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

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

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

Request for clarification
1) Regarding, in order to limit discussion to topics within the scope of arbitration, I request that the arbitrators clarify how they would decide whether violations of the reliable source criteria rise to the level of editorial misconduct. There are many arbitration cases dealing with national, religious, and scientific disputes where the arbitrators have enforced content policies involving the weight due to mainstream and fringe sources. EllenCT (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Advocacy
6) Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * While I fully agree with this statement, there are those that attempt to game certain vaguely worded BLP policies in order to exclude viable RS material from articles about political figures with whom they apparently share an ideological orientation. Editing conduct stemming from such a disposition is inevitably going to result in disruption.

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


 * Comment by parties:


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

Patterns of behavior
9) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


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

Role of the Arbitration Committee
10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The committee has previously topic and site banned numerous editors at the conclusion of individual cases.--MONGO 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem a good principle. Arbcom knows what tools they have in their pocket.  On the other hand they have a responsibility not to do more harm than good when trying to solve a problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Paid Editing
13) On the one hand, paid advocacy editing is deeply corrupting and poisonous to Wikipedia. The WMF is making efforts to tighten the enforcement of the long-standing policy that paid advocacy editing is one of the most serious forms of conflict of interest.  (Neutral paid editing, such as editing by professors in areas of their expertise, is not paid advocacy editing.)  On the other hand, accusations of paid editing on article talk pages are a very serious form of personal attack and inflame already heated discussions, and must be met with sanctions.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since this is obviously directed at me, I invite anyone persuaded by this "must be met with sanctions" argument to consider the nearly identical dilemma at Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 1 where I am also trying to deal with paid advocacy; in this case by private for-hire research consultant sponsorship of something which looks an awful lot like it was designed to appear to be a research literature review, but is instead a selective cherry-picked report that somehow made it through peer review in a chemical industry journal. Guidance would be appreciated, from a company with a long and documented history of astroturfing (much like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which produced the graph which makes taxes appear to be progressive for the top 1%.) EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * "Where I am also trying to deal with paid editing." ??? Don't you yet understand? Your persistent unfounded accusations of paid editing (in the face of the explicit statements to you that the editor you are continually accusing is not a paid editor) are personal attacks. You should apologize and stop. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have said, "where I am also trying to deal with the insertion of paid advocacy." However, I admit that upon several days reflection I am unable to assume the good faith necessary to believe that VictorD7's year-long effort to champion a manufactured graph in high profile articles to make it seem like taxes have been progressive for the top 1% when they were not, even in the face of professional economist opinion, is as innocent as he says. He has shown willingness to compromise on other matters but abject refusal to budge from his position on any matters concerning the PGPF graph. So I admit I am unconvinced by his denials, because actions (behavior) speak louder than words (content.) EllenCT (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like EllenCT has confirmed she has accused VictorD7 of being paid. This is a serious accusation without foundation and EllenCT should be subject to sanctions.  A simple reading of the CBO report indicates that taxes are progressive, even for the 1%.  EllenCT relies on less, how should I say it - authoritative - views that they are not.Mattnad (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Such as including state and local sales and payroll taxes instead of just federal taxes? Trying to mislead arbitrators into thinking that I might not have researched the most reliable sources on the topic indicates serious editing behavior problems including not being here to build an encyclopedia, abject bad faith, abuse of volunteer arbitrator time, and disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. EllenCT (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether taxes are progressive for the 1% is a content dispute. I won't comment on the content dispute, but accusations of paid editing interfere with resolution of an already polarized content dispute.  VictorD7's arguments are consistent with information provided by a foundation.  That doesn't mean that he is being paid by the foundation, only that he finds their arguments persuasive, and that EllenCT does not.  If she has actual evidence of paid editing, rather than merely surmising it, she should provide evidence to the ArbCom or the WMF.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And she has said she has no such evidence. She is apparently just personally angered by his disagreement, purports to be unconvinced by his denials, and is explicitly unwilling to AGF. Entirely inappropriate and highly disruptive. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I said my evidence was entirely circumstantial, and convincing on reflection given observed behavior during arbitration. Deliberately trying to misrepresent facts whether for pay or otherwise is not mere disagreement, it is a behavior problem indicating not being here to build an encyclopedia, abject bad faith, abuse of volunteer arbitrator time, and disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. EllenCT (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can not accuse editors of paid editing without evidence. Full stop.  That itself is a behavior problem and even if you are correct on content keeps you from having clean hands in the dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, it is true that deliberately trying to misrepresent facts is not mere disagreement, but is a conduct issue. On the other hand, implying or stating that another editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent facts where there is a content dispute is a very serious allegation and, if not substantiated, is a blatant failure to assume good faith, is a personal attack, is a conduct issue, and should be subject to sanctions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For what reason or reasons do you suggest that VictorD7's conduct during arbitration does not substantiate the allegation? Your attempt to downplay his deliberate assault against the accuracy of the encyclopedia amounts to a personal attack against me and a failure to assume my good faith. Why should your conduct in this regard not subject you to sanctions? EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute that VictorD7 has been repeatedly inserting content paid for by the PGPF to make it appear that taxes for the top 1% were progressive during times when the balance of the secondary peer reviewed sources and at least one professional expert editor holding an advanced faculty position in the field has said they were not. Trying to imply otherwise sullies your hands. My hands are clean. Trying to mislead volunteer arbitrators is a serious conduct issue. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not evidence that VictorD7 is being paid by the PGPF to do that. That is what you are accusing when you accuse him of paid editing.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another interpretation is that VictorD7 disagrees with you and has other reliable sources consistent with his views. You've pushed pretty hard for the ITEP graph, but that's not evidence you're a paid editor on their behalf.  My take is that you want a certain POV in articles and recklessly make accusations as a means to an end.Mattnad (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just discovered another incident where EllenCT accused an editor of COI and promoting paid advocacy, here, and with this edit note. She goes on asking about the editor's personal view on discussions of astroturfing here.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * She actually said "Serious COI and paid advocacy concerns" in her revert edit summary (which can't be deleted by normal means) a couple of days after the guy explicitly and politely denied using the product in reply to her Talk Page question. What's the point of asking if she's going to assume he's lying? VictorD7 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was a little surprised to see my dealings with EllenCT come up here, or that there was more history of similar issues than I was aware elsewhere. I will admit it has been rather difficult to work with Ellen as her insistence on inserting paid advocacy claims into the article above to the point it dominates the conversation do come across as a form of WP:Advocacy. I don't intend to add any additional comments here since this ArbCom is on issues in American politics, but I did want to point out that this behavior has been quite a distraction elsewhere to say the least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I disclosed I was editing on that analogous issue to the arbitrators and parties on May 24th and have absolutely no regrets about any of it given the ongoing discussion at Talk:Neonicotinoid and earlier discussion at User talk:Kingofaces43. EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * I think the locus of case is more than simply American politics. I think that one has grouping of editors.  These groupings see the conduct of other within their group differently than those outside their group.  I think one can see this in the RFC/U, which was the original rational on bring this dispute.Casprings (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Casprings that the locus of case is not only American Politics. It includes any topic with politically contentious aspects, including topic areas such as media, the environment, energy production/policy, gun control/rights, women's rights, abortion, climate change, capitalism, LGBT rights, in addition of course to politics.- MrX 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


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

Arzel
2) Arzel has:
 * Edit-warred, in particular by blanking material with which he disagrees.
 * Resorted to uncivil edit summaries.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

