States article. That's a clear, disruptive behavior violation, not a content dispute, and it's laid out in the evidence she helpfully quoted.

In response to the pertinent portion of her comments, of course I led off by acknowledging that she hadn't violated 3RR, but, as the warning another editor posted on her talk page says, one can be guilty of edit warring without violating 3RR. Surely the 11 diffs of reverts of the same material (in two sections) over a week and a half through yesterday qualify as edit warring. And she disregarded almost unanimous talk page opposition (when her proposals had been discussed at all; sometimes they hadn't) and previous reverts by multiple editors. Click through the diffs. They weren't "constructive efforts to compromise". She repeatedly removed/replaced the same info, sometimes even being sneaky about it with misleading edit summaries. That she denies these were even reverts is mind boggling. Fixing a broken link is a poor excuse to make highly contentious changes against consensus. As I told her on the US talk page [40], if she really cares about fixing a link then do it separately.

It shouldn't matter here but for the record her claim about me removing "mainstream" sources and replacing them with the two she mentioned is completely false, which is probably why she provided no evidence. In fact I've only edited the article at all twice in the past month. But the segments she's removing (that I and others added long ago; established consensus) are sourced by peer reviewed academic journal articles (she's at least deleting those sources too), the CBO, the OECD, the Tax Policy Center, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, etc..

What should matter more here is that anyone can click her own links above and see that she's not even telling the truth there. She says, "(1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here." She calls these "four separate RFCs", with the latter three endorsing the results of the first one "unanimously".

Only the first link is even to an RFC. The second link is to a brief discussion with four respondents that was split 2-2 ("unanimously"?). The third is to a discussion she started where I was the only respondent (and I opposed, not endorsed her proposal). The fourth is to another sparsely participated in discussion that was inconclusive with multiple editors on both sides.

I'll be happy to comment in detail on the content dispute if someone requests it. But since it may only be a frivolous distraction, for now I'll just say that her claims are false. I accepted the RFC close, which only said the material could be included "in some form" and wasn't an endorsement of her POV wording, which became even more untenable after I provided scholarly sources directly disputing her sources (at that point what support she had enjoyed vanished). The ensuing debate over wording had spilled out over multiple sections, and when she sought a close for all of it from the close request noticeboard [41] the closer informed her that an actionable close across the various sections wasn't possible [42]. She's recently started a fresh RFC to determine consensus on precise wording and, given the evidence I've since posted, the results so far see 6 opposing her proposed wording with only 1 supporting, with even that 1 saying the other side should be represented as well.

The tax segments she keeps changing and some of her other changes aren't related to the above discussion at all, though a separate ongoing discussion sees majority opposition to the attempted tax change too. [43] This is the material she's been edit warring over in recent days, despite the strong talk page opposition.

This isn't "convoluted". There should be no fog of confusion. Please ignore the distracting content dispute and focus on her edit warring over the past week and a half, along with her promise to continue it. VictorD7 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The evidence of EllenCT's edit warring in recent days is clear. Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]

The rest is a "mess" because she's made it so. Clouding the air with smoke and trying to change the subject isn't a valid defense. Her accusation against me is clearly malformed and baseless (probably merits sanctions in its own right), and should be dismissed. But that doesn't mean she should get away with serial, unilateral edit warring against several editors while promising to continue doing this indefinitely. This is ongoing disruptive conduct. EllenCT's edit warring only stopped (or paused) when I reported it two days ago. Although EllenCT filed this accusation against me, instructions on this page indicate that she should be scrutinized too. Would it help if I filed a fresh complaint against her here over this edit warring? Because that's what I intend to do if this is closed without those edit warring diffs being reviewed, unless instructed otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EllenCT's "Additional diff clarification"

All her diffs are to her own edits, so that hardly constitutes evidence against me. But since they might be seen as her defense and she made numerous misleading statements I'll address her comments:

1. [55] EllenCT only mentions removing this source [56], but in that edit she also removed this peer reviewed paper [57] (abstract [58]) contradicting her sources and this analysis [59] by influential Harvard Economist Martin Feldstein published in The Wall Street Journal.

The text changes are primarily why several editors would end up reverting her, though most of the source removals are opposed too. The original sentence acknowledged there was a debate and was referenced by sources representing both POVs in that debate. If she had just wanted to add a source or two I doubt anyone would have minded (other high quality sources had already been presented for the other side on the talk page but weren't included in the article; many could have been added for both sides, though personally I think three per side is enough). The one link she admitted removing above [60] features articles by several prominent economists and policy experts who are certainly RS for representing their side of this debate. She also added undiscussed text changes lower on the page, and new sources, including a partisan blog called "538.com" [61], a left wing think tank piece [62], and a NY Times opinion piece [63]. Basically EllenCT deleted all the sources she politically opposes, added more she agrees with, and replaced neutral text with POV sentiment expressed as fact in Wikipedia's voice at a (cherry-picked) niche detail level inappropriate for a broad summary country article.

I'll define these changes to her preferred version on inequality as change "X". That EllenCT's new statement omitted most of the sources she removed and added underscores that people shouldn't take anything she says at face value. Verify everything.

EllenCT's desired "X" is currently opposed by respondents on the RFC she started 6-2, with even the two qualifying their support by saying the other side should be represented. Not all the editors who reverted her have even responded to the RFC.

2. [64] Unilateral changes to a tax segment I'll define as change "Z". It was not merely a tweak to her own previous edit, as she falsely claims. It was in a completely different section than her previous edit and she deleted most of the paragraph, as anyone can see by clicking the diff. This has stood for years and represents long standing consensus. She also fails to mention that she deleted this peer reviewed scholarly paper [65], this analysis by the The Washington Post [66], this CNBC piece [67], this CNN article [68], this NPR article [69], this Washington Times article [70] and this Tax Policy Center report [71] , among others. Contrary to her claim, she has so far failed to produce any sources that contradict the segment in question, and many more have since been produced on the talk page confirming the segment. I don't recall anything about the first source she does admit to removing here, but conservative think tanks are just as valid sources as the leftist think tanks are that dot the article and are frequently added by EllenCT herself. Her second link is busted, but originally went to a PGPF (moderately right leaning think tank) that usefully provided clear chart visuals. The visuals were based on numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute. Her third link went to a Hoover piece providing info on social security history (along with another source). It's used to source a different segment below (not deleted by EllenCT) and someone must have accidentally moved it up at some point. I have no problem with deleting the duplicate.

By my quick count the ongoing discussion she started (and soon abandoned) on removing this segment stands at 6-3 opposed, again, not even counting all the editors who reverted her.

3. [72] Text change "Z". The Washington Times is a mainstream newspaper and the news article she removed is just reporting on a CBO release.

4. [73] Partial "Z". Her "somewhat" is closer to being the "weasel" wording that she falsely accuses us of using.

5. [74] "Z". EllenCT's claim that here she just added a tag is false. You can see EllenCT also removed the clause "and is among the most progressive in the developed world." and the same peer reviewed paper [75] mentioned before. That's the segment she's consistently opposed the most. For her to add that I should be "admonished" for supposedly misleading anyone requires unimaginable gall.

Update: Since I posted this EllenCT has radically altered her #"5". She originally said, "if you look carefully, all this edit did was add a {{pov-section}} tag. User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to mislead arbitrators by suggesting this was evidence of edit warring;". Cutting through the rhetorical nonsense, she does now concede her initial claim to have only added a POV tag was wrong. However, it's unclear why she feels that the peer reviewed, widely cited academic study by Northwestern University researchers (who if anything appear to favor a robust welfare state) published in the Oxford journal Socio-Economic Review is a "political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank" source.

6. [76] "X". Contrary to her edit summary, clearly the statement is very much disputed.

7. [77] "X".

8. [78] "Z". The political party/link stuff she tacks on higher up is an irrelevant distraction that should be handled separately.

9. [79] "X".

10. [80] "X"; "Z".

11. [81] "X"; "Z".

Clearly these aren't just changes to her own previous edits as she now exclaims, or she wouldn't have to keep making the same edits over and over again. The talk page discussions she mentions, which didn't even involve all of her attempted edits, have been going strongly against her, as I've shown above with links. VictorD7 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EllenCT's "Additional source analysis"

Again, she didn't link to a single edit by me. I'm not removing the sources she claims I'm removing, and I didn't add all the sources she attaches my name to (e.g. I didn't know that one Heritage Foundation article she keeps citing was even there, though Heritage is as legitimate a source as CBPP, EPI, and some of the other left wing think tanks used throughout this article and Wikipedia. I and other editors have primarily clicked "undo" because of her contentious text changes. Even then most of the "EllenCT" sources she lists below remained in the article after the reverts (because they were already in the article). She also omits the vast majority of the sources she's tried to remove, including the ones I cited above from mostly left leaning and/or government outfits. Her descriptions of the sources are false in key places and sometimes ludicrous. She actually calls a partisan blog a "secondary news source" while dismissing an actual news article from the mainstream Washington Times paper simply covering the salient facts of a CBO release. She also dismisses The Wall Street Journal, the country's largest circulated paper and winner of 39 Pulitzer Prizes, as a reliable source, rejects CNBC in part for "political" reasons (it's of course left not right leaning, like the rest of NBC), and doesn't seem to realize that sourcing policy treats accomplished, notable experts like Martin Feldstein (who was also an Obama adviser, ran the NBER for decades, and was pushed as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman by the NY Times) and some of the prominent economists in the conservative "think tank" source she rejects as experts regardless of what outlet they're publishing in. Here they're being used merely to represent one side of a POV in what's undeniably a controversy, along with sources from the other side. If anyone actually finds her new section compelling then please let me know and I'll respond in greater detail, but for now it seems unnecessary to bother doing that to such distorted garbage.

I'll just summarize by saying that her three "inequality" sources (Hayes/Bartels/Page), none of which have been removed by me and are still in the article, all have more self included caveats than the peer reviewed Brunner article she tries to diminish by citing a caveat (the Brunner article directly criticizes the methodology of Bartels and similar researchers and disputes their conclusion, saying, "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Of course all these studies use samples, not the entire US population, and every such study is highly subjective in construction). Another scholarly article [82] by authors seemingly sympathetic to Bartels' political aims finds methodological flaws in his work and fails to replicate his findings when those flaws are corrected. EllenCT's sources concede their own work is "crude", "tentative", and doesn't represent the expert consensus. They say more research is required before firm conclusions are drawn, and at least one of them even makes the same causality point she quotes for Brunner below. They even list by name several scholars who disagree with them, and call one book (Macro Polity [83] that disagrees with them "influential" in the field (presented as evidence by me on the talk page but not added to the article). By presenting their admittedly less than certain opinion as the consensus and as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice, EllenCT isn't even representing her own sources faithfully, and is dismissing countless sources that disagree in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

I'll add that my purpose here was to report EllenCT's edit warring and correct some of her false statements, not make a content argument, but I will say that the main sources I've added have been ones like this secondary OECD source summarizing the field's consensus on the tax issue ([84] OECD, 2012, p 27): "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."

Perhaps EllenCT feels the OECD has joined the vast right wing conspiracy that's supposedly persecuting her and undermining her crusade for "social justice", but she hasn't produced a single source disputing that segment. The one piece she cites, hypocritically a leftist think tank called CBPP [85] (apparently only conservative ones are off limits), acknowledges that US taxes are relatively progressive, but simply changes the subject to spending and overall income inequality reduction, as it views those topics as more conducive to its political agenda. However, income inequality is already extensively covered in the US article's Income section, and on overall redistribution I added this segment myself to the article's Economics section long ago ([86], [87]): "It (the US) has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income through government action than European nations tend to.[406]" sourced by the same 2012 OECD report quoted above [88] (not the same one mentioned in EllenCT's CBPP piece, btw).

I'm not the one engaging in POV editing here. I'm just covering the issues faithfully from all appropriate angles. Tax progressivity is a valid stand alone issue in its own right for reasons that aren't limited to a narrow concern for income equality, including impact on growth and revenue volatility. The basic underlying fact on tax structure isn't in dispute, unlike the opinionated, speculative, causal statements on income inequality, but EllenCT is trying to delete or misrepresent this tax topic because she perceives it as disadvantageous to her political crusade. If administrators really want to focus on POV editing, I'll be happy to shift gears and do so since EllenCT is the most tendentious editor I've encountered on Wikipedia (many other editors have said the same thing about her), but that would involve much greater commentary and possibly hundreds of diffs, and I had preferred to keep this report narrowly focused on her clear, recent edit warring.

I'll close by noting that some of the sources focusing on federal taxation were included because the article segment contains a mention of federal taxes. The busted PGPF link she attacks below (with some low brow partisan hit pieces) was to a clear, educational explanation of different federal tax components. It has since been updated and moved [89]. As you can see, it's well sourced and entirely uses numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a left leaning source. Compare the numbers to verify this [90]. PGPF just drew useful graphs, so wasting time discussing their alleged bias is a silly distraction (though the piece is very reasonable and non-partisan). For overall taxation there's the 2012 OECD summary quoted above, the peer reviewed article example [91] EllenCT kept deleting but again failed to mention below, or this Washington Post analysis [92]. Plus there are examples I've posted on the talk page, like this from NY Times economics writer Eduardo Porter [93] (also quoted in this 2014 Economics textbook [94], page 428): "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations." EllenCT cites a different NY Times analysis on another topic as "reliable" below, so surely even she concedes this one is too. Or this Harvard Business Review article [95]: "The U.S. already has about the most progressive income tax system around. European social democracies tend to have flatter income taxes, plus value-added taxes that hit all consumers. They tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than regular income, just as the U.S. does, but they also all have lower corporate tax rates than the U.S." Or this topical scholarly book actually laying out historical reasons why Europe has more regressive taxation than America ([96]; Making the Modern American Fiscal State; Ajay K. Mehrotra; Cambridge University Press; 2013; p 17): "When other Western industrialized democracies began experimenting with broad-based, regressive consumption taxes as a way to finance modern social-welfare spending, the United States resisted this seemingly global trend. Other modern democracies were willing to try crude forms of consumption taxes as supplements to income taxation; together these taxes generated tremendous revenue that was spent to counter the regressive incidence of consumption taxes. By contrast, the United States refrained from moving beyond income as the primary base for national taxation. As a result, rather than develop a comprehensive view of the fiscal state’s tax-and-transfer powers, policymakers in the United States became mired in a preoccupation with the progressivity of the American income tax system, with the process of extracting revenue, with “soaking the rich.” They failed to see how the regressive incidence of broad-based consumption taxes could be countered by progressive state spending on social-welfare provisions."

EllenCT ignored all these reliable sources and plunged into edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actual source list

All of EllenCT's diffs are to her own edits, not mine, so I don't see how her misleading chart can possibly be considered evidence of anything against me, but since this appears to be becoming a content dispute I'll post a much more representative chart, featuring the sources actually added by the two of us to the article or the talk page. I'll ask @Rhoark: or anyone else who accepted EllenCT's characterization at face value to read this and reconsider. I challenge anyone to explain how her sources are "stronger" or more "mainstream" than mine. They aren't even close. Furthermore, she didn't even accurately represent her own sources. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tax issue.

