This is the user sandbox of Heavy Chaos. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Getting ready to archive some talk page discussions. Primarily putting the record together in case I need to put in an ANI against Andrevan for following me and CivilPOV, or related behavior.

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE MEANT FOR ANYONE ELSE TO SEE. IT IS WHERE I AM COLLECTING INFORMATION TO MAKE THE FINAL PRESENTATION. IF YOU SEE THIS MESSAGE, THIS PAGE CANNOT REASONABLY BE USED AGAINST ME AS MAKING "UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS AGAINST ANOTHER USER", SINCE THE POINT OF THE PAGE IS TO BUILD THAT SUBSTANTIATION.

I'm not hopeful that a lowly new contributor like myself can find much sway against the admin, considering Andrevan is a long time former admin. It's going to take a lot of diff pointing and explanation to make that case (none of which has been done here yet), but I don't really want to spend a lot of time on such nonsense. I just want to make crappy articles better. I like writing.

The main gist of the complaint I would have against Andrevan is heavyhandedness against a new contributor, having a singular view on the ways to contribute while minimizing another user's contributions that are within policy editing process, insistence on communicating with him, inconsistent and incessant policy citing, excessive repetitive continuous and fast messaging, and mischaracterization of another users stated intents regarding the editing process as maligned with WP policy. These items all can be explained by a few named and understood "bad behavior" items, of which I think civil pov or pov railroad is probably closest (there are others that I read, but can't remember, I'll have to track down later to refine the argument). When you lose your temper with this behavior, Andrevan is very quick to lash out with threats and actions to get you banned (using exclusively the WP:civil policy), while making no concession of your positive contributions to the editing of the actual content.

Talk page messages with diffs

Others think the same thing

An early message after my first trickle down economics talk message suggested that civilpov was preventing any progress on the page:

I appreciate your recent post on the talk page. I largely agree with you. You can see in earlier discussions that most editors also agree, but we have one or two very active editors who are pushing a POV. You can also see the long list of wiki policy that agrees that this should be structured as a term in historical use, not a set of theories, but alas those have gone nowhere.

I would support the reorg you mention (as you can see earlier in the talk page), but you'll have to stick to it for awhile or you will just be outlasted. Squatch347 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC) [1]

I had a feeling. Thanks. I'm going to start with some small edits. Clean up, clarity, etc. I should start small, since I don't know the platform nor the conventions. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC) [2]

Initial talk page items

Andrevan very early, aggressively, and in an almost gish gallop, attempted to discourage me from editing and any participation that wasn't talking to him specifically. I wrote this message on the talk page after we finally made progress: "Andrevan's contributions to the talk page really held up a lot of progress on the article. The needle moved hard and in the right direction as soon as everyone else decided we didn't need his permission. He used quite a bit of strongarming on me, a new user, to get his way. But now the article is much better. See my user page highlighting the progress. See below for Andrevan's contribution. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)" [3]

Hi Heavy Chaos! I noticed that you have threatened to revert to restore your preferred version. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [4]

In the last 24 hours, four editors have been on the Trickle Down talk page, which includes you and me. The other two agree with me. I don't need to revert back to my edit. There's a lot to do on that page. It needs to be at least organized; I can agree to no deletions while I give that a go. If you'll just revert each one, while filibustering on the talk page, maybe I'll just move on to another page. Sad situation. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [5]

Hi, if you're going to make statements like You'll have to make this case effectively or I'm going to make the edit again...the encouragement is to edit, not talk over and over again. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years. No, you do not get to just show up as a new account and assume no discussion for your changes is merited. Andre🚐 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [6]

But there is much extant discussion. My freshmanship in it is irrelevant. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [7]

It's quite relevant because you made some bold edits to the status quo version and I reverted you, and asked to discuss. You are saying that discussion isn't a requirement that applies to you. If you continue with that, you will find yourself running afoul of guidelines. Andre🚐 00:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [8]

Just wondering, do you have any financial interest in terms of paid editing or a conflict of interest with any organization you would care to disclose. You stated that you are a new user. Have you edited with any other account? Andre🚐 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [9]

LOL. No, I don't make any money relevant to "Trickle down economics". Weird question. I edited once or twice about 10 years ago under a different account that I can't even remember the user name. I don't even remember what I edited. I've been an active participate on Stack Exchange since 2013, so I'm no stranger to user-generated contributions. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [10]

OK, well you seem very interested in the topic of trickle-down economics and in corrected what you see as "political smears" in the article, so you should refer to WP:RGW and note that WP:CIR. Andre🚐 01:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [11]

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [12]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Andre🚐 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [13]

Argument over the Voodoo economics redirect

Had an issue with the Voodoo econ redirect that was mischaracterized and Andrevan was unreasonable and aggressive in its discussion. The content didn't matter, only talking to him about it did. False accusations of forum shopping and running around processes ensued. This eventually led to a 24 hour block. Andrevan continued in the block thread, after I told him to leave me alone, more or less gloating and threatening that he could get me blocked for even longer.

Hey, please don't go around systematically removing this wikilink. Whether the article is merged, created, or whatever, you still shouldn't be delinking the contextual valid links to it. Andre🚐 03:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [14]

That's the problem. They aren't contextual at all. The authors are linking to it because they know it links somewhere, without regard to what that actually means. But you didn't revert some of them (namely, the clearly not political topics), so I don't think your motivation is purely "administrative/lost hyperlinking values".

The side question I have here now is, have you put my contributions page on your watchlist or something? You are reverting/replying/etc on virtually everything I do, in unrelated places. Maybe, just a thought, you could let the people actually watching those pages engage me there, if they have any problems with my edits, instead of jumping in so quickly. I don't need you following me around, and I don't think wikipedia needs it either, and I'd prefer the opportunity to engage with a variety of editors. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [15]

The clearly not political ones are valid (e.g. this one [16] which seems fine and that entire article should probably be deleted) But the other removals are not valid. and you're also advocating to change the status of the page. I'm not following you around, but if you are making systematic, automated changes without consensus and someone asks you to stop and discuss, you must do so. Andre🚐 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [17]

In case it wasn't clear what my problem is, you stated you wanted the redirect voodoo economics to be deleted and instead of waiting to see if that should be the case, you are just going around delinking it. That's not proper. So please stop it. Andre🚐 04:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [18]

If you'd bother to read the context of those, virtually all of them are "so and so said 'voodoo economics'". That's not cause to link to reaganomics. Half of those ones aren't even in reference to reaganomics. They are nonsense links. Any reasonable click through would be surprised about where it takes them, except political adepts of the 80s and 90s going "oh yes, Bush Sr. said that about Reagan." And you clearly are following me. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [19]

I am not following you, it's entirely reasonable when I saw you were going around removing every link to voodooo economics in valid articles such as Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign and 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries. If voodoo economics is used in those articles it should be so linked. It doesn't need to go to Reaganomics, but it would make total sense if it did. Andre🚐 04:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [20]