Collect
3) Collect:
 * Engaged in uncivil and tendentious editing in connection with this arbitration case.
 * Has treated Wikipedia as a battleground.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In a very high percentage of instances Collect is "Battle"ing against people who are dead wrong about how WP:BLP should be applied. This counts heavily in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What evidence presented in the present case is related to BLP issues?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forest and trees. The evidence so far are trees, I can't ignore the forest that is institutional knowledge when giving my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IF we are relying on 'institutional knowledge', my personal institutional knowledge is that Collect is very knowledgeable about, but not even-handed in his application of Wikipedia rules. Collect tends to bend rules one way for issues favored, and then bends them the other way in other instances. LK (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Back on Mar-13 you asked what evidence is related to BLP issues. A perfect example has been provided by you on the evidence talk page.  Here Collect is correctly arguing BLP concerns against you.  You then accuse him of misconduct because he is correctly defending BLP against you.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I would request that you check the policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Thanks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT
4) EllenCT has:
 * Treated articles on economic inequality in the United States as a battleground.
 * Engaged in personal attacks, especially on VictorD7.
 * Accused VictorD7 of paid editing.
 * Has repeatedly failed to assume good faith by accusations of deliberate misrepresentation of facts in areas where the interpretation of the facts is the subject of a content dispute.
 * Has engaged in soapboxing in this arbitration workshop.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * EllenCT has on numerous occasions inserted content of questionable provenance, has engaged in WP:SYN, and berated other editors who disagree with her. Some of her behavior has been cataloged well by User:Morphh here in his rebuttal to EllenCT's attempt to use the Austrian Economics Arbitration to go after editors who had nothing to do with the issues being reviewed. She has again used this tactic against User:VictorD7 in this arbitration.  VictorD7 tends to work on articles relating to economics and not "American Politics" and was not named in this arbitration until EllenCT brought him up to settle her own scores.Mattnad (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was one of "several other editors" EllenCT complained about in her Evidence section (sans actual evidence). EllenCT has serious problems with many useful editors here. VictorD7 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I now see that EllenCT's contentious behavior and WP:OR issues are not limited to economics articles. This diff is a good sample of the exasperation of one editor Mattnad (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7
5) VictorD7 has:
 * Treated articles on economic inequality in the United States as a battleground.
 * Engaged in personal attacks, especially on EllenCT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Hardly. Actually I've had productive collaborations on various issues with editors from across the political spectrum and am generally a nice guy. My occasional so called "personal attacks" on Ellen have actually been accurate behavioral descriptions demonstrated by clear, ample evidence per your own principle proposal above. It's not like I call her names or make blatantly false and poisonous accusations against her like "paid editing". You might as well cite yourself as being guilty of personal attacks on me and others, the difference being I actually provided evidence proving my assertions. VictorD7 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Absurd. This is just not a Battleground-y editor. I'm frankly surprised how civil this editor has remained in the face of serious real provocation from EllenCT (sustained personal attacks and WP:DE) Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the proposition that VictorD7 engaged in personal attacks or treated article as a battleground. His efforts are inline with keeping article on topic and his POV is well supported by reliable sources.  He has exhibited frustration with EllenCTs tendentious editing and talk page comments, but for the most part has kept very cool despite provocations.Mattnad (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * VictorD7 is one of the most battleground editors I've interacted with (months ago) on Wikipedia. His hardcore "America is #1/Conservative" pov was very problematic. His motis operandi is to flood talk pages with his position at the expense of meaningful debate. He's clearly an intelligent person who should know better. The fact that a small number of editors support him is near meaningless when taking into consideration the Wikipedia community as a whole. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your own rhetoric here ("hardcore 'America is #1/Conservative' pov") just shows your own battlegroundy tendencies, Stuff, and anyone can see how much weight your opinions should be afforded by clicking through your profile history. As for your link here, I hardly flooded the talk page. That post was long but it was meaningful, filled with facts and cogent points. It was in the section marked "discussion", and EllenCT said unless I provided specifics she would restore the contentious charts (the current RFC shows there's clearly no consensus for inclusion), so to prevent a potential edit war I provided the specifics she asked for, complete with quotes from her own sources. A perfectly legitimate response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be worthy of note that in the very first sentence of his response to a claim that he engages in battleground behavior, VictorD7 stoops to an ad hominem by disparaging the editing history of Somedifferentstuff. --Noren (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just underscoring that he's not a disinterested party. This process is inherently ad hominem, so I'm not sure why you noted that, but I don't think vague witness testimony of any kind should carry too much weight here, particularly when it mostly seems to fall along party lines. Instead, arbitrators should restrict their evaluations to presented evidence of clear misconduct and avoid getting caught up in content disputes or broad diversions. VictorD7 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * This is needed to check the spread of battleground editing from one area of American politics to another. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First sentence is 100% true. Unconvinced 2nd sentence is the way to deal with the first.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Casprings has proposed a slightly stronger form of the remedy, in which any uninvolved admin could propose discretionary sanctions and take it to the noticeboards. I disagree, as discussions at the noticeboards inflame existing passions.  The alternative, which would be only to caution editors, would require that when the battleground editors move from the Tea Party movement and Gun control, new areas be fully re-litigated.  Do you have a different suggestion, Cube lurker?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Deal with significant violation of policy on an as needed basis at ANI using existing tools. Acknowledge that a certain level of disagreement is unavoidable.  The world doesn't agree on these matters.  We are no better than the world we live in.  These articles will always be a little bit wild west unless we want to declare a winner.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, please provide evidence that my edit summaries are uniquely uncivil, or more so that those like this from the supposedly good faith attempt at a resolution by one of the two editors that brought forth the original RfU. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert, you have yet to provide evidence that I "often" make uncivil edit summaries, and I have not had, to my knoweledge, any edit summaries redacted. What is your evidence that I make more uncivil edit summaries than do anything that you consider to be "occasionaly" useful?  Arzel (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * This is to check blanking wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose a topic ban on Arzel in American politics because he occasionally performs the useful service of removing NPOV characterizations (such as "right-wing", stated in the encyclopedia's language). Uncivil edit summaries are worse than incivility on talk pages.  First, uncivil comments on talk pages can be deleted.  (It isn't the usual rule but can be done if they are personal attacks.)  However, uncivil edit summaries can only be redacted, and then only if they are grossly inappropriate.  Second, uncivil edit summaries are in article space rather than talk space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Three months is not a long time, and maybe a brief site ban would help him gain some perspective in light of the his disruptive conduct in this case.
 * For the benefit of the encyclopedia, however, indefinitely topic banning Collect from the topic area of American Politics, broadly construed would appear to be necessary.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose.--MONGO 10:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seen Collect on the correct side of BLP too many times to support.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cube. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (But I support a topic ban on politics.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The evidence of bad behavior is scant or non-existent. His value as an editor particularly at BLP is great. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but would support a topic ban on American politics, which seems to bring out the worse behavior. LK (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've personally had acrimonious interactions with Collect in the past, including participating in an administrative review where I voiced my concerns about his behavior.  That was quite some time ago, and in my view Collect has become a more mature editor and approaches editing within the boundaries of accepted policy.  He has a POV, but does not cross the line from what I've seen.Mattnad (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but support a topic ban on American politics. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

EllenCT and VictorD7
5) An interaction ban is imposed between EllenCT and VictorD7. This ban may be appealed every six months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It would be ridiculous to treat the target of unacceptable personal attacks equally to their purveyor. No substantive evidence against me has even been presented. Besides, EllenCT's behavior doesn't just impact me, but many other editors and articles, as my mountain of evidence against her shows. A simple reprimand for misconduct (which extends far beyond the false personal accusations) would be preferable to a two way interaction ban that adopts an intellectually lazy "pox on both their houses" false equivalence, says nothing about her behavior toward countless other editors or factual misrepresentation of sources, and sends a very wrong message. VictorD7 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, since EllenCT and I have overlapping interests in tax/economic matters, and I've been one of the editors with enough knowledge and discernment to calmly and logically evaluate her frequent edit proposals, explain the basics involved to other editors, and report what her sources truly say, there's little doubt she'd be thrilled if I'm no longer able to comment on her edits. She would have successfully eliminated one of the major obstacles to her having her way and imposing the politicized vision for Wikipedia she's spelled out having in her own comments. Any sanctions that reward her for her misconduct would be a travesty. VictorD7 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There appear to be a total of four five editors that are conversant with the somewhat arcane and specialized knowledge covered in the articles at issue, two each on either side of the political divide, so to speak. Though I agree that it is necessary that the tone of the discussions become more civil and personal attacks ceased, an IBAN does not seem to be a remedy that would benefit the encyclopedia.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that a two way interaction ban would be extremely impractical, as it would leave us editing past each other without collaboration on many of the same articles, resulting in chaos and likely driving other editors crazy. It would only be feasible if it was accompanied by a topic ban for EllenCT, in which case the interaction ban wouldn't be needed anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Given VictorD7's tendentious past behavior, I strongly support an interaction ban. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT
6.1) EllenCT is ordered to cease making accusations of paid editing on article talk pages. If she has proof of paid editing, she may provide it by email to the ArbCom or the WMF.  Future allegations of paid editing on article talk pages will result in escalating blocks.