Source	Contributed by	In support of	Reliable?
Isabelle Joumard; Mauro Pisu; Debbie Bloch (2012). "Tackling income inequality The role of taxes and transfers" (PDF). OECD Journal: Economic Studies: 27.	VictorD7	"..and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	Yes. It's a 2012 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development secondary source summarizing the field's conclusion. The OECD is a major international government organization and, like the IMF and World Bank, is routinely used to cite the economic facts that appear in every Wikipedia country article. (p. 13) "And household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries." (page 27) "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."
Prasad, M.; Deng, Y. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005.	VictorD7	"..and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	Yes. It's the most comprehensive peer reviewed study on the subject, and is widely cited in field literature (including the OECD report above). Its results are extremely robust and unambiguous. It shows US taxation is more progressive than in Europe at the federal income tax level, and the gap widens even more when other taxes, especially state/local and European consumption taxes (VAT), are considered. Fully accessible version:[97]
Mankiw, N. (2014). Principles of Economics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 428.	VictorD7	"..and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	Yes. A quality economics textbook is RS. The segment in question was written by Eduardo Porter, a NY Times economics writer, and this quote was also published in the NY Times [98]: "''...the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations.''"
Matthews, Dylan (September 19, 2012). "Other countries don't have a "47%"". The Washington Post.	VictorD7	"..and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	Yes. The Washington Post is a major national paper and this analysis piece is used because it provides clear, reader friendly visuals of the peer reviewed Prasad/Deng paper for those whose eyes may glaze over when poring through academic research.
Mehrotra, Ajay K. (Sep 30, 2013). Making the Modern American Fiscal State: Law, Politics, and the Rise of Progressive Taxation, 1877–1929. Cambridge University Press. p. 17.	VictorD7	"..and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	Yes. The Cambridge University Press is the oldest publishing house in the world, and widely respected. This scholarly secondary analysis traces the history of progressive taxation, and explains in detail why Europe embraced regressive taxation to fund its expansive welfare state while the US opted for progressive taxation instead, reinforcing what every other source has said on the subject.
Congressional Budget Office (2012). "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 3 April 2013.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..."	Yes. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan civil service agency in the federal government responsible for producing much of the most widely cited statistic material about the US. This source has since been supplanted by more recent CBO publications that say the same thing. (p. 3) "The federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income."
"How Much Do Americans Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. April 15, 2014.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..."	Yes. Reliability is context specific. PGPF is a mildly right leaning think tank that's used in this case because it clearly breaks down federal tax rates by income level and component with educational visual displays. The numbers are taken entirely from the Tax Policy Center, which anyone can easily verify for himself with a click. PGPF just drew the charts and added descriptions in neutral, undeniable commentary. The tone of this PGPF is moderate and not stridently partisan; in fact it leads off supporting the Democratic talking point that those who say half the country isn't paying taxes are disregarding payroll taxes, though in a piece by piece breakdown they show that overall federal taxation is extremely progressive anyway. Anyone who has a problem with this source really has a problem with the TPC.
"Table T13-0174 Average Effective Federal Tax Rates by Filing Status; by Expanded Cash Income Percentile, 2014". Tax Policy Center.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..."	Yes. The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, both prominent left leaning think tanks [99], and along with the CBO is one of two organizations with its own microsimulation model that it uses to regularly produce widely cited tax rate breakdowns (e.g. AP articles like this one in the Seattle Times [100]). Its subjective write ups tend to favor liberal positions but its hard tax numbers are respected across the political spectrum.
"Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014?" (PDF). Citizens for Tax Justice. April 7, 2014.	EllenCT	Deleting the international comparison	No, not in this factual context. Citizens for Tax Justice is an obscure partisan lobbying group mostly just cited on low quality liberal blogs. It uses an opaque methodology, its results are without corroboration, and its federal tax rate component is strongly contradicted by more reliable sources like the CBO and Tax Policy Center, while the latter independently produce results that closely track each other over time, reinforcing their credibility. That's why EllenCT's attempts to force its chart into various Wikipedia articles over the years have been repeatedly rejected by editors (e.g. [101]) That said, this source makes no international comparison so it's not pertinent to this issue even if one accepts it as definitive. It also concedes that overall US taxation is "progressive" (it adds the qualifier "barely", based on its skewed numbers, but that's still progressive, and other sources show European taxation is actually regressive). The source is currently in the article, left by me and other editors if people want to read it and to further support overall US tax progressivity, though none of its numbers or charts are.
Chye--Ching Huang; Nathaniel Frentz (May 13, 2014). "What Do OECD Data Really Show About U.S. Taxes and Reducing Inequality?". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.	EllenCT	Deleting international comparison	A left wing think tank founded by a Jimmy Carter appointee, CBPP is reliable for its own views, but this source doesn't dispute that US taxation is more progressive than European taxation (indeed, it seems to accept it as fact), and the OECD paper it comments on was a 2008 report showing that the US income tax is more progressive than other OECD income taxes, not the more recent OECD report I cited above that comments on research on overall taxation. This CBPP page just argues that European governments redistribute more income overall if welfare spending is counted, a fairly non-controversial fact I added to the US article's Economy section myself several months ago but that's beside the point in this tax structure discussion. This source has been left in the article because, if anything, it just further supports the segment.

Other editors have added various other sources, but not a single source actually disputing the segment has been provided.

Inequality

Source	Contributed by	In support of	Reliable?
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Yes, but not for the authoritative, unattributed, POV assertion EllenCT seeks to make in Wikipedia's voice. That requires an established expert consensus, and this vague, inherently speculative causal claim unsurprisingly lacks one. This source itself concedes that (p. 565), "..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making." EllenCT's own chief source explicitly states that its view is disputed by "many" (its word) scholars, rendering her preferred language untenable. It also says (p. 564), "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem. Our measures are far from perfect, but we hope that this first step will help inspire further research into what we see as some of the most fundamental questions about American politics." Like the other sources, its methodology can be criticized for bias in the subjective poll/vote selection (polling usually depends heavily on question wording, and is almost useless for complex issues) and interpretation.
Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Same as above. Bartels also concedes he can't prove the causal link asserted as fact in EllenCT's text (p. 29-31), "It is important to reiterate that I have been using the terms “responsiveness” and “representation” loosely to refer to the statistical association between constituents’ opinions and their senators’ behavior. Whether senators behave the way they do because their constituents have the opinions they do is impossible to gauge using the research design employed here." Bartels also defines "economic elites" as those making over $40,000 a year. That's not what most Americans think of when they hear the term "economic elites", underscoring the massive role subjective construction plays in examining complex issues like this. With differently chosen parameters results can change wildly. Like Gilens, he goes on to state "There is clearly a great deal more work to be done investigating the mechanisms by which economic inequality gets reproduced in the political realm", and conceded "the significant limitations of my data and the crudeness of my analysis" meant more work is needed.
Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Same as above. Hayes defines "economic elites" as those making over $75,000 a year, and actually gets radically different results than Bartels for party behavior, finding that Democrats cater more to the affluent while Republicans cater more to the middle class. Hayes makes the same concessions about the limitations of his analysis that the other two do.
Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes, especially since this peer reviewed academic article is merely being used to support the undeniable claim that there are differing POVs on this topic. This source criticizes the methods employed by sources like EllenCT's, explicitly naming Bartels, and produces results contradicting them (intro): "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation.... Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation." They cite other researchers (p. 3): "In contrast to Bartels, these authors conclude that higher income constituents are not better represented." They go on to conduct their own study also contradicting Bartels' findings. That their study uses CA as a setting is no more relevant than the fact that EllenCT's sources focus on a single half branch of government (the Senate) to draw conclusions about US politics in general.
Robert S. Erikson Professor of Political Science Columbia University; Yosef Bhatti Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen (January 2011). "How Poorly are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?". In Enns, Peter (ed.). “Who Gets Represented” (PDF). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes, it's a scholarly book chapter prepared by credentialed experts. They criticize Bartels' methodology and say that, once the flaws are corrected, they fail to replicate his results.
Robert S. Erikson; Michael B. Mackuen; James A. Stimson (Jan 14, 2002). Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes, in fact is cited by EllenCT's own Gilens source as being "very influential" among the "many" scholars who disagree with his opinion.
Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes, of course. The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read and respected business publication in the world, and has the #1 circulation of any paper in the US. This source is just used to represent Martin Feldstein's POV on the debate, and it's undeniably as expert a view as one can get. EllenCT dismisses him as a Reagan adviser, but our article also points out that he was an Obama adviser, presided over the NBER for decades, and was supported by the NY Times as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman.
"Income Inequality in America, Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes, for representing its authors' POV on the broader inequality debate. The "About the authors" list (p. 30) features an impressively credentialed array of academics, Treasury Department employees, and researchers who have held various other posts in government and/or the private sector. For EllenCT to reject all conservative think tanks even after she's added liberal think tanks, lobbying groups, and blogs as sources is mind boggling.

Contrary to EllenCT's claim, none of her sources above have been removed. She's the one removing reliable sources that dispute her text, and she hasn't even faithfully represented her own sources. This is clearly not a mature research field with a firm consensus. There isn't even a consensus on how to approach or define all the pertinent concepts on this issue, let alone consensus results. Indeed there are recent primary research papers producing results that are all over the place. If the various views have to be laid out, that should take place on other, more topically dedicated articles and all significant views should be laid out fully and neutrally.

Her segment "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." was removed because editors deemed it inappropriate for the article, not for sourcing per se, especially given the increasing number of complaints about the US page being too long (it's the longest country article on Wikipedia) and already having too much undue emphasis on "inequality". That said, it's a horribly sourced WP:SOAPBOX sentence making certain causal claims on a very complex issue where there are countless views.

Source	Contributed by	In support of	Reliable?
Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	A partisan blog founded by a former Daily Kos blogger. While it may be reliable for its own views, it's a very low quality source. No "reputation for fact checking" has been established, and we're dealing with opinions here anyway. These are extremely slanted.
Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	A brief NY Times opinion piece that doesn't establish anything in the way of consensus. It doesn't even mention "the gender pay gap", "productivity", or "welfare", and therefore doesn't come close to supporting EllenCT's POV/OR wording.
Tcherneva, Pavlina R. "When A Rising Tide Sinks Most Boats: Trends in US Income Inequality" (PDF). Levy Economics Institute. `{{cite web}}`: line feed character in `\|title=` at position 30 (help)	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	It's a non-peer reviewed opinion piece by an assistant professor published on the website of a left leaning think tank. Another weak source mostly just useful for supporting its own POV on a complex issue. BTW, the Levy Institute takes donations just like other think tanks do [102]

If she wanted to add a source like these to the "debate" sentence I wouldn't mind, but they fail in supporting the sentence she tried to add. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark:, I appreciate your recent comments. I agree with you about excessive sourcing providing opportunities to derail things, though I'll reiterate that I didn't add all the sources EllenCT attributes to me (in fact she still hasn't posted a single link to an edit I've made). Like @Capeo:, I'm not sure mediation would be helpful or necessary in this case. Talk Page/article consensus on these matters should be sufficient as long as enough responsible editors are paying attention at any given time and EllenCT's edit warring ends. VictorD7 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT:, you just claimed "The CBPP source, clarifying the meaning of "progressive" that the OECD sources occasionally use, has never been included in or proposed for inclusion in the United States article, which is probably why Victor did not choose to associate his source descriptions with diffs." Not only have you linked to that source here and on the US talk page, but here are several diffs of you inserting it into the article: [103], [104], [105], [106]

In the first one you even give that source inclusion its own edit. The source is currently in the article, as I said. This is a long running pattern with EllenCT, and shows what countless editors on various articles have had to deal with over the years with this editor. I ask reviewing administrators @HJ Mitchell: , @Dennis Brown:, @JzG: to consider whether a site ban is in order. Serial lying, among other things, has made rational, productive collaboration with EllenCT impossible. It's caused me and many others to waste enormous amounts of time unraveling the falsehoods and cleaning up the messes. There should at least be some consequence for such blatant misrepresentation at AE.

As for the rest of your new post, EllenCT, I said the NY Times opinion piece didn't support your edit. I just said the Levy Institute was a low quality source, though I also said that particular edit was removed more because it was inappropriate for the article than because of sourcing per se. Every source I listed above has either been put into the article or has been posted in the ongoing talk page discussions. I didn't bother with diffs for time reasons, but if you want to challenge anything in particular, be my guest. I can back everything up, as I just showed with your CBPP source.

And, while it's irrelevant since your initial claim would still have been completely wrong anyway, and while this seems like a lame attempt to canvass/summon an editor you know to be hostile to me, Protonk says he's not an administrator on his own talk page [107], meaning you've been caught in yet another blatant falsehood. So thanks for the link. I'm still not holding my breath waiting for an apology. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the canvass/summons worked. I could play that game too if I was so inclined, but I'll refrain. I'll just reply by noting that Protonk's link was to a different article where I corrected the record on the close of an RFC with a horribly biased construction, and where my comments prompted the closer to admit he had committed at least one error. Protonk wasn't involved, but he came in after the discussion had largely played out. I admonished him for his subsequent behavior and unwarranted hostility. He has problems with me as an editor. The feeling is mutual, and I'm glad he's not an administrator. VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: "Mistakes"? [108] You call going out of your way to deny that a source had ever been in the article or even proposed for inclusion when you personally did both several times over the past few weeks a mistake? Wow. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, that was my point, and what I meant by "canvass/summons" - naming someone to get his attention in hopes he shows up because one already knows where he stands on an issue. You were named by EllenCT. At that point it was already done, and I had to mention your name to clearly address her claim. I wasn't blaming you for showing up, though I will note that our interaction over a year ago is quite stale and has nothing to do with EllenCT's edit warring of recent weeks or her debunked claims about my source use. Administrators here have already even dismissed the failed ANI sanctions attempt against me from several months ago as pointless to raise. VictorD7 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I didn't say "canvassing", but "canvass/summons", though reading the WP:CANVASS page I'm not sure that the stand alone word doesn't apply. The description is broad and the essential point involves selectively notifying editors known to agree with one side in hopes they join the debate. Regardless, whether I coined a new term or not, I made it clear what I meant. EllenCT notified you by posting your name, and it worked; indeed you replied within minutes. I could summon many editors who have had problems with EllenCT and/or have had productive, positive interactions with me, but have refrained from doing so since that would violate at least the spirit of the canvassing rule, and because an examination of clear evidence should carry the day here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, good question. Especially since a petty, insane rant laced with (false) personal attacks against me sitting there in the admin section hardly gives one confidence that this is a fair process. I even offered to delete all my comments on the matter in exchange for him deleting his last two posts, a reasonable request that was apparently rejected.

I'm still not sure precisely what Guy is confused about. I posted evidence of misconduct by EllenCT and she failed to provide any evidence at all regarding me (not a single link). If he has any questions I'd be happy to answer them and help clear things up. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request that Gamaliel recuse himself

Gamaliel and I had a prolonged (several month long) content dispute on another article last year that became personal and nasty at times. Among other things, he engaged in trolling by replying to serious, on topic comments with giant pictures, linking to youtube videos in edit summaries, and on at least one occasion abusing his admin powers to delete a harmless edit summary in the dispute he was involved in. He ultimately acknowledged [109] that he had behaved in ways that he "should be ashamed of" and announced he would leave the article (this was after the content dispute had been settled in my favor by multiple RFCs), though his apology wasn't to me but the general community, and in fact in that post he doubled down on his false claim that I was a "SPA" (single purpose account, meaning an account that only edits one article, the implication being that one is a paid editor or has some other personal COI).

The only reason I didn't bring this up immediately after he first posted below was that I was hoping enough other admins would jump in that his presence wouldn't matter and/or this would be settled quickly. Unfortunately neither appears to be the case; in fact Gamaliel has done more posting in the Result section than anyone else, and I'm disturbed both by his initial (still unretracted) false comment implying I haven't posted any recent evidence of EllenCT edit warring, and his new claim both accepting EllenCT's "evidence" against me at face value despite her failing to link to a single edit by me and suggesting that her position is somehow more "mainstream" than mine, which is clearly baseless, especially given the source evidence I've posted above.

I don't want to dredge up stale details or renew a feud (we haven't interacted since then), but if Gamaliel honestly intends to be a fair arbiter, which may very well be the case, that's even more reason to scrupulously recuse oneself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I would recuse myself if the roles were reversed so everyone involved would be confident there had been a fair hearing.

Gamaliel also involved himself in this debate by participating in this RS noticeboard discussion [110].

Surely there are plenty of administrators around who haven't had hostile interactions with me in the past that became so over the top that it led to them announcing they were "ashamed" and leaving an article. It's only reasonable that they review and decide this case. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Specifico

Update: @SPECIFICO: - That's what he claimed but I and other editors offered evidence he was the problem. Given his closing comment you and I have very different definitions of graciousness, but I appreciate you admitting that you were involved in that dispute (on his side) too. Since multiple RFCs saw the community agree with me on the sourcing dispute perhaps I'm fit to operate a computer and edit Wikipedia after all. Gamaliel claims my statements are false. They're not. His are false, from me being an "SPA" (read whom not to accuse of that) to being belligerent or a POV pusher. That said, if @Gamaliel: completely deletes his last two posts (up to HJ Mitchell's) and replaces them with the simple line "I recuse myself", and you (Specifico) delete your comment on our exchange, I will delete my entire "Gamaliel" section body (along with this paragraph) and replace it with the line "Thank you for recusing yourself." Then maybe this process could get back on track.

Specifico and I have clashed before, and he's sided with EllenCT in disputes with various other editors over the years, so while he's not involved in this particular debate he's not exactly neutral. I have no idea whether he's really an economist, though I haven't seen him exhibit any specialized knowledge. He has exhibited strong political views. Regardless, appeals to personal authority on Wikipedia should be totally disregarded. What matters are substance and evidence, not who's posting it.