I'm not complaining about the reverts. I accept it as part of the process. I am complaining about you. When you "saw [I was] going around removing every link to voodooo economics"... yeah, you follow all those pages, and the talk pages where you're so quick to reply to my first message there? Didn't think so. And it was how long between my edits and your reverts? 5 Minutes? I don't quote this lightly, but wp:hound is something you are approaching, I think. You could have at least waited half a day to see what the regulars of those pages actually think. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [21]

Um, no, it's not hounding you if you are systematically, without consensus, removing all wikilinks to a valid redirect without a reason why that redirect should be deleted. I don't have all the pages you removed it from on my watchlist, but when I saw you removing it I checked out the other pages. In case you forgot, you are a new editor, right? And I've already reported you to ANI for personal attacks. So how about this, why don't you report me to ANI for hounding you and see what the admins think about your stealth deletion of the voodoo economics redirect and accusing me of hounding when I came here to ask you to seek a consensus for your large-scale removals of wikilinks. Andre🚐 04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [22]

The process starts with edit. That's why there's an edit message, which I filled with my reason. If someone has a problem, they can change or revert. I've already said I'm fine with that. In fact, I might have reverted in a few days, since I know I could find them in my contributions page, based on how things go. My contributions so far show pretty great improvements, so I'll leave the decision to SLAPP somebody up to you. But that might start to look like high maintenance. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [23]

I agree that you are entitled to make a bold edit and I may revert that and ask you to discuss that major change and get a consensus. You dissembled, argued, offered more invalid rationales and accused me of hounding you. Now you are saying you might have reverted your own edits yourself. Well, I guess that would certain resolve the issue. But until you had done that, you would be doing an end-run around the merge or redirect/deletion or creation discussion that you had started. I am more than happy to discuss the issue civilly, but you insist of accusing me of wikilawyering, now I guess you are accusing me of tendentious editing. You are a new editor, when you have made a total of 175 edits, you should not be tossing around serious allegations so haphazardly. I suggest you start a discussion to gauge support before embarking on any other major changes. I also suggest you stop throwing around accusations of impropriety. Andre🚐 05:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [24]

I was getting information (do other users, not you, care and how much) and attention on the issue (who cares and will they engage on the talk page). If you shadow me it can't happen. I expected most of them to be reverted. I didn't expect you to revert them all in five minutes. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [25]

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Don't make edits you expect to be reverted. Discuss first. Thanks. Andre🚐 05:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [26]

My expectation could be false. It is false often enough that I don't use the word synonymously with "belief", but with "hypothesis". Indeed, if the edits weren't reverted for some long time, then what would be the problem? The process would still be respected, since people watching those pages would have presumably made a decision to leave it alone. And whether they were or were not reverted, I still would be planning to delete the redirect by the process you showed me in the reaganomics talk page, because it still exists regardless. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [27]

You're not "planning to delete it," you're planning to PROPOSE it for deletion. It will likely be kept, and your deletion discussion will be unsuccessful. Either way, you must wait until you actually get it deleted before you go around delinking it. Andre🚐 05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [28]

An argument about editing messages after publishing them.

This was a weird argument that happened in the middle of the voodoo econ argument. I noticed there were changes to a message that I replied to. I couldn't exactly see what they were, but I could tell the message was visibly changed. I pointed this out. Andrevan first denied it. Turns out he did it twice. I conceded, after seeing what the changes were exactly, that they didn't change the message meaning, but that when we are in a quick back and forth this could make him appear dishonest. He didn't get it, then decided he needed the technical application of some policy to support him, instead of admitting that this makes him appear dishonest and he should just slow down his replies and/or commit to what words he's published.

You're editing messages after I'm replying to them. If I'm clearly "in the room" you need to commit to the first submission of your messages. You can't change them after the fact. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [29]

I did not do so, please provide a diff that you believe I did that. Andre🚐 04:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [30]

Here. I'm "in the room", so I've read and started a reply less than a minute after you. You can't edit in these situations. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [31]

That's not an edit after you've replied. The talk page ettiquette is that I may amend my message if nobody has yet replied to it. Also, your reply was to my 2nd message and several minutes later. Andre🚐 04:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [32]

Surely you can see how an edit in this situation might be missed? I'm not saying this makes you dishonest, or that this edit changed the meaning of your message, but I didn't see it before my reply. It was missed, somewhere between me reading the initial version and starting my reply. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [33]

The reply tool has a popup that it pops up to tell you to get the new messages. The reply tool is a relatively new thing to Wikipedia. We used to have to write replies by editing the wiki source by hand. Either way, if you look at the diffs below, your message had several minutes and replied to my 2nd message when my 1st message, the amendment, and 2nd message were already on the page Andre🚐 04:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [34]

If the problem is not clear to you, I don't know what to say. I already told you I missed it. It wasn't noticed, in the three minutes between 1st and 2nd version. If you had meaningfully changed the message, it would have looked dishonest. As the editor, this can only make you look bad. I can deal with it if a quick edit surprises me. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [35]

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them WP:TALK#REPLIED Andre🚐 05:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [36]

Thank you, wiki lawyer. I've asked for a conversational courtesy, not a recitation of "the rules". You're clearly not willing to do that. Fine, I'll remember it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [37]

As you said yourself, my edit simply added a link for additional clarification and did not change the meaning. I am not wikilawyering but just informing you of policies, conventions, and common practices since you are a new editor. It would be best if you would consider that I am simply telling you useful information instead of taking offense. Andre🚐 05:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [38]

NOTE

Andrevan minimized in his last message here, and neglects that he did it a second time in this very conversation. [39] As I state in my messages, the change is not the issue, but the timing. And he refused to get that this action leaves me with less good faith for his participation. He did it another time a day later, adding a link, when we're in the middle of a quick back and forth. [40] Again, not really a problem, but it's a problem that Andrevan can't even concede how this makes him look bad and makes it hard for others to trust him.

I asked if Andrevan was being obtuse

Andrevan gave the section the title Another personal attack. I asked if Andrevan was being obtuse or if he really believed an outlandish position that he just stated. It was so "uncivil" in his mind that he even redacted it from the talk page where I said it. This looks like well executed character assassination more than any real offense.