6.2) EllenCT is topic-banned from editing articles involving economic inequality, broadly defined, for a period of six months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Initially I felt that EllenCT's comments could be taken as boderline (could be considered an accusation, or possibly not). However, in later discussion with VictorD7 she has not backed off on this claim, but again accuses VictorD7 promoting a "bias" .  Accordingly, I'd support sanctions against EllenCT for this (among other issues that have been cited in this arbitration).Mattnad (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted the only statement which refers to the question as an accusation moments after I made it, because I realized I had to check the timeline. That was deleted before VictorD7 even commented on it. Joining in seizing on a retracted statement as evidence indicates serious behavior issues. EllenCT (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The deleted comment you mention is largely just relevant for removing any residual doubt some may have harbored as to whether your other comments referred to paid editing or not. You admitted you were accusing me of that in the deleted comment and later. What's more, your initial "question" was followed by statements accusing me of "paid advocacy", as detailed in my Evidence. And here, in a non deleted post on this page, you even indicate that your "question" about me being a paid editor is still in force, saying that you might "withdraw" it if certain conditions are met. You also refer to the question as an "accusation" in that post. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not sure. Maybe requirements to identify oneself as uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages that are under sanction? Casprings (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Just formulating thoughts.  But, I was thinking something along these lines.  For content, if a user put up an RFC for content, editors that are involved in the page or subject area would not be allowed to !vote and must identify themselves as being involved beforehand.  For conduct, if an issue is taken to WP:AN, no editors with a pervious history should have to identify themselves.  These are not very well formed thoughts.  Any thoughts yourself?Casprings (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not asking them to do anything. I think there is a problem here and brought it up. I didn't know having a preset list of solutions was a requirement to file.Casprings (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, I tried to break this down with respect to a couple of policies below.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Question to Casprings:  What remedies do you propose?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is meant by uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages under sanctions? The concept of being involved or uninvolved applies to administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions.  An administrator may not enforce discretionary sanctions if she or he has been editing prior to the misconduct.  Mediators and arbitrators must likewise be uninvolved.  What does Casprings mean?  I don't understand the distinction, except as to official roles (admin, med, arb, maybe CU or OS).  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that you do not have well-formed thoughts on what to do. (You filed this Request for Arbitration without requesting specific remedies, and without identifying any other conduct issues than those of Arzel).  Are you asking for the ArbCom to impose some sort of remedies or enforcement with regard to user conduct issues in American politics, which is the locus of this case and is a polarized subject area, or for some change in the governance of Wikipedia that goes beyond American politics and covers other polarized subject areas as well?  If the former, it appears to me (although I may not understand your intent) that you are asking the ArbCom to do something vague.  If the latter, it appears to me that any reform is outside the scope of this case (and possibly of the ArbCom in general) and should go to Village Pump Proposals.  I don't think that the ArbCom really wants to brainstorm a remedy to a polarized subject area, and that you are trying to encourage them to brainstorm.  (Arbs:  If you do want to brainstorm, go ahead.)  Maybe you should brainstorm for them or for the community.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that any remedy that increases the use of the noticeboards for its application will make things worse rather than better. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, but were you responding to something specific that I wrote, or was it a general comment?- MrX 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arzel
2)  has engaged in:
 * Edit warring;, , , , ,  , , , , , ,.
 * Incivility and Personal attacks:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Battleground conduct characterized by persistent reverting across a large number of articles, over a large amount of his editing history;, ,.
 * Failure to listen;, , [], , ,.
 * Soapboxing by politicizing content disputes;, , ,, , ,.

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * MrX, Your most recent block (2014) was an almost exact identical scenario as my most recent block (2010). Arzel (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really.
 * You reverted three times in just over 24 hours; then a fourth and fifth time two days later; I reverted once, then self-reverted. I then made an one actual revert.
 * You were warned; I was not
 * You were afforded the opportunity to defend yourself at the EW/N; I was not
 * The blocking admin overturned your block; community consensus overturned mine
 * The admin who blocked you is still active; the admin who blocked me retired under a cloud
 * You may want to check it out again.
 * I was not warned.
 * I was not afforded the opportunity to defent myself prior to the block.
 * Not sure what difference it makes that the admin resigned. The point is we both were blocked for non-edit warring incidents which were over turned.  Arzel (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * According to the evidence provided, Arzel was warned by Mr.X, not a neutral admin, was blocked in 2010 and was reported to 3rr and the edit warring noticeboards, which resulted in no newer blocks, a non-action and a page protection. In other words, while perhaps some editing by Arzel is suboptimal, Arzel has never been sanctioned as far as blocks since 2010.--MONGO 02:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Incivility and Personal attacks evidence consists of two dozen diffs, of which three can definitely called personal attacks, with the remainder being almost exclusively referring to edits made by those Arzel disagrees with as POV pushers(ing). While that isn't helpful to building a collaborative editing environment by any means, they are not personal attacks. I could see a civility warning may be warranted, but that is all.--MONGO 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence on Battleground Conduct includes a link to edit summaries where Arzel is using the term "POV pushing" in the edit summary...a bit misleading since its not by any means universal. Using the same tool for MrX indicates he has a similar number of uses of "POV" as in POV edit reverts as he calls them in his edit summaries....here.--MONGO 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Especialy the claim about his making recourse to BLP violations where none exist so that he can shield those he finds representative of his political alignment from exposure on Wikipedia to the critical statements published in reliable sources about such representatives. One might add something about attempts to denigrate or misrepresent sources he can't dismiss outright in relation to non-BLP discussions.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. He also continually claims that editors disagree with him (or more accurately, present RS which establish facts that conflict with his world view) are violating "policy." He uses policy as a shield for his opinions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose finding, In other words, Steeletrap, he defends our policies, I assume like RS, NPOV and NOT.--MONGO 00:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Having read the Soapboxing link above, I find that it does not apply in any way to Collect's efforts in this case. His efforts to follow (and give well-considered guidance on) policy are well know. Editors from across the ideological spectrum have asked for his help at BLP articles. He is very civil and focuses on policy, in other words this is the kind of mature editor the project needs. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. The evidence does not indicate that Arzel is a net deficit in the area of American politics articles.--MONGO 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine how someone might think that it is? What if Arzel was allowed to re-apply for permission in a year? EllenCT (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The problems associate with this editor outweigh the contributions. LK (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposed principle is not grounded in policy. In fact, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, especially the second paragraph, would seem to advise exactly the opposite. If by "Descriptions of political bias that are at least within the bounds of reason (arguable) are part of the normal give and take in article discussions" you mean that it is OK to accuse other editors of bias, then I can firmly say that you are mistaken. We should discuss content, not contributors. Vigorous debate is good for maintaining neutral POV, but making debates personal and is harmful to the project.- MrX 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being able to describe edits as "POV pushing" or "Soapboxing" (which seems to be synonymous in this context with "activism") are inherent to those policies existing. What your evidence largely failed to do was show a pattern of Arzel actually name calling or clearly insulting. It's highly debatable to say the least whether the behavioral descriptions amount to "personal attacks" at all, much less sanction worthy ones. VictorD7 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Characterizations of edits as "POV pushing" or "soapboxing" are within the limits of fair commentary if they do not become too long to read or walls of text and are not continued indefinitely. Claims of paid editing without evidence to that effect are personal attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think that I disagree, at least if a "heated exchange" is one that involves personal attacks. It is both especially difficult and especially important to maintain civility when a topic is polarized.  Descriptions of political bias are useful if they are focused at maintaining article NPOV, but not if they become personal attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that there is a gradation when it comes to "personal attacks"? Also, would you agree that in some cases people may view legitimate descriptions of behavior, which your own posting higher on the page acknowledges can be acceptable (indeed a useful corrective), as "personal attacks"? Wouldn't it be hard to enforce rules against soapboxing (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) if editors aren't allowed to admonish another editor for "soapboxing"?VictorD7 (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This essentially sanctions impoliteness and personal attacks - violating a central tenet of Wikipedia. LK (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you then support sanctions on EllenCT, LK? What's worse, describing an editor's actions as "POV pushing" or falsely accusing them of being paid to edit by an outfit? VictorD7 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't speak for the original poster, but I would say that a prohibition against accusations of paid editing against EllenCT is in order, to be enforced by escalating blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know, I've never directly accused anyone of paid editing. Yes, I asked if they were. That is not uncivil in the face of constant reversions to sources produced with money by a foundation known for widespread astroturfing which were obviously produced to try to support that foundation's longstanding advocacy of lower taxes on the rich. What are the reasons you think my questions crossed the line? EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course your characterization is inaccurate on multiple levels. Leaving aside the fact that the graph you opposed (the only material from PGPF I've tried to insert) is based entirely on Tax Policy Center numbers (the source page even being linked to in the actual graph) and closely tracks other reliable sources like the CBO, and the fact that the relatively bipartisan PGPF (which just drew the graph) is more of a long term deficit hawk outfit than a tax cut supporting organization anyway, as documented in my evidence your "question" was baseless and accusatory, you ignored my denials, and you almost immediately followed it up with accusatory statements. All of this has been highly disruptive and totally uncalled for. VictorD7 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My question was to Robert. Victor, do you consider the fact that people who insert paid advocacy contrary to the peer reviewed secondary sources in support of a political objective damages the quality of the encyclopedia to be accusatory? EllenCT (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think people misrepresenting sources and repeatedly leveling false accusations against other editors is extremely disruptive and damages the quality of Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On that point, we agree very strongly. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why, for example, did you claim that page 17 of this source establishes that "consumer customers" pay "57% to 75%" of the corporate tax burden when the page doesn't even include the word "consumers" in any variation (it's about the capital/labor split)? Why did you argue for months (echoed again lower on this page!) that CTJ differs from all the other sources because it attributes corporate taxes regressively to consumers instead of progressively to shareholders, even after I posted legions of direct quotes from its own site proving the opposite? VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How much of the labor pool do you think is non-consumers or non-customers of corporations? CTJ includes sales tax, which your Peterson Foundation graph does not. EllenCT (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How much of the corporate shareholder "pool" do you think are non-consumers? We all consume, EllenCT. Your question is a non sequitur. Labor is a different activity than consumption and assuming wages bear the burden has different implications for tax incidence, which is why it's treated differently than consumption. You have yet to explain why you made the undeniably false claim about what the sources showed. You didn't even bother answering the other question I asked on CTJ's corporate attribution to highlight your misconduct. And no, CTJ includes sales taxes in its state/local component, while we're discussing the internal federal component that all the reliable sources contradict. VictorD7 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Specific, routine misrepresentations are detrimental to the project and should be unacceptable
5) However, an editor routinely making specific, baseless charges against others (like paid editing) or demonstrably, blatantly misrepresenting sources or statements poisons the collaborative process and is the type of misconduct for which admin sanctions exist.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Indeed, Arzel does usually limit his edit warring to three reverts, but note that 3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Characterizing edits as 'activism' or 'POV pushing' is kind of a passive way of saying "you are an activist" or "you are a POV pusher". In fact, Arzel is frequently more direct, sometimes calling editors activists or POV pushers. Besides, who here among thousands of active users is qualified to be the sole arbiter of what is neutral and what is not? This is one reason why collaboration is so important.- MrX 02:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen Arzel does collaborate, and my take is that gaming the system seems to apply more to someone reverting many more than three times but waiting until 24 hours have technically passed so as to avoid the fourth in one day. I'll also note that soapboxing is a far bigger problem on Wikipedia than incivility. Given the low quality, soapboxing nature of the edits Arzel typically reverts even in your own evidence, we need more editors like him. VictorD7 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Mr. X here. Aezel conducts revert edits like and [], and that is anathema to collaboration.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to prove that I edit without discussion to a degree to make that claim. Also, if you look at the "Activist" claim, you will see that not all of those are me actually calling anyone an "Activist" and some of them are clearly "Activism" no matter how you look at it.  One of the "Activist" comments was the linking to a webpage to get signatures to get rid of Orson Scott Card from DC Comics.  Some of them are from an editor called "Activist".  Perhaps the use of the term at all is offensive, but when people use WP to promote their cause I don't know what else to call it.  Arzel (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with the above statement.CFredkin (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with the above statement.CFredkin (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Baselessly leveling charges of "paid advocacy" against an editor (,, , scroll down, )
 * Misrepresenting sources in blatant and undeniable ways (e.g., total fabrication; page 17 doesn't even mention the word "consumers"; article is about labor/capital burden split, which is quite different; similar situation here , more on Evidence page )
 * Misrepresenting her stealth, contentious edit with a grossly inaccurate edit summary ( scroll down, )
 * Energetically exhibiting tendentious behavior across Wikipedia (See Evidence for broad pattern )
 * Frivolously abusing admin recourse with absurdly inadequate evidence (or none at all) to try and have editors who disagree with her in content disputes banned (,, , listing several editors who were totally uninvolved in the case, )
 * Having an extreme battleground mindset, to the point where it shapes her user page