The section he links to [111] starts with EllenCT calling out another editor for reverting her latest edit warring attempt. She had changed the text in multiple sections against strong editor opposition, and removed numerous sources [112],[113], including multiple peer reviewed academic journal articles and mainstream news sources, yet her op only mentions two minor sources she's supposedly trying to get rid of that had nothing to do with the text she removed (they sourced a text segment she let remain), and leads off with an irrelevant party label issue that had nothing to do with the contentious portions of her edits.

There's no basis here for concluding that EllenCT was trying to "raise an important policy-based principle as to the sourcing and due weight of article content". That's certainly not her pattern over the years (I do encourage you to go through her history, and explore the links posted here by Mattnad), and her section op misleadingly omitted most of the sources she had just deleted. No source argument was made for changing the text she changed, except to post a link to a partisan think tank that was the left wing equivalent of what she was railing against but that she wrongly claimed proved the segment she opposed was wrong (it doesn't even dispute it). She added wild, confrontational rhetoric like "puffery" and "weasel" wording that doesn't apply, and repeated a false claim about the reverting editor supposedly disregarding "the unanimous and repeated endorsement of the four income inequality RFCs" that I debunked in my initial "Statement" section above.

- My reply simply warned her to stop edit warring, because I was hoping to avoid reporting her. She responded with hostile comments about "trickle down" (a political obsession she frequently mentions, though it has nothing to do with the edits or sources in question), accused me of favoring "paid advocacy", and vowed to continue reverting "for as long as is necessary".

- I corrected her civilly by listing several of the sources she deleted, and pointed out that none of them are "paid advocacy" or have anything to do with "trickle down".

- She replied with a nonsensical, "That opinion is not grounded in guidelines or policy. Your POV fringe sources that you have been continuously pushing for years are far out of the mainstream." No evidence of this was presented.

- I observed that none of the sources I had just listed are "fringe" or represent the view she claims they do.

- Without rationally, substantively addressing what I said, she then posted to condemn me for being the latest editor to revert her, including the complaint that the revert had restored a defunct link in the unrelated party label segment she had tacked onto the top of her edit. I suggested that if she really cares about that link then edit the segment separately. A few days later she again tucked that segment into an edit [114] that made the same massive contentious changes, but her edit summary only mentioned the party label item and "other things".

- After she was reverted again, she tellingly replied to decline my last piece of advice to edit the party label link separately, and falsely accused me of breaking the link in the first place (I think archiving did that, but I'm not the one who added the link and I haven't specifically followed its fate). There was nothing inappropriate in my replies there.

EllenCT constantly throws out ad hominem invective and straw man arguments, and misrepresents sources, editors, and edits. She's repeatedly accused me and other editors of everything from "paid editing" to abusive lying to incompetence to bad faith, without a scrap of evidence. At times editors of all political stripes have lost patience with her tendentious posting, but if anything it's amazing how restrained I've been with her.

Another example:

- After I reply to another poster EllenCT swoops in to claim that a recent ANI (the old one she linked to above) had seen "experienced editors" overwhelmingly "ivote" to topic ban me. [115]

- I reply by saying that's false, that most respondents opposed the sanction attempt, and advised her to refrain from derailing the discussion with ad hominem diversions.

- She invites "those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions" to "count the !votes", and claims "Victors supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with WP:COMPETENCE issues", while "the experienced administrators overwhelmingly supported the topic ban", and she indicates she's tired of my alleged "POV pushing". [116]

- Using an admin identity tool page I confirm that the only admin to have even voted in the ANI poll voted against the sanction.

- She now admits that many people she had thought were admins are actually only editors (she provides no explanation for her earlier confusion), but names one other admin she claims voted for the sanction. [117]

- I confirm that no, the other editor she named is not an admin. As much if not more experience was on the side of those who opposed the sanction, including the only admin to vote. I suggest she apologize for accusing me of bad faith, especially since she's been forced to concede the premise of her own "good faith" test isn't true. She leaves the thread and never apologizes or retracts her attack. [118]

This is a typical exchange with EllenCT. How is rational collaboration possible here? VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: - I referred to Specifico as "he" earlier because I've seen reports stating that 90% of Wikipedia editors are male, so that's usually a safe assumption unless a screenname or something else indicates one is female, and to keep with traditional grammar norms of using the male pronoun when in doubt. Of course if Specifico was to say he/she is female I would use the feminine pronoun. I'll use he/she here as a stopgap since he/she raised the issue to complain, and because I'm not a fan of using the plural "they" to refer to one person. "It" would work, but some might take offense. Not a big deal, but I'll note that apparently Specifico himself/herself was rebuked for calling an editor he/she already knew to be female by male pronouns earlier this year [119], [120]. If he/she is male after all it would be unfortunate if he/she was just trying to further derail this process with a frivolous pronoun complaint.

Specifico did appeal to personal authority by identifying himself/herself as an "economist" to buttress his/her assertion that EllenCT was supposedly raising legitimate sourcing points, but failing to support his/her claim with specifics or an actual argument. Contrary to Specifico's assertion, EllenCT does not have a "frequent preference for peer-reviewed sources." Just because EllenCT repeatedly says something doesn't make it true, as the above evidence shows.

That Specifico was topic banned [121] last year for biased, often mocking/trollish editing should cause anyone to take his/her unsupported assertions about me or any other person's editing with a heap of salt.

Specifico asserts I'm fixated on him/her? On the contrary, I've scarcely given Specifico a second thought since our last interaction until he/she showed up here to attack me and defend EllenCT (as he's/she's done in the past). He's/she's the one who's creepily attached himself/herself to certain "enemies". For example, Specifico has posted 389(!) times on this other editor's talk page [122], mostly to harass with excessive "warnings", interjecting himself/herself into discussions he/she wasn't involved in, or faux praising (like encouraging the editor to have someone nominate him for admin on April 1st)). He/She's frequently accused this editor (and now apparently me) of "misogyny" and sexism without any basis whatsoever apart from the fact that the editor he was criticizing at the time happened to be a woman (also EllenCT). A quick scan suggests that the editor often just ignores or archives Specifico's posts. Specifico likely followed this other editor to the article where we clashed, and by "clashed" I just meant that he/she disagreed with virtually everything I said or did. He/she joined a small group of other editors in POV pushing by ignoring policy and applying partisan double standards. Ultimately the matter was resolved by multiple RFCs, but I appreciate his/her link as a sample scan shows what I had to deal with there for a long time. In one discussion near the top Specifico opposed an attributed quote from an RS source already used extensively in the movie article (Box Office Mojo) supposedly because it contained the word "fantastic". He/she and a couple of his/her ideological fellow travelers insisted they didn't know what it meant, despite in context it being clear to any modern English speaking reader that it was praise. He/she expressed confusion about what he/she called my "Hollywood jive jargon" and said a "Sri Lankan monk" might get the wrong idea from it. Then he/she accused me of committing "OR", when original research obviously can't apply to a direct quote from a single source.

One of the times Specifico showed up to my talk page resulted in a typical exchange.

- Specifico starts a section claiming I was wrong to say that consensus is required to remove a long standing item from a page. He/she snarkily adds, "Please review policy or consult others who can explain it further to you." [123]

- I disagree, pointing out that long standing material is assumed to be consensus (per WP:EDITCONSENSUS), and that not only is there no consensus for removing the item, but that a majority of participating editors oppose removal.

- He/She replied briefly with more snark, sans specifics, and left the section. [124], [125]

Specifico has swooped in various times when I or someone else was engaged with EllenCT. In these examples I posted evidence that she had been (falsely) accusing me of being a paid editor, a serious charge on Wikipedia that shouldn't be recklessly tossed around or made for cynical tactical advantage. [126], [127]. The first link was him/her doing a driveby post reaching the false conclusion that EllenCT had only been calling my sources "paid advocacy", not my editing. The second was months later in a section on EllenCT's talk page where one of her ideological fellow travelers was taking her to task for baselessly accusing me of paid editing (he did also falsely accuse me of POV pushing, because I favor sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, IRS, and OECD over the lobbying group CTJ, while tossing out some bizarre off topic crap about the KKK, but it's noteworthy that even some of her ideological allies have taken exception to her over the top personal attacks; here's another example [128] read the other editor's comment above hers, [129]), and Specifico showed up to repeat his claim that he/she had seen no evidence of EllenCT accusing me of paid editing, asking that someone produce it. So I did, complete with links to her quotes (esp. ""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?"). Specifico never replied or acknowledged this evidence. He/She just abandoned the thread.

Specifico's characterizations of my interactions with EllenCT and general conduct are uncolored by facts like these (aka what actually happened).

He/She also makes a habit of baselessly accusing others of gender hostility/discrimination. Specifico derailed this noticeboard discussion of EllenCT's conduct (which I wasn't involved in) by leveling the blanket accusation of sexism on those participating. [130] When multiple editors took offense and asked Specifico to support his/her charge, he/she failed to do so. [131], [132], [133] The closest Specifico came to answering their reasonable questions was to actually suggest that editors should gender discriminate, by not treating female editors the same as they would a male editor, contradicting his/her earlier assertion that they had engaged in sex discrimination.

I also note that Specifico is currently working the talk pages of both Scolaire and Rhoark, attacking me there (with vague assertions again, of course) even after his/her "final comments" here, casting doubt on his/her claim to not have a personal stake here and to merely be a completely "uninvolved" editor. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And contrary to Specifico's claim, I've edited diverse topics here ranging from sports to history to politics to economics. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions request by EllenCT

I ask that Victor be required to follow the reliable source criteria by only including statements with sources supported by the secondary literature, which means no think tanks paying to manufacture supply side trickle down fabrications unless they pass peer review in an academic journal and agree with the literature reviews when the conclusive peer reviewed literature reviews are unanimous, along with the cadre tag team who support such views. The requirement should be enforceable by requiring administrators to enforce it in proportion to the severity of the transgression. EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response to arbitrator inquiry

Yes, as per boomerang judo, most of Victor's diffs. EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I assumed you could easily reverse Victor's diffs to see the unreviewed right-wing think tank sources he prefers. It's not like he denies trying to fight the conclusions of peer reviewed literature reviews with bought and paid for think tank sources he calls "scholarly" the same way a charter school using taxpayer money to teach young earth creationism might be called scholarly. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diff clarification, as requested

As requested, here is additional clarification about the diffs Victor presented, so here they each are with examples of the sources I was removing:

[134]: replaced the non-peer reviewed [135], which is contrary to e.g. the peer reviewed [136];
[137]: removed [138], [139], and [140] none of which were peer reviewed and all three of which are far right-wing "think tank" paid advocacy sources which almost always contradict the unanimous conclusive secondary peer reviewed sources. Please note this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, which by definition doesn't count towards any definition of edit warring;
[141]: [142] from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation again, and [143] from the far-right Washington Times, plus [144] from the far right Hoover Institution;
[145]: all this changed was "U.S. taxation is generally progressive" to "U.S. taxation is somewhat progressive" and corrected the link to the correct talk page section -- again, how is that even evidence of edit warring under any defintion?;
[146]: added a {{pov-section}} tag and removed WP:WEASEL WP:PUFFERY supported by right-wing manufactured paid advocacy fabrications.[147] User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to define upholding the reliable secondary conclusive unanimous sources above his preferred political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank sources as edit warring [updated EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)];[reply]
[148]: this is also clearly not edit warring because I was replacing additional material as approved by RFC, unanimously confirmed, and confirmed again later twice. Once again, it's an addition to my own edit, not even a revert or deletion;
[149]: again, this replaced non-peer reviewed sources such as [150] with peer-reviewed sources in agreement with the unanimous conclusive secondary sources such as [151] as was agreed by RFC outcome;
[152]: this changed "the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal" to "the Republican Party is often considered conservative and the Democratic Party is often considered liberal" in order to address a long-running talk page dispute in which I did not participate and has long since been archived. It also replaced "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world" which is abject WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL wording, to, "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes," with appropriate reliable sources, again replacing e.g. [153] and [154] which are known far right-wing sources which have never been approved in any talk page discussion;
[155]: this simply restored the unanimously confirmed RFC outcome as previously described. And for the fifth time, this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, and can not be considered edit warring under any possible definition;
[156]: this was a combination of other edits described above; and
[157]: same as above. 11 edits over 11 days, all of which had abundant talk page discussion interspersed, and five of which were adjustments to my own previous edits!

I strongly suggest that arbitrators at least try to form an opinion about this, because there is no doubt in my mind that VictorD7 will continue to complain about this dispute until it is resolved by someone other than myself. EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source analysis, as requested

Here is an analysis of the reliability of the sources involved, as requested by HJ Mitchell:

Source	Inserted by	In support of	Reliable?	Diff numbers
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Yes: peer reviewed academic journal source in agreement with literature review sections of peer reviewed publications on the same topic. No known literature review articles or meta analyses on the topic exist yet.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Yes: peer reviewed chapter in the academic press volume The Unsustainable American State by Lawrence Jacobs and Desmond King (2009) ISBN 9780195392135, in agreement with literature review sections of subsequent peer reviewed publications.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.	EllenCT	"Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy."	Yes: peer reviewed academic journal source in agreement with literature review sections of subsequent peer reviewed publications.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	No: National Affairs is not peer reviewed, and describes itself as following in the footsteps of "incomparable editor Irving Kristol," a far right-wing ideologue who our article describes as the "godfather of neo-conservatism."	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
"Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	No: the Manhattan Institute is a right-wing think tank known for paying writers to advocate the Institute's political points of view.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76. doi:10.1257/pol.5.2.53. Retrieved July 12, 2015.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	Yes; however, by limiting its analysis to only California Legislature bills, this source is not valid for the United States article. And as it says, "We note that our results are descriptive and cannot be interpreted causally."	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015.	VictorD7	"The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate."	No: The Wall Street Journal editorial page has extremely frequent issues with factual accuracy, and is a well known political mouthpiece of far right-wing ideologue billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Our article describes the author Martin Feldstein, "as chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan (where his deficit hawk views clashed with Reagan administration economic policies)."	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015.	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	Yes: the Levy Economics Institute is not a commercial think tank dependent upon political donors, but is supported by Bard College as an independent research organization with stringent editorial controls, academic publishing standards, and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. No known citing peer reviewed sources contradict its conclusions.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	Yes: as a WP:SECONDARY news source summary of recently published government data, the editorial control and reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally enjoyed by fivethirtyeight.com meet the reliable source criteria.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.	EllenCT	"The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."	Yes: New York Times news pieces covering Census Bureau data are appropriate WP:SECONDARY sources for the national summary article.	1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
"How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	No: The Peterson Foundation is a far right-wing deficit hawk organization which has pleged $1 billion for paid advocacy of its political points of view,[158] and frequently engages in push-polls.[159][160] Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes.	2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11
Jane Wells (December 11, 2013). "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes". CNBC. Retrieved January 14, 2015.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	No: CNBC has had several reliability issues on political topics, and a commentary article with hyperbole for a headline should never be considered reliable in a serious tertiary source. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes.	2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11
"Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes". Federal Budget. The Heritage Foundation. 2015. Retrieved January 14, 2015.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	No: the Heritage Foundation is a well known far-right advocacy organization which pays for advocacy of its political points of view. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes.	2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11
Stephen Dinan (July 10, 2012). "CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes". Washington Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015.	VictorD7	"U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."	No: The Washington Times is a far-right advocacy organization with very little original factual reporting on national issues. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes.	2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11

As shown, the sources which Victor is trying to delete all meet the highest standards of accuracy for a tertiary source, and the sources which he is trying to replace them with are all unreliable attempts to advance his political point of view. On the tax incidence debate, [161] helps explain the extent to which the underlying OECD data used in sources on both sides is frequently misrepresented by biased authors. EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to VictorD7's "Actual source list"

I will address each point in Victor's "Actual source list" if asked to do so, but at present I feel compelled only to point out how little familiarity he has with Wikipedia's reliable source criteria preferences for peer reviewed academic secondary sources. For example, he apparently sees no difference between an endowment-supported academic research institution such as Bard College's Levy Institute and explicitly chartered politically activist think tanks such as the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. He is also apparently unable to tell the difference between news organizations' factual reporting on government statistics, which I have included, and opinion pieces from newspaper "commentary" sections and op-ed pieces, which he has been trying to include. He apparently has not read the Tcherneva (2015) report, or at least never reached the final paragraph on page 7 ("....including a mechanism that links wage increases to productivity gains, prioritizes decent work for decent pay, commits to pay equity, reexamines comparable worth policies, and, importantly, implements an effective employment safety net at living wages for all") when he claims it doesn't support the summary of that conclusion. The CBPP source, clarifying the meaning of "progressive" that the OECD sources occasionally use, has never been included in or proposed for inclusion in the United States article, which is probably why Victor did not choose to associate his source descriptions with diffs. Some of his sources [I do not remember seeing] before and doubt they have ever been part of the article, either. Finally, even after he was corrected earlier, he still denies that User:Protonk, who supported his topic ban in his ANI boomerang discussion, is an administrator. EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitalismojo

I am not aware of any requirement that refs or sources be "peer reviewed". Reliable sources are the requirement, not academic peer review. I also don't see any diffs that show what (if any) violation Victor is supposed to have committed that needs enforcement or review. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only diffs are of the OP edit warring? This confuses me. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Just to clarify for the confused: This was originally raised at the edit-warring noticeboard by Victor against EllenCT as he alleged she was edit-warring (over the course of a week, rather than a straight 3rr). Admin's opined there it needed to go here as it was too complicated for them to deal with. Hence EllenCT raising it here and the confusing nature of the report. Personally I agree with Victor that EllenCT is edit-warring (given the evidence provided and the content of the talkpage) and should have been closed at the edit-warring noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT, The Washington Post is not a RS now then? I would want an RSN discussion on the material being cited that shows consensus for that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Capeo on this, if as an admin you are unable to follow Victors quite clear and plain evidence then why are you commenting here? What precisely is it you are unable to understand and I will try and explain using short words. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mattnad

EllenCT has been regularly pushing her POV across several articles and has particular interest in changing the United States Article into an indictment of income inequality. This has been a problem for a couple of years and the subject of multiple administrative discussions. As for her complaints about VictorD7, she has also complained [162] [ [163] about the one and only edit I've made to the article in more than a year.