"Are you being obtuse" is not acceptable discourse. Cut it out, or I'll open a new thread on ANI about your issue with civil discourse. Andre🚐 07:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [41]

Well, are you though? Seriously. You keep repeating the same things. Or refusing common sense like "voodoo x is a slur". Hiding behind politeness, insisting on endless debate, and repeating the same invalid arguments is called sealioning. Maybe there's a WP rule on it, but I can't find it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [42]

So you're again accusing me of trolling or harassment when I confront you about personal attacks. What part of, you are not allowed to ask me or imply I'm being obtuse, do you not understand. You have to engage in good faith, agree or disagree with what I have to say. My arguments are valid, and you know very little about Wikipedia policy or guideline. You don't get to show up, accuse harassment, and have everything your way. Andre🚐 07:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [43]

If "Are you being obtuse" is not a valid question when confronted with repetitive arguments and refusal to even concede common sense, I'm not sure what language I can have? Civil is what I expect too. Sealioning is not civil. And if you say you're not doing it by intent, it sure looks like you're doing it in fact. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [44]

I am not sealioning in any way. You were making drastic changes without discussion or consensus, doing an end run around the process, and when confronted you make outlandish claims of hounding, harassment, and trolling. Your behavior is not compatible with collaboration. When confronted with someone who disagrees with you, you need to consider that they might have legitimate points to make. We can discuss, and if I'm really wrong, you'll get your way. But we haven't discussed. You showed up to the article, made major changes and then claimed that discussion wasn't necessary because it happened already and was settled. But you weren't there, if you are a new editor. So you need to spend the time and discuss it or stop accusing others of being obtuse, of being dishonest, of trolling or pretending good faith, with absolutely 0 evidence. Andre🚐 08:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [45]

All you do is veto and demand things get cleared with you first. Does that sound like collaboration? Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [46]

I don't have to have been there at the time you posted it. It's all still there, in exactly the way you posted it the first time. Everyone else's messages too. There's no initiation to start editing, and there's certainly no need to clear it with you personally. wp:own much? Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [47]

I never said to clear it with me personally. As we did before we had a discussion and a posting on the NPOV noticeboard and some editors agreed with me, and some agreed with you. I do not own anything nor am I acting like I do: you made bold changes and I reverted them. That is 2 editors. Neither of us gets to call all the shots. Andre🚐 08:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [48]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 07:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [49]

24 hour block

I question whether the admin HJ Mitchell who put the block looked very closely at the context (tons of messages from me and Andrevan), rather than just the diffs Andrevan provided. I am contrite about the order of events, and I understand my removing of the voodoo econ links from most pages that have it looks like trying to end run the redirect delete process, and I further state this below. I am, afterall, still learning and not quick to believe Andrevan's "there's only one way" suggestions. I do find issue with the logic, that if I had seen a handful of the article that link to voodoo econ first, then removed the links because they make no sense, then it would have been fine??? The order of events cannot dictate whether there's been malfeasance. In the voodoo econ argument I do make a case that the ones I removed make no sense and Andrevan conceded and left alone some of them, but never countered my argument for removing the others and never mentioned this in the ANI board. I called it character assassination in another place.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for systematically removing links to a redirect in an end-run around process and consensus, and repeatedly making unfounded accusations against other editors who disagree with you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

[50]

The text of your message on the ANI board is

Blocked for 24 hours. Consider that a shot across the bow. Removing the links is disruptive enough for a stern warning but the repeated unfounded accusations against other editors, including in this very thread, is absolutely not on.

Is the block for "disruptive editing" or "uncivil" interaction? Both? At 24 hours, I won't request unblock either way. I appreciate you look so far, but my problem with Andrevan is widespread behavioral, not momentary. I do contend that Andrevan is close to harassing me, per wp:hound (i.e sealioning, which I conceded that he could be acting in earnest, but he is doing it in fact by following me a around and demanding I engage him on tedious complex levels, even for minor reasons). He also demonstrates a lot of wp:own by incessantly demanding discuss before anything, which is not the process ethic, per wp:bold. On several occasions where I say this, he'll agree, but only minutes later tell me I can't make edits until I talk to him. Which leads to the very frequent quoting of WP policies, which are suspect and misapplied about half the time, I would say, giving us the WP:lawyering problem, especially WRT a lot of "consensus" talk but never accepting when he's in tiny minority and letting it go. Then, finally, in all my effort so far you can see he's been present, but has consistently resisted any editing (anybody's and especially mine), and there is plenty of evidence in the quality of my personally made improvements and others that, when dealing with Andrevan, we're going to have to WP:IAR eventually if we want to do anything. Additionally, this high maintenance behavior is evidenced by multiple accusations that I intend to, not have actually, editwar and am on the battleground.

This isn't necessarily meant for you to take action against him. After all, you can see the message above where I already committed to not make an ANI against him. But it is a defense of my frustration, where I did ask if he was being obtuse. Maybe that's rude to ask, but, where I'm from, if someone is asking that, it's because they suspect you are already being rude yourself. Heavy Chaos (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [51]

Both. You're entitled to disagree with other editors but you can do so without unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. You're entitled to disagree with a redirect but the place to raise that is WP:RFD. If you want to complain about Andrevan's conduct, you can do that at ANI but you'll need to present evidence, not just accusations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [52]

@HJ Mitchell Thanks. I understand about the links and how that looked like circumvention. But there is a reasoning I made in the edit summary of each which is applicable to the individual instances. That reasoning didn't apply to some links, which I left alone, and neither to other links, where I gave different reasoning for an edit. Andrevan even agreed with some of them and didn't revert, and I explicitly state above to him that I embrace that process. My problem is specifically with Andrevan. If this continues, I'm afraid I have to submit an ANI. Heavy Chaos (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [53]

I've never claimed to be perfect and I'm open to feedback, but the allegations you're continuing to make are inaccurate, and uncivil. You should spend this time thinking about your own behavior instead of making spurious WP:ASPERSIONs about mine. You are not being bold but WP:RECKLESS. Your statement that when dealing with Andrevan, we're going to have to WP:IAR eventually if we want to do anything is particularly problematic. IAR can be invoked to improve the encylopedia not destroy content and wikilinks against consensus. Per WP:HOUND, The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. As you can see, I had a constructive reason and you were circumventing process and consensus. Per Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (an essay, not policy), The word wikilawyering typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors....Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer. You should also refer to WP:BRD, bold edits reverted or disputed should be discussed, not forced through, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable, WP:NPA about your personal attack habit. You haven't stopped making personal attacks but instead have doubled down on them. If you continue I will request for your block to be lengthened or made permanent. Andre🚐 19:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [54] This message was updated 3 or 4 times, final diff [55]

NPOV message board, only some diffs added, missing some key ones

Trickle-down economics

I'd like to flag this article for a few eyeballs. We had a bunch of discussions and an RFC on this a few months ago. At issue is whether trickle-down economics is a term of political art, or an economic one, or both, or neither, and whether the article as written is balanced. Andre🚐 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [56]

Balance is not really the problem. A mess of incoherence is. I moved content to a more appropriate heading that already exists on the article. A revert of an edit that only moves content to start organizing the article is not helpful. Are you objecting to even moving the existing content to be near like content? This is a little twilight zone for me right now. I didn't expect to get SLAPPed. At least, not right away. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to comment without a description of what changes you made and what improvement you were trying to make with them. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a ton of repeated arguments on the talk page, going back years. A lot of what I'd like to do has already been discussed a great length, but it seems a small minority keep reverting everything.

Bare with me while I learn this platform, my edit is here. I did remove an emphasis on "US Republicans", sorry for forgetting that. IMO, it's a little outside what I'd call NPOV and doesn't seem to add to the information quality of the article. It's small, so I don't really want to argue over that.

The larger change I made was moving some content from the lead in to a heading called Usage that already exists. I don't see how that particular content is any different than the other content in the usage heading. I think any typical reader would find the article overall confusing, rather than clarifying. I think reorganizing the existing content is the clear place to start. At the moment, it's kind of just splattered in there. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is rather a lot of waffle with little meat. The mathematics clearly indicates that in a straightforward economy the money will go up and an oligarchy will form without needing any encouragement from the government never mind any trickle down encouragement. Taxes are needed to offset the strong drift. That's the state of the US at the moment where more than 12% of people would still owe money if they went on the street and sold their clothes and 30% of the wealth is owned by some varnishing percent of the population. NadVolum (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia." In this case it's a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all. So, IMO, the article should only be about the term and rely on the coverage of the economic concept elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You're making the assumption here that trickle down economics makes the country richer. I guess on the basis that the US is rich on average and taking care of its citizens is counted as socialism and next door to communism. However there are other countries in the world to compare with, ones with nowhere near so much in the way of natural resources per person, and yet for instance comparing the US to Denmark for instance they are close on GDP per person and yet Denmark has one of the lowest levels of income disparity and a very high level of happiness and the US one of the highest in disparity and is rent by viscious struggles where all reason has gone out the window. Trickle down is not the same as making the country richer. NadVolum (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure he is making that assumption. If I'm reading his comment correctly, he is saying that this is a term being used about a set of policies that are discussed elsewhere on Wiki. I would agree with that assessment.

To the extent there is a NPOV problem on this page, I would suggest that it is arising because this article is currently structured as if "Trickle-Down" was an economic theory with data and models to be discussed rather than as shorthand largely used by politicians and the media. As noted by multiple editors on the talk page, this article should be closer to Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, or Gay agenda. These are colloquial terms used in reference to other peoples' views or positions. They are not synonymous with those positions and are often contradictory in application.

As such, the article should be structured a la those pages, discussing primarily the usage of the term historically and linking to pages as appropriate to discuss the merits/demerits of any specific policy being referenced. There has been overwhelming consensus on the talk page going back for a year at least on this. Progress has largely been stifled by one or two editors who have dug in their feet, but who have generally not been willing to discuss it on the talk page. It is a long read, but a perusal can find pretty quickly a WP:OWN mentality and the rebuttal "I don't agree so you don't have consensus, no explanation needed." This page will remain the target of every random IP looking to grind an ax until it is reshaped away from being a WP:FORUM and into an encyclopedic article. Squatch347 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the notion that "a rising economy (on average) lifts all" is a false assumption designed to make the (journalistic short-hand phrase) trickle-down "theory" more palatable to the unschooled masses. Since it is not at all proven that there is an improved well-being for "all" when a few benefit, this should not be part of the discussion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If trickle down is to be regarded as 'pejorative' and avoided, then what non-perjorative term should be used for the concept that giving the rich more in proportion or making most people poorer will grow the economy or that it will be good for most people? NadVolum (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we please keep this discussion to the article and stop with the amateur economist analysis as to whether TDE is 'right' or 'wrong'? For my part i agree with User:Squatch347 'trickle-down' is not a scientific term or one used in a meaningful sense in economics. Rather it is a colloquialism used by the media et al. Bonewah (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider the results of yard sale type models amateur economics? They corroborate the observations in The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. NadVolum (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call TDE an economic theory as such and in the hands of politicos, even less so. I think it might be better referred to as (a) trickle down theory, a phrasing that extends beyond economics. I seem to recall a time when it was thought of as a good thing (in theory, the idea of it) rather than implying a criticism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics is used in general as a pejorative term for Supply-side economics or "Reaganomics" (another pejorative term), especially the type of economic theory espoused by the U.S. Republican party in the 1980s. --Jayron 32 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember now, the Washington consensus. Edit: https://www.thebrokeronline.eu/washington-consensus-and-trickle-down/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Trickle down economics" as a pejorative term for anti-interventionist, laissez-faire, and subsidies for the investment classes has existed since the 1930s; I think Will Rogers is generally credited with popularizing it as a criticism of Herbert Hoover's response to the Great Depression. It laid dormant until the Great Malaise years of the 1970s led to a return in the U.S. of supply-side type policies under Reagan in the 1980s. The Washington Consensus wasn't a thing until 1989, and it came to represent the sort of broad acceptance of supply-side economic policies by both parties, especially as the rise of the New Democrats led to the economic theory being basically the only game in town from that point forward. Clinton and Obama generally continued the same kind of economic thinking that was the Washington Consensus. --Jayron 32 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That at least talked about education and healthcare for all which trickle down is definitely not about. Obamacare where are you. NadVolum (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

NadVolum, can you please stay on topic. We are not discussing trickle down economics. We are discussing whether the wikipedia article on it should be reorganized to show more clearly that it is a term, not a specific policy, usually used by critics of a specific policy, and has been used to describe quite a few different things. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And as a term would it be okay to apply in describing a characteristic of some these specific policies that come out at the rate of one or more per country per year? Or do you think it should be deprecated a pejorative? NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think it's pejorative, as in, meaning to offend, but it is a shorthand term among critics. Its one-sided use is everywhere and easy to find. Non-critical use doesn't seem to exist. But, maybe it is intended to offend. One cannot escape the image of urine falling another's head as it "trickles down", an image that is oft expressed in comics.

If new usages become common, well then they should be added to the article. For example, hypothetical President Wright successfully implements a new tax and economic policy in his first term. Senator Yeft quickly critisized it as "trickle down". Some years later after implementation, analysis of the policies show it had X effects.

The successful implementation of Wright's policies would get their own page. Yeft's "trickle down" comment could be added to the trickle down usage section. Analysis of the policies and their X effects go the page on Wright's policies. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a pejorative term that is applied /used against a range of schools of thought and policies and so there is no distinct alternate term or even a distinct topic. Like Homosexual agenda . So the article should be about the term. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But it is not "a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all." its much more specific than that. Interesting comparison, it says a lot about you but almost nothing about trickle-down economics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Maybe it's best not to clarify if it was a personal attack.North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can tell you don't know what trickle down economics means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is no better term then the idea should be covered under the term. And I agree it is not about the economy rising on average being good for all. NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it is just a pejorative metaphor that is applied to wide range of economic policies and theories, it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they share a common characteristic which is the topic. As Back|Horse Eye's says it is more specific than what you say. Yes when some new disruptive thing comes along the income disparity will almost certainly increase but people in general will probably be better overall eventually. However that most certainly does not imply that if one just increases disparity that everyone will be better off eventually! NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've not seen any common characteristic between the wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies that the term is commonly applied to. Other than the intended effect of helping the lower class. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So you disagree ith the very first sentence in the article 'Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital'? NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that first sentence possibly poisoning the well. With that starting a reader's mindset, they might reasonably read every example in the usage section as "policies that favor the upper income brackets ..." The article shouldn't be making those judgements, since they are put on many different things. This one article cannot be a place to address all of them. Those things have their own pages already. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And your citations to counter what the article says are? NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. It doesn't seem relevant to what I said. I'm not trying to counter what the article says, nor it's current sources. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that the current message is that "trickle down" is merely a common term, but not a specific thing, which has been used to refer to a lot of different things. What those things share in common is criticism that they are "policies that favor the upper income brackets". Whether those things are reasonable described that way belongs on those things' specific pages. For example, whether supply side economics (a real thing with a wiki page) is reasonably described as a policy that favors upper income brackets belongs on the supply side economics wiki page. It does not belong on the trickle down page just because some critics have called it that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It belongs where it is and where it is used. There is no policy or guideline that says to banish it to another page. Quite the opposite. Andre🚐 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. You provide nothing to back you up. You fail to demonstrate a NPOV. You have relentlessly obstructed any changes on this article for years. You have insisted, falsely, that any newcomer into the discussion must work things out with you before making edits already heavily discussed and largely agreed by the parties involved. You demonstrate an attempt to own the article and it's contents. You revert edits instead of improve them. You insinuate on a user's talk page that his engagement in the discussion and article is due to a conflict of interest, without recognizing the irony that your own year's long effort on this specific page to defend a small minority opinion would make that case much better. You filibuster the talk page, failing to answer direct questions, in an apparent effort to simply outlast everyone else. I can go on, but it's clear to me you are simply obstructing, for whatever reason. You just feel like you must have some message known on this particular article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This message is extremely inappropriate and lacks good faith, and bordering on incivility. I am not obstructign anything, we are discussing the question at hand. Relentlessly obstructed changes to the article for years? What are you talking about? I never edited the talk page or the article before October 2022 [57] [58] Andre🚐 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"You fail to demonstrate a NPOV." is either horribly mangled by spell check or you genuinely don't understand how [[WP:NPOV] works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is the latter. I'm new to the platform. I know what NPOV means, since it's not a wikipedia only concept. Now I see it is a shortlink syntax. WP:NPOV Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"If there is no better term ..." That's exactly the point. There are better terms in every usage instance we can find. Someone says "Oh, this is trickle down economics", which is in reference to a specific economic or political policy that does have a specific wiki page. This usage is so pervasive that many people believe trickle down is some specific thing. It is not. The current version does say this, which is good, but it's so messy that it is confusing and could fail to make this point to an uninformed reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So we should just for instance treat Mammal as a term because each specific type of mammal has its own name? NadVolum (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with NadVolum. The article is about all the meanings and usages of "trickle-down economics." In politics, in economics, econometrics, socioeconomics, media, anthropology, whatever. Andre🚐 18:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that mammal is a distinct topic, "trickle down" is pejorative characterization applied to a wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies. That's why the article should cover it as a term . Homosexual agenda is an excellent example of how to do this. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So you disagree with the first sentence of the article? NadVolum (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes North8000 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I do as well. Can we not find better definitions sourced to somewhere else other than the Detroit News? Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't. Even Investopedia, generally a great encyclopedic source, loosely hobbles together roughly what is on Wikipedia. There is no pointer to anything, because there is nothing to point at. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible metaphor. Suggesting it at all leaves me questioning your commitment to bettering the article. The only people who would make a list called "Trickle down economics" are critics of the items in the list. Last I checked, there's no critics of any specific mammals, though I certainly don't trust the pangolin. I mean, really, what kind of respectable mammal has scales???

My initial comment on the talk page had this challenge: But what we need here first is admitting that this challenge hasn't been met: no one has called any economic theory they advocate for "trickle down". It is not a name that anyone self-describes.

Without conceding that point, the handful of editors that are insisting that the trickle down article be this ever growing list of criticisms of various policies strongly give the impression of pushing a POV. Put those criticisms on the things they are actually about. You seem so vested in the POV you can't even agree to reorganize what's there to make less confusing the message it already says: trickle down is a broadly used term, not a specific thing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Every single example on the first page I got from Google when I put in 'defnition trickle down economics' said practically the same thing so I think the weight is against you. Go and try if you can though. NadVolum (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me see if I can track down something scholarly, a book or journal article, something like that. It doesn't surprise me that there will be many sources saying TDE for rich folk or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone I've seen here has a problem with the description. How the term is used seems pretty consistent, and no one is arguing that it's not. I don't think you are following what exactly is being suggested for this page. Like I've already said, the current message is more or less already where it should be. It's just confusing; it's not very clear to an uninitiated reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Who exactly are you talking about? I assume those personal attacks aren't directed at me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As to self-describing - that is not how Wikipedia works. Conservapedia calls itself the trustworthy encyclopaedia. It is not how Wikipedia describes it. NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Squatch347. This article is about a pejorative term. Trickle-down economics is to Supply-side economics as Loony left is to Left-wing politics. After reading this thread, I would also like to ask that NadVolum consider throwing the ball to someone else, as it seems they're trying to turn this into an argument about their personal opinions on the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've thrown the ball to them to provide citations supporting their point of view rather than what it currently says in the article. That after all is the firm basis of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the points made by NadVolum and I will note we had a prior RFC on this a few months ago and didn't reach a conclusion that trickle-down was purely pejorative or that it should be a term alone. That is a view not shared by all editors. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we can refocus this a bit since it does seem to have become a debate. The question is, yes or no, is the primary point of this page to discuss a term's usage? I feel like reading through this thread that we actually do have pretty good consensus on that point. Squatch347 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The primary point is to discuss the term's usage. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, its a wikipedia article so we cover usage, history, responses etc proportional to the coverage they receive in WP:RS per WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I concur with Horse Eye. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd, because we don't do that with any of the other pages I mentioned above. Instead, we simply confine ourselves to the term's usage and evolving meaning over time and link to other pages discussing the relative merits or (more often) demerits of the underlying policies or actions being referenced when people are using the term. This usage makes a bit more sense because the editors most likely to understand the kind of primary sources used for that discussion are on the main pages, not sub-pages referencing colloquial criticisms. Squatch347 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

We are required to abide by WP:NPOV in all articles. If we don't do it elsewhere you need to address that elsewhere. I think you will also find if you check Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, and Gay agenda that you've told a little bit of a fib there... Might want to strike it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the article. I think most of the article stays the course of covering it as a term including the history and usage of the term. IMO there are only a few problems areas and they could be fixed by relatively minor wording changes. Adding a few sentences clarifying what the term seeks to do and I think you'd have a pretty good article.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I went through the article again to make a proposal and I am coming around to your view. I think a honestly a bit more clarification and the lumping of a few comments that read as policy analysis rather than term usage would probably do a lot to make this page better.

Do you have a specific proposal?

I'd make two broad changes

1) Re-organize lede to move some of the content to Economics or Politics sections, it is a good 20% of the article as is. Para 2 should go to the politics section since the examples of use are political in nature. Para 3 should be the intro to the history section. Para 1 needs to be expanded to follow the article and note that this term is used by a wide range of critics in reference to a wide set of policies.

2) Combine the three lines that read as a list under economics into one paragraph saying "Some economists have begun using the term to broadly refer to lowering progressive tax distributions when publishing in less formal literature."

Here is a proposed example of the changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trickle-down_economics&diff=1136732069&oldid=1136569667&diffmode=source

Squatch347 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as we WP:PRESERVE what exists I am not opposed to a reorganization. I will note that the edits I reverted earlier did not simply reorganize the existing content but removed some. But if it is sourced and if it is relevant and NPOV, we shouldn't be removing the more economic or scientific content from the article to make it "just about the term," because that removes the substance and the basis. In other words, if it's a NPOV statement to say, as others have said, that there is no evidence for trickle-down economics (by which we mean, Reaganomics/supply side economics primarily), working, we need to not strip that fact out of the article or we are misinforming our readers on a content-relativist idea that "trickle-down doesn't mean anything so it might actually work or be accurate because it cannot be defined." If you catch my drift. That is the NPOV question in my view. If it's true that trickle-down is pejorative and only used negatively, we can still cover what it is used to criticize and clarify that said idea doesn't work empirically. If the answer is to merge the page with voodoo economics, Reaganomics and supply side economics into one monster page, well, you can propose that and I might agree with you. Andre🚐 21:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And as long as the content is referencing how the term is used, I definitely agree that it should stay. What I am offering in my proposal is to refocus the text on the term's usage and point readers to the host policies/schools of thought for the debate on their effectiveness. We shouldn't be including back and forth debates on whether supply side economics results in localized disemployment on a page that is talking about a label. Likewise, I don't think it adds any value for us to have a long discussion on Conservative vs Liberal ideology and their affects on society in the "lib-tard" page. We recognize that it is a term used to label an ideology and point back to that ideology for a more indepth article. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal because you removed a number of statements: Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum. In each of the aforementioned tax reforms, taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners as well as the Washington Post review and the section under Stiglitz that describes the review study. Are you positing some NPOV or balance reason to remove these statements or what is the reason? Andre🚐 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it improperly suggests that there is an economic theory that is called "trickle-down" rather than it being a term applied by critics to a broad set of very different policies. It also doesn't agree with the body of our article which has references to the term being used against broad tax cuts, progressive tax cuts, tax rebates, and even externality imbalances (nothing to do with tax cuts). I also don't think "The Balance" is a good enough source to justify that kind of broad definition. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the crux of the dispute IMHO and what we had the past RFC on which was never formally closed, but I would approximate a no consensus, and am open to a new RFC. Andre🚐 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is a little confusing tbh. There is essentially no one who doesn't recognize that this is a term used by opponents of various policies. That position is unanimous, even it would seem by you. We also recognize, minus you I think, that there is no one who advocates for an economic development theory called trickle-down. The question is, do we include criticisms of the policies labelled by critics here or on their actual pages. That also seems to be largely agreed on as well. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it might go a long way if you could answer these two questions: 1) Are there improvements to the article that you would make? If yes, can you make a suggestionon the talk page now and we can discuss that? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? I didn't make any proposal to change the article. I do not believe the so-called improvements being proposed are actually improvements. Andre🚐 23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [59]

Yes, I know you didn't make any proposal, but you oppose them all. So you make one now. It's quite one-sided for you to oppose so quickly just about everything, but not suggest anything else. Do you think there are improvements that could be made? If yes, suggest one. I jumped in here because I'd actually like to improve the article. Two days and about 5000 words in, that hasn't happened yet. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [60]

There is WP:NODEADLINE, which you alluded to earlier. I don't currently have a proposal to make, but you seem to like to say that I'm not answering questions. As far as I know there isn't a question that I haven't answered. I responded below to the details that I oppose about your proposal. I am not in any authority position, I am just one contributor, and others have opined above. That's how it works, we all discuss proposals, and not all of them will become reality. However so far, your proposals don't appear to be grounded in a firm understanding of policy. Since you are new here, perhaps you should take a step back and let the discussion play out for a while before we either start a new RFC or discuss another compromise solution to address the article content if one is agreed to. I would say, we aren't close to it yet. Andre🚐 23:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [61]

I just think it's really easy to be the guy who says no, instead of the guy trying to make an edit that will not get reverted. You've said a lot about what you don't want. You haven't said much about what you do want.

I read wp:nodeadline like a double edged sword. The ethic is that there will never be a practically perfect article, though we should edit as though we can theoretically get there. The key point being that we should edit, not get caught in some never-ending talk page loop. Most of what I'm saying has already been said a lot on that talk page. I see that as edit time. I think it's reasonable for me to make edits. By the wp:3rr rule, three per day. If you feel you must revert them, fine. But after some time if it's always you reverting them, maybe that means something about consensus. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [62]

Um, no, that is not how it works. 3RR is not an allowance, and WP:EDITWAR is not encouraged. And consensus is not continuing to make the same edits against the status quo when other editors are reverting and telling you to discuss. The status quo has stood in the article for a long time, and I was not the one who wrote it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you don't get to stand astride the work of thousands of contributors and decide it's no good and that you're the only one who can WP:RGW. Andre🚐 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [63]

I've made some notes about changes I would make, which I would characterize as what you say here. See my user page. I've got to go for now, but I'm going to put those in the talk page probably. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal to add the WP:WEASEL "are said to" for so-called neutrality. I do not think it is a non-neutral statement to describe, per WP:YESPOV, the expert position that tax cuts do not trickle down. Furthermore your idea that we need to attribute an expert is not based on Wikipedia policy: proper academic consensus expert opinion should be stated as a fact in Wikivoice if it is largely unrebutted. And isn't that the argument that y'all have been making, that nobody seriously accepts trickle-down theory? What do you mean by The way it highlights that these tax cut policies are almost always Republican is not NPOV? Are there any other tax cut policies that are supply side and trickle-down from Democrats? Because I do not see any. Negative coverage is not automatically not neutral. WP:FALSEBALANCE Andre🚐 23:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing to them here at the moment. We should put this stuff in the talk page. Thank you for the feedback. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely also oppose removing the bit Andre opposed above saying supply side economics is not automatically trickle down. The latest incarnations of supply side economics have tended that way but it is most definitely not part of what it was supposed to be about originally. Personally I view these various schools of economics as tools of various think tanks whose purpose is to push what their donors want rather than anything related to a well researched basis for economics. NadVolum (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It would help me if you were more specific as to how this pertains to NPOV. Which categories would you say this pertains to and why (some specific examples and arguments)? To clarify I added some points from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view...