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It's worth noting that the one editor whom posters from across the ideological spectrum seem to agree has engaged in clear, significant misconduct is EllenCT. Even the left leaning editors who haven't openly criticized her yet haven't substantively defended her either. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because there is only one left-leaning editor who has criticized me, and your arguments based on the absurd proposition that taxes were not regressive for the top 1% in 2011 has been debunked by an expert Wikipedian university professor. Your arguments are unpersuasive, but even for those who may be somewhat persuaded, I am clearly capable of defending myself, thank you very much. However, I have been happy to see others defending me recently, e.g. and . EllenCT (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of the two alleged "defen(ses)" you linked to were even posted at this ArbCom. Specifico's user TP comment admitted he wasn't familiar with all the material involved here and indicated that he hadn't seen your recent posts admitting that you were accusing me of being a paid editor. I just replied to him with the appropriate links, so I appreciate you sharing that discussion. Steeletrap's link (also at your Talk Page) simply admonished Srich for allegedly bullying you on another matter, but was vague and lacked evidence. I haven't seen anyone substantively defend you from the charges leveled again you here. Not that it matters, but on the content dispute you reference your "expert" has been the one whose claims have been repeatedly objectively debunked by me, which he's acknowledged to some extent on various points. Nothing I've said has been "debunked". VictorD7 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you honestly saying that your attempts to push a graph that the Peter G. Peterson Foundation produced to make taxes appear to be progressive for the top 1% in the US, which has now spilled out into abuse of volunteer arbitrator time, when the professional assessment indicates that because of sales tax (which your preferred graph omits) and invalid attribution of corporate tax incidence (an error which your preferred graph commits) does not debunk the extent to which you have tried to assault the accuracy of the encyclopedia by pushing the inaccurate point of view that taxes on the rich should be lowered? EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, how is that a rational response to the charges against you here? Your repeated attempts to conflate descriptions of your clear misconduct with off topic content disputes has grown tiresome, but even your claim here is inaccurate on multiple levels. First, I've "push(ed)" no such thing. I edit for neutrality and use high quality sources that lay out the basics. The PGPF chart you remain fixated on is based entirely on Tax Policy Center numbers, and I originally only provided it in the US TP discussion because you insisted that we show tax incidence for the "top 1%" in accordance with your actual POV agenda (openly expressed here and elsewhere). I spent time digging up a source to oblige you. The CBO, Treasury Department, and the aforementioned TPC all closely agree with each other (certainly show progressive taxation for the top 1%; "astroturf"?), and dramatically contradict the internal federal component of the Citizens for Tax Justice chart you've repeatedly tried to insert into various articles. CTJ is a lobbying outfit and its results have no corroboration. My opposition to that chart is where far more of our content dispute stemmed from than me adding the (handy) PGPF drawn TPC chart. Your attempts to divert from the substance of the issue by focusing on PGPF when all the sources disagree with your CTJ chart grew tedious a long time ago. Furthermore, your claim that the discrepancy could be chalked up to merely attributing corporate taxes differently was totally debunked by my using the CTJ's own quotes to show that they attribute them just like the CBO, TPC, and other groups do (possibly even more progressively). Every editor who's bothered to look at the evidence I've laid out on that content matter has eventually agreed with me, or at least backed away from supporting you, which is why your chart keeps getting removed. Your persistence on repeating these various false claims is inexplicable. Of course your damage to the encyclopedia far transcends any one of the countless content disputes you've involved yourself where you've peddled false info, and your misconduct far transcends your behavior towards me, as you've clearly had serious problems with many editors. VictorD7 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: Why is pushing a graph designed for political advocacy by selective misuse of statistics produced by an organization with a specific point of view disfavored by expert economists after study of the peer reviewed literature reviews acceptable for any editor, let alone acceptable when making demands on the time of volunteer arbitrators? EllenCT (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk about an absurdly loaded question with premises that bear no connection to reality. I'll add that your CTJ chart doesn't count "sales tax" either in its internal federal component, which is the component being contradicted by all the other federal tax incidence sources. VictorD7 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "My CTJ chart"? The ITEP chart which properly shows that taxes in the US were regressive for the top 1% does include sales tax. The charts with which you have been trying to push the contrary view do not. The question is legitimate. If you don't want to answer it, then we are done here. EllenCT (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This disputed CTJ chart includes sales taxes in its internal state/local component, not the internal federal component we've been discussing that's contradicted by all the reliable sources. Using reliable federal tax data from the CBO or TPC shows taxes for the top 1% are very progressive even if you combine them with ITEP state/local rates (which are also uncorroborated). Of course it doesn't matter how progressive they show them. It's about what the sources say. Your own political preferences shouldn't be entering into it. I'll repeat that, despite your attempt to turn this into a content dispute, I laid out proof of serial misconduct by you that you've almost entirely avoided addressing. VictorD7 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel
1) No action against Arzel is warranted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Based on the evidence provided, it doesn't appear that Arzel's behavior is sanctionable.  Many political Talk pages contain far worse commentary.  I don't believe sanctions should be applied in order to serve as a warning for others. At most, in this case I would suggest a warning not to push the bounds of civility.CFredkin (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect
2) No action against Collect is warranted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Based on the evidence provided, it doesn't appear that Collect's behavior is sanctionable.CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Her baseless personal attacks, continued misrepresentation of sources, IDHT approach, and continued efforts to TE edit around consensus suggest more than just an admonishment in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One example of the TE editing I refer to includes attempts to insert a rejected graph into multiple articles.Look at this thread from Jimbo Wales talk page where he writes, "...speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Good point. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Groups or factions of editors acting in concert with respect to a given POV to which they are emotionally attached frequently demonstrate a propensity to impede the effectiveness of content policies to maintain the integrity of the editing environment. That dissuades competent editors from contributing, as the editing process deteriorates and the dysfunction becomes apparent.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:SOURCE and WP:SCIRS for contentious economic topics in economics and politics articles
1) To the extent that economics makes testable predictions in the form of models used to forecast economic outcomes from initial conditions, it is a science. Therefore, to help resolve content disputes, the WP:SOURCE policy, consistent with the guidance at Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences), should be used to decide which economic points of view are mainstream, which are fringe, and which lack due weight to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. When two or more contrasting economic perspectives are based on theories associated with models with substantially different forecasting utility, the perspective associated with the theory more useful for forecasting should be preferred. EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC); edited as per the suggestion below. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:SCIRS was never intended to apply to economics. It applies to the natural sciences as usually defined: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.  Although economics does sometimes make testable predictions, which are quantitative, it is not a natural science.  Political science and sometimes sociology are also sometimes quantitative and are not natural sciences.  If a reliable source policy is required for the social sciences, one can be drafted and a Request for Comments can be published for its review and implementation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be Arbcom in effect making content decisions not behavior decisions. If you think that guideline should apply to a much different science like economics, you need to start a community discussion on that issue.  If it becomnes consensus, then admins and arbcom can enforce the consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The advice in WP:SCIRS certainly applies to economics. As a discipline, “economics makes testable predictions in the form of models used to forecast economic outcomes from initial conditions.”  Peer reviewed journals, such as the Quarterly Journal of Economics should absolutely be given more weight than other, non-peer reviewed sources.  Editors should not be allowed to remove sources from a peer reviewed source because it conflicts with their WP:POV.  If they do so, they should be sanctioned.  Casprings (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that at least a good portion of it could apply. There's a huge difference between agreeing, and asking Arbcom to make a content decree that this essay guideline (not even policy level) is now law of the land.  That requires community discussion and consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have community consensus on this. Per WP:SOURCE, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." That would be policy.Casprings (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCE is policy. I have no issue with policy being used to determine if there is misconduct.  That is not the same thing as the proposal above that I commented on.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. should edit her proposal and use WP:SOURCE.  However, the larger point is the same.  Those who wish to whitewash articles based on their WP:POV should be stopped.  That is a conduct issue not a content issue.Casprings (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and so edited. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Warnings and topic bans
1) Editors who refuse to follow WP:SOURCE when editing economics and politics articles should be warned, and those who persist should be topic banned with the option to re-apply for permission to edit in the problematic topics after six months. EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC); edited to replace essay link to policy link EllenCT (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:SCIRS doesn't apply to economics and politics. It is a specialization of WP:RS that applies to the natural sciences, as usually defined.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to WP:SOURCE per the recommendation above. EllenCT (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
1) Wikipedia hosts an unlimited number of articles on topical matter with respect to which there are varying points of view. Among such articles, topics on “American Politics” are fraught with inherently polarized points of view corresponding to the increasingly polarized partisan nature of public discourse in America's two-party system. Accordingly, there will inevitably be sources representing the respective points of view found on either side of the partisan divide. The importance of WP:NPOV with respect to Talk page discussions where political views may have substantial influence on the positions of contributors is twofold: first, editors have to be cognizant of the POV s/he brings to the discussion; and second, the NPOV policy should guide the discussion with respect to the sources toward the goal of creating content reflecting the respective points of view according to their prominence in the sources, dissuading editors from seeking parity of representation between disparate political ideologies when such parity is not reflected in the sources. When editors allow their personal their political views to impede their ability to edit in accordance with NPOV, the editing process is disrupted. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Even more fundamental than getting into POV is that sources be honestly represented in articles and Talk Page discussions, whatever they are. VictorD7 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, of course I agree with that. One of the points I wanted to make was that individuals should not allow their personal bias (i.e., political POV) interfere with their ability to rationally evaluate sources in the course of developing content.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