VictorD7 has cataloged her recent patterns on this article, and here are some sample discussions around her past behavior:

It's overdue that EllenCT gets even a minor block for her pattern's of disruptive editing.Mattnad (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: @EllenCT: It would seem EllenCT objects to having the full view of all income quintiles when it comes to presentation of tax rates. Her preferred graphs excludes all taxpayers except top 1% and 0.1%. Since the article is about the United States it would seem the broader CBO graph is a better. Perhaps EllenCT might want to explain why she prefers a narrow view. Does she have some point she wants to make? What is it?Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Capeo

@Gamaliel:, you say that unless current evidence is supplied this should be closed without action but VictorD7 has supplied abundant difs above. Looking through them it seems quite clear the statements Ellen keeps trying to revert/change is sourced beyond doubt with multiple RS that include primary academic studies and secondary commentary on said studies from RS across the political spectrum. Capeo (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather dumbfounded by the admin response here. Victor provided no less than 25 difs that clearly show a slow motion edit war against consensus, against RS, with a clear POV push behind it, across multiple articles under AE sanctions and the admins here want to punt this too? So within a week it will be at ANI, where it will likely again be deemed to convoluted to wade through by admins while twenty users take sides, argue with each other for a week, then fester for some untold amount of time until someone snaps and gets indeffed. This is not hard to wade through. Ellen takes issue with the fact that articles state that the U.S. has one of, if not the most, progressive tax system in the developed world. This is an economic fact that's well backed up by academic RS. Progressive in this sense has a very definitive meaning in economics. This is not "Progressive" in the political sense. One has nothing to do with the other. It also has nothing to do with what appears to be her main editing bent which is to try to highlight income equality in every US related article she can. Something that's already separately addressed in the appropriate areas. She's claiming undoubted RS are fringe or biased (somehow biased across the whole political spectrum), claiming RFCs were closed in a manner that they weren't, and editing against consensus. It's all there. Nip it in the bud now before it goes too far. That's what AE is for. Capeo (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Victor completely dismantles Ellen's sources, revealing that she's pushing a POV not even supported by her own sources, shows that she edit warred and yet, for a while, it's suggested that Victor is topic banned? And we go from that to mediation? Just to better illustrate her lack of grasp of sources take a look at the Levi Institute souce. First, it's a non-peer reviewed opinion piece with this caveat on the first page: "The Levy Economics Institute is publishing this research with the conviction that it is a constructive and positive contribution to the discussion on relevant policy issues. Neither the Institute’s Board of Governors nor its advisers necessarily endorse any proposal made by the author." Second, to claim the LEI is non-partisan is laughable. They are liberal as hell in their staff and proposals. Not that that's an issue, I'm pretty uber-liberal myself and agree with many of their published policy opinions. Honestly there's really no such thing as a non-partisan think tank. Lastly, and most pointedly, the paper opens by saying it's using data from NBER. Who is the president emeritus of NBER? Martin Feldstein. The same Martin Feldstein whose criticism of Piketty Ellen dissmissed because the WSJ is a mouthpiece for right wing ideologues. Apparently the associate professor opinion piece had no issue using data that was produce by an organization that Feldstein was CEO of until 2008.

I'm sorry but an associate professor at Bard's opinion doesn't hold a candle, as far as expert opinion goes, to Martin Feldstein. This just shows her blindness to anything she considers "far right" which seems to be anything that isn't far left and doesn't agree with preconceived notion. It's bordering on activist style editing. Conversely, for all I know Victor is no different. I'm only looking at the edits surround this incident and the diffs above. Clearly some well respected editors have had serious issues with him in the past at the very least and a few of the sources he brought were obviously partisan and, frankly, crap. The majority are solid though and easily support the sentences in question. Ellen's don't and often even contradict her conclusion if you actually read through them or they're just bad, clearly partisan crap as well. Alarm bells should always go off when a user tries to dismiss conflicting sources by claiming political partisanship on a regular basis. So you have edit warring, misrepresentation of sources to try to make a definitive statement in WP's voice, and editing against consensus. I'm not very confident mediation is going to fix that. Capeo (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by semi-involved Calidum

It seems as though this will be closed without any action, which is unfortunate. Victor supplied ample evidence at WP:AN3 [164] that showed continued edit warring by Ellen. An admin advised him to take the issue here [165] but he did not have the chance to do so because Ellen copied and pasted his original complaint here but as a complaint about Victor [166]. By doing so, she hijacked the discussion and deflected her edit warring to another user. She should not be rewarded for obfuscating the process. Calidum 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Scolaire

I came upon this while following another case, and it intrigued me, so I decided to try to unravel it. I assumed that EllenCT was claiming that that VictorD7 was edit-warring to the same extent that she was, and that when she said "you could easily reverse Victor's diffs", she meant that in every case he had reverted her first. But in fact, the revision history shows that VictorD7 only reverted twice in that period – on September 11 and on September 21 – while at the same time engaging fully in the discussion on the talk page. So this is not a "one is as bad as the other" scenario. One editor is acting in accordance with policy and the other is edit-warring. Closing this without taking any action would be madness. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Struck out in the light of Specifico's first comment below, and a more careful reading of the article talk page and archives. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"@Guy:, it is not correct to say that "the two editors are engaged in a content dispute, in which both are edit-warring". Only EllenCT is edit-warring. VictorD7 only reverted twice in the period under discussion – on September 11 and on September 21. I struck out my comment above because I thought that, by now, everybody was aware of that fact. Scolaire (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SPECIFICO

I stumbled on this page and followed a link which led me to this talk page thread concerning article text on taxation in the US. [167]. I am an economist and I'm quite familiar with the flaws and biases of a variety of sources in this subject, from news media through peer-reviewed academic articles. That having been said, I urge Admins here to spend some time on this typical talk page thread and the history of the discussion and article edits surrounding these two editors. Without endorsing all of EllenCT's statements, I think it's evident that she is trying to raise an important policy-based principle as to the sourcing and due weight of article content. She's been met, as in the linked thread, with ad hominems, disparagement, and other nasty behavior from her colleagues on various articles. Regardless of whether she has responded effectively or calmly to these attacks, I hope the Admins here will try to deal with the current request in the context of the parties' behavior and activities over the range and history of the articles in which these issues have recurred. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictorD7... In my reading of the post you linked from Gamaliel, the main point was that you, Victor, poisoned all attempts at collaboration in that article and drove away many editors (myself among them.) How any of us, including the rather gracious Gamaliel, expressed our frustration is quite secondary. I'm not questioning your motives, but I think you're again demonstrating a dysfunctional, self-centered battleground editing style which has stymied collaboration on many articles over the past couple of years. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments Just to be clear, before I get out of this burning building: Contrary to VictorD7's reading of my comment above, I hope it's clear to everyone else that I mention my experience with economics-related sources and statements to affirm that peer-reviewed or academic sources or even statements in otherwise reliable media publications are not necessarily RS for specific WP content. I intended my statement to stipulate that I have no bias toward EllenCT's frequent preference for peer-reviewed sources. At any rate, I trust it's also clear from VictorD7's statement that he doesn't understand the meaning of "argument from authority" since I made no statement about economic facts or theories, only about editing (on which I claim no authority.) Second point: VictorD7 has misrepresented the history of edits by he and I made on a couple of articles a year or so ago. Looking at the archives, [168] I see no history that I "clashed" with him, although there are numerous instances of him personally-attacking me after I stated a talk page opinion, not even replying to him. It feels as if he's kept me on a personal "enemies list" for a long time, due to some long-forgotten threads on a few articles. That's kind of creepy but it has nothing to do with anyone but VictorD7. In the context of the current discussion, however, I think it demonstrates an irrational battleground mentality which prevents him from collaborative editing on WP. I agree with Gamaliel, (with whom -- contrary to VictorD7's assertion -- I both agreed and disagreed on that one article) that VictorD7 is unable to function within WP community norms. Call it a competence problem or tendentious editing or whatever. I agree that VictorD7 should be banned from articles relating to American Politics or, for simplicity, from the Site (since he edits no other topics.) Finally, I don't endorse or reject the substance of EllenCT's views. She defends them assertively, but I find her editing and behavior to be well within policy and WP norms. I have spoken up on several occasions because I believe she has been the target of some subtle and not-so-subtle gender-related harassment. And PS, what makes VictorD7 think I am a he not a she? I won't be revisiting this thread because I find VictorD7's behavior unpleasant and a waste of time. I hope some of the volunteer Admins who work this page will investigate the evidence here and do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

Ellen's sources seem generally stronger, but not to the point that Victor's sources should be expunged. There's a disagreement within the sources that needs to be covered with a preferential but not total weighting towards one of the sides. I think the parties are more in need of mediation than enforcement. Rhoark (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of Victor's source analysis it becomes clear that there are reliable sources for the claims he is supporting. It's understandable to try to super-saturate the sourcing in a dispute, but let's just stick to the best ones. Tacking some marginal sources on top just gives an avenue for the respondent to try derailment tactics like we've seen here. I can't say I've been pleased with EllenCT's responses on the RSN discussion that's happening on this same topic either.[169]. Think tanks, just like news organizations, come in different shapes and sizes. Some start with the facts and draw conclusions, while others start with conclusions and find useful facts. EllenCT seems to believe a blog from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a think tank tending towards the latter type) is sufficient to invalidate multiple published reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (one of the most authoritative sources on international comparisons of taxation systems) along with secondary reporting in the New York Times. The worst of it is that this blog doesn't even dispute the claim in question. Rather, it backs up EllenCT's fundamental POV (more aid to the poor is needed) without addressing the salient on-wiki claim (US taxation is progressive) at all. We must keep in mind that EllenCT was the filer and as such had a first-mover advantage in framing the issues here. That lulled myself (and apparently @JzG:) into accepting a certain surface reading of the situation, but its quite apparent that EllenCT is the one having difficulty disentangling POV moral justification of their views from wiki policy justification of their edits. My recommendation remains mediation. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

As a point of order, I was not an administrator when I made the AN/I comment EllenCT referred to above. Though I was when I admonished VictorD7 for their appallingly uncivil and unproductive behavior at an RfC on progressive taxation last year. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictorD7: How, exactly, was I canvassed? I was mentioned 3 times in this thread by two different users, one of whom was you. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that all sounds like BS, frankly. You've been around long enough to know what the word canvas means here. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Gamaliel, VictorD7 has presented evidence that you and he have had some fairly serious personal disagreements a few months ago in another article. I see that you've recused yourself, but why didn't you strike your comments? Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning VictorD7

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

@EllenCT: can you provide some diffs with examples of advocating non-RS sources? Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that no one is going to act on this report because they are not going to sort through the mess of opining above to get the facts. "most of Victor's diffs" is not an appropriate response to a request for evidence about a single, specific allegation. Referring to previous, stale discussions which were closed without action taken against the party relevant here is not evidence to support sanctioning that party in this current dispute. Unless actual, current evidence is properly presented by either side, I suggest we close this matter without action. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gamaliel. This is a mess and asking a few admin to read through and make sense of it is asking too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the wall of text; it's not the most coherent, largely due to the copying and pasting of a thread from another noticeboard, but what we essentially have is EllenCT complaining that VictorD7 is POV-pushing and using unreliable sources to support his POV, and a counter-claim from VicotrD7 that EllenCT is edit-warring. I note, for the record, that the two are not mutually exclusive. From a superficial look at the history, the claim that EllenCT is edit-warring is borne out. I would be interested to hear more from @EllenCT: about her complaint against VictorD7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list by EllenCT is compelling evidence that a number of sources employed by VictorD7 are not exactly in line with WP:RS. Rhoark raises a good point, some of them are not so terribly appalling that they require action. But others are just that bad. Also there's a comment that I found on the article talk page where VictorD7 casually implies that a Nobel-winning economist is a "lunatic". I am not willing to conclude yet that this is a case of overt POV-pushing, but what I suspect is happening that this editor is editing from a perspective that is not compatible with mainstream thought on this subject. Gamaliel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recognize VictorD7's user name, and if I had I never would have posted here. I have no involvement in this dispute or editing that article (nor does encouraging editors to find better sources at WP:RSN mean that I "involved [my]self in this debate", as Victor absurdly claims) and I believe my comments here prove that I have attempted to judge the evidence presented here in a fair and neutral matter and give him and everyone else involved the benefit of the doubt. Victor is right in that I should not be involved in this matter, because what I have seen of his behavior a year ago has convinced me that he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as he is a blatant POV-pusher who attempts to use poor, partisan sources to skew articles, as he is apparently doing in this case, based my experience with him and on the evidence presented above. I apologize to Victor, Harry, Dennis, and everyone else for commenting here, but at my age I simply can't be expected to remember the name of every, as I put it in the link Victor helpfully provided above, belligerent SPA I've run across over the last ten years. Victor's comments about me contain a number of blatant factual inaccuracies, including a claim that I've lied about him in a manner that does not appear to resemble any comment I've actually made on this page. He also writes "I don't want to dredge up stale details" after spending three paragraphs doing just that, which tells you everything you need to know about his deceptiveness when it comes to dealing with other editors. While in principle I do not believe that an administrator who is the victim of belligerent attacks or other negative behavior by an editor or SPA is not capable of rendering an impartial, uninvolved judgement in a completely unrelated matter, in this particular case I recuse myself because I believe that Victor should not be editing any Wikipedia article at all, much less one of our most important ones, nor should he be allowed to use a computer without adult supervision. Feel free to move my comments to another section, but if you remove them entirely I demand that Victor's inaccurate claims about myself be removed as well. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as I can make sense of the above: the two editors are engaged in a content dispute, in which both are edit-warring but EllenCT has the advantage of being right and VictorD7 has the distinct disadvantage of pushing a non-neutral POV. The solution is fairly simple: Ellen makes a good and IMO compelling case for VictorD7 to be topic-banned from the subject of US taxation, following which it may become easier to unpick behavioural issues from necessary defence of the wiki. I recommend a 3 month topic ban followed by probationary review of edits with a view to a permanent ban if the issue continues. I concur with Rhoark, and thank him for the patient extra analysis. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? This is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. It needs to go to WP:DR and thence to ArbCom if not settled. It requires detailed analysis of much more than I (and I venture to suggest most others here) have time to delve through. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Slovenski Volk

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban since January 23 2014 from all articles and discussions related to Balkan history, sensu latu, for alleged violation of restrictions relating to ARBMAC. [171]

Statement by S.V.

I have been indefinitely topic-banned by HJ Mitchell, subject to appeal after 6 months [172] (" but you may ask for it to be reviewed after six months. If, in six months' time, you have built up a history of uncontentious editing in another subject area, and you have not been sanctioned for any violations of this topic ban, I would look favourably on loosening or lifting it, and I would hope other admins would agree"), after being accused of violating my specified restrictions. Those in place had been:

1) an indefinite 0RR in Ancient Macedonians article since 2011 for violating the 3RR once [173] AND simultaneously a restriction to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case (ARBMAC article).