Stating opinions as facts.
States seriously contested assertions as facts.
Judgmental language.
Fails to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

DN (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that subtle-looking changes in about 6 sentences would fix the problems. I'd be happy to blaze though and make them and then someone could revert them if they don't agree. Or I'd be happy to just leave, having said what I had to say. I'm not really worried about the outcome of this particular article, but I do have an interest in the structural terminology challenges this is an example of which are pretty unrecognized and widespread which leads to unnecessary eternal issues at some articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you have a sense of what is controversial and disputed. Subtle changes in a handful of places are certainly not going to raise an objection if they are an improvement. If you think they're likely to be controversial you can certainly spell out a little more what you'd like to change - maybe someone are uncontroversial and some would merit some discussion or other opinions. Andre🚐 04:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that minor changes are likely sufficient. I've boldly started with one sentence, which was completely misattributed.

Apart from that, the article needs major expansion rather than removals. It's bizarre that an article on "trickle-down economics" doesn't discuss tax progressivity at all. Even though the lead should stay focused on the term, I'd favor significantly expanding the article by adding subheadings under "Economics" that cover economic studies on each of the policies that have been labelled trickle down (as long as it's properly sourced); basically expanding on the WaPo paragraph I just changed. And when I say "policies", I don't mean laws like TCJA2017, but general policies like "lowering capital gains", keeping the carried interest loophole, etc. It may not even be particularly out of place to mention BEPS in this article (again, as long as sourcing is found). Despite being a political term, it still refers to a range of specific practices; it's not that nebulous, unlike other pejoratives. DFlhb (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, what I propose would be better covered in the Supply-side economics article, which should cover the effects that lower income or corporate taxes would have on employment, consumption, income inequality, wealth inequality, and poverty, sourced to studies by economists. I agree that this article should stay focused on the term, so it doesn't become redundant. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DFlhb! I looked through your edits and they seem pretty good, thanks for taking the time. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My tweaks would be to more treat it as a term, not to deal with "balance" etc. I'll put a note at the talk page and give it a try. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I made the intended tweaks but I was wrong....they are not enough to fix the issues. IMO it needs significant paring to cover it more as a mere term. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest you get some citations which express whatever it is you're thinking of first. In fact we're supposed to try and look neutrally for good sources but at last a few supporting what you say would be a very good start. Your own thoughts count as WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about my "what's still needed" comment, I'm not planning any more changes. I only mentioned it to note that my previous projection turned out to be incorrect. IMO there are some issues with the rest of your post but don't see the need to dive into that here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the status quo. There were too many removals of sourced material. PLEASE can we DISCUSS the removals? Andre🚐 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [64]

I'm going to post each of the suggested edits one at a time so we can discuss them in detail. This seems unnecessary since there does seem to be broad consensus on the direction of the page and that reordering does need to be done. Better, would be an approach to edit based on the changes to suggest improvement. But, having been down this road before I'll note that discussion is not an excuse to WP:OWN a page. Digging your feet in and reverting all changes is not constructive editing. Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [65]

You keep repeating that you have broad consensus but then you seem to substitute whatever argument you're making for consensus, that sort of behavior is generally viewed as disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [66]

Hmm, that is an interesting take. Do you not see a consensus here that the article is primarily aimed at the use of the term? I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal. Squatch347 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [67]

I believe that there has been an objection raised to ignoring WP:NPOV on WP:IAR grounds but if you would like to continue to argue for IAR be my guest. If by that statement you don't mean that we should ignore NPOV and that statement is meaningless (basically a statement of what a wikipedia article is) then what's the point? Thats the problem with the statement meaning whatever you want it to mean, its either absurd or meaningless because we all agree (and nothing would change as a result). Note the NPOV discussion above that you abandoned, are you sure you meant to say "I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal" when you're involved in the discussion[68]? Is this a memory issue or have you told a fib? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly not a consensus that this should be "simply a term." Andre🚐 17:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions:

That a policy/person/law/direction advocated is about favoring the top
That the proponent's main or sole justification is that something given to the top passes to the bottom

In sticking to coverage of the term, the article/editors must recognize that the term is inherently an allegation of existence of the above two items. Material which treats "trickle down" as an extent entity rather than a term is inherently asserting that both of the above items are fact. The article has a lot of that in it. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is correct if I'm reading it correctly. Do you have an example of material in the article that currently does that? Squatch347 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You have an ironclad source for what we "must recognize" correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't cover "how to build a Wikipedia article". Implying that a talk page comment about development of the article is invalid if it is not ironclad sourced is, to put it mildly, not correct and not constructive. The same for implying that I was violating a norm or requirement by my post. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Those assertions are not about building a Wikipedia article, they're assertions about "trickle down" and you absolutely do need to provide a reliable source. This is the NPOV noticeboard, did you forget where you were? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken....WP:Ver does not apply to text here or in talk pages. Being mistaken is not big deal, but then you built an insulting post founded on your mistake.North8000 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it does, I'm asking where you leaned that "The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions..." or if you just made it up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

OK look you are both right... no you don't need a source for assertions on talk per se, but you do need to provide one if asked. I agree with both of you in general about what trickle-down IS, but I don't agree that we need to "stick to coverage of the term." We should cover the term and the studies and the academic contention on the CONCEPT of trickle-down which, while it can have multiple meanings, chiefly refers to tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy/all boats, and that's what economic studies have generally looked at. Andre🚐 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree on the point that "trickle down is only a term." I'll start a new RFC on the article talk. Andre🚐 17:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [69]

I was talking about how to cover it. Structurally, it is an alternate spun/POV way to describe real world stuff and an assertion of #1 and #2 regarding it. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Politicians often brag about the second point - that "massive" deregulation and tax cuts will benefit the little guy. Trump comes to mind. They're not policymakers, so I would still count this as "term" rather than "economic theory", but we should include something about this in the article. DFlhb (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Andre🚐 17:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this. There are a couple of sources in there that would cover this, but any sources labelling those as trickle-down (which I imagine are legion, especially in the UK context) should be referenced as the term broadens from must tax cuts to larger policy debates. Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that the article is primarily about a term, or that "trickle-down economics" is exclusively used pejoratively. Trickle-down economics is used extensively in academic sources to refer to a real academic theory, by sources that treat it as the proper name of a real economic theory. My reading is that it has been subject to a euphemism treadmill where people who support trickle-down economics are trying to use other terms now because they believe it has acquired a negative reputation, but that's not the same as it being purely pejorative and it's not a good reason to try and rewrite the article to cover it solely as a term, especially when that doesn't really reflect the sources. I suggest that people who are arguing that it is analogous to eg. "tax and spend" or "loony left" at least glance at Google Scholar; the sourcing is extensive and doesn't treat it as just a pejorative to be discussed but as the proper name of a genuine economic theory. The argument that we could exclude those sources - which discuss trickle-down economics and actual results related to it at length - simply because some editors personally feel the term is pejorative is not appropriate and would result in a non-neutral article due to the exclusion of a prominent and well-sourced perspective on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an accurate reading of the term's use. And in fact there was a large, prolonged discussion on exactly that on the talk page awhile back. Looking at your list there doesn't seem to be a single use of the term not in a pejorative manner nor a single author on the first three pages at least saying "I believe benefits will trickle-down."

What is interesting is how it has become a more broadly used term than it was historically being used to label traditionally demand-side policies as Trickle Down as well. Those would definitely be worth a review and add, but (getting back to my main point). Does that mean we need to include empirical studies on every single policy that someone somewhere calls "trickle-down?" Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

+2 I was going to ask what Aquillion specifically what "the subject" means in their last sentence. Everything that anybody has called "trickle down"? Only when the proponent of the policy has said "give the money to the rich people and it will get to the poor people" (which is never)? I thought of an even better example Welfare Queen because while there could theoretically be a few who meet the definition (getting rich from abuse of the system) the common use is applying or claiming that term much more widely. And the coverage of the article is about the term, it does not cover or study people who are receiving payments just because they are the topic of the term. Covering the ostensible "topic" of the term in the article would be tantamount to Wikipedia saying that they are welfare queens and Wikipedia participating in the renaming of them as such..North8000 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion and yes, we should include empirical studies that use trickle-down. Andre🚐 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with narrowing the scope of any topic to an oversimplified classification such as "just a term", but that may not be the intent certain editors might be perceived as attempting here. The point being, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic collaboration, not some kind of autocratic dictionary, and I assume in good faith that most editors here would agree. DN (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

First ANI

This is the text of the first ANI, no diffs yet. Filled with veiled accusations of sockpuppetting, "intent" to editwar, battlegrounding, etc. It was weird, I'm still unpacking it. After it went nowhere, Andrevan went out of his way to warn that he's still after me, the final message in the thread. He leans heavily on "your accusations are unsupported" (here and everywhere), either not realizing or knowing full well that the shear volume and incongruency of his participation is the problem, not any individual message. Building a summary of this issue is what this page is about. He also, in his first message, cleverly hides that my "content deletion" was four or five words, along with a paragraph move. He portrays that like I'm lying about what I'm doing. Never mind anyway, the exact phrase and ones like it were removed from the entire article for the exact same reasoning I gave (in the trickle down talk page, will have to find later), but most of them by Andrevan himself in a kind of rage quit "I can't get my way so I'll nuke everything" edit. I guess he didn't expect we'd be okay with that, lol. Maybe he should have remembered that his most leaned on WP guideline is wp:preserve, right after BRDDDDDDDDDDDD. Incongruent behavior and messaging, combined with massive quantities of text and demands to talk to him. This is hallmark sealioning. Whether by intent or incompetence, he created this effect on the trickle down article. Curiously, he can give very clear and consistent messaging when he's trying to get you blocked.

User:Heavy Chaos

This user claims to be a new user and and is leaving extremely WP:BATTLEGROUND comments such as [70] [71] [72] [73]. Attitude is not compatible with collaboration and user seems to believe discussion is not necessary for them. They also misrepresented their edits and claimed they were simply reorganizing the material when they were actually removing content, then said it was "Small potatoes" and let's move on[74]. I tried to tell them they need to discuss their edits and they claimed discussion already happened prior to their arrival so that they do not need to. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years [75] I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. [76] Andre🚐 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your participation hasn't been honest. You should answer those charges. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? You accused me of obstructing the page for years when my first edits to the page were in October 2022. [77] What exactly am I dishonest about? Andre🚐 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And now this is third page that you have redirected attention. My user talk page, The NPOV message board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Trickle-down_economics), and this. You explicitly say you won't answer the direct questions put toward you on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trickle-down_economics), then start making noise anywhere else. This is grossly dishonest. You are playing an attrition game to get what you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This thread is to flag your behavioral issue to admins. The NPOV noticeboard is to flag the discussion on the talk page of the article. And yes, you also have your own talk page where I have warned you. This is not dishonest or forumshopping. Andre🚐 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well if Andrevan didn't have a convincing argument before they certainly do now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see more indication of battlegrounding, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and an intention to edit war on the related NPOVN thread that I started prior to this one[78] Andre🚐 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Due to the effort of about six contributors who decided it was time to start making edits instead of keeping talking about it, it is now an objectively better article, especially in the lead in. Compare the current version, to the version that I first saw. And this came from editing, not rehashing months and years old arguments. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. A volley of edits after that much talk will produce much more than any further talk ever could. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There are a bunch of edits being made now that are productive due to the post that I made on the NPOV noticeboard. Which you accused me of dishonesty and forumshopping. Do you withdraw those accusations? Andre🚐 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
No, I steadfastly claim still that your history on that page shows a general unwillingness to make any improvements for nebulous reasons. An strongarming me as you did appeared desperate almost. Like some terrible harm would happen to you if I edited the page. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
That is a personal attack and is forbidden here. Also violates WP:AGF and in general incompatible with collaboration. Andre🚐 21:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not given this? Andre🚐 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This thread may be automatically archived soon, given inactivity, and it is the first incident for this user, where ANI is a last resort for intractable problems. But that should not be taken as an endorsement of such behavior. If such behavior continues it can and will lead to another thread and/or additional sanctions and blocks. It is good faith to assume that an apparently new user is a new user. In the absence of a bright line violation after warnings, this thread may be archived without any action, but again if this does happen, it does not excuse or allow such behavior as personal attacks, alleging bias without evidence, questioning the motives of apparently good faith contributors, or edit warring against consensus without discussion. Andre🚐 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Second ANI

This is the text of the second ANI, no diffs added yet, resulted in 24 hour block, "a shot across the bow". I found that wording from the Admin curiously hostile and ironic, considering he admission that the block was for both the "run around processing" and incivility. The idea of being "shot and sunk" for non-compliance is quite a metaphor that reinforces Andrevan's "I can get you blocked forever" attitude, backed up in the talk page messages.

User:Heavy Chaos

User persists with [79] personal attacks after a prior ANI thread and repeated warnings, as well as groundless accusations of hounding and harassment. Andre🚐 07:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You are harassing me at this point. Everywhere I go, you're acting on it (replies, reverts, etc) within minutes. Filling up my user talk page. SLAPPing me with ANIs. Since day one. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You proposed a redirect that has existed since 2003 to be deleted[80], when you didn't have support for that, you went around to [81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88] remove all links to the redirect and do an end run around the process. When I asked you to stop you accused me of hounding you. Meanwhile you're WP:FORUMSHOPing your proposal to every page. [89][90] and you accuse me of sealioning[91] Andre🚐 08:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the full discussion, for people who don't like cherries. I'm disengaging from you now, Andrevan. If you don't have anything new or meaningful to add to my talk page, or in reply to my messages, I'd rather not hear it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You can act like the victim but you are the one making personal attacks, ignoring the process for obtaining consensus for your large-scale edits, and making outlandish accusations when asked to slow down and discuss and take it step by step. Your attitude is incompatible with collaboration and you have presented no remorse or contrition, and no evidence for your accusations. Andre🚐 08:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Consider that a shot across the bow. Removing the links is disruptive enough for a stern warning but the repeated unfounded accusations against other editors, including in this very thread, is absolutely not on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)