CIVIL
1) When participating in discussion involving heatedly disputed political topics, editors should acknowledge each other editors’ political positions in a civil manner when it is conducive to productively advancing content creation. It can be beneficial to point out that a given POV embodies a politically slanted component along with the presentation of reliable sources that demonstrate an alternative POV on the same matter. Accusations of political bias should not be made in an uncivil manner that obstructs progress and degrades the editing environment instead of bringing into focus biases stemming from personal views that impede the creation of NPOV content.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

BLPs on public figures
As one of the world's premier sites people turn to in order to become better informed at a single click as opposed to perusing multiple pages on a given topic, it is important that with respect to public figures, in particular, Wikipedia provides an adequate and comprehensive coverage of all significant events and the like covered in RS in relation to any given public figure. As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, this includes events and incidents that may reflect negatively on a given public figure that is the subject of an article. In the case of the topic area of American politics, it is inevitable that there will be many such events and incidents for public figures on both sides of the partisan divide. With respect to editing Wikipedia's coverage of such incidents, participants in article talk page and notice board discussions much not feign ignorance of the aforementioned policy or respond to queries in relation thereto, or fail to listen and give due consideration to points otherwise raised by other contributors participating in such discussions, particularly those deemed to be on the opposite side of the partisan divide. Such refusal to listen can be highly disruptive to the process of creating content. Wikipedia cannot allow the partisan divide in American politics to exert a negative impact on the effort to provide adequate and comprehensive coverage on public figures.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

DUE
In the event that the actions of an American public figure have an impact abroad that elicits a plurality of responses from prominent public figures in other countries, it is imperative that Wikipedia adequately represent with due weight the statements of each and every such public figure. This is particularly true in the case of statements made by public figures of countries deemed to be at odds with the United States administration on a given issue, regardless of whether or not such statements are deemed to reflect negatively on the American public figure toward whom they are directed. The English language Wikipedia is international in scope, and it would be detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia were it deemed to be partisan with respect to American public figures.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability
The content of Wikipedia articles must be composed on the basis of reliably published statements that can be verified by the reading public at large. Inserting content in a Wikipedia article that misrepresents a source or selectively appropriates statements out of context can seriously compromise the reliability of Wikipedia article content, resulting in damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. Such misrepresentation and cherry picking is also disruptive to the process of creating content, and can be met with sanctions.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) To come. AGK  [•] 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
2) To come. AGK  [•] 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Behavioural standards
3) To come. AGK  [•] 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fresh eyes
4) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to entrenchment, so unresolvable disputes should be referred at an early opportunity to the community at large. After disputes are so referred, the disputants may find it helpful to reduce their involvement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. AGK  [•] 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Moving on
5) To come. AGK  [•] 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Analysis of evidence submitted by User:Ubikwit

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I quite agree with Srich32977. Although the scope does not formally exclude edits to Tea Party movement, and I do not wish it to, the committee is unlikely to place much weight on the edits you have entered into evidence. They have already been ruled on in a previous case, and therefore do not help us decide the current one. Please submit different material as evidence (and kindly also acknowledge this message). AGK  [•] 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but perhaps I have not made myself clear. When I said TPM diffs could be "flagged", I envisaged it being entered as a footnote to non-TPM evidence – not making up the entirety or majority of your submission. TPM diffs can be very briefly referred to, or older evidence and findings of fact from the original case linked to; for example,"User X has did XYZ on . See diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This continues a pattern from the TPM case; see diff 6 and TPM Findings of Fact 12 and 13."We aren't interested in edits to the TPM article, except if we need to be aware that, together with current evidence, they reflect a wider pattern in an editor's Wikipedia contributions. Remember also that I wrote much of the Tea Party movement decision (replacing an earlier pair of drafters), so I am likely to spot these patterns anyway. Have I made my position clear? AGK  [•] 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Most of the evidence submitted by Ubikwit pertains to Tea Party Movement edits. That topic, and the edits surrounding it, was "litigated" at Tea Party Movement. I do not see diffs which post-date the TPM arbitration closing. Even so, if there are post-arbitration problems with TPM-related editing, then such problems should be brought up for enforcement as TPM problems. With this in mind, I cannot see how Ubikwit's diffs help the committee in the present case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the evidence, but I should point out that I posted it as background to a pattern of behavior exhibited across articles on American politics. Moreover, I did so after seeking clarification on the scope, to which you responded as follows"Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings. "
 * It now seems that you are contradicting your above-quoted response. Please clarify. As Mr. X demonstrates in some of his evidence, Arzel would appear to fly under the radar, eliding sanction by staying within 3RR, refraining from editing during Arbcom cases, etc. If the evidence I posted is not deemed as context but "an already litigated matter", then I would not have posted it in the first place had that been clear from the initial response I received. Thanks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. I'll remove the material.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Ubikwit has removed the submitted TPM evidence, I suggest archiving this portion of the Workshop. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit has recently submitted a series of diffs related to current discussions on two articles. IMO the diffs simply point to rambunctious commentary by Collect, but nothing disruptive. If Collect would tone it down, and stop shouting on the talk pages, we would enjoy editing these articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the RfC, as it seems to be calling for a simple iVote based "consensus", which isn't exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is defined as. In that sense, it is disruptive of the discussion of the edits as it renders them mute in favor of a somewhat contrived iVote. Striclty speaking, calling for an iVote as a means to assert consensus could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the policy-based consensus building process, thereby subverting the integrity of the editing environment.
 * I've just added a not to the relevant diffs that it was me that raised the possibility of WP:SYNTH concern, which has been the basis of basically all subsequent substantial discussion and editing--aside from the "labor unions" related statement.
 * To characterize the act of starting the RfC as "rambunctious commentary" doesn't make sense to me. And when Collect is not shouting on the talk pages, his comments that I've referenced can be seen to be both dismissive, on the one hand, and evasive on the other. There is no discussion going on there. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I dislike the shouting and I wish Collect's comments were more focused. But: 1. These diffs are basically content discussions, and 2. Other avenues of dispute resolution have not been tried. (Arbitration is for behaviors "where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed".) I don't see that other dispute resolution routes have been taken with Collect. (I'm looking at the diffs you supplied and nowhere else.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already responded to the above assertion when it was raised in a query on my Talk page, but I'll expand on that a bit.
 * Collect's editing on topics concerning American politics has struck me as highly problematic since I first encountered him on the Tea Party case. In that case I provided ample evidence of his obstruction by similar means. Now I understand policy a little better to more succinctly address his editing conduct. I fully agree with Mr. X's statement, "The evidence provided by Collect below is indicative of the argumentative, condescending obfuscation that typically makes politically-related article talk page discussions so fruitless where Collect is involved.", and my evidence provides direct proof of that in an ongoing discussion falling under the scope of this case. Thenub314 has also provided evidence against Collect with respect to current editing on an article for which an Arbcom case just finished a month ago.
 * I note that the above related exchange pertains to evidence I had earlier posted concerning Arzel, with respect to which S. Rich lobbied that it should be inadmissible because it pertained to an already litigated case. Here, he is claiming that because the edits are recent and other means of DS haven't been pursued that the evidence is inadmissible. I find that to be an extraordinary attempt to narrow the scope of a case that was named in a manner such as to open up the field as opposed to limiting it to the conduct of a specific editor (Arzel), thereby facilitating and examination of the editing environment and dynamics in the topic area overall.
 * Not meaning to not WP:AGF, but is S. Rich lobbying to have my evidence dismissed on false grounds? I note that he hasn't raised the issue with respect to the evidence presented by Thenub314, so maybe this is just targeting me? the only reason I could see for his wanting to do that is due to our interaction on the Plutocracy and S. Rich and I are basically on the opposite side of the issues in those discussions, though I thought we were editing in a basically collaborative manner. So I find this attempt to assert that my evidence against Collect is inadmissible to be problematic is several respects.
 * That seems to me to be in stark contrast with his efforts here concerning the editing conduct of Collect, with whom he is generally in agreement on the issues, such as the RfC on the Plutocracy article. It would seem to me to be a matter for the Committee to determine whether Collect's editing amounts to policy compliant "content discussion" or not.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:50, 05:46, 07:14 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that this thread on my Talk page should be referenced here User_talk:Ubikwit. Note that one comment by S. Rich was made while I was in the midst of editing the above text. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:59, 15:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:Two kinds of pork

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The evidence presented by Two kinds of pork is not really evidence, but more of a statement of opinion, and mere conjecture. For example, the assertion "... they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel." is erroneous in three ways:
 * I have no (personal) difference with Arzel. I believe the project does.
 * Brangifer and I have not operated in unison (as implied by the slash). My efforts to reach out to Arzel were made independent of Brangifer.
 * These diffs:  are evidence of my serious and sincere efforts to address Arzel's conduct.- MrX 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If you think Bradinfgers "attempt" was made in good faith, then that speaks volumesTwo kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that an RFCU is supposed to be a form of DR. One of the required elements is that users have "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute".  The example provided by Brangifer, a co-certified of the RFCU is the antithesis of a good faith attempt at a resolving an issue.  As the primary drafter of the RFCU, I assumed MrX endorsed Brangifer's statement.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:70.36.142.114

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm trying to stay out of this but since I'm mentioned, what I presented was a data point corroborating a theory that people with observations to contribute haven't been doing so, whether due to apathy, futility, being banned (Miles Money), aversion to potentially being caught up in dramacracy instigated by the case parties, or whatever. This gives me concern about the soundness of the to-be-determined outcome (we'll see).  Of course I could only directly observe the internal thoughts of one editor (myself) and couldn't write about others, so my post was very limited.  But, if (e.g.) you look at the ANI threads linked in the case filing, they have better diffs and sharper analysis than what I saw in the RFCU or in the arb case so far (admittedly some or all of them may be too old to use directly). So for whatever reason, this case, despite coming from long-running and widespread tension in the project, is relatively quiet, maybe not giving enough data to arbitrate from.  The conflict not only directly affects core areas of the project and maybe even the real world, but it has fueled a lot of rigid policy development that then affects other project areas which have historically done perfectly well with looser policies (due to having better collaboration, less BLP impact, etc).  So it's important stuff and yet people are keeping quiet.  By comparison, the Date Delinking case was pure insanity, and about a conflict that almost nobody directly cared about, but one good thing about it was that all relevant info (and then some) was presented, and everyone with a perspective to bring took the opportunity to have their say. Added: I'm glad that evidence is still appearing and  the evidence closing date is apparently not being enforced. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence in RFC/U about Arzel

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Arzel frequently blanks properly sourced information because he considers the sources biased (although they are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards). This violates Wikipedia policy, and shows a refusal to accept a community interpretation of policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel sometimes performs the useful service of removing unsourced characterizations, such as labeling a commentator as "right-wing" (which should not be done in encyclopedic language, but only when quoted). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries. Uncivil edit summaries are possibly even worse than incivility on talk pages, because uncivil edit summaries cannot be reverted, unless they are so inflammatory as to justify redaction.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because Arzel sometimes performs a useful service, but is often disruptive, some sanction less extreme than a site-ban or a topic-ban from American politics is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence in Casprings

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


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have initiated zero contact with Casprings in a very long time. There is no evidence of a current conflict between us.  Arzel (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the last contact was when I filed the request for Arbitration. I think the last interaction of any sort was my attempt to have the RFC closed at WP:AN, here.  As far as over actual content, it would proberly be at the WP:FA reviews of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012.Casprings (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would note that we are now having some contact on the article and talk page of Chris McDaniel.Casprings (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Arzel and Casprings are two editors who do not like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An interaction ban between Arzel and Casprings is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote the interaction ban policy, "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I am not sure of what interaction between me and Arzel is a problem or disrupting for others.  What problem does this solve?.  Casprings (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of VictorD7's evidence

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * While admitting that corporations pass some of their taxes along to consumers, User:VictorD7 insists on a graph he says was produced by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation which assumes the opposite in an attempt to make taxes look progressive. Then he complains (e.g. by citing this diff) about my support of the http://itep.org graph which is based on the most accurate forecasting models and shows taxes as regressive for the top 1%. And then he tries to accuse me of saying he's a paid editor because he keeps inserting the sponsored graph instead of the graph derived from data.
 * The only point of view my edits such as push are that of the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY and mainstream sources. I am able to see his perspective that  appears to be pushing a more mainstream point of view, because the peer reviewed secondary sources are so diametrically opposed in many cases to the world view of the editors who often oppose my contributions.
 * This edit to trim the United States article of material which was less likely to be of interest to readers in a very large article based on current events was undoubtedly proper, and was roundly supported. EllenCT (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all you have to say? Your repeated mischaracterization of my (irrelevant) personal position on tax incidence was already debunked with quotes via link in my evidence section. Not that it matters, but PGPF, which is a perfectly valid source for verifiable material (much better than many you've added), simply drew a handy chart based on Tax Policy Center numbers, so you must mean "the TPC chart". It doesn't matter who drew the graph. Wikipedia editors are allowed to draw graphs themselves, and do so all the time, including the graph you kept trying to insert into various articles that used the partisan lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice as its source. The TPC's figures closely follow independent results by the CBO and IRS and are widely cited.  The outlier is your CTJ/ITEP graph, which has a dramatically skewed internal federal component the other sources disagree with, isn't corroborated by another source, and mostly just appears on liberal blogs. Your own graph doesn't attribute corporate taxes to consumers either, its producers even explicitly arguing against doing so, and yet you persist in pushing this irrational red herring to excuse the discrepancy.  You have yet to support any claim you've made on this topic with a single sourced quote. Let me know if you ever find one, or want to apologize for falsely accusing me of paid editing. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you presented any evidence contrary to my claim that the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews indicates that corporations pass about half their taxes on to their customers or consumers or labor? (All three groups mostly overlap and all individually comprise a majority of the population.) The only way to make taxes appear to be progressive for the top 1% is to use any of the admittedly many sources you have found opposed to those WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed sources. I have never accused you of being a paid editor, but I have pointed out that you repeatedly insert material which you know was produced in order to advance a political objective and is opposed to the conclusions of the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? So you just happened to accuse me of inserting "paid advocacy" and statements "paid for" by a particular group a few months after you made these comments, where you definitely were discussing paid editors?