2) In August 2012, I was placed on a partial topic ban for breaching restriction # 1 [174] by Blade of Northern Lights, although the BoNT initially suggested a 3 month ban only. I was allowed to edit prehistoric and Roman period Balkan article [175], however.

3) This was then extended to all Balkan articles, because of a complaint by an editor for my editing to Illyrians. However this article clearly falls into the Neolithic- Roman time frame, and thus I felt was OK, and had little if anything to do with Ancient Macedonians. I nevertheless, did not appeal, admittedly I might have taken at times a too liberal interpretation of my allowances, and took a Wiki break.

• I initially believed that the very first sanction was heavy handed ( an immediate 0RR and 1RR for all other articles just for 1 breach).I understand that Balkan articles are a hot bed of editorial conflict, and can retrospectively understand the need for such. In addition, because I’d had previous 24 hour blocks, I suspect this had something to do with it. However, the first one (“sock accounts”) was when I very initially began, and was a honest error of creating two accounts because I’d made a spelling error in my username (in 2007 I had just started using the Internet) ! Another block on the Scythians for edit warring, (but the article has nothing to do with the Balkans, but is in Iran and Russia).

• Nevertheless, I plainly see that my behaviuor has been hardly been model. I did edit war. I really saw my edits as non-partisan, academic, in perfect English, etc, and thus had an air of arrogance about my editing, I admit. Moreover, I felt often cornered into edit wars because I was facing ‘tag-teams’ of editors. I now know that there are better ways to approach this – attempting to reach consensus on talk pages, asking for third party advice, arbitration, or simply walking a way for a few days ! I have since participated in other forums and feel I have ‘grown up’ as a contributor.

• I also want to point out that the content of my editing has always been non-inflammatory. I.e. I have always edited- indeed that is my interest- prehistoric and medieval topics, and discussions about prehistoric minutiae of little relevance to modern controversies. I have never discussed about modern wars, conflicts and politics. I’d argue my interest is ‘pure’. I'm a western born person with mixed Balkan ancestry, and feel I am impartial and respectful of all nationalities, and my only aim has ever been to infuse the often poorly written, un-referenced, and partisan Balkan article with an air of impartiality and scholasticism. Unfortunately, this had attracted resistance by several editors. And even, then, there was nothing personal or inflammatory. In fact, one editor who’d I’d edit-warred thanked me for highlighting better references [176]

. Overall i have very cordial interactions with other users. Dare I say, I'm often a go-to person for advice and pointers [177] (and there's 7 volumes). :)

• Not to sound high and mighty, but I believe my edits are of an excellent calibre. For example, I wrote this section [178]. I trust it speaks for itself. In fact, after the 0RR, I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images [179] in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. The non-biased content and the sheer databank of references I have at my disposal again speaks for itself. I have also created numerous maps for Wiki Commons, some of which are here [180], and indeed have won Wikipedia renown as even erudite scholars have used them, like James Mallory in his talk in Indo-Europeans.

• In summary, I am a very well informed, and well intentioned editor who in the past erred with hot-headedness. I am now beyond that, and a more mature contributor. I ask that I can be re-allowed to edit on Balkan history topics, and continue my contributions to further improving areas of needed work.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by Glrx

His writing is dense but otherwise seems good. I'd remove the restriction; it's been 18 months. Glrx (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Slovenski Volk pushes a very strong POV at ancient Macedonians. His claim that "I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images [181] in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. " is totally misleading. He most certainly did NOT edit that article in full cooperation with other users. I remember endless bickering and edit-warring, which is what led to these sanctions in the first place. While the blanket topic ban on all Balkan topics is excessively harsh, I'd be very cautious about lifting the 0RRR restriction on Ancient Macedonian. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that is untrue. The only view i do strongly push is that all perspectives supported by evidence and reputable sources be fairly represented. That is often not the case prior my involvement in articles, which I seek to remedy. Otherwise I'm personally disinterested in matters of "historical significance". The "bickering" you refer to is negotiating, and yes, at times intense debate. But that's how it is supposed to work, isn't it ? Anyhow, i can assure you that should that I'll continue to bring forth quality material and current state of the art materials to all historical topics (time permitting- as I'm rather busy these days). I look forward to your feedback and collaboration. We have both been on wiki for years and are mature and cordial enough to negotiate things open mindledly should any perceived differences of opinion arise Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Slovenski Volk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

No blocks since 2013, seems to understand the problem, he doesn't agree with all previous sanctions but accepts responsibility and seems more mature, at least in this filing. When the tban was put in place, the admins participating seemed very open to a review later. I've looked only a little into this, but I wonder if lifting the restriction, or at least relaxing to 1RR would be ok. I also see that he could have filed this request a year ago, but didn't rush to meet the first deadline, which I see as a positive. I'm inclined to say give him a chance and a fresh ARBMAC warning template so any inkling of a problem can be dealt with quickly. Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenski does not seem to be the sort of ideologically motivated warrior that we all to often see at AE, and he seems to have mellowed in the past 20 months (which is a long time on Wikipedia). Unless there was evidence of significant recent disruption, I'd be inclined towards lifting all restrictions and seeing how things go from there. I can't work out whether all the sanctions are mine and thus whether we need a consensus of admins or not. I'm certainly happy to vacate all the restrictions I've imposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with comments above. It seems that Slovenski Volk understands the reasons for the sanctions, even though they don't agree that some of them were necessary. There doesn't appear to have been any (recent) misconduct which would suggest that the sanctions are still necessary. Therefore I'm in favour of lifting all sanctions and seeing how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19999o

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 19999o

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Blackmane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 19999o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[182] Revert of sourced text 21/9/15
[183] Revert of same text on 25/9/15
[184] Revert again on 26/9/15
[185] And again on the same day violating 1RR
[186] Revert on 27/9/15
[187] Revert of same text on 28/9/15

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

To date, the user has not been sanctioned for this topic area

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

User:19999o was alerted of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions by Dr. K in this diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm raising this request at the behest of @SilentResident: due to their lack of familiarity with Arbitration related matters. SilentResident raised 19999o's edit warring on ANI. While I would have suggested that a report be raised at [{WP:AN3]] as discretionary sanctions are active I felt that an AE Request would be more appropriate. For me, this is also a first time AE request so I may have made a mistake or two along the way. Blackmane (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User:1999o notified SilentResident also notified

Discussion concerning 19999o

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 19999o

Statement by SilentResident

The user 19999o's edits on the page Macedonians (ethnic group) were not constructive - the contrary. They were very disruptive and he has entered an endless edit-revert war with several other Wiki users who just tried to protect the page which is subject to WP:ARBMAC and defend its content from they deemed as disruptive edits, vandalism and POV edits. 19999o's edits have been reverted six times in a row over the past few days and several users have already send him warning notes on his talk page (and more specifically WP:ARBMAC warning, 3RR warning, and pleas from other users to stop), but he has ignored them all and he is still keeping doing this disruptive behavior. The fact that 1) he is ignoring the Wikipedia's rules and warnings from other users, 2) he is not using any peaceful ways in solving any disputes he has with other users (such as Talk Pages), and 3) he insists in his behavior, left us no other option but to bring this case to the Administrator's attention. --SilentResident (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 19999o

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I've blocked them for a couple days to prevent the ongoing edit warring while it's discussed here. Admins - I've done it as a normal admin action so feel free to modify as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caste articles and talk pages

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Caste articles and talk pages

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to limit editing of Caste pages: This concerns the topic area covered under Category:Social groups of India and Category:Social groups of Pakistan. I propose that uninvolved administrators should be empowered to limit editing of an article about an Indian or Pakistani social group (and/or its talkpage) to accounts older than 30 days and with at least 500 edits. This is similar to the Gamergate 500/30 restriction and can be implemented through an edit filter similar to Filter #698.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a proposal that some of us editors and uninvolved administrators who patrol this area came up with and is reflective of what seems reasonable to all of us. Discussion can be found at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2. (Contributor list: Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, The Blade of the Northern Lights, SpacemanSpiff)

Background

The environment around caste articles has been found to be toxic and disruptive numerous times at various venues.
We have Arbcom-imposed WP:ARBIPA that covers all India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topics and thereby the caste-related topics.
We have WP:GS/Caste imposed by the community to cover caste-related topics across South Asia (which includes Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, as well as India and Pakistan) but the overlap with India makes the coverage similar to ARBIPA.

Current issues

While the sanctions are helpful in dealing with stuff post facto, they do not prevent disruption which results in time and effort of editors and admins being wasted as well as bytes on ANI and other related forums
Caste-based off-wiki discussion groups are dime a dozen and we often see coordinated edits. Worse than that, though, are the off-wiki attacks that editors and admins in this space have had to suffer. A few such incidents have been brought up to ANI or Arbcom on an ad-hoc informational basis, but very rarely are they brought up for remedial purposes as the people targeted by them don't want to take the extra effort.
With our low level of policing of such articles in the past, numerous mirrors have sprung up and are now regularly being used as sources for contentious material within the same articles. An extreme problem of this can be seen from this CCI, pending for five years.

Article gets written on the Jatland open wiki --> gets copied to en.wiki--> gets mirrored to Encyclopedia of Martial Races or Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh --> Some good faith editor cleans up the related Jat article here --> New editor comes back and uses Encyclopedia of Martial Races or Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as a source--> talk page conversation goes in circles as every time this mirror has to be discredited.

Another example where this sanction would have been useful over the past five years is at Nair. The talk page history shows just how many SPAs and socks come up and how few "regular" editors are there to deal with this problem.
We have to create an environment where our regular editors are not driven out by such activity, and also keep our articles at a reasonable level of cleanliness.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: NA; Courtesy pings to contributors: @Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: —SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

@Ryk72 and Floq: If you look at Talk:Nair and the talk page history you will notice how this would have helped in the past (let's ignore the standard vandalism in the pages for now). Almost all the new accounts and/or IPs have been part of a sock/meat collective (with one exception that I see) and you can see how much time "regular" editors have to spend discussing the same issue multiple times. In addition, you can also see how uninvolved editors get dragged into the discussions while responding to semi-protected edit requests. The latest sock was not identified by any of the page regular editors. I just happened to patrol that page and noticed that to be a sock and filed an SPI, but I was wrong in identifying the master. This isn't to say that the restriction has to be concurrent -- both article and talk page. My recommendation is that it is a possibility, let the patrolling admin decide whether it is required and/or if they should be imposed for varying duration. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Proactively case-by-case. I don't think we need to wait for the disruption to reach a boiling point before implementing this. Admins who patrol this area generally have an idea when there's a sock/meat or other disruptive uptick etc but can not take things to SPI. Sometimes we know that disruption in one article is going to mean that another follows. e.g. Ezhava will follow suit when there's group editing at Nair and it's just sensible to apply the sanctions then. Likewise when something pops up on Mukkulathor, Agamudayar isn't far behind. On the other hand, I don't see why it should be applied for something like Kadiyan even though there's a history of poor content, but just not enough disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:I think any time we add this restriction to an article and/or talk page it would be appropriate to post a banner notification on the talk page, that could perhaps be linked to a category that's included at EDR. There is a bit of paperwork involved with adding and removing entries from edit filters and that part of the process will also have to be documented. On the other point regarding appeals etc, the suggestion here is to treat this as a standard AE process: the sanction can be imposed by an uninvolved admin or through AE, and follows the standard appeals process also -- imposing admin/AN/AE/ARCA.—SpacemanSpiff 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston and Callanecc: I've created {{Ds/talk caste}} as a start to document this. This would place the article in the necessary cats and the categories could simply be linked from WP:AC/DSL/2015 and any future logs. Of course placing the template on the unprotected talk page of a 500/30 article might not be the best idea as it could be removed without anyone noticing it, so a simple transclusion of a template similar to {{Pp}} on the article might be an option too.

And for clarity: The proposal here is to add individual articles and individual talk pages by name to the edit filter. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 11:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Caste articles and talk pages

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bishonen

I support this proposal. Disclosure: I took part in the preliminary discussions, and I'll repeat a little of what I said there. The area is dogged by socking, off-wiki canvassing and WP:CIR issues. New editors on caste articles need, and get, a lot of advice from experienced editors and admins, but are unfortunately often too suspicious of our intentions to accept it. I've come to realise people who edit Wikipedia with a caste agenda tend to assume anybody contradicting them has a caste agenda of their own, and in extreme cases this is the lens through which they view all other editors. I've seen both Sitush and myself accused of inflating the claims of our own caste and despising other castes… apparently Sitush is a brahmin — yes, I've seen that confidently asserted — and god knows what I am, but I seemingly have no respect for this, that and the other caste. On a good day, I may have heard of these castes, but usually not. I only admin the area, I don't edit it, and so it's water off a duck's back for me, but it must be terminally frustrating for the editors in the trenches. A 500/30 restriction should forestall some of the worst waste of their time and patience. For instance, I've been watching Sitush's talkpage for years, and I frequently see new users (I can't tell how often they're genuinely new) complaining there about being reverted on some caste article — sometimes complaining politely, indeed — but more usually with angry accusations about how he must "hate" their caste, or must be paid to defame it. It's downright depressing. An ounce of prevention would be worth a pound of cure here. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Response to User:Floquenbeam and EdJohnston: I take a notion from your comments that you may be willing to approve stronger measures than we have actually requested. We don't want a blanket 500/30 restriction across caste articles. (And to User:Liz; this is what you ask about.) When SpacemanSpiff asked some of us to look at his draft proposal, I originally suggested it should be a blanket restriction across the articles in Category:Social groups of India and Category:Social groups of Pakistan, but that was because I didn't know any better: these categories are huge. The non-comprehensive Category:Social groups of India by state includes over a thousand pages, mostly probably quite unproblematic, and we may add something like 10-20 every month. What we want is to be able to apply the restriction to the problematic articles, starting with a few notorious hotspots — say Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar — and then see how that goes and whether more are needed. Nobody wants to restrict the whole area, or in any way be aggressive about this. As far as I know, the (few, overworked) admins who enforce discretionary sanctions on caste articles aren't known for being trigger-happy, and I don't believe they would be wrt to this restriction either.

To make this reasonably smooth to administer, I think two things are important: firstly, single uninvolved admins need to be empowered to put an article under the restriction without asking for consensus, going to AE, or any other pushing-a-locomotive-up-an-incline nonsense; simply per admin discretion, which I hope is considered as trustworty in this area as others. (And to remove restrictions without any special by-your-leave, too.) And secondly, it's quite important that talkpages can also be restricted if needed. @Ryk72: you ask why editors should be restricted from discussion of content. This is because bloating-up of talkpages by disruption and eternal repetitiousness by meatpuppets and throwaway socks prevents useful discussion of content. Look at Talk:Nair and its archives. It's only when talkpages are in imminent danger of becoming unusable that we would want to restrict them. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

EdJohnston, I agree with what you say about having a category for the restricted articles, and restrictions being appealable at AE, and very much about the importance of spelling out the rules clearly. I'm not sure about logging restricted pages at WP:EDR; I only see individual restrictions there. The GG restriction is logged in the discretionary sanctions log, which does have provisions for page-level sanctions. Do you think that would work for our articles? Btw, I want to thank you for pinpointing the problem: "Everybody wants their own caste to be descended from warriors". That's it in a nutshell. :-) Bishonen | talk 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. @EdJohnston yet again: I just realized you speak of excusing innocent violations. But there shouldn't be any violations, innocent or otherwise, because the restriction is supposed be automatically enforced by a filter, as it is for Gamergate. This is an important part of our proposal, because for admins to enforce the restriction by hand would be arduous. If the responding uninvolved admins below haven't taken hold of the filter proposal, could they please say whether they support it or not? Pinging NeilN: you understand these things, could you please explain in simple terms how the filter would work? Bishonen | talk 10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Ryk 72

W.r.t the limitation as applied to WP:MAINSPACE, this is a de facto Semi-protection 2, and I suggest that it be documented as such at WP:Protection policy; with the same caveats & advice as listed there for Semi-protection. Similarly, given that this is a de facto change in WP policy, suggest that it should follow the normal process for such changes - RFC at the policy page (as I understand it).

While the limitation as applied to MAINSPACE is easily understandable in terms of protecting the integrity of the Encyclopedia, it is less obviously so w.r.t the limitation as applied to Talk space.

