Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Proposed decision

For review
I'd ask that Arbiters review and any response provided. I realize this is after all deadlines, but I was not aware of this case (I saw the notification on the talk page after I wrote my comment,) and reviewing the case briefly, appears to be a very recent example of blatantly misrepresenting sources, which is mentioned at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence (clickthrough). Perhaps I misunderstood our policy on reliable sources, however. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the conversation has reached a natural end. I found it illuminating, and ask that Arbiters read it in full. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Was this an attempt to WP:BAIT me? I thought we were having a civil discussion, I don't appreciate this kind of tactic in the least.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it was not. I thought it was illuminating. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Illuminating? You posted here before I even responded to your initial query.  You broke AGF with your initial post by claiming I was blatantly misrepresenting sources without even waiting to hear my response.  I was responding to your questions in good faith and I am not sure the same can be said of you.  If you want to play games I suggest you do it somewhere else.  Arzel (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Perhaps I misunderstood our policy on reliable sources, however." You clearly articulated that you believe I misunderstood said policy. I leave it for the arbiters to arbitrate - I thought it would be illuminating to see it. The fact that I know how to "win" on wikipedia seems uninteresting. The model of "piss your opponent off so he says fuck" has been held true for a over a decade (2002 - Lir) - and I'd note that I haven't even tried to get you to say a bad word. If you feel that your behavior on your talk page reflects well on you, don't you want the arbiters to read it? If you think it reflects poorly on you, don't you think you should change? Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said you misunderstood policy, perhaps you don't run into Power Point slides from an unnamed coference being attempted to be used as reliable sources very often. It certainly was not a "study" as Piketty stated as that implies a peer reivewed publication in a journal somewhere.  As for my talk page, I don't care and expect Abitrators to read the page.  My closing of the discussion was my most civil way of saying to you, that the discussion is over and don't post on my talk page anymore.  BTW, my dicussion with you here is over as well as I don't appreciate what you were doing.  I wasted some of my valuable time responding to you on my talk page for your "illumination".  Go play your game with someone else.  Arzel (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

PD delayed
I'm sorry to have to tell you this but I am afraid the posting of the proposed decision is going to be delayed by at least one week from today. This being the first case I have been involved in drafting I had very much hoped to have it ready by now, but it simply is not ready yet and I am going to be entirely unavailable for the next six days. I would rather it be late than rushed and incomplete, but I do apologize for the delay. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you post your current drafts now, with the understanding that they are only very rough drafts?Casprings (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any intention of running anything on the workshop page. There has been an extremely low arb participation on that page.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was curious about that too. AGK posted the skeleton of a proposal on the Workshop page, including five principles, but only filled out one, marking the rest with "to come". I was refraining from commenting on the one until he filled out the rest. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any updates? Casprings (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I returned from being away to find things unusually busy at work. As such I have had very little time the last few days and during what time I have had off I have been very tired. I'm about to go in for another twelve hour shift in just a few minutes, but after today I have a few days off and I hope to get the full PD put together in that time. So, best estimate is 48-72 hours from now. Beeblebrox (talk)
 * Your real job is likely more important that this. Arzel (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely? Undoubtedly, absolutely, obviously et. al. are more apropos. NE Ent 02:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the PD is about to be posted, Beeblebrox, why wasn't the Workshop closed? Have arbitrators been following recent developments on the Workshop page, or have they stopped checking it at this point? VictorD7 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually planning to ask the clerks to close it today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I wasn't asking when it would be closed but if arbitrators are still reading it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at that point I was still keeping an eye on it. NativeForeigner Talk 04:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Contrasting external discussion
is a discussion of analogous UK topics to some of those which have arisen here. EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Proposed decision posted 31 May 2014"
^^^^^^^^^^^ Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Marek, it's inappropriate to expect that Arbcom will respect the same deadlines they enforce on the disputants. Next you'll demand they actually use the workshop. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already explained and apologized for the delay. A PD is a lot of work and I have been short on time the last few weeks. However, I have been working on it today and it is nearing completion. The crux of the problem from my perspective is that what we are trying to do here is stop all the fighting in different areas related to contemporary American political and social issues. That covers an awful lot of ground and sort of feels like being asked to fix what is wrong with the entire country and it has been a major stumbling block in crafting remedies.


 * That being said, I believe I have developed a remedy that will be flexible enough to curtail the worst problems with minimal disruption and without having an eternal parade of cases as disputes switch from one area to another. (we've already had at least four in the last year)