 * "Support"; "paid advocacy is a conflict of interest with summarizing truthfully."


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Regarding your evidence comments....


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


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


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


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


 * If you don't know then you shouldn't have accused me of paid editing. You've posted no sources that support anything you say, "peer reviewed secondary" or otherwise, your claims about me are clearly false, and you failed to answer any of my questions. I really hope arbitrators read this. VictorD7 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do either of you have a diff of the ANI "Ping" referred to in ? I don't see it in VictorD7's evidence presentation at first glance.  (Note: I commented in the mentioned ANI thread that BrownHairedGirl closed.) 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (Added: it might be this, hmm.)  70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I assume she's referring to. I linked to it above, in my evidence section, and on the ANI thread you mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you both aware that you are referring to a question which I completely deleted because I wanted to check the dates? EllenCT (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I pointed that out and have been using the same diff you just posted. You deleted it after you wrote and posted it. The deletion doesn't detract from the elucidation it provides. It's telling that even now, as in your edit summary, your only concern with what you had written was "the dates". VictorD7 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which do you think is the more serious accusation, that you willingly and repeatedly have been trying to insert a graph which portrays the tax incidence of the top 1% as progressive and that you admit has been produced by a lobbying foundation widely engaged in astroturf efforts (e.g. ) or the question as to whether you have personally been paid to do so? Because I will happily withdraw the latter question if you can provide any evidence contrary to the former. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've answered your latter "question" repeatedly. No, I am not paid to edit and you've provided absolutely no reason for suspecting I am. As for tax incidence, I don't know what else to say. Any honest person can read the above exchange and see you're ignoring every fact I cite and point I make. The chart you're attacking uses Tax Policy Center numbers, not ones derived by the PGPF (so your "astroturf" attacks are pointless; that said, the PGPF is one of the most bipartisan outfits around), and all sources show the progressivity you describe (TPC, CBO, IRS, Tax Foundation, etc.) except the one CTJ/ITEP outlier you favor that really is from a partisan lobbying outfit. VictorD7 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same PGPF described in and ? I'm sure you're referring to the federal income tax only, which is barely progressive at the top brackets, and only for nominal rates, not effective rates. When state and local sales tax is factored in, all the sources you mention except the right-wing Tax Foundation say that the top 1% of income earners pay a lower effective rate than the remainder of the top 20%. And the CBO details the top tax incidence rate changes over time. EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last link is to a chart by a Congressional Research Service author, not the CBO, it shows rates for the top 0.01% and 0.1%, not the top 1% (or anyone else), and it looks like it's just for federal income taxes, not all taxes. The only source you've provided that supports your claim is CTJ/ITEP, and its internal federal component is dramatically off the other sources, making it dubious. Here's the CBO total federal tax rate breakdown over time ( scroll about halfway down the page; note how the top 1% has consistently paid a much higher rate than everyone else). Here are recently updated CBO figures ( esp. pages 2, 3, and 13). Note how the CBO has the top 1% paying as high or higher rates for federal taxes than your ITEP source shows them paying for all levels combined.  VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are nominal rates, not the effective rates paid thanks to tax shelters and loopholes which are only available to those who can afford them. EllenCT (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they're effective rates, which is why they're so much lower than the marginal (nominal) rates. Please read the source material before making statements about it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The effective rates are for federal income tax only, not the very regressive state and local sales and property taxes. EllenCT (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they're for total federal taxes (page 13 even breaks it down by tax type), and they show a rate for the top 1% that's substantially higher than what ITEP shows for its federal component. Adding state/local would just make it even higher. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence (on the Arbitration evidence page) offered by Victor deals with EllenCT and allegations of disruptive editing. But it is interesting how the latest commentary here has been between Victor and Ellen and discusses WP content that should or should not be in articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I was thinking the same thing. I'm just answering her questions and correcting false statements she makes (including misrepresentation of sources). She's barely mentioned my evidence, though in fairness she did touch on personal attacks like accusations of paid editing here, alternating between denying she made them and doubling down on them.  VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And making massive undiscussed edits to high-readership articles inserting the same disputed material while the subject is being arbitrated. Lovely. EllenCT (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You combined two of my edits in that link. The "insertion" wasn't disputed. After that I restored a separate section to a previous version after an editor had made a unilateral change despite majority opposition on the Talk Page. The "discussion" I referred to there was the Talk Page discussion, not an arbitration. None of this is relevant to this case. VictorD7 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of your evidence is about our tax incidence content dispute. You just edited an article directly related to it, inserted the PGPF graph which is the subject of that dispute, and deleted information from impeccable sources directly related to tax incidence inserted by a long time Wikipedian who also happens to be an economics professor because you disagree with it politically. How is that not relevant to this case? EllenCT (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My evidence is about your unacceptable personal attacks (e.g. paid editing), misrepresentation of sources, tendentious battleground behavior, and general disruptive behavior. I gave numerous clear examples and you've addressed almost none of them. That you keep trying to derail this Workshop discussion into off topic tangents is yet more evidence of your disruptive behavior. Regarding your latest attempt, what "long standing material"? I simply reverted an 1,100+ character edit made a day or so ago that the majority currently disputing the editor on the Talk Page may not have noticed he made. VictorD7 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, asking someone whether they have been paid to edit is not the same as accusing them of being a paid editor outright. I have nothing more to say in this thread. EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "VictorD7 isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers?"
 * "Isn't it true you murdered your brother?" "Isn't it true you robbed the First National Bank on Cypress Street?" Sounds like an accusation no matter how the sentence ends. Regardless, you soon followed it up with statements . You even called it an "accusation" yourself earlier here: "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?" VictorD7 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break
The discussions span more than one article and issue, etc., and I have only looked at one article and want to comment on finding the dismissal of several RS to be problematic with respect to WP:POV. The edit is referred to above, and was reverted by VictorD7 here.The related Talk page discussion is Talk:Progressive_tax. After going through some of the sources, in the final analysis, it seems that different RS have different POV on the issue. According to NPOV, therefore, all POVs should be included with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. The removal of the sources and the single sentence in the article that they were used to support"However, the progressiveness of the US tax system is reduced by state and local taxes, which tends on the whole to be regressive."seems to render the all of the reliably published POVs found across the spectrum of RS in unitary agreement, when that would seem not to be the case.The Krugman piece, for example, states"Yes, high-income people pay the bulk of the federal income tax. But that’s not the only tax! And while the income tax is quite progressive, the payroll tax — the other major federal tax — isn’t; and state and local taxes are strongly regressive...The overall system is barely progressive at all." Moreover, it seems that what is being engaged in is WP:OR deployed in order to dismiss the POV found in reliably published statements in multiple RS. I find these sourcing/NPOV/NOR problems to be endemic to the articles within the scope of American politics that I have worked on. There is also the peripheral question related to WEIGHT and academic (peer-reviewed secondary sources) versus mass-media articles. I wonder if the Committee could say anything that might clarify policy on this point.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:12, 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a broad content dispute when this case is about specific acts of misconduct. This isn't the place for you to make a content argument. I only linked to that discussion at all because EllenCT had in her evidence section to condemn Arzel, and I wanted to underscore the absurdity of her frivolous charge against him by providing the post's context. VictorD7 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I intended to address the use/dismissal of sources vis-a-vis the several referenced WP policies. To the extent that I've made a "content argument", it is only to illustrate potentially problematic conduct (and perhaps a group dynamic) with respect to the aforementioned policies. Furthermore, since the same type of potentially problematic conduct is found across a wide swath of articles in American politics, so the aim is to seek clarification with respect to the aforementioned policies to help remedy and prevent problems.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, and have asked for such a clarification here. EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the "content argument" claim has been made, I thought I should add this specific point. I the above-quoted Krugman piece, he refers to this CTJ document, "America’s Tax System Is Not as Progressive as You Think", which includes the ITEP graph that is used as an illustration in the article.
 * In order to refute that graph, User:Mattnad produces a self-compiled graph, making reference to "Tax Foundation analysis" in his article Talk page text accompanying the posting of the graph, and also refers to personal life experience regarding local taxation. This would seem to fall under WP:OR.
 * VictorD7 follows that up with other observations apparently culled from various sources with he then synthesizes into the claims that "the US is even more progressive compared to other nations when "all other taxes" are considered".
 * What is the status of such conduct on article Talk pages where it is used to undermine WP:RS in order to dismiss them in content disputes. I gather that this may be something of a gray zone insofar as the OR and SYNTH is not going into the article itself, but it would seem to be having an impact on the content of the article in a manner that contravenes core content policies.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been alerted by User:Ubikwit's use of my account name of his comments. I'd just like the arbitrators to know that the graph Ubikwit calls "self compiled" is in the Tax Foundation article and not original research.  Had Ubikwit checked the external links to the work provided with the graph, he might not have misrepresented this. I'm a bit amazed he's dragging me into this arbitration to be honest, particularly since his example is a single talk page entry.Mattnad (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I've misconstrued your statements describing the origins of the graph. Actually, reading the content in the graph itself"'Source: Ubran-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Tax Policy Center, ITEP, Tax Foundation Calculation'"along with the description of the file"'Chart created from Tax Foundation report/data on combined state and federal US effective tax rates by income quintile.'"and the summary of "'Created chart from data in Tax Foundation report'"it is easy to be confused as to the origins of the graph without examining the fine print, so to speak.
 * I now see that there is a link below to the data source, under "Other information", of the article containing the graphFig 4, and am simply confused about your use of the term "created" above.
 * Upon further examination, it appears that while the data represented in the graph is the same, it seems that you have changed the name from " Effective Tax Rates by Quintile " to "Effective Combined US Federal, State Tax Rates", incorporating some of the naming of Fig. 3, " Federal vs State and Local " in the paper. Without reading the description of the graph in the paper as well as the respective attributions in the right and left sides of Fig. 3, it is difficult to understand where the graph came from. Moreover, in the file history you left the characterization, "'Uploading a self-made file using File Upload Wizard'", and that is not very different from "self-compiled", though, again, I see now that you have simply changed the title and heading information of aforementioned Fig 4.
 * On the other hand, is it the case that you are claiming that the graph you have posted on the Talk page refutes or takes precedence of the graph in the above-referenced Krugman article taken from this CTJ report? Laurencehkoo did supply four refcites for the edit he made, which was reverted partially on the basis of your comments. Granted, the discussion is fresh on the Talk page, and it would be helpful if LK would reply and address the issues on the Talk page.
 * I'd appreciate it if one of the drafting Arbitrators could have a look at this material to see if there are WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues here and whether they rise to the level of conduct issues. I'm not familiar enough with the copyright policy to assess the status of Mattnad's graph, but the graph seems to have passed the assessment process of the WP commons (seems like "fair use" to me) and is used in an actual article Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States. Evaluating the source it is based on against the graph in the Krugman article that has been excluded (a graph that I believe EllenCT mentions in her evidence, incidentally) is not within the scope of my competence (or would simply take more time than I have to spend on this). If there is nothing here of relevance to the case, I'll remove the material or it can be hatted, etc.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I was citing a source I had already linked to earlier as part of a multifaceted response to a multifaceted Talk Page comment (no "SYNTH"), but this content discussion is beyond the scope of this ArbCom, which has its hands full enough dealing with clearly demonstrated examples of misconduct, and it certainly doesn't belong in a section that's ostensibly supposed to be analyzing my evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to find the question or sources you refer to by "LK, you didn't answer my question about whether you'd read the sources I linked", but I see you mention a "Northwestern study", which I couldn't find. Whether it was one or more sources probably matters in terms of making a synthetic claim such as that described above. I don't know if the Arbitrators will be interested in assessing the source or sources referred to or not, as the context of the statement appears to indicate that you are making a synthetic claims based on "linked" sources in order to remove a statement supported by four independent RS.
 * If you'd care to provide the diffs in which you asked User:LK LK the relevant question and linked to the indicated source(s), I'll have a look if you think doing so would convince me that this is strictly a good-faith discussion of a content dispute that involves no conduct connected might be construed to violate policy and therefore merit scrutiny.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't read closely enough (you even linked to the wrong "LK"; that guy hasn't been active since 2006) and I'm not going to respond to any more off topic content discussion comments here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I apologize if my failure to scrutinize the entire Talk page and recently archived discussion has caused me to overlook something. I note that the LK hasn't responded to your above-quoted question. If you aren't going to respond to the allegation of WP:SYNTH by linking to the specific question and source(s) to which you linked, I'll wait to see what the Committee thinks about this set of allegations based on what I've posted thus far.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of misrepresentation, when you alter substance that I've already directly addressed you should at least use strike through and note that my reply came before your correction so new readers will know what I was talking about. Policies like "SYNTH" and "OR" apply to article insertions, not out of context snippets you pull from a multifaceted Talk Page discussion. The link you asked for with the study (by Northwestern U. researchers) is already in my evidence section here  and was reposted here along with the question . As I said, you didn't read closely at all and your entire commentary has been off base. Now I'll ask you one more time to please stop derailing this section with this off topic diversion. VictorD7 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I restored the incorrect User wikilink that I should have struck through so people will understand what you are talking about.
 * Thanks for the links, and I stand corrected, because I see now that LK did, in fact, respond to your question here. I've quoted from that response elsewhere, but in the beginning he explicitly refers to the OECD study examining only federal taxation, which appears to answer at least part of your question, so I'm not sure why you asked him again later. I checked the NW study and found no discussion of state taxes, which is what much of LK's response was about, and is also a main point in the Krugman piece. I realize you don't want to discuss content here (neither do I), but this is still about use/dismissal/misrepresentation of sources.
 * What exactly did you mean in your question about "total taxation" in relation to the two sources you posted? Neither of them use that phrase, either.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources I linked to there cover all taxation, which is why I repeated my question (in light of some comments he made). This has nothing to do with this case. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of EllenCT's evidence