Would supporting editors be able to advise the reasoning by which editors should be restricted from discussion of content? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

This is a sensible proposal. Caste related articles are a problem because most of us don't understand the web of relationships between various caste articles and cannot effectively act as administrators on those pages. The articles are plagued by SPAs - often with off-wiki relationships - and an inordinate amount of time is wasted by very productive editors in dealing with these SPAs, filing sock reports, and trying to separate out the good editors from the not so good ones. This proposal will keep the articles open for editing by editors who have an encyclopedic purpose for being here while closing off editing - when necessary - by SPAs and off-wiki cabals. The proposal is simple, easy to implement, and will be effective. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Neither endorsing nor rejecting the present proposal, some retrospective of the GG restriction's motivation and effects is in order. Essentially, the restriction was an extraordinary measure to salvage a problematic editor by depriving him of newbies to bite. It failed, inasmuch as Zad68 (talk · contribs) who instituted the rule would eventually topic ban the editor in question. In ancillary comments, he confirmed the whole thing had been an experiment in extending rope. Nor did it seem to particularly improve the conduct of other similarly problematic established editors assuming opposition was based in nefarious motives. In the case of castes, it seems to be the fresh rather than established editors who fail to assume good faith, so the situation is not parallel. (Which is not to say it must be parallel to be considered.) The restriction did have a salutary effect in that it reduced the velocity of the talk page, making it more convenient for the remaining participants. I wouldn't personally choose to reverse that change, but I can see how others might not balance convenience opposite core wiki principles. Ultimately, I think the question is whether the problem is large enough as to make the page(s) impossible to maintain. If so, IAR. Rhoark (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

Explanation of caste edit filter as requested by Bishonen. It would be modeled off the GG edit filter which editors can see here. When an editor clicks Save to save their edit they see a message, "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit the Gamergate controversy article, its Talk pages or subpages at this time. This page restriction is an Arbitration Enforcement action. We apologize if your edit was well-intended. Please gain experience editing other areas of Wikipedia before considering returning to this article. Thank you." For caste articles, the filter should probably look for a category. Pinging MusikAnimal to see if that's possible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MusikAnimal

In response to NeilN (I guess this is how it works at ArbCom?), you can certainly target categories using edit filters. We should try use the combine the proposed filter with the Gamergate one, simply for performance and that they do exactly the same thing. The new copy should read something like "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit this article, it's talk page, or subpages at this time..." The part we're missing is the clarification of what subject they are unable to edit, but the upside is performance for what is otherwise an expensive filter. Just a thought, and obviously that can be discussed later — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinian Ape

There is an increasing trend to restrict Wikipedia to new users and it is fundamentally against the spirit of the project. Excluding new users will not solve problems, it may make it quieter but it wont solve anything. Just look at the first application of that rule at GG page. It's still a mess that no one can understand. What do you think will happen to new editors who want to contribute because they are interested in this topic? Will they continue to contribute after being chastised for no apparent reason. It is against AGF and it is contradictory with the "everyone can edit" motto. New editors and IP editors are a tremendous source for this project, and yes it comes with a price. But I think the price doesn't outweigh the benefits and so does the foundation, since they are firm on not changing the "anyone can edit" rule. 500/30 rule has no place in a free encyclopedia and if it becomes a norm, it will eventually be the end of the project. So if you want to speed up the slow death of Wikipedia, you are on track, if not please reconsider. This rule might seem convenient, but it's much more destructive than a couple of socks and agenda pushers in the long run Darwinian Ape^talk 15:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush & Masem: I understand it can be extremely frustrating to deal with bad faith or just downright unexperienced editors, but preemptively baning every single new editor from a topic just seems to me unfair, and it's a bit of an overkill at any rate. I proposed this for the original GG sanction at the imposing admin's talk page:

We let any auto-confirmed editor to edit, but implement a zero tolerance policy for disruption and impose 500/30 sanction only to those who seem to be disruptive or unfamiliar with the Wikipedia rules to comprehensively discuss the topic.(Note that this would not be count as a sanction, only giving time to a new user to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules just as it was meant to be in the original sanction) Therefor we would be assuming good faith and let new editors say their piece and give them a chance to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, while simultaneously protecting the article from people who, willingly or unwillingly, disrupt the work of others.

I understand this will be an inconvenience for the admins monitoring the topic, but at least we can filter good contributions in and not drive new editors from the project. Darwinian Ape^talk 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, No I've never edited the subject area, I am against the restrictions of this kind in principle. I am not against sanctions being imposed in problematic areas, least of all in this subject. I am against sanctions of this magnitude becoming the norm. Darwinian Ape^talk 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, okay perhaps I am being naive, I tend to be naive sometimes. But this rule has the potential to ruin WP for good. I was a happy IP user a few months ago and this restrictive attitude made me use this account, because I thought one day I may not be able to contribute as I like. Darwinian Ape^talk 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

@Darwinian Ape: no, sorry. I understand your concern about creep but you have two choices here: either introduce something along these lines or watch the caste articles descend into even more chaos because I, for one, am fed up of the do-gooding attitude destroying them. Nowadays, I spend most of my time re-arguing and reverting, and there are very few other experienced contributors involved in the subject area. You either support this proposal or some derivative of it or you watch me walk away. And without me, you might as well scrap all policies when it comes to caste articles because newbies in the subject area almost always do not give a shit and experienced people avoid them.

Wikipedia has gone past the "anyone can edit" phase - accept it or watch it become absolutely pointless as a repository of knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your edit summary for Darwinian Ape's post says Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic. Most caste articles are not contentious in the sense that DA means - the disputes and disruption, prolific socking and meating etc occur because people are unwilling to accept our policies, even when they are explained to them. I also notice that DA seems not to have edited in the topic area at any time in at least the last three months, and I can't recall ever seeing them edit in the area: do you really know what is going on? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: problematic caste articles, such as Nair and Rajput, will always be problematic: it is the nature of the beast. Reviewing any imposition of editing restrictions every six months is just bumptious officialdom. Far better to review if challenged by an editor in good standing. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: the proposal is not intended merely or even necessarily to combat off-wiki co-ordination. This is not GG Mark 2. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: no, semi-protection and "careful observation" do not work for caste articles. Nor is the issue always COI. That is why this proposal has emerged. I'm sorry but I find it very frustrating that people who have no clue about the things are weighing in here with comments that are miles off course. Please take some time to dig through the history at, say, the Nair article and its related talk page. Then comment. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, I think your past investment in Gamergate is showing and it is overwhelming your opinion. If you don't think that the Nair article has been a time-sink for a very small number of experienced contributors for many years, you're missing something. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I don't really care why you suggested six months. The fact remains that it should be indefinite by default because of the nature of the beast. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm out of this. My tolerance for the clueless is pretty poor at the moment, and too many have appeared in this discussion today. I just hope common sense prevails and that people are not put off by irrelevancies that are being raised. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

@Darwinian Ape: While the 500/30 rule is antithesis of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", if we are clearly aware of outside influence that are engaging in long-term attempts to alter an article, as was the case in GG and appears to be the case here for castes, then we do need stronger measures to counter that to avoid a flood of new accounts and IP that can be used to support that outside influence (even if it necessarily is for the right reasons and/or in line with policy) that simple semi-protection and 3RR/1RR limits on an article cannot stop. But that influence must be something that is readily evidenced, otherwise asking for such protection is a chilling effect. I know we could readily demonstrate it for GG, and I would expect that such can be demonstrated for these caste articles where the 500/30 rule would be proposed. But if editors are simply asking for that type of 500/30 protection without any strong evidence of that influence, we should not allow that 500/30 rule to be used; it should be seen as a last resort to handle something that is outside of WP's control. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwinian Ape: I'm not sure if a "acting in bad faith" is an easily discernible metric, and to me invites both false positives and negatives that make it more of a headache. Sometimes it takes many edits of the individual in question to figure this out. 500/30 sets a rather objective bar that the editor has learned the ropes about how WP functions (and that we can readily detect gaming the system to get to 500/30 as one ArbCom enforcement for GG showed); an editor with an earnest interest in improvement to WP can still participate elsewhere to get to that point and then participate fairly. But I will stress that if this is to be adopted at caste articles, there has to be a clear set of evidence of off-wiki organization, and that it should be the last resort after other page protection methods have been tried. It keeps articles to be those that anyone can edit, once they've shown us they've learned enough elsewhere on WP to participate usefully, in contrast to a full-protection that absolutely limits participation. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: If we're talking about using this just because it is a caste article that attract COI-like issues (which assuming we're talking either an editor that is a member of that caste, or a member of a caste that is in disagreement with the caste article that is at attention), and we cannot find evidence of outside collusion that are trying to impact the article specifically, that's overkill. We have other tools at our disposal that should work. (Prior to 500/30 at GG, it was semi-prot on the mainspace space with careful observation on the talk page). Now, as I'm reading here, we're talking 500/30 on the mainspace page only and leaving the talk page open, and to that, a half-step between semi-prot and full-prot on mainspace, I think is a fair concern if all available methods are unable to cope with the volume of IP/SPA changes. But again, that volume also needs to be demonstrated. There are pages that I watch that are a constant target for "slow" vandalism by IP/SPA, and I'd never consider the need for something like 500/30. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: When I look at the Nair talk page (which was given as an example of SpacemanSpiff) and consider it by itself, I don't see anything that triggers a need to lock down the page that is not already covered by the above ArbCom motions. Compared to GG, where it was both volume and civility of the IP/SPAs activity that required a novel solution, that doesn't exist here. But that's purposely not considerign the statement that there is off-site coordination happening. Given everything else said (the sparsity of editors on these pages to start, the nature of them being castes, etc.) then as long as the off-site collusion can be readily demonstrated, 500/30 makes sense. But to say that just based on the Nair history and talk page alone, I would not support that, because there's thousands of non-controversial articles that have the same exact type of behavior (a random IP or new editor coming along and trying to have the article making a specific point without sourcing or the like), making the 500/30 a potential thing that can be abused if we are not careful. Critical is the demonstration of the off-site influence to justify the 500/30. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: All I'm trying to point out is that as long as we are aware this is coordinated off-site influence (which I'm not denying, I just want to make sure we have that evidence), as was the case in GG, the 500/30 rules seems reasonable because that is narrowed aimed to cut off that influence. Without knowing that, the problems otherwise described for these pages appear to be the otherwise unfortunate side effects of our open wiki nature that to put further measures that are beyond existing means (3RR, page protection, and arbcom decisions) does impact our openness. 500/30 is a good concept but should only be a last resort. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I would like to add my own comments to disagree with those of Darwinian Ape. They appear to be focused on the words "which anyone can edit", but those words have always been hyperbole, a slight rhetorical exaggeration. There has always been an exception to the "anyone can edit" concept for users who were banned by Jimbo Wales. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy or an experiment in democracy. It is an experiment, mostly successful but with a mixed record, in crowd-sourcing an encyclopedia. As such, it is necessary to learn from the results of the ongoing experiment. Since the early days, it has been found necessary to impose a few restrictions on the "anyone can edit" rule, such as banned users, topic-banned users, and sockpuppets. GamerGate may illustrate the limits of the experiment; there may be a few areas that are so contentious with so much off-wiki coordination that it has become impossible to develop a satisfactory crowd-sourced encyclopedic article even with 500/30. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying in other areas. If we need 500/30 to maintain NPOV in caste-related articles, then we should try 500/30. I think that I agree with Masem in that 500/30 is a draconian restriction, but occasionally we need draconian restrictions in order to maintain the encylopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arjayay

As someone who has tried to deal with caste article problems, over several years, I fully support the 500/30 proposal.
Many new editors over-enthusiastically promote their caste, adding puffery descriptions such as "brave", "intelligent", "generous" etc., as if these could be universally true about any group. They also add the names of famous people, merely on the strength of their family name, and often add themselves as well. There are also attempts to promote one caste (presumably "their" caste) above others. These additions/changes are almost always totally unreferenced, although some do cite Victorian British Empire writers, whose sweeping generalities are not considered reliable sources. Attempts to revert these changes as unsourced, or for not using reliable sources, are almost always reversed with, as Bishonen reports, frequent accusations of bad faith and even claims that they don't need reliable sources because as a member of that caste, they "know", and only members of their caste should be allowed to edit that article. This frequently leads to multiple IPs and SPAs edit warring.
I have also seen negative edits, adding derogatory descriptions to castes, adding criminals/terrorists to them, and demoting them in the "pecking order". 500/30 would prevent all the drive-by editing, and most sockpuppetry, and would, I believe allow us to retain the best new editors, who are often frustrated/appalled that their genuine work, within the guidelines, is being over-written/undone by COI editors trying to push their cause. - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Caste articles and talk pages

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I've seen enough problems with caste articles over the years to make this an easy choice. We have evidence that this particular threshold is adequate to get them up to speed while only being mildly inconvenient to that editor. We are more likely to gain and keep more editors this way, as fewer will be getting blocked due to inexperienced editing. It's a Win/Win sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is clear, I support the 500/30 rule in this case whether or not the talk pages are included, and trust the judgement of my peers to define the scope. I'm wikibreaking, so didn't want it to be bogged down due a lack of support or clarity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive in general, for two reasons. First, because I sympathize with the people on the front lines dealing with this. And second, because I think it would be a very useful limited trial to see if this can be used more broadly. I'd like the 500/30 rule to be considered a possible tool in many other AE areas of constant SPA's and sockpuppetry, like Israel/Palestine, etc. But we'll never know if this is productive - or too restrictive - if we don't try it in more places than GamerGate controversy and see. I'm not familiar with the type of disruption on caste articles; my immediate uninformed impression is that it seems different from the type we see on GamerGate controversy. What do people more on the front lines of this think about Ryk72's idea of limiting it to article space at first, and see if that's sufficient? I mean, it wouldn't be perfect, but neither is a full 500/30 rule on both articles and talk pages. If implemented, this would be an AE enforcement, so I don't see the need to change policy pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bish's and SMS's clarifications, I support giving uninvolved admins the option to impose this 500/30 restriction on editing a covered article, or a talk page, or both, at their discretion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Floquenbeam on this matter. The restriction has been an enormous help with Gamergate articles and we should try it elsewhere to determine if it is a universally effective method at combating SPAs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanSpiff, do you foresee this restriction being imposed on a case-by-case basis for articles that are facing disruption or do you see this editing restriction being applied pro-actively to all caste articles? My basic question concerns how many articles/talk pages this would affect...a dozen? a hundred? more?

In the case of Gamergate, there are several associated articles but the editing restriction only affects the Gamergate controversy article. I'm not familiar with how extensive caste articles are so it's unclear to me how much of an impact your proposal would have if enacted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are about "editing restriction creep" and while I can see that applying this filter would be a judgment call by an admin, I hope it would only be used for articles that are experiencing persistent disruption (trolling), not ones where there are simple arguments and disagreements that are a natural part of determining consensus. It worries me that we don't have an easily determined method of knowing when and when not such an editing restriction would apply but I understand that longtime editors working in this subject area have a good sense of when there might be off-wiki attempts to influence article content.