 * I sincerely hope to have something to actually post on wiki this weekend. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if that is what you are trying to do, good luck. I hope it passes.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand there's a lot of work involved. The thing is, that what might happen is that before you guys get around to finishing this one, it's actually quite likely that a brand new case will be filed on almost exactly the same topic with some of the same participants, User:Ubikwit in particular. I'm seriously considering filing it myself as I - and from some comments made by other editors I'm not alone at this - am about at my rope's end with that user's behavior, which seems to be getting only worse with time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We had one more last-minute issue which has now been cleared up, the PD is now posted and ready for voting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is it? This whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to silence me?  What a farce.  Arzel (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was 100% about you I wouldn't also be proposing ever-expanding discretionary sanctions. However, ample evidence was presented that you have been particularly disruptive with your edit warring and accusations. In other words, (assuming the remedies pass as written) you are getting off pretty easy, I seriously considered topic banning or even sitebanning as options, but I am hoping the 1RR restriction will help you learn not to edit war and that an official warning from the committee will stop you from further personalizing disputes. You aren't being silenced, you are being asked to behave in a less disruptive fashion. How well these remedies actually work is more or less up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly say that I have done anything since my RfC (which was supposed to be an attempt to resolve this issues without an Arbitration) which would lead to this conclusion? I may not have agreed with some of the aspects of the RfC, but I haved followed the request.  This is simply punitive.  The fact that I am the only person on the whole of American Politics to be specificed shows it is arbitrary and capricious as well.  Arzel (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, I have to ask if you researched much of this. This is your first piece of evidence against me.  This edit was discussed on talk in a very reasonable manner.  Was that really disuptive?  If this is a good example of serious sanction against me then pretty much everyone on WP should be sanctioned.  What consists of reasonable discussion if that does not?  Arzel (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like those who thought this was a politically motivated railroad job from the beginning were probably right. The case against you was weak, while EllenCT behaved during the Arbcom as if she was trying to get sanctioned, and still couldn't get so much as a warning. There's no indication any arbitrators even read all the evidence. Apparently two split it in half for examination with the others contributing minimally. They were handed a chance to show they could be even handed and rejected it. Given Beeblebrox's evasions below and the blustering from various arbitrators on the PD page claiming you're supposedly getting off light, I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the integrity of this process or that the discretionary sanctions will be handled fairly, at least not unless there's significant turnover and improvement in the handling administrators' competence and/or change in ideological makeup. They're certainly getting them off on the wrong foot. VictorD7 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My reaction was similar to Arzel's. "That is it?" (And I do not say this to defend Arzel.) IMO a lot of digits could have been spared from sacrifice if my advice to name parties in accordance with Arbitration policies had been followed. In any event, may I suggest that FOF as to some of the other "parties" be provided, even if remedies are not enacted as to them. I think doing so would help resolve the complaints about the other "parties", and give some comfort to those, such as VictorD7, who contributed evidence to editors other than Arzel. I do appreciate the finding that the locus of the dispute – "many articles spanning multiple topics" – was unwieldy.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)  Further comment: The Arbcom process is for those problems in which other dispute resolution measures have failed. If the Arbcom wants to defer decision on those other editors, it can do so with justification by saying the behavior of other editors was considered but not deemed within the scope of this arbitration because the other dispute resolution measures need to be pursued. (Also, per my comment below, if we do not have a decision about other editors, we do not have res judicata as to them.) 19:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the entire decision?
I spent countless hours gathering and presenting evidence of actual, clear misconduct by EllenCT that dwarfs the ticky tack stuff Arzel was accused of, was echoed and reinforced by numerous others, persuaded at least one staunch anti-Arzel editor who shares Ellen's politics that she should be topic banned, and you totally ignore it?!? EllenCT was falsely accusing me of being a paid editor during the freaking arbcom, and you don't even single her out for mention or admonishment? I'm not sure why what honestly looks like a pre-canned proposal took so long to post, but this atrocious decision will only encourage those who view Arbcom and Wikipedia in general with cynicism. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Next time ArbCom comes up for election, stop voting for the same-old-same-old. Consider voting for any candidate who promises to dismantle the arbcom mailing list, which is what sucks up all of their time and effort. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Two points: 1. Rather than post critical remarks about the Arbitrators who have a daunting task, I hope we can encourage them to expand the decision. 2. But if we do not have FOF as to any other particular editors, I think those non-named editors can be brought up on other notice-boards for their behavior. After all, if there is no FOF as to them, no res iudicata is created. (See my further comment in the section above.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We're certainly owed a clarification, both on the FOF issue you mention and why they arrived at whatever finding (or non finding) they did. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is not how I expected it to wind up either. I went into this thinking that sanctions against numerous specifc users was the most likely outcome. I can tell you that at one point there were more findings and remedies. When going to add the supporting diffs for evidence for those findings, they were found to be a little thin. Basically we had evidence that numerous users had engaged in undesirable behavior on occasion. In my opinion, and I don't think I am at all alone in feeling this way, an arbcom sanction needs either evidence of a prolonged and sustained problem or single incidents of an extreme nature. Not finding that in most cases, the decision was made to go with a more general solution that would allow discretionary sanctions to be used to put out these brushfires as they pop up. This doesn't mean that all the people who behaved badly are just being ignored, it means that if they want to continue to contribute in these areas they will need to be aware that if they continue to cause problems there will be sanctions, and if they violate those sanctions they can and will be blocked and/or topic banned. There is no perfect solution to a problem as nebulous as this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying, Beeblebrox, that if EllenCT in particular continues her well documented misconduct (I'd certainly dispute the "thin" characterization, especially compared to Arzel merely referring to various clearly soapboxing editors as "activists"), it wouldn't be a complete waste of my or another editor's time to report it? Because frankly so far it seems like it has been. This is the second time I reported her for falsely accusing me of paid editing; the first was prematurely closed by an admin who erroneously concluded she was only discussing a source before Ellen even had a chance to join the conversation and hang herself, and this Arbcom is closing without mentioning her, despite her doubling down on the accusation during the Workshop phase. Keep in mind I only asked for a formal warning here, followed by escalating sanctions if ignored. Does baselessly accusing other posters of paid editing fall under misconduct or not? Can we at least clarify that, so she doesn't take this as a green light to persist? If it's not a waste of time, then where should we report it? ANI? Arbcom? An admin's talk page? And what type of sanctions might follow? VictorD7 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why this was worked out in private, as opposed to on the proposed decision page, such that people tasked with electing arbiters to future terms could see how you all deliberated? Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering that too. More arbitrator participation on the Workshop page would have been preferable to them just being secluded in private discussions, both for transparency's sake and because they might have had misconceptions or misunderstandings that editors could have easily cleared up. VictorD7 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is actually very little that went on at the arbwiki that isn't evident here. My codrafter and I split the copious evidence up to be examined, and when that was done we began posting principles, followed by findings, followed by remedies. I then asked the other arbs if they had any comments on what they saw and acted on their advice. All in all, maybe a dozen short comments, most of it related to copyediting, ordering of the findings, and other very mundane matters. The decision to strike some of the findings and remedies and go with a more general solution was entirely mine. The point is that despite the full case being nearly over, this is really just beginning as if my remedy passes it allows and indeed encourages amendment requests. Every time there is a successful amendment a new area will be under DS and persons who do not behave appropriately can be reported to arbitration enforcement. Long time observers of the arbitration process will note that arbitration enforcement tends to act a lot faster than the committee itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes it even more vital to precisely define appropriate behavior. Could you please answer my above question about whether baselessly accusing someone of paid editing is inappropriate conduct or not, Beeblebrox? VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Baselessly accusing anyone of anything is not appropriate. Nobody has said that it is. But asking for precise definitions of what is and is not appropriate and what is or is not sanctionable in all cases is not something we can or should be doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really only asking about the one editor I brought evidence against that this Arbcom claimed to be examining, Beeblebrox. You're not even willing to give me a "she was wrong to do that and if she does it again sanctions may result"? If not, could you explain why not, since I only posted the evidence after asking and getting arbitrator permission, and since she was directly informed afterward by an arbitrator that she was now under scrutiny? VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll add that "on occasion" might be a meaningful qualifier for rough language in a heated exchange, but it's not meaningful for a standing accusation like paid editing (paid by a specific outfit to boot!). How many times does someone have to repeat the false charge in an attempt to hurt someone's credibility before it becomes sanctionable, if indeed it ever is? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One could also ask how many times one can remove peer reviewed sources to support their own POV before it becomes sanctionable, if it ever does. The evidence was clearly reviewed and this is what the drafters thought.Casprings (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT's wild assertions were garbage and unsupported by evidence (they were often incoherent), while overwhelming evidence was presented of her serial soapboxing, misrepresentations, and false accusations. I'm not sure how you know "the evidence was clearly reviewed" when almost none of it was commented on in the PD, unless you have some inside scoop on the secret arbitration meeting described above. Going by Beeblebrox's comments it sounds like he and AGK split the evidence up, each taking half to examine, while the others contributed little but copyediting. VictorD7 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about ways to AGF here, but I can't come up with any way that posting a Proposed Decision almost a month past the due date that consists entirely of boilerplate and ignores wide swaths of evidence is anything other than intentional disruption of the arbitration process. 66.162.73.238 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an easy, policy- and evidence-based resolution to VictorD7's concern. Add this to the decision: "Evidence as to edits and comments by EllenCT (and other editors) was considered, but was deemed to be outside of the WP:Arbitration because there was insufficient evidence that other dispute resolution measures had been taken."  – S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox may be done talking to us. Your suggestion would improve things. At least it would show they aren't endorsing EllenCT's extreme personal attacks and other misconduct, though it would still mean they wasted a great deal of numerous editors' time. Maybe they feel more narrowly defining the scope now might undermine the sweeping new powers they've just granted themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At any rate, BeebleBrox' comment appears to say that the PD does not bar bringing up EllenCT in other fora.50.129.98.71 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple things: Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have other obligations, such as sleeping and going to work. This means I am not available to immediately answer questions 24/7, not that I am refusing to communicate.
 * I am not aware of any previous decision detailing what the committee is not doing and I don't think it would be a good precedent to set. Absence of explicit condemnation of something is not the same thing as endorsing it.
 * I don't know what "sweeping new powers" you think this decision entails, the committee has had discretionary sanctions and the ability to amend the scope of its decisions for quite some time.
 * You had posted elsewhere multiple times before replying to my or Srich's comments here, so I wasn't sure if you intended to reply or not. Why should I or anyone else bother reporting EllenCT again when you had this opportunity to rule on her misconduct and declined to comment on it at all? If we did, why would she be wrong in citing this arbcom's failure to find any wrong doing on her part as a defense? She hasn't even received a warning, so wouldn't that at least play in her favor in a future review, mitigating her sanction even if she did suddenly receive one? What incentive does EllenCT have to stop making statements like this (from near the end of the Workshop discussion!): "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...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.)"


 * I admit I'm still not clear on what all "discretionary sanctions" entail. My description was based on your tone in describing them as fast tracked punishments, which seems to mean administrators have more flexibility in handing down strong sanctions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I too was expecting more, but I can understand and appreciate why the Arbitrators kept the decision tight. As it relates to EllenCT, those who feel she has been disruptive can see if she continues with that kind of behavior and bring a focused complaint. I'm optimistic for a few reasons: EllenCT has greatly reduced her activity and has not recently disrupted any articles - she may have gotten the message. We have started a centralized catalog of her misbehavior, and can refer to it if needed. The broader approach recommended by the Arbitrators may help demonstrate where and when an editor crosses the line. Personally, I will move on for now, but will be an active and engaged witness against EllenCT should she repeat past bad behavior.Mattnad (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Tight around the wrong culprit. EllenCT's misconduct was far worse and more clear cut than Arzel's. I see no reason for optimism at all at this point, and I'm desperately searching for reasons why I should ever waste time participating in one of these processes in good faith again. EllenCT is the most tendentious editor I know of on Wikipedia. Virtually every post she makes is politicized, and virtually every contribution is an attempt to advance her agenda, usually by stuffing articles with unencyclopedic propaganda. She occasionally has lull periods of little posting, but she always returns with a vengeance. Even her posts yesterday are advocating including some ridiculous segment in the Eric Holder article from an Occupy Wall Street propaganda blog complaining about the "Tea Party cabal" not being criminally prosecuted. I'm 99.9% sure she won't change, and frankly so far admin has given her no incentive to, despite having had multiple opportunities to do so. The biggest problem on Wikipedia isn't incivility, it's soapboxers turning encyclopedia pages into propaganda aggregation sites. This decision will only worsen that problem and increase tensions.  If "edit warring", meaning reverting even trollish material twice with no disruption, is sanctionable, isn't serial POV pushing sanctionable? After all, soapboxing is supposedly against policy too. No one has been a more disruptive soapboxer than EllenCT, earning complaints even from some who share her politics. Maybe you can incorporate that aspect if you ever bring a case against her. VictorD7 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand and share your disappointment. For me, I'll keep my powder dry. I propose that if she starts up again, I'll be happy to participate in specific ANI (which may be the better place than an arbitration since it's one editor who'd be the subject of discussion).Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See her comment below? As I predicted, EllenCT views this decision as an endorsement of her conduct, and gives absolutely no indication of an intent to alter it.VictorD7 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And because ANI would presumably give us a decent chance of drawing an admin who wasn't involved in this arbcom. In some ways Wikipedia is starting to resemble the town from Hobo With a Shotgun, but hopefully there are still some honest, competent admins around; people conscious of their own biases and able to set them aside to rule fairly. VictorD7 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I applaud the decision. For the record I think the qualities of the evidence and arguments presented by VictorD7 and Mattnad are factually inaccurate and improperly reasoned. Editors of such monumentally different intellectual stature in such strong agreement is poetic justice indeed. I hope they will join me in reaching out to readers and editors about using the Suits index and government expenditure payback statistics wherever discussion of the Gini coefficient arises. However, I am currently distracted by the need to list tasks and goals into categories indicating whether they are more efficient in the public or private sectors, so my editing may be sporadic until that is resolved. Thank you all. EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Says the poster who’s repeatedly needed me and others to explain basic concepts to her (including the difference between labor and consumption), and whose schtick is to toss out a hodgepodge of jargon she demonstrably doesn’t understand. There’s a monumental intellectual difference alright. It’s a shame you were unable to articulate any of the alleged factual inaccuracies or improper reasoning in our arguments.VictorD7 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that it had something to do with whether taxes were progressive for the top 1%. But let's move on. What is your opinion of think tank sources compared to peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Still no defense? Can't say I'm shocked. As for sourcing, it depends on context, though it's difficult to imagine many situations where fringe blogs like the Occupy Wall Street propaganda site ("Wall Street On Parade") you just used on the page I linked to above would be appropriate, and it doesn't matter what sources are used if you misrepresent what they say, as I documented you doing regularly.  As for progressivity, you rejected every source, including the CBO, Tax Policy Center, Tax Foundation, and IRS, except for the one leftist think tank/lobbying outfit that produced the results you wanted. On top of that you misrepresented how your source attributes corporate tax incidence, claiming it mostly attributes it to "consumers" as opposed to mostly shareholders like the other sources, as an excuse to dismiss the discrepancy in results and hoping no one would check out your claim. Even after I refuted your claim with numerous quotes and numbers directly from your own source showing it attributes to shareholders and explicitly argues against attributing to consumers or labor, you persisted in the misrepresentation. AGF isn't feasible in these circumstances. Your actions on that topic and many others have wrecked numerous articles, poisoned discourse, and caused countless editors to waste a huge amount of their time dealing with you and playing damage control instead of improving articles.  You've caused enormous disruption. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How long to you intend to pretend that the sources with which you are in agreement are superior to the peer reviewed literature reviews which say that taxes haven't been progressive for the top 1%? That pretense is what has been wrecking articles and wasting people's time. I hope they get tired of it and make you see the error of your ways. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your ITEP source wasn't "peer reviewed". CBO publications, on the other hand, typically are externally reviewed (like this one that, along with all the other sources, dramatically contradicts your lobbyist outlier: scroll down to the last page). I hope administrators read this, see how (typically) irrational your reply was, and note that you've failed to defend yourself against the charges.  VictorD7 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the peer reviewed literature reviews on corporate tax incidence which agree with your initial opinion that corporations pass about half of their taxes along to their customers, on which the question of tax progressiveness for the top 1% (which includes most of the Fortune 5000 corporate taxpayers) hinges. Do you think it has escaped the attention of the arbitrators that the only economics university professor who has contributed to this discussion disagrees with your increasingly persistent position? At this juncture it would certainly be best for the longer term interests of the Wikipedia readership and community if you could explain to them at even greater length why you are right and the literature reviews and university faculty are wrong, by all means. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:EllenCT, if the arbitrators didn't ban you, then they probably didn't really investigate issues relating to your claims. I do find it hilarious that you cite Lawrencekhoo as supporting your position given his response to you on his talk page, and I quote him, "I think it's clear that the 2013 changes in the tax code drastically increased taxes on the top 1%. This has made federal income and payroll taxes progressive. After including all other taxes (state and local, sales tax, corporate tax, etc), my sense is that the tax system will remain progressive throughout....I wouldn't assert strongly (as you have been doing) that the system remains regressive for the top 1%. "  Ouch.  Care to reconsider your position?  Even LK agrees that taxes are progressive and ultimately is in line with VictorD7's understanding.Mattnad (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You've provided no such "peer reviewed literature reviews"; indeed my evidence against you showed direct proof of you blatantly misrepresenting what one said.
 * You've consistently lied about my personal position, which is irrelevant anyway, a trollish thing for you to do.
 * Your (false) argument is irrelevant since the source you're trying to include doesn't attribute corporate taxes to customers, but to shareholders, and indeed argues against attributing it to consumers or labor, as I linked proof of above and you failed to respond to.
 * You have no idea what occupations the editors here hold, but the alleged professor you cite, who's demonstrated only slightly more competence and rationality in these debates than you have, even came to disagree with you after I educated him, as Mattnad quoted. He's still wrong to imply that the change only came with the 2013 tax hikes, but at least he backed away from actively agreeing with you even on earlier years, as have virtually all other editors who have taken the time to read the sources I've posted, including others who initially sided with you because they share your politics, which is why your ITEP graph has been consistently rejected.
 * You still haven't articulated any alleged flaws in fact or reasoning in the case against you. VictorD7 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I invite any interested parties to review VictorD7's statement that "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers", our corresponding discussion e.g. at, and his repeated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States&oldid=589931399#ITEP_chart_is_disputed_by_multiple_sources. attempts to counter statistics which include regressive sales tax with those which do not], and make up their own mind. Further details are here. As much as I would like to imagine that doing so would allow VictorD7 to dig himself deep enough that some kind admin decides to topic ban him and his fellow WP:HOUNDING tag team, I do not intend to participate any further in this discussion unless an arbitrator or clerk asks me directly with a ping or user talk page request. EllenCT (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My full quote, from EllenCT's own link: I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. See how that completely changes the meaning from what you're implying? All taxes have economic ripple effects, but at no time have I supported the notion that tax incidence charts should attribute them to anyone other those most directly taxed. I've corrected you with the full quote and links numerous times, and you persist in your trollish misrepresentation. Once you even added a period after cutting my sentence in half, a blatant misquote. And you've never explained why my personal position is relevant anyway, since we're supposed to be going by the sources, not our own fancies.


 * The tax incidence source comparison I made was apples to apples, federal to federal, not counting any sales taxes, as anyone can easily see (including your other political ally in your own new link who said my arguments are valid and took you to task). I wish administrators would read your links and sources, and see that you're also straight up lying about that study you linked to showing consumers bear half or more of the corporate tax burden, since the paper is actually about the capital/labor split and literally doesn't mention the word "consumers" once.  Here's my question a little below that you never answered asking for you to support your claim with a single sourced quote. Everything you've asserted here has been refuted in detail, so I'm not surprised you're taking off. What a freaking waste of time. Editors will keep having to go through crap like this with you over and over rather than discussing ways to improve the encyclopedia. You should have been site banned a long time ago. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be wrong to refrain from pointing out that countering the ITEP graph, which considers all taxes on Americans, with "federal, not counting any sales tax" statistics, does not show respect for the truth. How long will the administration allow the community's time to be wasted by deluded tag-team hounders who are so sensitive that they must complain to arbitrators when periods are added to the end of their quoted clauses? What will history say about the respect these arbitrators have for their own reliable source criteria? EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even your promise to leave was dishonest. The apples to apples comparison is with your graph's internal federal component, found in the source here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have repeatedly pointed out, that federal component attributes none of the incidence of corporate income tax to the corporations' customers, labor, employees, or consumers in general, even though you said plain as day that you think it should be. You can't have it both ways. I reserve the right to correct mistakes even if I have previously said that I do not wish to prolong this discussion. You are only hurting yourself by continuing to bicker from an untruthful position. EllenCT (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All the tax incidence chart sources, especially your ITEP chart, attribute corporate taxes to shareholders (owners), which has been pointed out to you probably literally over a dozen times. Your corporate tax methodology tangent was a red herring all along, because it fails to explain the massive discrepancy between your preferred source and all the others. Your lie about my personal position has been refuted above for anyone to read. I've posted no untruths, but you spread untruths almost every time you post. VictorD7 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

once per week should be made clearer
Might you consider using wording such as "once per calendar week" lest folks start using "intervals" and cavils about defining whether it means Arzel will need to wait 168 hours after any affected edit before making another such edit? Using "calendar weeks" is pretty easily determinable IMO, and would, again IMO, fully suffice to prevent anything approaching any edit war. Collect (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Casprings (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never heard the term "calendar weeks" and I'm not sure that would make things any clearer. However, nobody else has voted yet so I went ahead and changed it to "every seven days" which is what was intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From outside the US? Just wondering. I always think it is interesting what is common in one English speaking country(or area of that country) but not  in another.  That is pretty common to me. Casprings (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "One revert... every seven days" is very clear and unambiguous. Actually, "one revert... per week" (a week being seven days) is pretty clear also. Obviously, once every calendar week would allow for gaming the restriction. For example, a revert on a Saturday night might be followed by another on a Sunday morning, which would tend to defeat the purpose of the restriction.- MrX 00:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per-week revert restrictions, unless stated otherwise, are on the same "rolling" basis as 3RR is. If you make a revert at 1900 GMT on Tuesday afternoon, and then make another at 0700 the following Monday morning, you've breached the restriction. Essentially, you may never have two reverts be less than one week apart from one another. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I would think that was fairly obvious, but this being an arbcom decision it's worth trying to get ahead of the possibility of testing the edges and/or gaming. (and yes, I have lived my entire life in the states, born and raised in Ohio, last 15 years in Alaska) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality of the "edit warring" evidence against Arzel
As a spot check of the quality of the "edit warring" evidence, I took a look at the very first example. The example concerns a sub-3RR revert war over question 20 of this poll. If you look at the poll question, the person polled has available only two substantive responses, a portion of one of which is quoted. The problem with this type of question is that the person responding is asked to choose which response is closer to their opinion. Unless they want to bypass the question, they have only two options. For example, if a poll asked me which was closer to my opinion -- "monkeys are people" or "monkeys are apricots", I would go with people, even though I don't think that's really a fair characterization. Assuming that 85% of respondents answered in the same way, should Wikipedia report that "85% of respondents think that monkeys are people."? That would be a misleading way to report the results of the poll, right?

Now Arzel, prior to his third revert, had posted essentially that concern to talk page. So he was trying to solve the issue in talk, explaining the problem quite cogently here. Finally, cwobeel, who had been "edit warring" with Arzel (if you want to call it that), ended up agreeing that the material that was the subject of the [limited] edit war should not be used, albeit on different grounds from the ones Arzel had stated, to be sure. Lastly, cwobeel, while he did note the number of reverts Arzel had made, did not appear to be frustrated with what Arzel had done. -- [mostly] retired user William JJ.50.129.98.71 (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your looking at this the wrong way. Instead of doing a microscopic examination of individual diffs, look them all over (and by the way there are even more in the evidence) and see ify ou do or do not see a long-term pattern of revert warring. Edit warring is not allowed for good reason, and tiptoeing right up to 3RR over and over again without ever breaching it makes it clear that a user knows they are edit warring and are trying not to break a bright-line-rule while ignoring the actual spirit of the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually examining the evidence is the right way to look at this. Otherwise, a disingenuous partisan editor who failed to get his or her way in content disputes can simply run to admin and throw a bunch of crap against the wall in hopes that the sheer quantity of alleged "examples" will carry the day. If Arzel behaved appropriately here, why is it included in your diffs list? Why are you sanctioning him based on that behavior, and how objectionable were his other reverts? My perusal of the evidence indicated that his reverts improved Wikipedia quality. Instead of limiting those reverts, a sanction that's detrimental to Wikipedia quality, perhaps admin should contemplate doing something about the actions that make such reverts necessary, or maybe just staying out of such matters until actual rules are violated in a clear and concrete way. VictorD7 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox, Arzel's reverts are highly disruptive to the consensus building process, often disrupting the BRD cycle with short vacuous edit summaries and no discussion, whereby he establishes a base for plausible deniability by not exposing his intentions by participating in discussion of concrete text during the content creation process. As indicated above, he games the system by flying under the 3RR radar, continually. It's impossible to see how that could be representative of a good faith intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How was that disruptive? There was civil discussion, a resolution that left everyone happy, and I would hope that something was learned about how to present poll responses like that particular example.  If that is disruptive and a detriment to WP, then there is really very little which is not a detriment to WP.  Can anyone honestly say that this particular episode was an example of disruptive behaviour?  Ubikwit, you claim I " often disrupting the BRD cycle with short vacuous edit summaries and no discussion." but the above example clearly shows that statement to not be true.  Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the specific example above (which I haven't even looked at), just the broader scope of the diffs variously presented.
 * A 1RR isn't the end of editing, let's face it. Why not just deal with it for a year and ask for it to be lifted at some point, instead of crying foul over a sanction with a comparatively limited scope. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you haven't even looked at that evidence then how can you comment about it or make statements like the one above? Arzel (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked at enough already, and you have reverted my edits in precisely the manner I described, as presented in a previous Arbcom case. The fact that you are back here again after a fairly extensive RfC is not insignificant, and is indicative of an ongoing pattern.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What previous Arbcom? Almost everything presented here was prior to the RfC.  Do you have anything from after the RfC which shows a continuing of your preception of bad behaviour?  Your main issue appears to be something I did to you personally.  Arzel (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A logical interpretation of "gaming the system" would be exceeding 3 reverts in a short period of time, but carefully avoiding technically doing so in a 24 hour period. Arzel doesn't do that. He reverts 1-3 times total in a dispute. I'm not sure precisely how "edit warring" is defined, but one should be careful about accusing him of "gaming the system" as that's a conclusion of bad faith. VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I would suggest that my "micro" examination is relevant for the following reason: In order to learn about the whole [of the evidence], one needs to take a look at the parts.  Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to bring forth all those diffs in an effort to get rid of Arzel .  It is therefore reasonable to assume that the diffs in question show Arzel at his worst.  Yet it turns out that the very first set of diffs in the PD involves Arzel pointing out an actual problem with a proposed contribution and winning his opponent over.  The upshot is that someone who wants to get rid of Arzel, and attempted to provide evidence to do that, actually came up with evidence of Arzel doing something useful.  That said, you're the arbitrator, and I'm not.50.129.98.71 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please retract the personal attack: "Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to bring forth all those diffs in an effort to get rid of Arzel.", or present evidence that I am trying to "get rid of Arzel". Thanks.- MrX 17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you have acknlowedged that you do not actually know how edit warring is defined as that had been my impression from our discussion of this matter so far. I have endeavored to clarify it for you but I feel like you don't want to hear what I have to say or think I am making it up or something. The three revert rule is a specific application of the edit warring policy, a "bright line rule" that more or less guarantees a block should a user violate it. However, it is entirely possible to edit war without breaching that rule. The spirit of the edit warring policy is best summed up as "don't repeatedly revert the same or similar edits to try and make an article say what you want, even if you know you are right."

I did not include the diffs of the various times Arzel has been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, but ihe has been, repeatedly, and has been blocked for it twice. I didn't bring that up in the case either because both blocks were several years ago. However, that does constitute evidence that, unlike yourself, Arzel is well aware of the policy on edit warring. I do not need to assume good faith when evidence of knowingly disregarding one of our core behavioral policies is manifest, and i will not ignore the fact that a user has a very long history of edit warring just because he has managed to largely avoid doing it while an actual arbitration case is underway. If my fellow arbitrators do not agree with that position they are not obligated to support the finding or the remedy related to it and Arzel will not be subject to the sanction I have proposed. I hope this clarifies this matter for you and for everyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , your feelings say more about you than me since I clearly do want to hear much more about your rationale here. By contrast, I know you haven't answered the pertinent questions below by me and the other poster about when edit warring becomes sanctionable. Roughly how many reversions per year are editors allowed? And as the other poster asked, are you claiming that it's wrong for an editor to twice revert even such material as is laid out below? I've posted before about not knowing precisely what constitutes "edit warring", but that's as much to illustrate a point as anything. It has no precise definition. Nebulously defined rules selectively and arbitrarily enforced is one of the key elements in tyranny. My take on it is that while any multiple revert situation can probably be called "edit warring", not all edit warring should be deemed sanction worthy. Indeed most edit warring shouldn't be. There's a huge difference between someone gaming the system to revert several times in one week and someone reverting trollish material twice with no disruption or even complaint caused. If the latter is wrong, then what are editors supposed to do?  Leave the material in and start an RFC every time some soapboxer or troll undoes their initial revert on some low traffic page no one else is watching?


 * The admin who closed the Arzel RFC presumably does understand the edit warring policy, and he totally dismissed claims that Arzel was engaging in disruptive reverting, even saying such behavior can be a form of "good editing", as I quoted below. So it's not just regular editors who are disagreeing with you. If you don't think the two post RFC examples of Arzel allegedly engaging in disruptive edit warring truly show inappropriate behavior (you certainly haven't been willing to specifically comment on them so far), could you at least remove them from the evidence list and make it clear that you're simply disregarding the RFC results entirely and giving your own opinion in its stead, and aren't necessarily ruling on Arzel's behavior since the RFC closed (which frankly has been perfectly fine)? I would also like answers to my questions in the above section about your failure to comment on EllenCT despite her persisting in the extreme misconduct throughout and in the arbcom itself. These are reasonable, vital questions. VictorD7 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Second "edit war" link examined
The second link in the evidence section shows Arzel reverting one poster twice on the Paul Ryan page, and then slightly tweaking another's wording once in a completely different segment. A red letter editor named Cgersten boldly added an allegation that Ryan had engaged in illegal inside trading, sourced only to the fringe leftist blog "Alternet". Arzel's edit summary rightly pointed out that it wasn't a reliable source for such a claim. Indeed Alternet's very name celebrates its non mainstream status, and this particular blog entry bemoaned the accusation's lack of media coverage. Cgersten re-added the accusation using a different source, this time the liberal blog The Huffington Post. Except, as Arzel observed while reverting it, this blog argued that there was nothing to the story (though, being a partisan blog, it did attack Ryan's intelligence). The accusation had originated on the liberal blog The Richmonder and received a brief pop on some leftist blogs before being roundly debunked by ideologically diverse media for getting its basic facts wrong. Here's a piece from the liberal site Slate retracting the story and apologizing for having repeated it earlier. This all happened almost two years before Cgersten first posted it. Clearly it would be wrong post such an explosive accusation, sans specifics, that had already been debunked before it gained traction in the Paul Ryan bio.

Arzel dutifully started a Talk Page section laying out his reasoning on the matter but he was the only one who ever posted there. No one else was upset enough to bother. Cgersten didn't try to reintroduce the edit and never visited the talk page.

Later, totally separately, SPECIFICO expanded a different sentence from "His musical preferences include Beethoven, Rage Against the Machine, and Led Zeppelin...." to read "He avoids reporters by playing Beethoven very loud on his ipod. He also likes Rage Against the Machine,...". SPECIFICO's edit summary rationale stated that he wanted to "Conform to statement in cited reference". Arzel didn't fully revert the edit, but just tweaked it to read, "His musical preferences include Beethoven, Rage Against the Machine, and Led Zeppelin, and he reportedly will whisk past reporters while listening to this music on his IPod." His edit summary said this actually more accurately reflected the source (in accordance with SPECIFICO's stated wishes). The NY Post article used actually says, "The outdoorsman has been known to whisk past reporters on Capitol Hill wearing headphones — ignoring them while listening to Rage Against the Machine and Led Zeppelin." Clearly Arzel's version is much closer to the source's, flowed better, and eliminated the POVish language that Ryan supposedly "avoids" reporters. The article said only that they sometimes see him whisk by listening to music. The word "avoids" isn't used in any variation, and its use in the article could be misinterpreted at best. There was no counter edit by SPECIFICO and no further action or complaint by anyone.

Arzel's actions here were exemplary, upheld Wikipedia quality, and caused no disruption whatsoever. I think it's incumbent on Beeblebrox and maybe even an editor like Ubikwit who's chimed in to vaguely accuse Arzel to defend the reverted edits, which were clearly low quality POV pushing (at least Cgersten's; SPECIFICO's may have just been a little sloppy) or at least explain what was wrong with anything Arzel did here. Otherwise it and the link examined above should be removed from the decision evidence list. The examination of evidence should continue, though that the first two links exonerate rather than condemn Arzel should be a red flag to any fair minded observer. It's not too late for arbitrators to reconsider the editing sanction. The new sweeping powers will still exist, so this arbcom wouldn't have been a waste. Given those new powers, it's especially important to launch this process off on the right foot and not leave a huge number of editors convinced that this was just an ideologically motivated railroad job. If arbitrators still have some kind of specific problem with something Arzel did I'm sure he would be receptive to a simple admonishment and would adjust his behavior accordingly, without taking action that would leave any troll or soapboxer on a low traffic article with the knowledge that all they had to do was undo his revert to have their way, and might dissuade or prevent Arzel from upholding Wikipedia quality as laid out above. VictorD7 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The added content simply said that an allegation had been made and "refuted", not that the allegation was true. It is a documented fact that the allegation was made.
 * Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.
 * UC Berkeley economist Brad Delong has put up a timeline of Ryan’s 2008 trades in bank stocks. This has been getting attention from unfounded accusations that Ryan may have used information he learned by virtue of his position in Congress to inform his trades. (Slate columnist Matt Yglesias linked to and then retracted a post accusing Ryan of insider trading.)
 * Contrary to Arzel's claim, the Huffington Post article does back up the proposed content, which simply states that accusations were made and "refuted".
 * The Richmonder's "Paul Ryan traded on insider information to avoid 2008 crash" says:
 * Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008 [...] to beg Congress to pass legislation to help collapsing banks [...] Ryan left the meeting and [...] sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble...


 * Not due to these diffs, but due to my long and frustrating experience, I believe (strongly) that restricting Arzel to 1RR will help to improve the articles on American politics. &mdash; goethean 18:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A fringe partisan blog makes a factually inaccurate claim that's quickly debunked by most of the media and retracted from most of the few outfits that did initially run with it, and you think their charge merits inclusion in Wikipedia's Paul Ryan bio article? It laid out the charge but didn't even say how it was "refuted", and only used a fringe anti-Ryan blog as a source, leaving a skewed impression for readers. The "insider trader" mention is what would stick in their minds. None of the details were presented. No reasonable, responsible, experienced editor could think that segment possesses the weight to merit inclusion here. No one complained about its removal. Arzel caused no disruption. VictorD7 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are still totally missing the point. In cases of edit warring, policy does not discriminate between who may be right or wrong in the underlying content dispute. Anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong, regardless of the merits of the position they are edit warring to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How many reverts per year are editors allowed before being sanctioned for "edit warring"? You only posted 10 links. The one I just examined showed Arzel tweaking one edit once and reverting a completely different edit (altered the second time to boot) twice. The first link ended with the other edit warring party agreeing with Arzel that the material shouldn't be used. The other links were all from January or earlier, covering a long time span. Most of that evidence had been considered and rejected as sanction worthy by the RFC that preceded this arbitration. If you still believe Arzel's two recent "edit wars" are inappropriate, wouldn't a simple warning be preferable to singling him out and restricting his ability to edit? VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post is a fringe anti-Ryan blog? &mdash; goethean 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Alternet, but Huff Po is certainly a liberal, anti-Ryan blog, though even it defended him on this score by explaining why there was nothing to the accusation. False claims are made by fringe partisan media all the time. Such items typically don't belong in an encyclopedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed content itself, which Arzel REMOVED said that the accusation had been refuted. I'm going to walk away now. I made an error in attempting to have a conversation with you. &mdash; goethean 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you not read my commentary on that above? Tacking on a "refuted" disclaimer (particularly when saying the refutation came from the "Ryan campaign staff", as opposed to the media, including leftist outlets) hardly undoes the damage done by placing the accusation prominently in his Wikipedia article, especially when using an Alternet blog as a source that's arguing the accusation is still legitimate, and that admits its own fringe status on that score. Loudly denying that your opponent is a "child molester"/"murderer"/ "racist"/"robber"/"whatever" is an old dirty political branding trick. That's why it was a left leaning editor trying to add the segment in the first place, rather than a right leaning one. VictorD7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, are you arguing that even material such as this should not be reverted twice by the same user?50.129.98.71 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of a "disruptive effect"?
The decision's "edit war" section states that "This has had a disruptive effect on the topic area, and has increased tensions." But of the ten evidence links, only two are from post January. A massively participated in RFC already examined the earlier evidence and rejected sanctions, it being widely concluded that it was a pot/kettle case where some partisan editors were trying to get an editor with opposing politics sanctioned.

In the only two post RFC evidence links provided, as laid out above, the first "edit war" ended with a civil talk page chat where the other party ultimately agreed with Arzel that the material shouldn't be added, while in the other (which consisted of two reverts) Arzel was the only one who ever posted on the Talk Page. There were no complaints by anyone or any evidence of any disruption. Does Beeblebrox or anyone else have any evidence of a post RFC "disruptive effect" caused by Arzel "edit warring"? VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bold misrepresentation of what actually occurred. First, this case was not solely about post-January conduct; it was about a multi-year history of conduct. Second, the RfC did not "reject sanctions". That's not what RfCs do. They gather comments from the community in an attempt to intervene, find consensus, and alter conduct. Predictably, the RfC ended with no consensus. Third, I presented evidence of post-RfC disruption in my response to Newyorkbrad on April 16, on the main case page here. I also presented the evidence on the evidence page and on the workshop page, for example this April 26 edit war. How is it possible that you didn't manage to find any of this evidence in any of the three places where it was conspicuously posted? Complaints about how unfair this case has been to Arzel, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, seem utterly bizarre.- MrX 21:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the point of the RfC is to alter conduct and my conduct has been concurrent with the point of the RfC, then what is the point of the arbitration sanctions? The fact that I disagreed with the basic principle behind the RfC in general does not change the fact that I have followed the basic principle behind the RfC anyway.  The only reason the ARBCOM was started appears because Casprings thought that the RfC should have resulted in some sanctions against me.  Thus my question is, "What was the point?"  Was it to change my editing behaviour or to punish me?  Have I been uncivil to you or anyone else since the RfC?  Have I engaged in editing without discussion on the talk page since the RfC?  And if this really was the whole point of all of this, then several editors wasted their own time on other issues (Victor for example).  I can at least take solace that I didn't waste much time on what appears to have been a foregone conclusion in the first place.  My time with my new daughter was much better spent.  Arzel (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC did not resolve the issues. You didn't acknowledge that your conduct had been an issue, nor did you agree to change it any way. Unfortunately, some of the same conduct issues (edit warring; personalizing disputes) resurfaced after the RfC, as shown in the evidence that I presented. I can't comment on Caspring's intentions, but if they had not opened this case, I or someone else eventually would have. The point of this case should be to protect the project, by cultivating a collaborative editing environment and by preventing disruption that negatively affects other contributors' ability to enjoy editing here.


 * Congratulations, and blessings to you and your family, on your new daughter.- MrX 21:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! it has been a great blessing. As for the RfC I did not accept the premise that I use biased conservative sources to balance out liberal sources (there is simply no evidence of this).  I did not accept BR statement that the use of highly partisan sourcing is a perfectly fine way to create an encyclopedia. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel the need to attack me here? I stated my rational for bring this case on the main case page.Casprings (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you think is an attack. I was mostly paraphrasing the initial comments of the Arb's.  If you don't believe I should be sanctioned I am fine with that.  Arzel (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the one example you linked to (which wasn't included in the decision's list here) was from March. The RFC closed on April 15. That was two and half months ago, with your example having occurred a month earlier. Since the RFC's purpose was to gauge community opinion, and it received massive participation, those results shouldn't be totally ignored. What it showed was that views on the anti-Arzel complaints broke down almost entirely along party lines, which should be a huge red flag. The closing admin noted this and, while saying that future personal commentary by Arzel could result in sanctions, found that the "edit warring" accusation was particularly bogus:


 * "First of all, the RfC, as is suggested by some comments, overshoots the mark a bit. As NE Ent and Iselilja correctly point out, judicious removal is also good editing. A guy shoveling snow, that's not of encyclopedic value, and "rm per We're Not The News" strikes me as perfectly valid--and fortunately I'm not the only one. In fact, NOTNEWS is a perfectly valid rationale, as long as it is explained if challenged, but the diffs here did not go that far in depth. Second, if I may, not breaking 3R can be called "gaming the system"; as an admin I prefer to call it "something not doing something stupid that makes me have to block them". In general, then, I cannot find in this RfC sufficient proof that the editor's editing in general and per se is disruptive or in violation of policy. If this had been the case, seeking a topic ban would have been a logical suggestion as a next step. But wholesale "whitewashing" is not established."


 * Where's the evidence of Arzel engaging in "disruptive" behavior since that RFC closure? I haven't noticed any non-leftists seeking to have Arzel sanctioned. By contrast, various left leaning editors have admonished or complained about EllenCT's tendentious behavior, with at least one involved in this arbcom proposing she be topic banned. If Arzel's behavior was so beyond the pale, wouldn't complaints cross party lines as they have in her case? VictorD7 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
It would have been desirable to see a statement of principle related sourcing; more specifically, to the misrepresentation of sources. Such a statement might contribute to forestalling pov-warriors on either side of the partisan divide from making recourse to such tactics, fostering more rational discussion on article talk pages.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that we have adopted thst principle in the past: see for example Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the link.
 * After another thread at RS/N of epic proportions with little to show in the way of results due to the lack of an administrative consensus mechanism there, I've started an RfC related to one source that was at issue in this case. Anyone with time, input would be helpful. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF? An RFC opened at 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)? Is this RFC supposed to change the results or PD here? Or is it some sort of advertising? – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Advertising? I think that choice of verbiage is somewhat amiss. What is it that you're implying? That posting a link to that is considered improper here?
 * The sourcing issue is one that was raised directly in this case, with no end in sight.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of this page is the proposed decision. Nothing else. The RFC will not impact the decision. Your notice here about the RFC is tangential at best. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tangential it may be, but every time I've been here at Arbcom sourcing has been a primary focus in the content disputes resulting in conduct violations.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was disappointed by the unwillingness of the initial proposed decision to support the reliable source criteria in the face of efforts, including the repeated and strenuous insertion of paid advocacy, to undermine them. But I have hope since the case is not yet closed that arbitrators will find the courage within themselves to uphold the honorable sourcing standards of the past. EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Discretionary sanctions"
It rather seems that all American articles remotely connected to political or social issues would appear to cover 100% of all American articles. This is not "cutting the knot" it is a pure license for any admin to consider any edit on any article remotely connected to such a broad range to be under sanctions. Such a result is far beyond any common sense interpretation of the Arbitration Committee remit. Collect (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You appear to have misread what is being proposed. What is not being proposed is automatically adding DS to all articles related to US political or social issues. What is being proposed is that in the future, when the next inevitable, protracted  conflict springs up in one of these topic areas, any user may come to WP:ARCA and ask that DS be added to that area instead of needing to file a full case. The committee will then consider said request and if it has merit it will go to a vote. It is only if an amendment specifically authorizing DS for that area passes that there will actually be sanctions in place. If at some later date the sanctions no longer seem needed any user may ask for a new amendment to remove them from that area.


 * The purpose of this approach (as is already explained in the proposed decision) is that it is not desirable to have DS on every article in such a broad topic area, but it is also undesirable to have the disruption simply move from one area to the other, as we have seen after each of the four or so full cases in the last year have closed. The idea is to have a flexible remedy that can follow these disputes as they move about, hopefully mitigating the seemingly endless POV pushing, personalizing and politicizing of editing disputes, and so forth that have plagued these areas for some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I noted the "cutting the knot" premise which to me implied that the goal was to make every article related to America at all potentially subject to ArbCom motions sans an actual case relating thereto. I consider such a shortcut to be "convenient" but quite likely ill-advised.  The current case, as far as I can tell, rests on quite tenuous ground in the first place -   I daresay any content dispute on political or social issues is, pretty much by definition, "politicizing" the content issue.   Absent actual and substantive misconduct, I suggest that the committee should simply state that all editors are "warned" to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a general rule.   AFAICT, "flexible all-purpose remedies"  rarely suit all purposes and are even more rarely actually "remedies." YMMV. Collect (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been discussion on the workshop page of the proposal that the ArbCom can, by motion, without a full case, impose discretionary sanctions on topics in the area of American politics. I disagree with User:Collect and think that this idea would be an excellent way to avoid additional tedious full cases that have tied up the arbitration process.  There was an even more draconian proposal that any uninvolved administrator could impose discretionary sanctions.  I would like to thank the arbitrators for taking this step to address future polarized disputes.  I would suggest that the ArbCom add a principle of "At Wit's End" that is sometimes used, because this is a necessary but draconian remedy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with Beeblbrox and Robert McClenon. DS are sorely needed as a potential expedient to full cases like this, which consume far too much of peoples' time.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Something of a copyedit, but for clarity I suggest replacing the word "American" with "United States" within that first proposed Remedy. --Noren (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Active & inactive arbitrator count
This page shows 10 active and 4 inactive arbitrators. The PD page says we have 11 active & 3 inactive. Do these counts need reconciling? – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do now ✅. Thanks for pointing this out.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Meta
As I see it, part of the problem with a decision like this one is that it will contribute to a trend of driving out a minority viewpoint on Wikipedia.

In a situation where there are two camps, each submitting evidence against the other, repeated and lengthy procedures such as this one will tend to favor the larger camp. It takes a lot of time to find the evidence, and the larger camp, having more members, is in a better position to find more evidence. Thus, in a case like this one, where a "violation" is evidently a meta issue composed of a large number of examples which, taken individually, are not violations, the smaller camp is likely to have more restrictions imposed on it than the larger. The long-run result is that NPOV suffers.

The committee's rule that other avenues have to be exhausted first only exacerbates the above problem, as members of the smaller camp will naturally have been brought up more often in other fora.

Additionally, members of the smaller camp are more likely be tempted to revert in the first place, as the number of members of the larger camp offering inappropriate material will exceed the number of members of the smaller camp removing said material. Because removal of inappropriate material can be a violation, the perverse result is that more insertions of inappropriate material from members of the larger camp can contribute to sanctions being imposed on members of the smaller camp.50.129.98.71 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Post RfC
I have noticed that the discussion appears to be relating specifically to the recent RfC against me and worded in a way to suggest that I have acted in a way which is congruent to the basic premise of the RfC. However, it has been noted that both accusations of edit warring post/during the RfC were both done with talk discussion and a supported outcome. you have stated/pharaphrased that I have not benefited from the RfC, yet there is nothing post RfC to suggest this. Your argument appears to be that I am only because of the "sword is hanging over [my] head". Basically I am in a no win situation with you. Anything I do which is not "bad" is irrelevant because of the current Arbcom, yet the premise of your argument is that I have done nothing to change to perception of the RfC. You have yet to explain why your first two example of "edit warring" are disruptive. I have to ask, if civil discussion was not the point of the RfC then exactly what was the point of the RfC? If civil discussion is viewed as disruptivethis than it would appear the real goal is to simply silence me. You have also stated that you believe I have not acted in bad faith, if this is truly the case, then why is my post RfC editing viewed under a cloud of suspicion? Arzel (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The RFC was closed the day this case was open. However, the RFC was ideal with no or few edits for months.  Moreover, the RFC was closed after months by an uninvolved admin because the participates could not agree on a closing.  You are basically  arguing that you have done better since the case was opened.Casprings (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, you requested this Arbitration before the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed on the 15th of April this case was opened on the 20th of April.  Regardless, even during the RfC I have fully discussed edits on the talk pages and remained civil.  As I have stated several times I did not agree with the false premise that I use conservative sources to balance out liberal sources.  Not a single editor has backed up that claim.  That was your original statement on this Arbitration as well.  I have asked you to back up that claim and you have not.  Regardless of my view of the RfC I have not violated your underlying grievance from the RfC since the RfC started in February.  I have asked Beeblebrox this question twice now, I think it deserves an answer.  Arzel (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jst to clarify. Yes, I did request this it before the RFC closed.  However, it was requested when there had been no activity on the RFC for months, the parties had failed to agree to close it, and a request to close it had made months ago.  It isn't like I requested this in an ongoing RFC.  For whatever reason, an admin decided to close it when the case was about ready to start.Casprings (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Arzel, it's like this: you have engaged in a long-term pattern of edit warring. That has been established. The restriction proposed will not "silence" you at all, it is a restriction on reverting. In fact, the point you should be getting is that you should engage in civil discourse with those you disagree with instead of edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this decision presumably has implications for other editors, Beeblebrox, it would be nice if you helped clarify things by answering 50.129.98.71's question to you above regarding that specific piece of "evidence" you posted. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what implications you are referring to. The edit warring policy has been well-defined for quite some time and this PD does not alter it's meaning at all. The problem here as I see it has been lax or uneven enforcement of that policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got multiple editors telling you it's not "well-defined", or at least that we have questions about it, specifically regarding your interpretation and enforcement plans. Answering the poster's question about the specific piece of evidence analyzed above that you included as having shaped your decision could help answer those questions. I certainly know of no legitimate reason for you to go out of your way to avoid doing so. VictorD7 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't rocket science. If an edit is not in one of the narrowly defined categories of edits exempt from the policy, then yes, reverting it repeatedly is edit warring. You can try all day to make it complicated but it really is just that simple. So I would ask my own question: which of the accepted exemptions did Arzel invoke when making his reverts? Don't know? Don't see any evidence that he has ever claimed an exemption? Me neither. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, AFAICT, Arzel used talk pages religiously, and some of the reverts were in the basis that the claims made were not precisely made in the source used -- which is a valid reason for reverting. One of the most heinous Wikicrimes is misuse of sources, and this has been found to be a problem in the past by ArbCom.  I make no claims about whether any source was misused, only that Arzel asserted they were.     is a BLP issue by any standards, and so I find (looking at the first two examples given of his evil behaviour on the proposed decision page) that the claim that he has had no reasons for reverting to fail.  And the rhetorical "Me neither" flippancy is ill-suited here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Using talk pages doesn't exempt users from the edit warring policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Given his history of edit warring, Arzel should have considered reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. In the first example on the PD page, Arzel and Cwobeel were both edit warring. Arzel was using original research to justify his reverts. In the second example, Arzel impugns the source, but AlterNet is an award-winning (albeit biased) news source that is under editorial control. The source article also links to other sources supportive of the insider trading claim. More importantly, there is no possible refutation that accusations were made. They were. The only question is whether Ryan actually engaged in insider trading. The third revert rejected SPECIFICO's very reasonable copyedit, but not as a BLP violation.- MrX 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually using talk pages and other dispute resolution forums does count. And I would note that many people would consider allegations of criminal acts ("insider trading") do fall under the strictures of WP:BLP.  Clearly your mileage varies on such claims. Collect (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And there was no "third revert". That was the first and only revert in an entirely new section dealing with a different editor, and wasn't an edit war. It wasn't even a revert so much as a tweak that preserved SPECIFICO'S expansion but made it less POV and much more faithful to the source text. VictorD7 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But, Beeblebrox, why not answer the question I posed above about what an editor should do in Arzel's place when faced with that particular situation? Isn't this a teachable moment? What are editors supposed to learn from this if you're not willing to teach? I'll also point out that Cgersten changed the source with his second edit, so it wasn't precisely the same material Arzel reverted (appropriately, from a Wikipedia quality standpoint) the second time. A poster made a bold proposal, another rejected it, so he made a slightly different proposal, and the other editor rejected that too. That's the normal give and take of editing that occurs daily here on countless articles. That's why I would like to get you on the record commenting in detail about that specific case, or to remove it from your evidence list condemning Arzel. VictorD7 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Beeblebrox appears to be saying is that he pretty much always considers repeated reverts to be wrong, even if it falls short of 3RR, the material is obviously inappropriate, the other side is edit warring, the person doing the reverting gives a helpful and accurate explanation in talk, and the other side does not come to talk at all. Whether that is a helpful way to manage Wikipedia is a discussion that can and should be had.50.129.98.71 (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel. The answer to all your questions can be found in Beeblebrox's vote to accept this case. Even back then, he considered the RFC garbage that solved nothing. The fact the you may have improved your behavior afterwards is beside the point. As far as he was concerned it had already failed. You were never really intended to be given a chance to adjust your behavior based on the RFC, it was just a box that needed to be checked off before accepting a case. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. It was a foregone conclusion from the beginning.  The true objective has been clear for some time.  Arzel (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment and this [] show your rejection of the findings on yourself. Which is odd because you clearly motified your behavior during this case.  The motification shows you understood what changes needed to be made.  I would suggest you retract both comments.Casprings (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. I have stated several times I could not agree with your basic RfC premise that I balance out liberal sources with conservative sources.  You have yet to provide any evidence to this end, yet you continue to assert it to be so.  One of the proposed aspects of this arbitration was a possible IBAN between us.  I have had very little contact with you since the WOW article, and have initiated almost none of it, yet you continue to harass me.  I really wish you would stop.  Arzel (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is your opinion on sources that is in question here. It is your edit warring and your personlization of conflicts.Casprings (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough - I would suggest precisely the same mirror applies to your position here -- the entire case rests upon your own "personalization" of disputes, and one where you did not gain a consensus at the RFC/U.    Would that you had the "giftie" to see yourself at others see you.  And those who seem to think their boatloads of marginal "evidence" mean anything to those viewing from a distance.  From afar, those who past hundreds of complaints about others often should have a close introspective look at their own position -- the concept of Wikipedia envisions that editors ought to disagree on content, else the project will intrinsically develop internal biases inconsistent with WP:NPOV.  What I see, alas, is people saying "myPOVshouldbefavouredandotherPOVsbanned". We fail to look at articles requiring all positions to form the great puzzle of NPOV articles.   Perhaps the very concept of Wikipedia is flawed - but I suggest that it is more likely the concepts being evinced here which have the greater flaws. Collect (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. No one is getting banned from this decision. At least not right now. 2. I didn't start the RFC/U.  I endorsed some of the findings and suggested a close that simply provided a summery of the RFC. 3.  An RFC where there is a deep community divide seems to be what this committee was designed to deal with.  4. The evidence presented was convincing enough for the findings of fact to pass on Arzel.  5.  This statement is a bit drama queenish.  Perhaps this comes from the fact that a past decision that was " The ArbCom['s] ....singular worst decision in its history", as your talk page says.  Which remarkable, found that you were  "dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants".  Maybe how you viewed that case and the finding of fact on yourself are connected.Casprings (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right -- calling an argumentum ad Hitlerum "bosh and twaddle" was a breach of civility as seen by some (but not so seen by the person to whom I was replying, nor by anyone at all n the evidence and workshop phases of that decision but was only generated after the close of all such pages, and after the official close of any ability on my part to actually respond to such "evidence"), but telling others (as one person here on this page has done) to "Fuck off! is clearly civil discourse .  I consider all "Gordian knot" solutions to be abysmal - true.  That you appear to regard them as proper is your choice, but making snarky comments about my user talk page without including the bases for my comments is not impressing me much at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. My apologies. I will strike the comment.Casprings (talk)

General warning
While I understand the focus of this case from the outset was mostly on Arzel, it seems a bit unfair that only Arzel is being targeted with sanctions. I understand that the applicability of the case to any other editors might be questionable, but if no other editors will be singled out, including the other two named parties who each have had evidence presented against them, I think at least something like a general warning should be used to reflect that it is a problem with many editors.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence. EllenCT (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The case, as originally filed, was titled Arzel, but the name was changed to American Politics prior to opening; many of the accepts state outright that Arzel isn't the only one whose conduct is problematic. Since the entire decision is targeted at Arzel, either the committee members who stated that the conduct of all parties would be considered were lying, or the drafters of the proposed decision are disrupting the arbitration process by ignoring a large proportion of the committee and the case in front of them. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am delighted to see how many IPs who only edit in project space have popped up with such useful and entirely accurate observations during this phase of the case. Because obviously applying discretionary sanctions over a broad range of articles is specifically targeted only at Arzel. We would obviously do that instead of just banning him if he was really that bad. I was hoping nobody would see through my clever plot, but these project-space-editng-IPs have, as usual, acted courageously to expose the truth. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not particularly happy at being lumped in with the other IPs in a sarcastic post like that. Although I have not taken Beeblebrox' side in the debate, I believe I have been entirely cordial, and have listened to what the Arbs said, even reflecting that understanding in my posts.  If Arbitrators were to return the favor, that would both reflect well on the Arbitration Committee and increase confidence in their impartiality while undertaking what is doubless a thankless task.50.129.98.71 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. All IPs who only edit in project space are the same person. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also unhelpful. Please stop.50.129.98.71 (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Imposing discretionary sanctions on new topic areas by administrators
As an administrator active on the requests for enforcement noticeboard, I advise against deciding that administrators should or may impose discretionary sanctions in new topic areas. This is principally because this would add a new layer of complexity to the administrators' side of the arbitration and enforcement framework. Discretionary sanctions are already so (over-)complicated that one realistically needs a substantial degree of experience with the rules, as well as experience in working in a legal or bureaucratic context, in order to meaningfully contribute to the enforcement process. The Committee should avoid adding to that complexity and should instead look for ways to encourage more administrators to participate in the enforcement process.

Also, if a concern underlying this proposed remedy is that ARCA requests to extend the scope of discretionary sanctions won't be acted on in time, I recommend that the Committee instead considers delegating such authority as may be needed to expedite this process to a subcommittee or to individual arbitrators instead.  Sandstein  10:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather you allow or disallow admins to do this, why not also say it can be imposed by community concensus. I could see a situration where the editors on an article see the need for it.  It could also be imposed on the talk page of the article?Casprings (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point here, my point anyway, is that if single admins or the community drama boards could deal with this, it wouldn't have wound up here in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What would the DS system exist in contradistinction to otherwise? -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what contradistinction means, but I would sure like to see at least some some temporary topic bans against the repeated paid political advocacy-inserting hounders. Are any arbitrators persuaded by their arguments? Does it seem that VictorD7 and I, for example, have a legitimate disagreement on which reasonable people might reasonably be expected to differ, or is it clear to the arbitrators that one of us is being substantially less truthful than the other in an attempt to censor evidence against their preferred ideology? EllenCT (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the contrast in WP dispute resolution between the DS system and community-based notice boards. They exist in parallel, and it seems to me that it is necessary to maintain a degree of separation between them if the "system" is to function according to design.
 * The decision instead opting to fast-track the implementation of DS, which means that it will be easier to file a report at WP:AE against editors that violate the DS.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why only mention one editor (Arzel)?
The original request for this case was the following:

During an WP:RFC/U, there was significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel and other editors who took part in the WP:RFC/U. The pages in the WP:RFC/U largely relate to American Politics in general and not the Tea Party Movement, which there has been an Arbitration case on.

In the dispute, some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Wikipedia reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases. On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan.

I request the Committee look at this dispute and help to resolve it. This could include sanctions on either side of the dispute, interaction bans or other remedies.

I would not hide the fact that I fall on the side of the debate that found Arzel's behavior problematic in the past. However, the real reason I requested this was there was no way to attain clear consensus and there was no closure. To me, that indicates a larger problem. Was the behavior of those that defended Arzel's behavior within the norms of WP? Was the behavior of those who saw a problem with Arzel's behavior within the norms of WP? In sum, I think the committee should make some statement on how the community reviewed Arzel's conduct and rather editors behaved within the standards expected from Wikipedia. Casprings (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If Arzel was the only problem we would have just banned him. It looks as though the proposal to have a fast-track to discretionary sanctions is going to pass. Once that is in place the decision can be amended to cover specific topic areas as problems arise. When we actually do this, I think you will find that it will become quite clear who is behaving in an acceptable manner and who is not. In other words, Arzel is probably going to be subject to 1RR, a rather mild behavioral sanction, but everybody who edits in these topic areas will be subject to the discretionary sanctions, and if they continue to cause problems they will find that the wheels at arbitration enforcement turn quite a bit faster than those of the committee as a whole.


 * As I have said several times now, this is really just getting started. While I would love to think that the mere presence of DS will calm things, I anticipate that topic bans, blocks, etc, will be stemming from this decision for quite some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, this might be a good general precedent for the future. American politics is polarized, but polarization can happen in a wide range of topics.  For example, Indian politics and society (hindu nationalism, elections, etc) might be a good example.  Basically having a broad topic area declared problematic and quickly being able to handle sub-components of that category seems to be a decent idea.  Of course, I have little experience and that is coming from an outsider of your committee.


 * That said, I would hope you would take some time to help newcomers. What brought me to Wikipedia was basically against policy. However, over time I understood the basic rules and policy.  Not that I edit a ton, but I do try to stay within the sprint and the  letter of policy when I do edit.      I am sure with the upcoming election, you will have a lot of editors coming here for political purposes.  While many of them will push bias, many also have an interest in the topic area.  Given time, they can and would contribute to Wikipedia.  In other words, I hope that DS won't be used to quickly ban new editors when explaining policies of Wikipedia would bring them in-line.Casprings (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I did AE, if someone brought there was a new editor who had blundered into a hot spot and crossed over the line but was interested in contributing more constructively, I'd generally err on the side of a warning and helping them to understand expectations, with the caution that second chances come much easier than third ones. On the other hand, if their attitude was "I'VE GOT TO FIGHT THESE ____________ AND YOU'RE TRYING TO STOP ME! YOU MUST BE A _____________ TOO!", I'd probably conclude that wasn't a good area for them to be editing in. It all depends on the circumstances, and I certainly saw both scenarios more than once. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued attempts to scrub descriptions of regressive taxation from Wikipedia
Do the arbitrators think these stated intentions are ethical? Do any of the arbitrators think they are compatible with being here to build a comprehensive, neutral, uncensored, accurate encyclopedia? Do any of the arbitrators think they are not POV-pushing in order to soapbox politically by censoring mention of regressive taxes from Wikipedia? EllenCT (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually in that debate you were the one trying to remove a segment sourced by the OECD (censorship). I wasn't trying to remove anything. I have no problem with describing taxes as regressive when the sources do. VictorD7 (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I invite others to read the plain language of the diff. EllenCT (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Further hounding
Please see and S. Rich’s next most recent dozen or hundred interactions with me. Will the arbitrators please put a stop to this continued misbehavior? EllenCT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're edit warring against three people on that page, and that you have at least 5 reverts there in the last several days. VictorD7 (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)