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * EllenCT's evidence section claims my evidence is mostly just a content dispute. That's false. My evidence section focuses on conduct. In addition to the unacceptable personal attacks and other misbehavior, I laid out clear examples of her misrepresenting sources. That's an entirely different issue from what should be included in articles. VictorD7 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no complaints about my supposedly misrepresenting sources in your evidence that don't have to do directly with the content dispute about whether taxes are regressive for the top 1%, and likewise for supposed conduct issues. So if my evidence section responding to your evidence is flawed, it is because it should have said "entirely a content dispute" instead of mostly. EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The content discussions in which the misconduct occurred are irrelevant. I cited you factually misrepresenting your own sources. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not about "dismissing" sources or what belongs in an article. Anyone, regardless of his bias, can click on the links in my evidence section and above and see that I've been telling the truth every step of the way. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not surprised to find Ellen's proposals to be completely one-sided and entirely self-serving.--v/r - TP 19:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be more appropriate to comment on the proposals in their section instead of this analysis of evidence section? EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an analysis.--v/r - TP 19:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An analysis without specifics or the traditional opportunity to respond to specifics afforded by the arbitration template forms. It is also a flawed analysis because mine are the only principles which contemplate the improvement of the encyclopedia's accuracy, the ability to maintain the reputation of the project, the effect on readers, and the effect on editors' reputations. Any obviously successful set of principles will naturally appear to serve their author's reputation. Is the one side you are referring to that of the peer reviewed academic literature reviews when they are opposed to astroturf and the political collusion of mutual gerrymandering? EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is also a flawed analysis because mine are the only principles which contemplate the improvement of the encyclopedia's accuracy" read WP:MPOV. You are displaying one.--v/r - TP 22:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would be nice if EllenCT practiced what she preaches. Here's a chestnut where EllenCT attempts to push a conclusion that "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" without a source.Mattnad (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My most recent compromise proposal states "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually can increase tax revenue," not "usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue." Attempting to use a previous edit after a compromise tempering it has been proposed is a serious behavioral issue calling the accuser's respect for and familiarity with the truth into question. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the caption also lacks a source. The source of the chart makes no statement like "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually can increase tax revenue."  With your approach, I could find a chart showing how prisons help a local economy via employment for guards and write, "High incarceration rates increase tax revenue." Mattnad (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion of the sources at Talk:Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States. Attempting to mislead arbitrators into thinking that there is no source for content in dispute is a serious behavior problem. EllenCT (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Among the parties in this proceeding, my interactions have been limited to Arzel and Collect. I believe both provide a very useful function for the project in moderating the inclusion of POV content in political articles.  Limiting their involvement in political articles would definitely be a net negative for the project, in my opinion.


 * Most of us have said things that in hindsight we wish we could take back, in life and online. This is particularly true for contentious subjects, such as politics.  For the vast majority of editors on the project who might be parties to proceedings like this, it's very difficult to provide evidence of "good" behavior because "good" behavior is expected. Very few of us perform heroic measures that could reasonably be presented as "positive" evidence in a hearing without looking foolish.  However in parsing someone's editing history in political articles, you can almost always find something that can be used as "negative" evidence. For that reason, I would hope that the Arb Committee would review the edit histories of any parties for themselves before forming any conclusions.


 * Also, I understand that evidence must be solicited from the community in order to prevent Arb Committee proceedings from functioning as star chambers. But, in my opinion, any commentary provided by third parties can probably be taken with a grain of salt.


 * Deservedly or not, I think anyone who has been a party to these proceedings would be chastened by the process. I think, in the case of Arzel and Collect, that should serve as punishment enough.CFredkin (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)