It looks like this editing restriction will be accepted and I just hope that it is used selectively and not liberally. Also, articles with such a restriction (and this would include Gamergate, too) should be reviewed after 6 months to see whether the restriction is still warranted. That is, editing restrictions should be a temporary solution (even if temporary means 1 year or 2) and not a permanently existing condition for an article or talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I just mentioned, as EdJohnston suggested, that these editing restrictions can be appealable or reviewed if an editor believes they are no longer necessary. I said "after six months" because I think it would add to the disruption if an editing restriction was challenged on a more regular basis (as Gamergate controversy was for the first three months it existed). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Floquenbeam. There should be a full 500/30 rule on articles. (Talk pages could be omitted from the blanket ban, but admins would have discretion to include specific talk pages). Wording should be the same as the ARBGG 500/30 rule if that is possible. For comparison, here is the scope of the community's caste restrictions: "..all pages about social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." A template should be created that can be placed on the talk page of affected articles. New editors not familiar with the rule could be excused for some innocent violations. To get some idea of the scope of the problem, notice that Talk:Nair is up to 20 archives. Everybody wants their own caste to be descended from warriors, and we have to keep explaining the WP:RS rules to a very unwilling audience. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen's further comment sounds right. Just need to spell out whatever the rules are. Perhaps there should be a category for articles that are placed under the 500/30 restriction. Also WP:EDR could be used to record which articles are restricted. Single admins could add or remove the restriction, but restrictions should be appealable at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the same sanction (ie 500/30) is used then the names of the articles could be added to the same filter which provide a public list (if you know where to look, but we can put that link in various places, also has the benefit of not needing to be advertised). I'd hesitate to put them on EDR since other discretionary sanctions, both ArbCom and community authorised aren't recorded there. Regarding how the filter would work, it'd check every account (assuming it's semi protected as well) which edits the article for 500 edits and for 30 days of registration, if the account doesn't meet that requirement the filter will prevent the edit from being made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having the filter apply to all caste article could be very difficult unless there is something specific which is included on all those pages (which could be gamed quite easily, c.f. the reason there's no cascading semi-protection). It might be better filter enforcement as an option for all caste articles and individual pages can be added to the filter as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support the 500/30 concept here. — Ched : ? 23:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachcell

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Bachcell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bachcell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

20:50, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating WP:BLP to page, sources that blatantly fail WP:RS (eg Townhall.com, Breitbart.com), to back up his WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims.
20:59, 28 September 2015 Adds unsourced info to WP:BLP article, with unsourced description, attempting to connect an innocent living 14-year-old-boy to claims of terrorism.
21:06, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating WP:BLP to same page, sourced to what editor admits is "Conservative blog Weasel Zippers.
16:34, 29 September 2015 Adds back, again, same unsourced info to WP:BLP article, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Numerous previous talk page warnings for disruption:

May 2010 - edit warring warning.
June 2010 - canvassing warning.
July 2010 - spam links warning.
August 2010 - canvassing warning.
November 2010 - Wikiquette alert.
June 2011 - Disruption at BLP warning.
May 2015 - edit-warring and WP:NOR warning.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 01:39, 29 September 2015 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NOTE: Bachcell (talk · contribs) is wrong, he most certainly was informed of this request, per my DIFF. Note that most recent WP:BLP violations were after discretionary sanctions warning by admin Liz. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified, see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Bachcell

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bachcell

Was not informed of this request, will not contribute to the clock incident if my contributions are not wanted. Bachcell (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP Editor

Again we see Gamaliel jump to apply sanctions in a content dispute involving TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein against an editor on the other side of that content dispute? This is becoming a pattern. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I see little evidence of IP involvement or sockpuppetry at the article (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident) or talk page and none directed at the editors in question. Certainly nothing rising to the level of the Nazi-related? (I don't see the relevance) conspiracy suggested by Mr. Bernstein. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Quite right of you to call that out - one of the dangers of a dynamic IP, I didn't even think to check but I assure you the edit was not mine. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

The one violation after notification, while unsourced/poorly sourced, is a claim about a clock rather than a living person. I agree with Gamaliel's ban (temporarily) as a preventive measure against further disruption, but procedurally I question whether this is actionable under BLP discretionary sanctions. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

An IP from the same block, presumably the same editor, made a neatly identical complaint yesterday at AN/I [188]. Presumably, this is another little reddit quest -- this topic is now at the top of one of the Gamergate planning boards under a long, long post by the fellow whose name commemorates the sweet music of Nazi dive bombers.

I'd like to call the attention of administrators to the chilling effects that the continual threats of sanctions -- or at least time-consuming complaints at WikiLaw -- have on editors who are, as here, trying to prevent Wikipedia from being embarrassed by conspiracy theories. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

To the IP editor, if in fact, there is a group of people who are consistently editing in compliance with our policy regarding content about living people, and other editors who are consistently editing in contravention of the policy regarding content about living people, one would expect that one group would be praised for their work and one set would be sanctioned. When this happens, that would be a sign that the system is functioning as it should and everyone who cares for the encyclopedia should be happy! IP, you don't sound very happy, and that is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an IP who has made very few edits, but among those edits is [189], your unhappiness with the situation outlined above is probably to be expected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wasn't. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LavaBaron

I would like to echo the comment made by MarkBernstein above, vis a vis allowing low-tolerance for the block-shopping of editors attempting to enforce some minimal standards in terms of the injection of conspiracy theories and innuendo to the encyclopedia, a battle we are (IMO) losing. I have recently, myself, endured this when confronting a SPA/IP Editor duo (sock investigation active here) attempting to sanitize and legitimize the articles for Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy, well-known conspiracy theorists. The editor in question in this arbitration action, Bachcell, just today left a congratulatory aplomb on the SPA's Talk page in that case [190], seemingly underscoring his intent to continue participation in this "bad boys club." I'd ask the arbitrators to consider whether, given the established profile and edit history of Bachnell, he is currently in a position to immediately make an adjustment to his editing patterns and sourcing standards if nothing more than a warning is given? There is a journey of intellectual maturation on which Bachnell needs to embark and limiting his editing privileges to articles outside this topic area for a year or so will allow him to develop the skills in identifying RS and composing NPOV prose that will give him the best chance at reintegration into the mainstream of WP. LavaBaron (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

What area of conflict is this topic under Discretionary Sanctions from Arbcom? This is forum shopping and doesn't belong here. No ArbCom case is cited for Arbitration Enforcement. Where would a "topic ban" be logged? --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by "IP Editor" (Re: Statement by LavaBaron)

As the "IP Editor" is totally unrelated to the alleged "SPA" (i.e. not the same, nor related any way whatsoever) other than through correlation due to erroneous claims presented by LavaBaron after coincidental edits on the two pages mentioned – seemingly post hoc ergo propter hoc among other potential or actual fallacies – the commentary concerning innocent parties, exacerbated by the fact similar allegations have been posted multiple times on several boards and/or pages, could be perceived as an attack on the character of the "IP Editor" (et al) or in the least (each, some, if not all of those when viewed in total) seems uncivil. Therefore, I respectfully request references to the "IP Editor" be stricken from this discussion!

As for Bachcell posting a comment on the talk page of supposed "SPA", the reason is unclear, only Bachcell would know for certain. What I propose, as a potential explanation is that in having taken an interest in the "clock incident", Bachcell may have observed a fringe theories discussion on same subject matter, where LavaBaron posted on the thread commenting "I'd love to get into this but I have my hands full with the CSP (above), at the moment" (perhaps foreshadowing future involvement?), next clarifying "CSP" by using the full name and (what could appear to be a developing or adopted modus operandi of possible ad hominem?) when adding "[s]uffice to say, WP is on LoonWatch Level 5 right now." Later on, posting an RfC notice directly below the "clock incident" discussion. Note: This was done prior to the post by Bachcell on user talk page referenced by LavaBaron. Considering the aforementioned theory, which seems plausible (only Bachcell would know for sure), then I do not think any undue weight should be given to an editor becoming involved in what seems to be unrelated matters, or where relevance provided by an interlocutor seems to focus on extraneous issues LavaBaron brought into this discussion, i.e. why should Bachcell be called out for what appears to be simply a comment of support for an uninvolved editor when that may have been influenced by previous actions of LavaBaron, now commenting against Bachcell. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

User:DHeyward asks what is the area of conflict for Discretionary Sanctions for this topic. The answer is American politics 2 (as per my comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney in response to a Third Opinion request that appeared to be a conduct issue rather than a content issue). This concerns a controversial political organization since 1932 that is still active and is within the scope of the ArbCom case. (It is true that the filing party doesn't identify the case, but that is where any sanctions would be logged.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bachcell

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Given the sensitive and inflammatory nature of these edits, which appear to link a 14-year-old to acts of terrorism, I'm issuing an immediate topic ban, but I will leave this matter open for discussion so editors and admins can evaluate whether or not that ban should stay in place long-term. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

168.1.99.212 Yes, it is an unfortunate pattern when certain editors are stalked by an army of sockpuppets and IP editors. Regardless, I did not scan the article history to see which editors were participating before responding to the sanctions request here, but I doubt conspiracy HQ will believe such inconvenient facts. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have a relevant comment on the sanction or do you merely wish to provide more proof of this phenomenon? Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the topic ban as self-evidently justified. Poorly sourced negative content in a controversial WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John sargis

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning John sargis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Randykitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: John sargis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Proposal: John sargis and Panlis topic banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

29 September 2015 Edit on Takis Fotopoulos, the founder of the Inclusive Democracy movement. John sargis is topic banned from all topics related to Inclusive Democracy.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

John sargis actively participated in the ANI thread leading to his topic ban and was pinged in the final decision by the closing admin, Ricky81682.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff] of notification.

Discussion concerning John sargis

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by John sargis

I apologize for the error as I was under the impression that I could not edit Democracy & Nature particularly since I was able to make the edit with no problem. Furthermore, I was never notified at my user page of exactly of what the ban consisted. John sargis (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my aim when editing was to promote Fotopoulos and the Journal, I would not have used my real name as a user name. I used my real name because I thought that my knowledge from "the inside" could only help the editing of the article, and only a bad faith character cannot see this. John sargis (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning John sargis

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Unfortunately, the topic ban was not told to the editor upon the conclusion, and the closure of that ANI thread didn't use the pinging template (I believe mere mentions are insufficient). Therefore I'm inclined to be lenient. Someone should properly place the topic ban restriction on the user's talk page, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot. I notified the editors here and here. A warning may be appropriate anyways since this is the first violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support a strong warning, per the comments above, and that will remove any possible excuses in future. @John sargis:: you need to be aware that the normal scope of a topic ban on Wikipedia is understood to be "broadly construed" - i.e. if any reasonable person might think something is related to Fotopoulos, ID or D&N, you should ask for advice before proceeding. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the arbitration remedy to be enforced here? The topic ban appears to have been issued by community consensus at ANI, as opposed to being an arbitration discretionary sanction, in which case reports of violations should go back to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward

There is no consensus among admins for any formal action, DHeyward is not formally aware of any applicable arbitration remedy, and the volume of statements and discussion by non-admins is getting out of hand. I will alert DHeyward to the BLP discretionary sanctions and offer him informal advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions :

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions -- Sanctions as determined by administrators, below.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

20:50, 20 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP making statements about 14-year-old-boy about crimes not committed.
03:28, 30 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP, making statements about sister of 14-year-old-boy
04:04, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring to add back in same WP:BLP violations as above.
04:49, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring, again, to add back in same WP:BLP violations, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 January 2015 = Block by admin HJ Mitchell for Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: block made in accordance with WP:GS/GG community sanctions
13 March 2015 Topic ban by admin Gamaliel related to interaction with MarkBernstein

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see 30 November 2014, by Sonicyouth86.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 January 2015, to Binksternet.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13 March 2015 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NOTE: Please note the egregious nature of this edit, combined with the edit summary chosen by the user in question: "Undid revision 683413422 by VQuakr (talk)DailyBeast is a secondary source. What Are you thinking? BLP doesn't apply at all.". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, please take note of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified, at DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DHeyward

Procedure question: What ArbCom case "topic area subject to discretionary sanctions" is this for? This article is not related to any GamerGate topics as far as I am aware of or any other ArbCom discretionary sanction. All the AE justification diffs appear to be GamerGate but don't mention GG. --DHeyward (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak diffs. All supported by reliable sources. I made an AfD comment that would make a biography relevant. It was upheld as the article was renamed. Quoting a reliable source is hardly a BLP violation. In fact, removing a sourced, direct quote is tendentious editing. The BLP block by Mitchel lwas overturned. MarkBernstein topic ban is irrelevant. BLPRESTORE does not apply as it was not an admin and was sourced as a direct quote to a reliable secondary source. The BLP claims were specious TRPoD. This isn't GG so all the so-called "areas" are nonsense. I edited before the GG crowd showed up. Maybe sanction them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that am not the author for the language of what Ahmed's sister was suspended for. I restored it and added the blockquote as it was in the same reference as opposed to those simply omitting it. This editor added the Hoax language [191]. The source quotes her for being suspended and the block quote omits nothing. "I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right.” This sister is the one who created the twitter account. What exactly is wrong with that? --DHeyward (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix see above. I didn't add Hoax language. --DHeyward (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, I reverted because the comment for removal was that it was directed at a minor. Whence, my edit summary "She's an adult." Please change the language but deleting the sisters statement when she had a large role in the publicity is not supported. --DHeyward (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the source quoted her as being suspended due to another students complaint that she threatened to blow up the school. It's not speculation that it happened or that she likened the episode to Ahmed. The "Bomb Hoax" language was not mine, I only added the direct quote and reverted complete deletion when IDONTLIKEIT reasons were given. No one attempted to change the "bomb hoax" language but I support changing it.--DHeyward (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell As I've said, I agree the "hoax bomb" language should have been cleaned up and I apologize for not changing it (it wasn't my language, I reverted edits that were made for specious reasons specified in the summary). When specific reasons were cited I added the I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. The "bomb hoax" was not my language but was retained on revert. Regardless, her own quote was that she was suspended for threatening to blow up the school but she has denied she made the statements and she said the evidence was the word of another student. There is no dispute that she was suspended however and there is no dispute that the reason given was for threatening to blow up the school. My preference would be to simply use her words and paraphrase it or quote it. She identified with Ahmed's plight because of this and was a significant motivation for her to create his twitter account. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the full quote from [192] Eyman Mohamed: I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with. I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me. The parallels are striking from every aspect whether it's a perceived threat to the school, Islamophobia, 3-day suspension, same family, same district, etc, etc. All edits were to remove this even though Eyman is the adult sister that created the Twitter account that people responded and the quote provided her motivation. How that quote is paraphrased and put in the article was my intent. It's in her voice of why she was suspended. I wasn't the original author of "hoax bomb" language and isn't the way I would have phrased it but wholesale deletion on flimsy grounds (i.e. "she's a minor" when she is actually an adult) is what prompted reversion. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell Also, I have also argued on the talk page against using the word "arrested" for Ahmed's taken into custody because when his future employers google him, the first thing they will see is that he was "arrested for a hoax bomb" with an entire article written about him and an expunged juvenile record. He can truthfully say he wasn't arrested according to Texas law. It's also a reason I believe it should have been deleted. That issue doesn't seem to worry the editors that brought me here, though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((u|Cwobeel}} HJMitchell should note that the edit Cwobeel is highlighting [193] is in favor of BLP, unlike his position of portraying Ahmed's custody as an "arrest." Cwobeel was violting BLP by insisting that the police actions was an a "arrest" despite the police statements and Texas AG that clearly state that 14 y/o's are never arrested. Cwobeels BLP violations are not being discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

It is quite clear that the sole purpose of the content is to paint the whole family bunch of people running around making bomb threats. WP:SYN / WP:COATRACK. Clearly unacceptable option in relation to living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

DHeyward is using a source from The Daily Beast...it's an interview. The GamerGate issues are unrelated and DHeyward was on this article first before the person he is topic/interaction banned from showed up.--MONGO 06:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix...her denying she was involved in a bomb hoax doesn't refute the fact that she claims she was suspended three days for a bomb(ing) hoax. I assume as a juvenile that information is likely not going to be easy to come by aside from her claim...the veracity of it remains dubious. So all we can do is state that according to one interviewer, the sister claims (blank).--MONGO 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source states that according to the sister:“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” So that can be taken as evidence the school district is biased, that is, if the source is reliable. The interviewer proceeds after that in his monologue to claim that that part of Texas is a "hotbed of Islamophobia".--MONGO 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see using a direct quote of what the sister claims. Even so, DHeyward isn't reaching far if the girl claimed she was suspended three days based on the claim that some other girl reported her as wanting to blow up a school. How else would you blow up a school? I would think with a bomb....hence...bomb hoax is not much of a reach. I like how the reporter of that piece put that information in there just before he editorialized that that region of Texas is a hotbed of Islamophobia.--MONGO 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If any kid takes a fake plastic gun to school these days, its hard to imagine (especially if he had previous suspensions in his school history as is the case here) that the kid would not be both questioned by the police and be suspended. If a kid brings a weird electronic device to school and after being told by one teacher to put it away decides to ignore that and instead plug it in during another class and have it buzz or alarm and gets a talking to by the police and a school suspension...well...what would anyone expect? The conspiracy theory here is by the left, that wants to present this as a clear case of Islamophobic overreacting...when the fact is that the school would have done this same thing to any child. Never mind the sisters claim that what happened to her was due to a lie perpetrated by another...the school still suspended her based on a bombing hoax...the U had reasonable cause to do so, but these suspensions are also sometimes done to protect the accused, because the time needed for this sort of things to defuse is roughly two to three days. Hoax bomb=device that could be construed as something that looks to the casual observer to be a suspicious package....Bomb hoax=comments or actions which could be construed as intent or desire to blow something up.--MONGO 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP

The problem isn't the source; it is the selective quotation of the source. As MONGO points out it is an interview, and the interviewee says she was falsely accused of something. Omitting the part about the accusation being false completely reverses what the source is saying, and may very well be a BLP violation. 166.170.47.132 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this edit from yesterday, which also claimed the girl made bomb threats. [194] 76.93.226.132 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

Diffs # 2,3, and 4 are all a pretty serious BLP violation imo. If you look at the source cited, all of this is based on a quotation from Eyman Mohamed, in which she clearly states that "“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” How you get from that explicit denial of having anything to do with a bomb hoax to saying that she was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax" is beyond me. This is a very clear and very obvious case of someone cherry picking/misrepresenting a quotation in order to imply the direct opposite of what the source actually says. And then edit warring to re-insert it after it's been challenged. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Actually, the words "bomb hoax" don't appear in the article at all. What Eyman actually said, again, is "I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with." So if we can add anything based on this statement at all (which I question), we would have to say that she was suspended after having been falsely accused of wanting to "blow up the school." And it would have to be clearly attributed as her (Eyman's) statement. That is all that the source supports - saying that she was "suspended for an earlier bomb hoax" is completely unsupported by the source, and completely unacceptable. It uses her own statement to imply that she was actually involved in a "bomb hoax," when in reality her contention is the exact opposite. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwobeel

This first interaction by DHeyward did not bode well, and from that point on there has been a continued effort by this editor to violate BLP (my highlight): Delete BLP1E NOTNEWS and there are tons of kids that draw pictures of guns that get detained and we don't need cruft like that. If he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later.[195] When asked, they don't even acknowledge their animosity against the subject and the obvious tone deafness.[196] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix see above. I didn't add Hoax language. --DHeyward Really? And what is this exactly if not a revert adding that language?[197] Reverting to a BLP violation is the same as adding a BLP violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: After reading the comments in the Result section, are you still trying to defend your position? [198]. Adult sister or not, she is a private individual who deserves protection per WP:BLP. I am no longer sure a WP:WHACK! is what will make you getting clued. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: - DHeyward's started actively editing the article on September 20: Diff. A discretionary sanctions notice was added to that article's talk page on September 24 Diff - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: - If you check the sources, each and every one of the sources refer to an "arrest", and thus there is no BLP violation. The NYT, WaPo, LA Times, CNN, and countless others report that he was arrested [199]. The fact that your argue that Mohamed was not specifically "arrested", is irrelevant to this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

The first statement, from the AFD, is snarky and less than tasteful, but hardly a BLP violation. The second edit, however, regarding the subject's sister, is a clear BLP violation. The "bomb hoax" claim is simply unsupported by the claimed source, and the tortured justifications for it, here and elsewhere, are bereft of logical analysis. The 1950s junior high school kid who sang "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school" in the cafeteria was not perpetrating a hoax that the school was on fire. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel

None of these are BLP violations. 1. Is nothing. 2, 3, and 4 are all sourced to the sister's own statements. You might be able to argue about the presentation, but to claim BLP is weak. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect

The diff at an AfD is not remotely problematic as far as I can tell. I do find the bit about the sister being added to the BLP possibly troublesome as the source does not make the explicit claim as worded, although it is not that far off. "The sister had been suspended after a false accusation ...." would have been usable wording, I would think. Unfortunately, one or more of the commenters appear to be an "active disputant" at that BLP, and I think the catenation of all the most active editors at that article should be under precisely equal scrutiny. And on that basis, DHeyward is far from the worst offender, for sure. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, DHeyward is not culpable for the unfortunate wording which had been given by anther editor - the source can easily be interpreted to be read by an outside observer as supporting the claim, although I find the wording unfortunate. The editor who did insert "Bomb Hoax" should be told to be more careful, for sure. And anyone who objected to the exact wording should have modified the wording or suggested a change rather than try to remove the entire section (per WP:CONSENSUS) Collect (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, people object to an edit entirely, and end up saying only one or two words were the entire "violation" and that the other editor should have been prescient enough to know that the person really only objected to two words.

Common sense says - if you object to two words, then damn well say so - and don't accuse the other fellow of deliberately violating WP:BLP. Clearly if the problem is two words, be man enough to tell the other editor what your problem is with them, instead of shouting him down as though he were in the tumbril. Following WP:CONSENSUS makes a lot more sense than preparing the guillotine. Collect (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Supposed violation #1 does not even make a claim about any specific person (or small group). It is a policy-based AfD argument about a hypothetical situation by which a subject might meet notability guidelines. At worst it could be called flippant. Inclusion of this diff establishes the purpose of the filing is to punish someone for not sharing the filer's ideology.

Diffs 2-4 refer to information sourced from direct quotation from the subject of the claim, as published in the Daily Beast. The most pertinent RSN discussions concerning the Daily Beast [200][201][202] express reservations on where it stands w.r.t. fact vs opinion, but has generally been found reliable as a source at least that opinions are held. If editors share concerns along these lines, they could insist that the article read that the Daily Beast believes the sister believes she was suspended, but that seems pedantic to me.

Where reliable sourcing is satisfied, there is no BLP violation. Full stop.

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has several clauses that must be unpacked. First there's the burden of proof and "must comply with Wikipedia content policies". This is satisfied, as described above. Consensus/discussion is not required if the material is revised to address concerns, as was done by including more specific quotation of the sister's statement. DHeyward's final restoration is the only possibly problematic diff, in that it restored the passage unaltered. The given objection from VQuakr (talk · contribs) however was that there was no reliable secondary source. It is not possible to revise to satisfy a counterfactual complaint. For failure to patiently explain VQuakr's misunderstanding, DHeyward should be trouted.

Restoring material means taking responsibility for it, so DHeyward is answerable for the "bomb hoax" phrasing. It seems like a reasonable paraphrase of the source, but also reasonable to challenge. The mature response would be to WP:PRESERVE the overall passage and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Likewise for those who believe more of the sister's statement should be quoted for context. You can just fix it rather than coming to AE to count coup. Ultimately, this dispute is motivated by a faction projecting their own biases and assumptions onto the material and other editors. Perhaps the incident with the sister connects the family with terrorism. Contrarily, perhaps it demonstrates the district has an ongoing pattern of Islamophobia. Neither of those is a reason for AE to take up the charge and right great wrongs. Grow up and let the reader decide. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

I'm slightly surprised by a blithe response to BLP violations here. Fyddlestix has it exactly right: a source was being twisted to give an impression the opposite of what the quote supports. And this was reinserted three times. If this behaviour isn't prevented now, we'll surely see more of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

There are a couple of editors involved with that article who have some serious WP:OWNnership problems with it and at least one of them has commented above. If you admins want to help stop the edit warring that's going on with that article, I suggest you remove those editors. DHeyward, as far as I can see, is not one of them. Several of you admins commenting below appear to be, based on your comments, at least partially aware of what's going on with that article. Why haven't you stepped in to correct the poor behavior by those few editors who are getting in the way of congenial collaboration on the article? Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I personally think this is non-actionable. It's not really related to the restrictions, the AfD comment was defensible, the BLP edit not so much and should have gone through WP:BRD but this is not WP:AN/EW. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, MastCell is right. The quote that was used for the claim that the sister was suspended for a bomb hoax does not actually say that. It says: "“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” - that is not at all the same thing, the complainant could have been just another Islamophobe. To be clear, this is not a violation of the topic ban. It is, however, pretty sneaky and it is also edit warring to add questionable material in violation of WP:BLP. I don't know what this board is supposed to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a history of edit warring on controversial articles and is not sufficiently able to resist the temptation to be obnoxious to editors he is in conflict with. That said, I'm not sure this rises to the level of enforcement. The AFD comment was crass but not actionable. The article edits are sufficiently sourced and though poorly worded initially, this editor is making changes which appear to be an attempt to take into account objections by others and is participating in talk page discussion. Should the edit warring continue, I would consider a 1RR restriction, but beyond that this appears to be a content dispute and not a BLP violation so far. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff is not particularly problematic, but the other three show edit-warring to reintroduce a fairly serious BLP violation, in my view. DHeyward wrote that a living private figure was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax." The cited source clearly presents this incident as a false accusation of a bomb hoax against the living person. DHeyward's edit removes this essential context. I'm surprised more people don't see this as a problem.
If this private figure (whose name DHeyward helpfully included in the edit) applies for a job and her prospective employer Googles her, one of the first things likely to come up is a Wikipedia page saying that she was "suspended for a bomb hoax"—devoid of the context present in the original source indicating that she was falsely accused. This is exactly why BLP exists: to protect living people (especially private figures) from the adverse consequences of careless editing on one of the most high-profile websites on Earth.
Now, I have no idea whether the "GamerGate" sanctions apply to this article, or whether these edits fall under AE's purview. I'd be just as happy with an injunction to get a fucking clue and edit more responsibly (cleaned up and phrased WP:CIVILly, of course) rather than a block. But we need to be a little bit clearer about where the BLP line is. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Collect: When editors revert to restore material, they implicitly take responsibility for the material that they are re-inserting. This is a fundamental aspect of personal responsibility and editorial common sense. Arguing that DHeyward was simply edit-warring to restore someone else's BLP violation, rather than a BLP violation of his own creation, isn't the mitigating factor you seem to think it is. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, you need to tone it down. Please bear in mind how public and permanent Wikipedia is, and that these are children you're discussing, not public figures with years of practice. You can make your point perfectly well with more considered remarks. Others, please don't import gamergate disputes into this (or any other) topic area; misconduct on one highly toxic topic area might be overlooked given the generally appalling level of discourse there, but if the same faces start showing up in the context of disruption in other topic areas it starts to look like the problem is with them and not with the topic area. Next, DHeyward's edit is a reasonable, but overly concise (to the extent that vital context is lost) interpretation of the source. This sort of thing would not normally merit an AE request or a noticeboard thread. DH should be more careful, in the same vein as with his remarks at the AfD, but it does not, in and of itself, rise to the level of sanctions. Finally, nobody has specified the arbitration remedy to be enforced. The only obvious one is the BLP discretionary sanctions, of which DH is not formally aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cwobeel: In order for discretionary sanctions to be imposed, the person on whom they're to be imposed (in this case DHeyward) must meet one of the criteria at WP:ACDS#Awareness. DH has only been alerted to the gamergate sanctions. You may be able to argue that he meets one of the other criteria, but I still wouldn't be considering any serious sanctions, at least at this point, for the reasons I outlined above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT

EllenCT hasn't edited that article in almost two weeks, so let's focus on the long-term issues above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning EllenCT

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Edit warring : 7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

EllenCT repeatedly, unilaterally reverted the same material against several different opposing editors over the span of a week and a half in two sections in the United States article, often with misleading edit summaries. Every diff below contains her preferred changes to the inequality segment ("X"), the tax segment ("Z"), or both.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21):

1.[203] "X"

2.[204] "Z"

3.[205] "Z"

4.[206] "Z"

5.[207] "Z"

6.[208] "X"

7.[209] "X"

8.[210] "Z"

9.[211] "X"

10.[212] "X", "Z"

11.[213] "X", "Z"

When advised to stop edit warring EllenCT stated her intention to continue reverting "[214]: "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with multiple reverts on the 21st.

EllenCT had already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [215], and should be familiar with the rule.

For the record, I only edited the article twice in that entire span.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 28, Sep. 22.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note - I originally filed this report on the edit warring board [216], but was advised to take the complaint here. I was away when that reply was posted, and EllenCT seized the opportunity to initiate the case here herself, except twisting it so that I was now somehow the one being reported, hijacking and distorting the process. [217] Her report was a malformed mess and she failed to provide a single diff of my edits even after being prodded to post evidence. Fortunately several editors were able to decipher what had happened but the resulting chaos confused admins who indicated they weren't sure how to proceed. Her report should be closed. Now it's my turn to try. I'm taking the bold liberty of filing this report against EllenCT as originally advised. Hopefully this fresh start will clarify things.

This is not a content dispute. This is a straightforward conduct violation. The diffs are fresh because I initially reported them on the edit warring board on the 21st, at which point EllenCT's edit warring began its current pause. Without action against her here it may resume. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[218]

Discussion concerning EllenCT

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by EllenCT

This is the same dispute as #VictorD7 above. Victor would of course prefer to focus on eleven days of WP:1RR on my part than on his and his WP:TAGTEAM's political advocacy source abuses giving rise to it. EllenCT (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (VictorD7)

This is how the case should have been brought originally, not the malformed mess initiated by EllenCT above that left admins confused. As for EllenCT's charges against me, she is partially right in that those were the focus of her request above. She had her chance to make a case against me and she failed. In fact her claim is the opposite of the truth. If anyone is interested in examining the content dispute they can visit the other request, where the posting, as Capeo helpfully put it, "completely dismantles" her sources and arguments, and shows that she's the POV pusher. There's no point in relitigating that here. Now it's time to focus on her edit warring.

3RR violation isn't required for one to edit war. Over those 11 diffs EllenCT repeatedly makes the same changes over and over again against strong opposition by numerous editors. Content is irrelevant to an edit warring case unless it's vandalism, a BLP violation, or something illegal (e,g, copyright infringement/child porn), none of which applies here. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning EllenCT

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 851: / Line 851: @@
 ::@Sitush: When I look at the Nair talk page (which was given as an example of SpacemanSpiff) and consider it by itself, I don't see anything that triggers a need to lock down the page that is not already covered by the above ArbCom motions. Compared to GG, where it was both volume and civility of the IP/SPAs activity that required a novel solution, that doesn't exist here. But that's purposely not considerign the statement that there is off-site coordination happening. Given everything else said (the sparsity of editors on these pages to start, the nature of them being castes, etc.) then as long as the off-site collusion can be readily demonstrated, 500/30 makes sense. But to say that just based on the Nair history and talk page alone, I would not support that, because there's thousands of non-controversial articles that have the same exact type of behavior (a random IP or new editor coming along and trying to have the article making a specific point without sourcing or the like), making the 500/30 a potential thing that can be abused if we are not careful. Critical is the demonstration of the off-site influence to justify the 500/30. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
+:::@Sitush: All I'm trying to point out is that as long as we are aware this is coordinated off-site influence (which I'm not denying, I just want to make sure we have that evidence), as was the case in GG, the 500/30 rules seems reasonable because that is narrowed aimed to cut off that influence. Without knowing that, the problems otherwise described for these pages ''appear'' to be the otherwise unfortunate side effects of our open wiki nature that to put further measures that are beyond existing means (3RR, page protection, and arbcom decisions) does impact our openness. 500/30 is a good concept but should only be a last resort. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Robert McClenon====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 19:55, 1 October 2015

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Unbiasedpov

Statement by Unbiasedpov

Statement by Abecedare

Statement by Kautilya3

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Unbiasedpov

Result of the appeal by Unbiasedpov

Gob Lofa

Request concerning Gob Lofa

Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

Statement by Gob Lofa

Statement by User:Mabuska

Result concerning Gob Lofa

VictorD7

Request concerning VictorD7

Discussion concerning VictorD7

Statement by VictorD7

Comment

Response to EllenCT's "Additional diff clarification"

Response to EllenCT's "Additional source analysis"

Actual source list

Request that Gamaliel recuse himself

Response to Specifico

Sanctions request by EllenCT

Additional diff clarification, as requested

Additional source analysis, as requested

Response to VictorD7's "Actual source list"

Statement by Capitalismojo

Statement by Only in Death

Statement by Mattnad

Statement by uninvolved Capeo

Statment by semi-involved Calidum

Statement by uninvolved Scolaire

Statement by uninvolved SPECIFICO

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

Statement by Protonk

Statement by Cla68

Result concerning VictorD7

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Slovenski Volk

Appealing user

User imposing the sanction

Notification of User imposing sanction

Sanction being appealed

Statement by S.V.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by Glrx

Statement by Athenean

Result of the appeal by Slovenski Volk

19999o

Request concerning 19999o

Discussion concerning 19999o

Statement by 19999o

Statement by SilentResident

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 19999o

Caste articles and talk pages

Request concerning Caste articles and talk pages

Discussion concerning Caste articles and talk pages

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by Ryk 72

Statement by RegentsPark

Statement by Rhoark

Statement by NeilN

Statement by MusikAnimal

Statement by Darwinian Ape

Statement by Sitush

Statement by Masem

Statement by Robert McClenon

Statement by Arjayay

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Caste articles and talk pages

Bachcell

Request concerning Bachcell

Discussion concerning Bachcell

Statement by Bachcell

Statement by IP Editor

Statement by Rhoark

Statement by MarkBernstein

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom