Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive182

HughD

I'm going to AGF here and warn rather than block, but any further violations are very likely to result in a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning HughD User who is submitting this request for enforcement Safehaven86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced User talk:HughD#One-year broad topic ban imposition related to the Tea Party movement: Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it September 30 HughD makes an edit to Institute for Energy Research, a page which includes two paragraphs about the Kochs October 7 HughD edits the page of American Legislative Exchange Council, a page which features content about the Kochs October 7 HughD edits the page of Philanthropy Roundtable, which mentions Charles Koch October 8 After being warned about editing this page one day prior, HughD again edits the page of ALEC October 9 After acknowledging two editing ban violations on ALEC in the past 24 hours, HughD again edits the Institute for Energy Research page Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any August 28 Hugh D is topic-banned from all Tea Party and Koch-related articles for a period of one year by Ricky81682 If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 15 Additional comments by editor filing complaint HughD was topic-banned from all Tea Party and Koch-related articles on August 28. I noticed that he violated this ban with his edits to Institute for Energy Research on September 30. I warned him [1] for this behavior on his talk page, and while he did not acknowledge my warning, he did self-revert. He again violated the editing ban a number of times on October 7 and 8. I again notified him [2] that he had violated the ban, and he apologized and said he would self-revert [3]. He did not self-revert, and he in fact continued to edit on the very page he'd been warned about (ALEC) as well as several other pages. This pattern of behavior leaves me skeptical that HughD can meaningfully comply with his topic ban. See also these talk page attempts at resolving the issue short of making a formal request for enforcement: User talk:HughD#Editing ban and User talk:Ricky81682#Question about editing ban. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Diff of notification Discussion concerning HughD Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by HughD Sorry about this. My mistakes. I understand the ban. I am not trying to circumvent it. I will try to be more careful. Avoiding the Kochs is hard sometimes. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Of course upon notification of my blunders I offered to self-revert, but found my contribution to already be deleted, easily confirmed by history upon request. Hugh (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "he did not acknowledge my warning" I thanked you for the notification, easily confirmed by history upon request. Hugh (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) The entire ban is questionable. The admin is clearly biased as all editors on the same political side have been punished. It should be overturned. 166.170.45.93 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Result concerning HughD This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

VictorD7

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

Request concerning VictorD7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP2.

No further discussion among involved parties is permitted on this request. Further comments should focus on proposed resolutions and should be made below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am copying VictorD7's WP:AN3 complaint and the three responses including mine verbatim here because an administrator instructed to do so as shown below. EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Seeking a block for EllenCT. While being careful to avoid violating 3RR, EllenCT has repeatedly edit warred against consensus and several different reverting editors over the past couple of weeks to install the same changes she wants in two sections in the United States article, Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth. Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [15] she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example [16] she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it. EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [17], and should be familiar with the rule. When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, [18] "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts. This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ([19] [20] [21] [22]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire United States article) presumably fall under the discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, which Ellen should be familiar with as a party in the former. Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ... take this to AE because this is too convoluted for this forum --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning VictorD7 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by VictorD7 I'm not sure what sanction EllenCT is seeking against me or what precisely I'm even being accused of here. I reported her to the Edit Warring noticeboard after days of her persistently edit warring against multiple editors and promising to keep doing it and now she's seeking action against me here as if in retaliation and/or to distract and deflect. The ANI attempt to sanction me she mentions was months ago, opposed by a majority of respondents for being partisan nonsense, and allowed to fall into the archives (one editor finally closed it but the close was reverted by the agenda driven initiator; after that people largely ignored it). EllenCT is actually guilty of the serial POV pushing she falsely accuses me of. But I only mentioned that in the above report to provide context to the very real and recent edit warring she's been conducting on the United States article. That's a clear, disruptive behavior violation, not a content dispute, and it's laid out in the evidence she helpfully quoted. In response to the pertinent portion of her comments, of course I led off by acknowledging that she hadn't violated 3RR, but, as the warning another editor posted on her talk page says, one can be guilty of edit warring without violating 3RR. Surely the 11 diffs of reverts of the same material (in two sections) over a week and a half through yesterday qualify as edit warring. And she disregarded almost unanimous talk page opposition (when her proposals had been discussed at all; sometimes they hadn't) and previous reverts by multiple editors. Click through the diffs. They weren't "constructive efforts to compromise". She repeatedly removed/replaced the same info, sometimes even being sneaky about it with misleading edit summaries. That she denies these were even reverts is mind boggling. Fixing a broken link is a poor excuse to make highly contentious changes against consensus. As I told her on the US talk page [23], if she really cares about fixing a link then do it separately. It shouldn't matter here but for the record her claim about me removing "mainstream" sources and replacing them with the two she mentioned is completely false, which is probably why she provided no evidence. In fact I've only edited the article at all twice in the past month. But the segments she's removing (that I and others added long ago; established consensus) are sourced by peer reviewed academic journal articles (she's at least deleting those sources too), the CBO, the OECD, the Tax Policy Center, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, etc.. What should matter more here is that anyone can click her own links above and see that she's not even telling the truth there. She says, "(1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here." She calls these "four separate RFCs", with the latter three endorsing the results of the first one "unanimously". Only the first link is even to an RFC. The second link is to a brief discussion with four respondents that was split 2-2 ("unanimously"?). The third is to a discussion she started where I was the only respondent (and I opposed, not endorsed her proposal). The fourth is to another sparsely participated in discussion that was inconclusive with multiple editors on both sides. I'll be happy to comment in detail on the content dispute if someone requests it. But since it may only be a frivolous distraction, for now I'll just say that her claims are false. I accepted the RFC close, which only said the material could be included "in some form" and wasn't an endorsement of her POV wording, which became even more untenable after I provided scholarly sources directly disputing her sources (at that point what support she had enjoyed vanished). The ensuing debate over wording had spilled out over multiple sections, and when she sought a close for all of it from the close request noticeboard [24] the closer informed her that an actionable close across the various sections wasn't possible [25]. She's recently started a fresh RFC to determine consensus on precise wording and, given the evidence I've since posted, the results so far see 6 opposing her proposed wording with only 1 supporting, with even that 1 saying the other side should be represented as well. The tax segments she keeps changing and some of her other changes aren't related to the above discussion at all, though a separate ongoing discussion sees majority opposition to the attempted tax change too. [26] This is the material she's been edit warring over in recent days, despite the strong talk page opposition. This isn't "convoluted". There should be no fog of confusion. Please ignore the distracting content dispute and focus on her edit warring over the past week and a half, along with her promise to continue it. VictorD7 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Comment The evidence of EllenCT's edit warring in recent days is clear. Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] The rest is a "mess" because she's made it so. Clouding the air with smoke and trying to change the subject isn't a valid defense. Her accusation against me is clearly malformed and baseless (probably merits sanctions in its own right), and should be dismissed. But that doesn't mean she should get away with serial, unilateral edit warring against several editors while promising to continue doing this indefinitely. This is ongoing disruptive conduct. EllenCT's edit warring only stopped (or paused) when I reported it two days ago. Although EllenCT filed this accusation against me, instructions on this page indicate that she should be scrutinized too. Would it help if I filed a fresh complaint against her here over this edit warring? Because that's what I intend to do if this is closed without those edit warring diffs being reviewed, unless instructed otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Response to EllenCT's "Additional diff clarification" All her diffs are to her own edits, so that hardly constitutes evidence against me. But since they might be seen as her defense and she made numerous misleading statements I'll address her comments: 1. [38] EllenCT only mentions removing this source [39], but in that edit she also removed this peer reviewed paper [40] (abstract [41]) contradicting her sources and this analysis [42] by influential Harvard Economist Martin Feldstein published in The Wall Street Journal. The text changes are primarily why several editors would end up reverting her, though most of the source removals are opposed too. The original sentence acknowledged there was a debate and was referenced by sources representing both POVs in that debate. If she had just wanted to add a source or two I doubt anyone would have minded (other high quality sources had already been presented for the other side on the talk page but weren't included in the article; many could have been added for both sides, though personally I think three per side is enough). The one link she admitted removing above [43] features articles by several prominent economists and policy experts who are certainly RS for representing their side of this debate. She also added undiscussed text changes lower on the page, and new sources, including a partisan blog called "538.com" [44], a left wing think tank piece [45], and a NY Times opinion piece [46]. Basically EllenCT deleted all the sources she politically opposes, added more she agrees with, and replaced neutral text with POV sentiment expressed as fact in Wikipedia's voice at a (cherry-picked) niche detail level inappropriate for a broad summary country article. I'll define these changes to her preferred version on inequality as change "X". That EllenCT's new statement omitted most of the sources she removed and added underscores that people shouldn't take anything she says at face value. Verify everything. EllenCT's desired "X" is currently opposed by respondents on the RFC she started 6-2, with even the two qualifying their support by saying the other side should be represented. Not all the editors who reverted her have even responded to the RFC. 2. [47] Unilateral changes to a tax segment I'll define as change "Z". It was not merely a tweak to her own previous edit, as she falsely claims. It was in a completely different section than her previous edit and she deleted most of the paragraph, as anyone can see by clicking the diff. This has stood for years and represents long standing consensus. She also fails to mention that she deleted this peer reviewed scholarly paper [48], this analysis by the The Washington Post [49], this CNBC piece [50], this CNN article [51], this NPR article [52], this Washington Times article [53] and this Tax Policy Center report [54] , among others. Contrary to her claim, she has so far failed to produce any sources that contradict the segment in question, and many more have since been produced on the talk page confirming the segment. I don't recall anything about the first source she does admit to removing here, but conservative think tanks are just as valid sources as the leftist think tanks are that dot the article and are frequently added by EllenCT herself. Her second link is busted, but originally went to a PGPF (moderately right leaning think tank) that usefully provided clear chart visuals. The visuals were based on numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute. Her third link went to a Hoover piece providing info on social security history (along with another source). It's used to source a different segment below (not deleted by EllenCT) and someone must have accidentally moved it up at some point. I have no problem with deleting the duplicate. By my quick count the ongoing discussion she started (and soon abandoned) on removing this segment stands at 6-3 opposed, again, not even counting all the editors who reverted her. 3. [55] Text change "Z". The Washington Times is a mainstream newspaper and the news article she removed is just reporting on a CBO release. 4. [56] Partial "Z". Her "somewhat" is closer to being the "weasel" wording that she falsely accuses us of using. 5. [57] "Z". EllenCT's claim that here she just added a tag is false. You can see EllenCT also removed the clause "and is among the most progressive in the developed world." and the same peer reviewed paper [58] mentioned before. That's the segment she's consistently opposed the most. For her to add that I should be "admonished" for supposedly misleading anyone requires unimaginable gall. Update: Since I posted this EllenCT has radically altered her #"5". She originally said, "if you look carefully, all this edit did was add a {{pov-section}} tag. User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to mislead arbitrators by suggesting this was evidence of edit warring;". Cutting through the rhetorical nonsense, she does now concede her initial claim to have only added a POV tag was wrong. However, it's unclear why she feels that the peer reviewed, widely cited academic study by Northwestern University researchers (who if anything appear to favor a robust welfare state) published in the Oxford journal Socio-Economic Review is a "political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank" source. 6. [59] "X". Contrary to her edit summary, clearly the statement is very much disputed. 7. [60] "X". 8. [61] "Z". The political party/link stuff she tacks on higher up is an irrelevant distraction that should be handled separately. 9. [62] "X". 10. [63] "X"; "Z". 11. [64] "X"; "Z". Clearly these aren't just changes to her own previous edits as she now exclaims, or she wouldn't have to keep making the same edits over and over again. The talk page discussions she mentions, which didn't even involve all of her attempted edits, have been going strongly against her, as I've shown above with links. VictorD7 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Response to EllenCT's "Additional source analysis" Again, she didn't link to a single edit by me. I'm not removing the sources she claims I'm removing, and I didn't add all the sources she attaches my name to (e.g. I didn't know that one Heritage Foundation article she keeps citing was even there, though Heritage is as legitimate a source as CBPP, EPI, and some of the other left wing think tanks used throughout this article and Wikipedia. I and other editors have primarily clicked "undo" because of her contentious text changes. Even then most of the "EllenCT" sources she lists below remained in the article after the reverts (because they were already in the article). She also omits the vast majority of the sources she's tried to remove, including the ones I cited above from mostly left leaning and/or government outfits. Her descriptions of the sources are false in key places and sometimes ludicrous. She actually calls a partisan blog a "secondary news source" while dismissing an actual news article from the mainstream Washington Times paper simply covering the salient facts of a CBO release. She also dismisses The Wall Street Journal, the country's largest circulated paper and winner of 39 Pulitzer Prizes, as a reliable source, rejects CNBC in part for "political" reasons (it's of course left not right leaning, like the rest of NBC), and doesn't seem to realize that sourcing policy treats accomplished, notable experts like Martin Feldstein (who was also an Obama adviser, ran the NBER for decades, and was pushed as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman by the NY Times) and some of the prominent economists in the conservative "think tank" source she rejects as experts regardless of what outlet they're publishing in. Here they're being used merely to represent one side of a POV in what's undeniably a controversy, along with sources from the other side. If anyone actually finds her new section compelling then please let me know and I'll respond in greater detail, but for now it seems unnecessary to bother doing that to such distorted garbage. I'll just summarize by saying that her three "inequality" sources (Hayes/Bartels/Page), none of which have been removed by me and are still in the article, all have more self included caveats than the peer reviewed Brunner article she tries to diminish by citing a caveat (the Brunner article directly criticizes the methodology of Bartels and similar researchers and disputes their conclusion, saying, "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Of course all these studies use samples, not the entire US population, and every such study is highly subjective in construction). Another scholarly article [65] by authors seemingly sympathetic to Bartels' political aims finds methodological flaws in his work and fails to replicate his findings when those flaws are corrected. EllenCT's sources concede their own work is "crude", "tentative", and doesn't represent the expert consensus. They say more research is required before firm conclusions are drawn, and at least one of them even makes the same causality point she quotes for Brunner below. They even list by name several scholars who disagree with them, and call one book (Macro Polity [66] that disagrees with them "influential" in the field (presented as evidence by me on the talk page but not added to the article). By presenting their admittedly less than certain opinion as the consensus and as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice, EllenCT isn't even representing her own sources faithfully, and is dismissing countless sources that disagree in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I'll add that my purpose here was to report EllenCT's edit warring and correct some of her false statements, not make a content argument, but I will say that the main sources I've added have been ones like this secondary OECD source summarizing the field's consensus on the tax issue ([67] OECD, 2012, p 27): "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries." Perhaps EllenCT feels the OECD has joined the vast right wing conspiracy that's supposedly persecuting her and undermining her crusade for "social justice", but she hasn't produced a single source disputing that segment. The one piece she cites, hypocritically a leftist think tank called CBPP [68] (apparently only conservative ones are off limits), acknowledges that US taxes are relatively progressive, but simply changes the subject to spending and overall income inequality reduction, as it views those topics as more conducive to its political agenda. However, income inequality is already extensively covered in the US article's Income section, and on overall redistribution I added this segment myself to the article's Economics section long ago ([69], [70]): "It (the US) has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income through government action than European nations tend to.[406]" sourced by the same 2012 OECD report quoted above [71] (not the same one mentioned in EllenCT's CBPP piece, btw). I'm not the one engaging in POV editing here. I'm just covering the issues faithfully from all appropriate angles. Tax progressivity is a valid stand alone issue in its own right for reasons that aren't limited to a narrow concern for income equality, including impact on growth and revenue volatility. The basic underlying fact on tax structure isn't in dispute, unlike the opinionated, speculative, causal statements on income inequality, but EllenCT is trying to delete or misrepresent this tax topic because she perceives it as disadvantageous to her political crusade. If administrators really want to focus on POV editing, I'll be happy to shift gears and do so since EllenCT is the most tendentious editor I've encountered on Wikipedia (many other editors have said the same thing about her), but that would involve much greater commentary and possibly hundreds of diffs, and I had preferred to keep this report narrowly focused on her clear, recent edit warring. I'll close by noting that some of the sources focusing on federal taxation were included because the article segment contains a mention of federal taxes. The busted PGPF link she attacks below (with some low brow partisan hit pieces) was to a clear, educational explanation of different federal tax components. It has since been updated and moved [72]. As you can see, it's well sourced and entirely uses numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a left leaning source. Compare the numbers to verify this [73]. PGPF just drew useful graphs, so wasting time discussing their alleged bias is a silly distraction (though the piece is very reasonable and non-partisan). For overall taxation there's the 2012 OECD summary quoted above, the peer reviewed article example [74] EllenCT kept deleting but again failed to mention below, or this Washington Post analysis [75]. Plus there are examples I've posted on the talk page, like this from NY Times economics writer Eduardo Porter [76] (also quoted in this 2014 Economics textbook [77], page 428): "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations." EllenCT cites a different NY Times analysis on another topic as "reliable" below, so surely even she concedes this one is too. Or this Harvard Business Review article [78]: "The U.S. already has about the most progressive income tax system around. European social democracies tend to have flatter income taxes, plus value-added taxes that hit all consumers. They tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than regular income, just as the U.S. does, but they also all have lower corporate tax rates than the U.S." Or this topical scholarly book actually laying out historical reasons why Europe has more regressive taxation than America ([79]; Making the Modern American Fiscal State; Ajay K. Mehrotra; Cambridge University Press; 2013; p 17): "When other Western industrialized democracies began experimenting with broad-based, regressive consumption taxes as a way to finance modern social-welfare spending, the United States resisted this seemingly global trend. Other modern democracies were willing to try crude forms of consumption taxes as supplements to income taxation; together these taxes generated tremendous revenue that was spent to counter the regressive incidence of consumption taxes. By contrast, the United States refrained from moving beyond income as the primary base for national taxation. As a result, rather than develop a comprehensive view of the fiscal state’s tax-and-transfer powers, policymakers in the United States became mired in a preoccupation with the progressivity of the American income tax system, with the process of extracting revenue, with “soaking the rich.” They failed to see how the regressive incidence of broad-based consumption taxes could be countered by progressive state spending on social-welfare provisions." EllenCT ignored all these reliable sources and plunged into edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Actual source list All of EllenCT's diffs are to her own edits, not mine, so I don't see how her misleading chart can possibly be considered evidence of anything against me, but since this appears to be becoming a content dispute I'll post a much more representative chart, featuring the sources actually added by the two of us to the article or the talk page. I'll ask @Rhoark: or anyone else who accepted EllenCT's characterization at face value to read this and reconsider. I challenge anyone to explain how her sources are "stronger" or more "mainstream" than mine. They aren't even close. Furthermore, she didn't even accurately represent her own sources. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Tax issue. Source Contributed by In support of Reliable? Isabelle Joumard; Mauro Pisu; Debbie Bloch (2012). "Tackling income inequality The role of taxes and transfers" (PDF). OECD Journal: Economic Studies: 27. VictorD7 "..and is among the most progressive in the developed world." Yes. It's a 2012 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development secondary source summarizing the field's conclusion. The OECD is a major international government organization and, like the IMF and World Bank, is routinely used to cite the economic facts that appear in every Wikipedia country article. (p. 13) "And household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries." (page 27) "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries." Prasad, M.; Deng, Y. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005. VictorD7 "..and is among the most progressive in the developed world." Yes. It's the most comprehensive peer reviewed study on the subject, and is widely cited in field literature (including the OECD report above). Its results are extremely robust and unambiguous. It shows US taxation is more progressive than in Europe at the federal income tax level, and the gap widens even more when other taxes, especially state/local and European consumption taxes (VAT), are considered. Fully accessible version:[80] Mankiw, N. (2014). Principles of Economics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 428. VictorD7 "..and is among the most progressive in the developed world." Yes. A quality economics textbook is RS. The segment in question was written by Eduardo Porter, a NY Times economics writer, and this quote was also published in the NY Times [81]: "''...the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations.''" Matthews, Dylan (September 19, 2012). "Other countries don't have a "47%"". The Washington Post. VictorD7 "..and is among the most progressive in the developed world." Yes. The Washington Post is a major national paper and this analysis piece is used because it provides clear, reader friendly visuals of the peer reviewed Prasad/Deng paper for those whose eyes may glaze over when poring through academic research. Mehrotra, Ajay K. (Sep 30, 2013). Making the Modern American Fiscal State: Law, Politics, and the Rise of Progressive Taxation, 1877–1929. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. VictorD7 "..and is among the most progressive in the developed world." Yes. The Cambridge University Press is the oldest publishing house in the world, and widely respected. This scholarly secondary analysis traces the history of progressive taxation, and explains in detail why Europe embraced regressive taxation to fund its expansive welfare state while the US opted for progressive taxation instead, reinforcing what every other source has said on the subject. Congressional Budget Office (2012). "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 3 April 2013. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..." Yes. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan civil service agency in the federal government responsible for producing much of the most widely cited statistic material about the US. This source has since been supplanted by more recent CBO publications that say the same thing. (p. 3) "The federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income." "How Much Do Americans Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. April 15, 2014. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..." Yes. Reliability is context specific. PGPF is a mildly right leaning think tank that's used in this case because it clearly breaks down federal tax rates by income level and component with educational visual displays. The numbers are taken entirely from the Tax Policy Center, which anyone can easily verify for himself with a click. PGPF just drew the charts and added descriptions in neutral, undeniable commentary. The tone of this PGPF is moderate and not stridently partisan; in fact it leads off supporting the Democratic talking point that those who say half the country isn't paying taxes are disregarding payroll taxes, though in a piece by piece breakdown they show that overall federal taxation is extremely progressive anyway. Anyone who has a problem with this source really has a problem with the TPC. "Table T13-0174 Average Effective Federal Tax Rates by Filing Status; by Expanded Cash Income Percentile, 2014". Tax Policy Center. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes..." Yes. The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, both prominent left leaning think tanks [82], and along with the CBO is one of two organizations with its own microsimulation model that it uses to regularly produce widely cited tax rate breakdowns (e.g. AP articles like this one in the Seattle Times [83]). Its subjective write ups tend to favor liberal positions but its hard tax numbers are respected across the political spectrum. "Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014?" (PDF). Citizens for Tax Justice. April 7, 2014. EllenCT Deleting the international comparison No, not in this factual context. Citizens for Tax Justice is an obscure partisan lobbying group mostly just cited on low quality liberal blogs. It uses an opaque methodology, its results are without corroboration, and its federal tax rate component is strongly contradicted by more reliable sources like the CBO and Tax Policy Center, while the latter independently produce results that closely track each other over time, reinforcing their credibility. That's why EllenCT's attempts to force its chart into various Wikipedia articles over the years have been repeatedly rejected by editors (e.g. [84]) That said, this source makes no international comparison so it's not pertinent to this issue even if one accepts it as definitive. It also concedes that overall US taxation is "progressive" (it adds the qualifier "barely", based on its skewed numbers, but that's still progressive, and other sources show European taxation is actually regressive). The source is currently in the article, left by me and other editors if people want to read it and to further support overall US tax progressivity, though none of its numbers or charts are. Chye--Ching Huang; Nathaniel Frentz (May 13, 2014). "What Do OECD Data Really Show About U.S. Taxes and Reducing Inequality?". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. EllenCT Deleting international comparison A left wing think tank founded by a Jimmy Carter appointee, CBPP is reliable for its own views, but this source doesn't dispute that US taxation is more progressive than European taxation (indeed, it seems to accept it as fact), and the OECD paper it comments on was a 2008 report showing that the US income tax is more progressive than other OECD income taxes, not the more recent OECD report I cited above that comments on research on overall taxation. This CBPP page just argues that European governments redistribute more income overall if welfare spending is counted, a fairly non-controversial fact I added to the US article's Economy section myself several months ago but that's beside the point in this tax structure discussion. This source has been left in the article because, if anything, it just further supports the segment. Other editors have added various other sources, but not a single source actually disputing the segment has been provided. Inequality Source Contributed by In support of Reliable? Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Yes, but not for the authoritative, unattributed, POV assertion EllenCT seeks to make in Wikipedia's voice. That requires an established expert consensus, and this vague, inherently speculative causal claim unsurprisingly lacks one. This source itself concedes that (p. 565), "..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making." EllenCT's own chief source explicitly states that its view is disputed by "many" (its word) scholars, rendering her preferred language untenable. It also says (p. 564), "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem. Our measures are far from perfect, but we hope that this first step will help inspire further research into what we see as some of the most fundamental questions about American politics." Like the other sources, its methodology can be criticized for bias in the subjective poll/vote selection (polling usually depends heavily on question wording, and is almost useless for complex issues) and interpretation. Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Same as above. Bartels also concedes he can't prove the causal link asserted as fact in EllenCT's text (p. 29-31), "It is important to reiterate that I have been using the terms “responsiveness” and “representation” loosely to refer to the statistical association between constituents’ opinions and their senators’ behavior. Whether senators behave the way they do because their constituents have the opinions they do is impossible to gauge using the research design employed here." Bartels also defines "economic elites" as those making over $40,000 a year. That's not what most Americans think of when they hear the term "economic elites", underscoring the massive role subjective construction plays in examining complex issues like this. With differently chosen parameters results can change wildly. Like Gilens, he goes on to state "There is clearly a great deal more work to be done investigating the mechanisms by which economic inequality gets reproduced in the political realm", and conceded "the significant limitations of my data and the crudeness of my analysis" meant more work is needed. Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. SSRN 1900856. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Same as above. Hayes defines "economic elites" as those making over $75,000 a year, and actually gets radically different results than Bartels for party behavior, finding that Democrats cater more to the affluent while Republicans cater more to the middle class. Hayes makes the same concessions about the limitations of his analysis that the other two do. Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes, especially since this peer reviewed academic article is merely being used to support the undeniable claim that there are differing POVs on this topic. This source criticizes the methods employed by sources like EllenCT's, explicitly naming Bartels, and produces results contradicting them (intro): "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation.... Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation." They cite other researchers (p. 3): "In contrast to Bartels, these authors conclude that higher income constituents are not better represented." They go on to conduct their own study also contradicting Bartels' findings. That their study uses CA as a setting is no more relevant than the fact that EllenCT's sources focus on a single half branch of government (the Senate) to draw conclusions about US politics in general. Robert S. Erikson Professor of Political Science Columbia University; Yosef Bhatti Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen (January 2011). "How Poorly are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?". In Enns, Peter (ed.). “Who Gets Represented” (PDF). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes, it's a scholarly book chapter prepared by credentialed experts. They criticize Bartels' methodology and say that, once the flaws are corrected, they fail to replicate his results. Robert S. Erikson; Michael B. Mackuen; James A. Stimson (Jan 14, 2002). Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes, in fact is cited by EllenCT's own Gilens source as being "very influential" among the "many" scholars who disagree with his opinion. Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes, of course. The Wall Street Journal is the most widely read and respected business publication in the world, and has the #1 circulation of any paper in the US. This source is just used to represent Martin Feldstein's POV on the debate, and it's undeniably as expert a view as one can get. EllenCT dismisses him as a Reagan adviser, but our article also points out that he was an Obama adviser, presided over the NBER for decades, and was supported by the NY Times as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman. "Income Inequality in America, Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes, for representing its authors' POV on the broader inequality debate. The "About the authors" list (p. 30) features an impressively credentialed array of academics, Treasury Department employees, and researchers who have held various other posts in government and/or the private sector. For EllenCT to reject all conservative think tanks even after she's added liberal think tanks, lobbying groups, and blogs as sources is mind boggling. Contrary to EllenCT's claim, none of her sources above have been removed. She's the one removing reliable sources that dispute her text, and she hasn't even faithfully represented her own sources. This is clearly not a mature research field with a firm consensus. There isn't even a consensus on how to approach or define all the pertinent concepts on this issue, let alone consensus results. Indeed there are recent primary research papers producing results that are all over the place. If the various views have to be laid out, that should take place on other, more topically dedicated articles and all significant views should be laid out fully and neutrally. Her segment "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." was removed because editors deemed it inappropriate for the article, not for sourcing per se, especially given the increasing number of complaints about the US page being too long (it's the longest country article on Wikipedia) and already having too much undue emphasis on "inequality". That said, it's a horribly sourced WP:SOAPBOX sentence making certain causal claims on a very complex issue where there are countless views. Source Contributed by In support of Reliable? Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." A partisan blog founded by a former Daily Kos blogger. While it may be reliable for its own views, it's a very low quality source. No "reputation for fact checking" has been established, and we're dealing with opinions here anyway. These are extremely slanted. Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." A brief NY Times opinion piece that doesn't establish anything in the way of consensus. It doesn't even mention "the gender pay gap", "productivity", or "welfare", and therefore doesn't come close to supporting EllenCT's POV/OR wording. Tcherneva, Pavlina R. "When A Rising Tide Sinks Most Boats: Trends in US Income Inequality" (PDF). Levy Economics Institute. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." It's a non-peer reviewed opinion piece by an assistant professor published on the website of a left leaning think tank. Another weak source mostly just useful for supporting its own POV on a complex issue. BTW, the Levy Institute takes donations just like other think tanks do [85] If she wanted to add a source like these to the "debate" sentence I wouldn't mind, but they fail in supporting the sentence she tried to add. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark:, I appreciate your recent comments. I agree with you about excessive sourcing providing opportunities to derail things, though I'll reiterate that I didn't add all the sources EllenCT attributes to me (in fact she still hasn't posted a single link to an edit I've made). Like @Capeo:, I'm not sure mediation would be helpful or necessary in this case. Talk Page/article consensus on these matters should be sufficient as long as enough responsible editors are paying attention at any given time and EllenCT's edit warring ends. VictorD7 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @EllenCT:, you just claimed "The CBPP source, clarifying the meaning of "progressive" that the OECD sources occasionally use, has never been included in or proposed for inclusion in the United States article, which is probably why Victor did not choose to associate his source descriptions with diffs." Not only have you linked to that source here and on the US talk page, but here are several diffs of you inserting it into the article: [86], [87], [88], [89] In the first one you even give that source inclusion its own edit. The source is currently in the article, as I said. This is a long running pattern with EllenCT, and shows what countless editors on various articles have had to deal with over the years with this editor. I ask reviewing administrators @HJ Mitchell: , @Dennis Brown:, @JzG: to consider whether a site ban is in order. Serial lying, among other things, has made rational, productive collaboration with EllenCT impossible. It's caused me and many others to waste enormous amounts of time unraveling the falsehoods and cleaning up the messes. There should at least be some consequence for such blatant misrepresentation at AE. As for the rest of your new post, EllenCT, I said the NY Times opinion piece didn't support your edit. I just said the Levy Institute was a low quality source, though I also said that particular edit was removed more because it was inappropriate for the article than because of sourcing per se. Every source I listed above has either been put into the article or has been posted in the ongoing talk page discussions. I didn't bother with diffs for time reasons, but if you want to challenge anything in particular, be my guest. I can back everything up, as I just showed with your CBPP source. And, while it's irrelevant since your initial claim would still have been completely wrong anyway, and while this seems like a lame attempt to canvass/summon an editor you know to be hostile to me, Protonk says he's not an administrator on his own talk page [90], meaning you've been caught in yet another blatant falsehood. So thanks for the link. I'm still not holding my breath waiting for an apology. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC) And the canvass/summons worked. I could play that game too if I was so inclined, but I'll refrain. I'll just reply by noting that Protonk's link was to a different article where I corrected the record on the close of an RFC with a horribly biased construction, and where my comments prompted the closer to admit he had committed at least one error. Protonk wasn't involved, but he came in after the discussion had largely played out. I admonished him for his subsequent behavior and unwarranted hostility. He has problems with me as an editor. The feeling is mutual, and I'm glad he's not an administrator. VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @EllenCT: "Mistakes"? [91] You call going out of your way to deny that a source had ever been in the article or even proposed for inclusion when you personally did both several times over the past few weeks a mistake? Wow. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Protonk, that was my point, and what I meant by "canvass/summons" - naming someone to get his attention in hopes he shows up because one already knows where he stands on an issue. You were named by EllenCT. At that point it was already done, and I had to mention your name to clearly address her claim. I wasn't blaming you for showing up, though I will note that our interaction over a year ago is quite stale and has nothing to do with EllenCT's edit warring of recent weeks or her debunked claims about my source use. Administrators here have already even dismissed the failed ANI sanctions attempt against me from several months ago as pointless to raise. VictorD7 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Protonk, I didn't say "canvassing", but "canvass/summons", though reading the WP:CANVASS page I'm not sure that the stand alone word doesn't apply. The description is broad and the essential point involves selectively notifying editors known to agree with one side in hopes they join the debate. Regardless, whether I coined a new term or not, I made it clear what I meant. EllenCT notified you by posting your name, and it worked; indeed you replied within minutes. I could summon many editors who have had problems with EllenCT and/or have had productive, positive interactions with me, but have refrained from doing so since that would violate at least the spirit of the canvassing rule, and because an examination of clear evidence should carry the day here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Cla68, good question. Especially since a petty, insane rant laced with (false) personal attacks against me sitting there in the admin section hardly gives one confidence that this is a fair process. I even offered to delete all my comments on the matter in exchange for him deleting his last two posts, a reasonable request that was apparently rejected. I'm still not sure precisely what Guy is confused about. I posted evidence of misconduct by EllenCT and she failed to provide any evidence at all regarding me (not a single link). If he has any questions I'd be happy to answer them and help clear things up. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon, "topic banning" someone who hasn't done anything wrong just for the hell of it is a terrible idea. This isn't two equal sides "quarreling". The content dispute has already been decided by talk page/article consensus. There's no need for mediation, dispute resolution, or arbitration. This was a simple edit warring complaint. If admins want to act on that then fine. If they don't, then this section should be closed and done with. If EllenCT resumes edit warring I'll probably let someone else do the reporting next time. VictorD7 (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Request that Gamaliel recuse himself Gamaliel and I had a prolonged (several month long) content dispute on another article last year that became personal and nasty at times. Among other things, he engaged in trolling by replying to serious, on topic comments with giant pictures, linking to youtube videos in edit summaries, and on at least one occasion abusing his admin powers to delete a harmless edit summary in the dispute he was involved in. He ultimately acknowledged [92] that he had behaved in ways that he "should be ashamed of" and announced he would leave the article (this was after the content dispute had been settled in my favor by multiple RFCs), though his apology wasn't to me but the general community, and in fact in that post he doubled down on his false claim that I was a "SPA" (single purpose account, meaning an account that only edits one article, the implication being that one is a paid editor or has some other personal COI). The only reason I didn't bring this up immediately after he first posted below was that I was hoping enough other admins would jump in that his presence wouldn't matter and/or this would be settled quickly. Unfortunately neither appears to be the case; in fact Gamaliel has done more posting in the Result section than anyone else, and I'm disturbed both by his initial (still unretracted) false comment implying I haven't posted any recent evidence of EllenCT edit warring, and his new claim both accepting EllenCT's "evidence" against me at face value despite her failing to link to a single edit by me and suggesting that her position is somehow more "mainstream" than mine, which is clearly baseless, especially given the source evidence I've posted above. I don't want to dredge up stale details or renew a feud (we haven't interacted since then), but if Gamaliel honestly intends to be a fair arbiter, which may very well be the case, that's even more reason to scrupulously recuse oneself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I would recuse myself if the roles were reversed so everyone involved would be confident there had been a fair hearing. Gamaliel also involved himself in this debate by participating in this RS noticeboard discussion [93]. Surely there are plenty of administrators around who haven't had hostile interactions with me in the past that became so over the top that it led to them announcing they were "ashamed" and leaving an article. It's only reasonable that they review and decide this case. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Response to Specifico Update: @SPECIFICO: - That's what he claimed but I and other editors offered evidence he was the problem. Given his closing comment you and I have very different definitions of graciousness, but I appreciate you admitting that you were involved in that dispute (on his side) too. Since multiple RFCs saw the community agree with me on the sourcing dispute perhaps I'm fit to operate a computer and edit Wikipedia after all. Gamaliel claims my statements are false. They're not. His are false, from me being an "SPA" (read whom not to accuse of that) to being belligerent or a POV pusher. That said, if @Gamaliel: completely deletes his last two posts (up to HJ Mitchell's) and replaces them with the simple line "I recuse myself", and you (Specifico) delete your comment on our exchange, I will delete my entire "Gamaliel" section body (along with this paragraph) and replace it with the line "Thank you for recusing yourself." Then maybe this process could get back on track. Specifico and I have clashed before, and he's sided with EllenCT in disputes with various other editors over the years, so while he's not involved in this particular debate he's not exactly neutral. I have no idea whether he's really an economist, though I haven't seen him exhibit any specialized knowledge. He has exhibited strong political views. Regardless, appeals to personal authority on Wikipedia should be totally disregarded. What matters are substance and evidence, not who's posting it. The section he links to [94] starts with EllenCT calling out another editor for reverting her latest edit warring attempt. She had changed the text in multiple sections against strong editor opposition, and removed numerous sources [95],[96], including multiple peer reviewed academic journal articles and mainstream news sources, yet her op only mentions two minor sources she's supposedly trying to get rid of that had nothing to do with the text she removed (they sourced a text segment she let remain), and leads off with an irrelevant party label issue that had nothing to do with the contentious portions of her edits. There's no basis here for concluding that EllenCT was trying to "raise an important policy-based principle as to the sourcing and due weight of article content". That's certainly not her pattern over the years (I do encourage you to go through her history, and explore the links posted here by Mattnad), and her section op misleadingly omitted most of the sources she had just deleted. No source argument was made for changing the text she changed, except to post a link to a partisan think tank that was the left wing equivalent of what she was railing against but that she wrongly claimed proved the segment she opposed was wrong (it doesn't even dispute it). She added wild, confrontational rhetoric like "puffery" and "weasel" wording that doesn't apply, and repeated a false claim about the reverting editor supposedly disregarding "the unanimous and repeated endorsement of the four income inequality RFCs" that I debunked in my initial "Statement" section above. - My reply simply warned her to stop edit warring, because I was hoping to avoid reporting her. She responded with hostile comments about "trickle down" (a political obsession she frequently mentions, though it has nothing to do with the edits or sources in question), accused me of favoring "paid advocacy", and vowed to continue reverting "for as long as is necessary". - I corrected her civilly by listing several of the sources she deleted, and pointed out that none of them are "paid advocacy" or have anything to do with "trickle down". - She replied with a nonsensical, "That opinion is not grounded in guidelines or policy. Your POV fringe sources that you have been continuously pushing for years are far out of the mainstream." No evidence of this was presented. - I observed that none of the sources I had just listed are "fringe" or represent the view she claims they do. - Without rationally, substantively addressing what I said, she then posted to condemn me for being the latest editor to revert her, including the complaint that the revert had restored a defunct link in the unrelated party label segment she had tacked onto the top of her edit. I suggested that if she really cares about that link then edit the segment separately. A few days later she again tucked that segment into an edit [97] that made the same massive contentious changes, but her edit summary only mentioned the party label item and "other things". - After she was reverted again, she tellingly replied to decline my last piece of advice to edit the party label link separately, and falsely accused me of breaking the link in the first place (I think archiving did that, but I'm not the one who added the link and I haven't specifically followed its fate). There was nothing inappropriate in my replies there. EllenCT constantly throws out ad hominem invective and straw man arguments, and misrepresents sources, editors, and edits. She's repeatedly accused me and other editors of everything from "paid editing" to abusive lying to incompetence to bad faith, without a scrap of evidence. At times editors of all political stripes have lost patience with her tendentious posting, but if anything it's amazing how restrained I've been with her. Another example: - After I reply to another poster EllenCT swoops in to claim that a recent ANI (the old one she linked to above) had seen "experienced editors" overwhelmingly "ivote" to topic ban me. [98] - I reply by saying that's false, that most respondents opposed the sanction attempt, and advised her to refrain from derailing the discussion with ad hominem diversions. - She invites "those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions" to "count the !votes", and claims "Victors supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with WP:COMPETENCE issues", while "the experienced administrators overwhelmingly supported the topic ban", and she indicates she's tired of my alleged "POV pushing". [99] - Using an admin identity tool page I confirm that the only admin to have even voted in the ANI poll voted against the sanction. - She now admits that many people she had thought were admins are actually only editors (she provides no explanation for her earlier confusion), but names one other admin she claims voted for the sanction. [100] - I confirm that no, the other editor she named is not an admin. As much if not more experience was on the side of those who opposed the sanction, including the only admin to vote. I suggest she apologize for accusing me of bad faith, especially since she's been forced to concede the premise of her own "good faith" test isn't true. She leaves the thread and never apologizes or retracts her attack. [101] This is a typical exchange with EllenCT. How is rational collaboration possible here? VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: - I referred to Specifico as "he" earlier because I've seen reports stating that 90% of Wikipedia editors are male, so that's usually a safe assumption unless a screenname or something else indicates one is female, and to keep with traditional grammar norms of using the male pronoun when in doubt. Of course if Specifico was to say he/she is female I would use the feminine pronoun. I'll use he/she here as a stopgap since he/she raised the issue to complain, and because I'm not a fan of using the plural "they" to refer to one person. "It" would work, but some might take offense. Not a big deal, but I'll note that apparently Specifico himself/herself was rebuked for calling an editor he/she already knew to be female by male pronouns earlier this year [102], [103]. If he/she is male after all it would be unfortunate if he/she was just trying to further derail this process with a frivolous pronoun complaint. Specifico did appeal to personal authority by identifying himself/herself as an "economist" to buttress his/her assertion that EllenCT was supposedly raising legitimate sourcing points, but failing to support his/her claim with specifics or an actual argument. Contrary to Specifico's assertion, EllenCT does not have a "frequent preference for peer-reviewed sources." Just because EllenCT repeatedly says something doesn't make it true, as the above evidence shows. That Specifico was topic banned [104] last year for biased, often mocking/trollish editing should cause anyone to take his/her unsupported assertions about me or any other person's editing with a heap of salt. Specifico asserts I'm fixated on him/her? On the contrary, I've scarcely given Specifico a second thought since our last interaction until he/she showed up here to attack me and defend EllenCT (as he's/she's done in the past). He's/she's the one who's creepily attached himself/herself to certain "enemies". For example, Specifico has posted 389(!) times on this other editor's talk page [105], mostly to harass with excessive "warnings", interjecting himself/herself into discussions he/she wasn't involved in, or faux praising (like encouraging the editor to have someone nominate him for admin on April 1st)). He/She's frequently accused this editor (and now apparently me) of "misogyny" and sexism without any basis whatsoever apart from the fact that the editor he was criticizing at the time happened to be a woman (also EllenCT). A quick scan suggests that the editor often just ignores or archives Specifico's posts. Specifico likely followed this other editor to the article where we clashed, and by "clashed" I just meant that he/she disagreed with virtually everything I said or did. He/she joined a small group of other editors in POV pushing by ignoring policy and applying partisan double standards. Ultimately the matter was resolved by multiple RFCs, but I appreciate his/her link as a sample scan shows what I had to deal with there for a long time. In one discussion near the top Specifico opposed an attributed quote from an RS source already used extensively in the movie article (Box Office Mojo) supposedly because it contained the word "fantastic". He/she and a couple of his/her ideological fellow travelers insisted they didn't know what it meant, despite in context it being clear to any modern English speaking reader that it was praise. He/she expressed confusion about what he/she called my "Hollywood jive jargon" and said a "Sri Lankan monk" might get the wrong idea from it. Then he/she accused me of committing "OR", when original research obviously can't apply to a direct quote from a single source. One of the times Specifico showed up to my talk page resulted in a typical exchange. - Specifico starts a section claiming I was wrong to say that consensus is required to remove a long standing item from a page. He/she snarkily adds, "Please review policy or consult others who can explain it further to you." [106] - I disagree, pointing out that long standing material is assumed to be consensus (per WP:EDITCONSENSUS), and that not only is there no consensus for removing the item, but that a majority of participating editors oppose removal. - He/She replied briefly with more snark, sans specifics, and left the section. [107], [108] Specifico has swooped in various times when I or someone else was engaged with EllenCT. In these examples I posted evidence that she had been (falsely) accusing me of being a paid editor, a serious charge on Wikipedia that shouldn't be recklessly tossed around or made for cynical tactical advantage. [109], [110]. The first link was him/her doing a driveby post reaching the false conclusion that EllenCT had only been calling my sources "paid advocacy", not my editing. The second was months later in a section on EllenCT's talk page where one of her ideological fellow travelers was taking her to task for baselessly accusing me of paid editing (he did also falsely accuse me of POV pushing, because I favor sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, IRS, and OECD over the lobbying group CTJ, while tossing out some bizarre off topic crap about the KKK, but it's noteworthy that even some of her ideological allies have taken exception to her over the top personal attacks; here's another example [111] read the other editor's comment above hers, [112]), and Specifico showed up to repeat his claim that he/she had seen no evidence of EllenCT accusing me of paid editing, asking that someone produce it. So I did, complete with links to her quotes (esp. ""You took two weeks to deny that you were a paid editor after I asked you directly with a Ping on WP:ANI, which you cited in your evidence, and you made many intervening edits in the middle of April. Why did you wait so long to deny the accusation?"). Specifico never replied or acknowledged this evidence. He/She just abandoned the thread. Specifico's characterizations of my interactions with EllenCT and general conduct are uncolored by facts like these (aka what actually happened). He/She also makes a habit of baselessly accusing others of gender hostility/discrimination. Specifico derailed this noticeboard discussion of EllenCT's conduct (which I wasn't involved in) by leveling the blanket accusation of sexism on those participating. [113] When multiple editors took offense and asked Specifico to support his/her charge, he/she failed to do so. [114], [115], [116] The closest Specifico came to answering their reasonable questions was to actually suggest that editors should gender discriminate, by not treating female editors the same as they would a male editor, contradicting his/her earlier assertion that they had engaged in sex discrimination. I also note that Specifico is currently working the talk pages of both Scolaire and Rhoark, attacking me there (with vague assertions again, of course) even after his/her "final comments" here, casting doubt on his/her claim to not have a personal stake here and to merely be a completely "uninvolved" editor. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC) And contrary to Specifico's claim, I've edited diverse topics here ranging from sports to history to politics to economics. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Response to last minute accusations Protonk claims I mentioned his name first here, linking to this diff [117] (19:57), when my reply was clear a response to EllenCT's earlier post citing Protonk by name and (falsely) claiming he's an administrator. [118] (19:12). Protonk is factually wrong. Period. I would like Protonk to apologize and retract his false claim. Just as he was wrong here, his characterization and likely his understanding of what happened over a year ago in the only interaction I recall us ever having is wrong. As for me mentioning "canvassing/summoning", isn't that exactly what happened? EllenCT named an editor she knew to be hostile to me to attract him to this page, and he showed up minutes later. If anything is noteworthy here, it's how extreme and over the top his hostility toward me is based on one interaction over a year ago. That's a battlegroundy as one can get. (more to come; please don't close this yet). VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Sanctions request by EllenCT I ask that Victor be required to follow the reliable source criteria by only including statements with sources supported by the secondary literature, which means no think tanks paying to manufacture supply side trickle down fabrications unless they pass peer review in an academic journal and agree with the literature reviews when the conclusive peer reviewed literature reviews are unanimous, along with the cadre tag team who support such views. The requirement should be enforceable by requiring administrators to enforce it in proportion to the severity of the transgression. EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC) response to arbitrator inquiry Yes, as per boomerang judo, most of Victor's diffs. EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry I assumed you could easily reverse Victor's diffs to see the unreviewed right-wing think tank sources he prefers. It's not like he denies trying to fight the conclusions of peer reviewed literature reviews with bought and paid for think tank sources he calls "scholarly" the same way a charter school using taxpayer money to teach young earth creationism might be called scholarly. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Additional diff clarification, as requested As requested, here is additional clarification about the diffs Victor presented, so here they each are with examples of the sources I was removing: [119]: replaced the non-peer reviewed [120], which is contrary to e.g. the peer reviewed [121]; [122]: removed [123], [124], and [125] none of which were peer reviewed and all three of which are far right-wing "think tank" paid advocacy sources which almost always contradict the unanimous conclusive secondary peer reviewed sources. Please note this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, which by definition doesn't count towards any definition of edit warring; [126]: [127] from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation again, and [128] from the far-right Washington Times, plus [129] from the far right Hoover Institution; [130]: all this changed was "U.S. taxation is generally progressive" to "U.S. taxation is somewhat progressive" and corrected the link to the correct talk page section -- again, how is that even evidence of edit warring under any defintion?; [131]: added a {{pov-section}} tag and removed WP:WEASEL WP:PUFFERY supported by right-wing manufactured paid advocacy fabrications.[132] User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to define upholding the reliable secondary conclusive unanimous sources above his preferred political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank sources as edit warring [updated EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)]; [133]: this is also clearly not edit warring because I was replacing additional material as approved by RFC, unanimously confirmed, and confirmed again later twice. Once again, it's an addition to my own edit, not even a revert or deletion; [134]: again, this replaced non-peer reviewed sources such as [135] with peer-reviewed sources in agreement with the unanimous conclusive secondary sources such as [136] as was agreed by RFC outcome; [137]: this changed "the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal" to "the Republican Party is often considered conservative and the Democratic Party is often considered liberal" in order to address a long-running talk page dispute in which I did not participate and has long since been archived. It also replaced "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world" which is abject WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL wording, to, "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes," with appropriate reliable sources, again replacing e.g. [138] and [139] which are known far right-wing sources which have never been approved in any talk page discussion; [140]: this simply restored the unanimously confirmed RFC outcome as previously described. And for the fifth time, this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, and can not be considered edit warring under any possible definition; [141]: this was a combination of other edits described above; and [142]: same as above. 11 edits over 11 days, all of which had abundant talk page discussion interspersed, and five of which were adjustments to my own previous edits! I strongly suggest that arbitrators at least try to form an opinion about this, because there is no doubt in my mind that VictorD7 will continue to complain about this dispute until it is resolved by someone other than myself. EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Additional source analysis, as requested Here is an analysis of the reliability of the sources involved, as requested by HJ Mitchell: Source Inserted by In support of Reliable? Diff numbers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Yes: peer reviewed academic journal source in agreement with literature review sections of peer reviewed publications on the same topic. No known literature review articles or meta analyses on the topic exist yet. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation" (PDF). The Unsustainable American State: 167–196. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Yes: peer reviewed chapter in the academic press volume The Unsustainable American State by Lawrence Jacobs and Desmond King (2009) ISBN 9780195392135, in agreement with literature review sections of subsequent peer reviewed publications. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567. SSRN 1900856. EllenCT "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy." Yes: peer reviewed academic journal source in agreement with literature review sections of subsequent peer reviewed publications. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." No: National Affairs is not peer reviewed, and describes itself as following in the footsteps of "incomparable editor Irving Kristol," a far right-wing ideologue who our article describes as the "godfather of neo-conservatism." 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." No: the Manhattan Institute is a right-wing think tank known for paying writers to advocate the Institute's political points of view. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Brunner, Eric; Ross, Stephen L; Washington, Ebonya (May 2013). "Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 5 (2): 53–76. doi:10.1257/pol.5.2.53. Retrieved July 12, 2015. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." Yes; however, by limiting its analysis to only California Legislature bills, this source is not valid for the United States article. And as it says, "We note that our results are descriptive and cannot be interpreted causally." 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Feldstein, Martin (May 14, 2014). "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up: Ignoring dramatic changes in tax rules since 1980 creates the false impression that income inequality is rising". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2015. VictorD7 "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." No: The Wall Street Journal editorial page has extremely frequent issues with factual accuracy, and is a well known political mouthpiece of far right-wing ideologue billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Our article describes the author Martin Feldstein, "as chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan (where his deficit hawk views clashed with Reagan administration economic policies)." 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." Yes: the Levy Economics Institute is not a commercial think tank dependent upon political donors, but is supported by Bard College as an independent research organization with stringent editorial controls, academic publishing standards, and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. No known citing peer reviewed sources contradict its conclusions. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." Yes: as a WP:SECONDARY news source summary of recently published government data, the editorial control and reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally enjoyed by fivethirtyeight.com meet the reliable source criteria. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015. EllenCT "The lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality." Yes: New York Times news pieces covering Census Bureau data are appropriate WP:SECONDARY sources for the national summary article. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 "How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world." No: The Peterson Foundation is a far right-wing deficit hawk organization which has pleged $1 billion for paid advocacy of its political points of view,[143] and frequently engages in push-polls.[144][145] Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 Jane Wells (December 11, 2013). "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes". CNBC. Retrieved January 14, 2015. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world." No: CNBC has had several reliability issues on political topics, and a commentary article with hyperbole for a headline should never be considered reliable in a serious tertiary source. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 "Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes". Federal Budget. The Heritage Foundation. 2015. Retrieved January 14, 2015. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world." No: the Heritage Foundation is a well known far-right advocacy organization which pays for advocacy of its political points of view. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 Stephen Dinan (July 10, 2012). "CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes". Washington Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015. VictorD7 "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world." No: The Washington Times is a far-right advocacy organization with very little original factual reporting on national issues. Moreover, the figures described include only federal income taxes, which is not an appropriate restriction for the United States article, which should summarize the incidence of all taxes. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 As shown, the sources which Victor is trying to delete all meet the highest standards of accuracy for a tertiary source, and the sources which he is trying to replace them with are all unreliable attempts to advance his political point of view. On the tax incidence debate, [146] helps explain the extent to which the underlying OECD data used in sources on both sides is frequently misrepresented by biased authors. EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Response to VictorD7's "Actual source list" I will address each point in Victor's "Actual source list" if asked to do so, but at present I feel compelled only to point out how little familiarity he has with Wikipedia's reliable source criteria preferences for peer reviewed academic secondary sources. For example, he apparently sees no difference between an endowment-supported academic research institution such as Bard College's Levy Institute and explicitly chartered politically activist think tanks such as the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. He is also apparently unable to tell the difference between news organizations' factual reporting on government statistics, which I have included, and opinion pieces from newspaper "commentary" sections and op-ed pieces, which he has been trying to include. He apparently has not read the Tcherneva (2015) report, or at least never reached the final paragraph on page 7 ("....including a mechanism that links wage increases to productivity gains, prioritizes decent work for decent pay, commits to pay equity, reexamines comparable worth policies, and, importantly, implements an effective employment safety net at living wages for all") when he claims it doesn't support the summary of that conclusion. The CBPP source, clarifying the meaning of "progressive" that the OECD sources occasionally use, has never been included in or proposed for inclusion in the United States article, which is probably why Victor did not choose to associate his source descriptions with diffs. Some of his sources [I do not remember seeing] before and doubt they have ever been part of the article, either. Finally, even after he was corrected earlier, he still denies that User:Protonk, who supported his topic ban in his ANI boomerang discussion, is an administrator. EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Capitalismojo I am not aware of any requirement that refs or sources be "peer reviewed". Reliable sources are the requirement, not academic peer review. I also don't see any diffs that show what (if any) violation Victor is supposed to have committed that needs enforcement or review. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC) The only diffs are of the OP edit warring? This confuses me. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Only in Death Just to clarify for the confused: This was originally raised at the edit-warring noticeboard by Victor against EllenCT as he alleged she was edit-warring (over the course of a week, rather than a straight 3rr). Admin's opined there it needed to go here as it was too complicated for them to deal with. Hence EllenCT raising it here and the confusing nature of the report. Personally I agree with Victor that EllenCT is edit-warring (given the evidence provided and the content of the talkpage) and should have been closed at the edit-warring noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) @EllenCT, The Washington Post is not a RS now then? I would want an RSN discussion on the material being cited that shows consensus for that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I'm with Capeo on this, if as an admin you are unable to follow Victors quite clear and plain evidence then why are you commenting here? What precisely is it you are unable to understand and I will try and explain using short words. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Mattnad EllenCT has been regularly pushing her POV across several articles and has particular interest in changing the United States Article into an indictment of income inequality. This has been a problem for a couple of years and the subject of multiple administrative discussions. As for her complaints about VictorD7, she has also complained [147] [ [148] about the one and only edit I've made to the article in more than a year. VictorD7 has cataloged her recent patterns on this article, and here are some sample discussions around her past behavior: Notice of Disruptive behavior by EllenCT A sample of one arbitration where EllenCT decided to accuse several editors of editing where they had not including an excellent summary of her disruptive editing on these topics by another editor It's overdue that EllenCT gets even a minor block for her pattern's of disruptive editing.Mattnad (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Re: @EllenCT: It would seem EllenCT objects to having the full view of all income quintiles when it comes to presentation of tax rates. Her preferred graphs excludes all taxpayers except top 1% and 0.1%. Since the article is about the United States it would seem the broader CBO graph is a better. Perhaps EllenCT might want to explain why she prefers a narrow view. Does she have some point she wants to make? What is it?Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Capeo @Gamaliel:, you say that unless current evidence is supplied this should be closed without action but VictorD7 has supplied abundant difs above. Looking through them it seems quite clear the statements Ellen keeps trying to revert/change is sourced beyond doubt with multiple RS that include primary academic studies and secondary commentary on said studies from RS across the political spectrum. Capeo (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I'm rather dumbfounded by the admin response here. Victor provided no less than 25 difs that clearly show a slow motion edit war against consensus, against RS, with a clear POV push behind it, across multiple articles under AE sanctions and the admins here want to punt this too? So within a week it will be at ANI, where it will likely again be deemed to convoluted to wade through by admins while twenty users take sides, argue with each other for a week, then fester for some untold amount of time until someone snaps and gets indeffed. This is not hard to wade through. Ellen takes issue with the fact that articles state that the U.S. has one of, if not the most, progressive tax system in the developed world. This is an economic fact that's well backed up by academic RS. Progressive in this sense has a very definitive meaning in economics. This is not "Progressive" in the political sense. One has nothing to do with the other. It also has nothing to do with what appears to be her main editing bent which is to try to highlight income equality in every US related article she can. Something that's already separately addressed in the appropriate areas. She's claiming undoubted RS are fringe or biased (somehow biased across the whole political spectrum), claiming RFCs were closed in a manner that they weren't, and editing against consensus. It's all there. Nip it in the bud now before it goes too far. That's what AE is for. Capeo (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC) So, Victor completely dismantles Ellen's sources, revealing that she's pushing a POV not even supported by her own sources, shows that she edit warred and yet, for a while, it's suggested that Victor is topic banned? And we go from that to mediation? Just to better illustrate her lack of grasp of sources take a look at the Levi Institute souce. First, it's a non-peer reviewed opinion piece with this caveat on the first page: "The Levy Economics Institute is publishing this research with the conviction that it is a constructive and positive contribution to the discussion on relevant policy issues. Neither the Institute’s Board of Governors nor its advisers necessarily endorse any proposal made by the author." Second, to claim the LEI is non-partisan is laughable. They are liberal as hell in their staff and proposals. Not that that's an issue, I'm pretty uber-liberal myself and agree with many of their published policy opinions. Honestly there's really no such thing as a non-partisan think tank. Lastly, and most pointedly, the paper opens by saying it's using data from NBER. Who is the president emeritus of NBER? Martin Feldstein. The same Martin Feldstein whose criticism of Piketty Ellen dissmissed because the WSJ is a mouthpiece for right wing ideologues. Apparently the associate professor opinion piece had no issue using data that was produce by an organization that Feldstein was CEO of until 2008. I'm sorry but an associate professor at Bard's opinion doesn't hold a candle, as far as expert opinion goes, to Martin Feldstein. This just shows her blindness to anything she considers "far right" which seems to be anything that isn't far left and doesn't agree with preconceived notion. It's bordering on activist style editing. Conversely, for all I know Victor is no different. I'm only looking at the edits surround this incident and the diffs above. Clearly some well respected editors have had serious issues with him in the past at the very least and a few of the sources he brought were obviously partisan and, frankly, crap. The majority are solid though and easily support the sentences in question. Ellen's don't and often even contradict her conclusion if you actually read through them or they're just bad, clearly partisan crap as well. Alarm bells should always go off when a user tries to dismiss conflicting sources by claiming political partisanship on a regular basis. So you have edit warring, misrepresentation of sources to try to make a definitive statement in WP's voice, and editing against consensus. I'm not very confident mediation is going to fix that. Capeo (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Looking over the fairly recent edit histories of both parties it seems to me the entire topic area of American Politics and Economics is better served without either of their participation. They both express extremely strong POVs in their editing including (and not limited to) use of biased sources, bludgeoning talk pages in attempts to wear people down, edits against consensus and claiming people who disagree with their edits are doing so simply on ideological grounds. Simply, there's conflict centered around both of them almost everywhere they show up. A recent example of Ellen's would be this talk page [149] where a clear agenda is pushed, edits to the article itself are against consensus, there's an all too common dismissal of sources that don't support her views while also confusing primary and secondary sources. She took her fight to Jimbo's page [150] not once but twice [151] with ridiculously pointy threads. Mention of Jimbo on the talk page above actually prompted Jimbo to reply [152]. Ellen's response here "Since you have provided an inconclusive secondary source, I no longer believe the issue is as settled as I did prior. I remain convinced that all of the secondary sources which take a conclusive position do so opposed to the supply side trickle down position. I also remain convinced that the sooner you come to realize that fact, the better off we all will be." sums up her intractability quite well. SPECIFICO's difs sum up Victor's behavior quite well below. Just his bludgeoning in the RFCs related to that page alone are too much. The entire subject area would be better off without them in my view. Capeo (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Statment by semi-involved Calidum It seems as though this will be closed without any action, which is unfortunate. Victor supplied ample evidence at WP:AN3 [153] that showed continued edit warring by Ellen. An admin advised him to take the issue here [154] but he did not have the chance to do so because Ellen copied and pasted his original complaint here but as a complaint about Victor [155]. By doing so, she hijacked the discussion and deflected her edit warring to another user. She should not be rewarded for obfuscating the process. Calidum 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Scolaire I came upon this while following another case, and it intrigued me, so I decided to try to unravel it. I assumed that EllenCT was claiming that that VictorD7 was edit-warring to the same extent that she was, and that when she said "you could easily reverse Victor's diffs", she meant that in every case he had reverted her first. But in fact, the revision history shows that VictorD7 only reverted twice in that period – on September 11 and on September 21 – while at the same time engaging fully in the discussion on the talk page. So this is not a "one is as bad as the other" scenario. One editor is acting in accordance with policy and the other is edit-warring. Closing this without taking any action would be madness. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Struck out in the light of Specifico's first comment below, and a more careful reading of the article talk page and archives. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "@Guy:, it is not correct to say that "the two editors are engaged in a content dispute, in which both are edit-warring". Only EllenCT is edit-warring. VictorD7 only reverted twice in the period under discussion – on September 11 and on September 21. I struck out my comment above because I thought that, by now, everybody was aware of that fact. Scolaire (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved SPECIFICO I stumbled on this page and followed a link which led me to this talk page thread concerning article text on taxation in the US. [156]. I am an economist and I'm quite familiar with the flaws and biases of a variety of sources in this subject, from news media through peer-reviewed academic articles. That having been said, I urge Admins here to spend some time on this typical talk page thread and the history of the discussion and article edits surrounding these two editors. Without endorsing all of EllenCT's statements, I think it's evident that she is trying to raise an important policy-based principle as to the sourcing and due weight of article content. She's been met, as in the linked thread, with ad hominems, disparagement, and other nasty behavior from her colleagues on various articles. Regardless of whether she has responded effectively or calmly to these attacks, I hope the Admins here will try to deal with the current request in the context of the parties' behavior and activities over the range and history of the articles in which these issues have recurred. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) @VictorD7... In my reading of the post you linked from Gamaliel, the main point was that you, Victor, poisoned all attempts at collaboration in that article and drove away many editors (myself among them.) How any of us, including the rather gracious Gamaliel, expressed our frustration is quite secondary. I'm not questioning your motives, but I think you're again demonstrating a dysfunctional, self-centered battleground editing style which has stymied collaboration on many articles over the past couple of years. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Final comments Just to be clear, before I get out of this burning building: Contrary to VictorD7's reading of my comment above, I hope it's clear to everyone else that I mention my experience with economics-related sources and statements to affirm that peer-reviewed or academic sources or even statements in otherwise reliable media publications are not necessarily RS for specific WP content. I intended my statement to stipulate that I have no bias toward EllenCT's frequent preference for peer-reviewed sources. At any rate, I trust it's also clear from VictorD7's statement that he doesn't understand the meaning of "argument from authority" since I made no statement about economic facts or theories, only about editing (on which I claim no authority.) Second point: VictorD7 has misrepresented the history of edits by he and I made on a couple of articles a year or so ago. Looking at the archives, [157] I see no history that I "clashed" with him, although there are numerous instances of him personally-attacking me after I stated a talk page opinion, not even replying to him. It feels as if he's kept me on a personal "enemies list" for a long time, due to some long-forgotten threads on a few articles. That's kind of creepy but it has nothing to do with anyone but VictorD7. In the context of the current discussion, however, I think it demonstrates an irrational battleground mentality which prevents him from collaborative editing on WP. I agree with Gamaliel, (with whom -- contrary to VictorD7's assertion -- I both agreed and disagreed on that one article) that VictorD7 is unable to function within WP community norms. Call it a competence problem or tendentious editing or whatever. I agree that VictorD7 should be banned from articles relating to American Politics or, for simplicity, from the Site (since he edits no other topics.) Finally, I don't endorse or reject the substance of EllenCT's views. She defends them assertively, but I find her editing and behavior to be well within policy and WP norms. I have spoken up on several occasions because I believe she has been the target of some subtle and not-so-subtle gender-related harassment. And PS, what makes VictorD7 think I am a he not a she? I won't be revisiting this thread because I find VictorD7's behavior unpleasant and a waste of time. I hope some of the volunteer Admins who work this page will investigate the evidence here and do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Addendum: Comment RE: @Robert McClenon:'s insightful framing of the issue. Robert, you provided context which should make this an easy decision for Admins here. In the larger context, VictorD7 has repeatedly disrupted articles relating to American Politics. I should have provided diffs to back up my statement here, so here are diffs from just a single example in which an article was hog-tied by VictorD7's tendentious editing against consensus: [158][159][160][161] [162][163][164][165] Is VictorD7 a Single Purpose Account tendentiously editing American Politics articles? Here is a summary of his edit counts. [166]. This does not seem to support his statment that he edits plenty of other topics. I checked his "sports" edits and all I see is a single string of 10 consecutive unsourced OR statements he inserted to an article about the Dallas Cowboys. Just about every other one of his edits is pushing his POV, including in the article about the Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame, whose comments inflamed a brief political controversy a while back. [167] [168] SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved) Ellen's sources seem generally stronger, but not to the point that Victor's sources should be expunged. There's a disagreement within the sources that needs to be covered with a preferential but not total weighting towards one of the sides. I think the parties are more in need of mediation than enforcement. Rhoark (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) With the addition of Victor's source analysis it becomes clear that there are reliable sources for the claims he is supporting. It's understandable to try to super-saturate the sourcing in a dispute, but let's just stick to the best ones. Tacking some marginal sources on top just gives an avenue for the respondent to try derailment tactics like we've seen here. I can't say I've been pleased with EllenCT's responses on the RSN discussion that's happening on this same topic either.[169]. Think tanks, just like news organizations, come in different shapes and sizes. Some start with the facts and draw conclusions, while others start with conclusions and find useful facts. EllenCT seems to believe a blog from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a think tank tending towards the latter type) is sufficient to invalidate multiple published reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (one of the most authoritative sources on international comparisons of taxation systems) along with secondary reporting in the New York Times. The worst of it is that this blog doesn't even dispute the claim in question. Rather, it backs up EllenCT's fundamental POV (more aid to the poor is needed) without addressing the salient on-wiki claim (US taxation is progressive) at all. We must keep in mind that EllenCT was the filer and as such had a first-mover advantage in framing the issues here. That lulled myself (and apparently @JzG:) into accepting a certain surface reading of the situation, but its quite apparent that EllenCT is the one having difficulty disentangling POV moral justification of their views from wiki policy justification of their edits. My recommendation remains mediation. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Protonk As a point of order, I was not an administrator when I made the AN/I comment EllenCT referred to above. Though I was when I admonished VictorD7 for their appallingly uncivil and unproductive behavior at an RfC on progressive taxation last year. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @VictorD7: How, exactly, was I canvassed? I was mentioned 3 times in this thread by two different users, one of whom was you. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yeah that all sounds like BS, frankly. You've been around long enough to know what the word canvas means here. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @JzG: I'm not sure what motivates this chin scratching. VictorD7 has established a pattern of tendentious, uncivil editing in this topic area. They repeatedly harangue editors for merely disagreeing with their position and their participation in discussions seems designed to shout down anyone who might have a contribution but isn't willing to read a long screed (often) filled with personal invective. In the RfC I pointed to above, I came in as an uninvolved admin and offered my position on an RfC which had already run its course. The first reply to me started with "I appreciate you coming along and proving me right". What followed was an exchange where I repeatedly asked them to tone down the invective and they essentially told me to piss up a rope. That was not an isolated incident, as Gamaliel and SPECIFICO show. Imagine working on articles where there are already divides among reasonable editors and running into this person. Would you keep editing that article? I wouldn't. What's the upside to getting repeatedly attacked? This all looks complicated because we've permitted the filer and VictorD7 to fill up this AE request with dozens of content related diffs, transmogrifying this into some hoary debate over content when it's really just an editor behaving like a complete jerk at every opportunity. I mean good God, look at their replies to any editor who dares to come into this discussion. Those supporting VictorD7 receive effusive praise for what looks like (frankly) tactical support of the underlying agenda. Those who bring up past behavior or even ask them to not accuse editors of canvassing are treated to vituperative replies with no real content or willingness to engage. Their first reply to me here when I brought up the plainly obvious was to accuse EllenCT of canvassing (forgetting that they mentioned my name first It seems I was wrong about this, but it's a pretty trivial distinction. Mentioning someone in a thread is not canvassing. Also, demanding an apology for inconsequential mistakes is classic battleground behavior), adding "I admonished him for his subsequent behavior and unwarranted hostility. He has problems with me as an editor. The feeling is mutual, and I'm glad he's not an administrator". HJ Mitchell even had to close a clearly retaliatory AE request in the middle of this discussion. I'm not sure how to make this more clear. There's no good reason to tolerate editors who behave like dicks when challenged. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cla68 Gamaliel, VictorD7 has presented evidence that you and he have had some fairly serious personal disagreements a few months ago in another article. I see that you've recused yourself, but why didn't you strike your comments? Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon I am puzzled by the statement by administrator Guy or JzG: “You know what? This is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. It needs to go to WP:DR and thence to ArbCom if not settled. It requires detailed analysis of much more than I (and I venture to suggest most others here) have time to delve through.” Exactly what is he suggesting needs to be done before further administrative action is taken? He says that it should go to Dispute Resolution. The Dispute Resolution policy lists multiple procedures for content disputes and for conduct disputes. As a conduct dispute, it has already gone all the way to ArbCom. The quarreling between User:VictorD7 and User:EllenCT, primarily about inequality in the United States, while not directly addressed in American Politics 2, was very much the sort of toxic tension that led to American Politics 2. ArbCom put the area under discretionary sanctions precisely because of this sort of continuing battleground editing. If NO ONE is willing to do the detailed analysis to determine whose behavior is more egregious, then topic-ban both of them for a period of time. There is one content dispute forum that has not been tried that might (but might not) be useful, and that would be formal mediation, but that would require that both editors assume good faith, and I am not sure that good faith is present. At this point, it is formal mediation (which might not be feasible), or Arbitration Enforcement, which is where we are. I don’t think ArbCom wants to be asked to open American Politics 3. Alternatively, there might be some creative approach, such as topic-banning them from everywhere except a battleground page where they can work out an RFC to submit to the community. The idea to send this back to ArbCom, when ArbCom already sent it to Arbitration Enforcement via Discretionary Sanctions, seems to miss the point. Either that, or I have missed the point to something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Gamaliel's comments Moved from the uninvovled admins' section. 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @EllenCT: can you provide some diffs with examples of advocating non-RS sources? Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You do realize that no one is going to act on this report because they are not going to sort through the mess of opining above to get the facts. "most of Victor's diffs" is not an appropriate response to a request for evidence about a single, specific allegation. Referring to previous, stale discussions which were closed without action taken against the party relevant here is not evidence to support sanctioning that party in this current dispute. Unless actual, current evidence is properly presented by either side, I suggest we close this matter without action. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) The list by EllenCT is compelling evidence that a number of sources employed by VictorD7 are not exactly in line with WP:RS. Rhoark raises a good point, some of them are not so terribly appalling that they require action. But others are just that bad. Also there's a comment that I found on the article talk page where VictorD7 casually implies that a Nobel-winning economist is a "lunatic". I am not willing to conclude yet that this is a case of overt POV-pushing, but what I suspect is happening that this editor is editing from a perspective that is not compatible with mainstream thought on this subject. Gamaliel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) I did not recognize VictorD7's user name, and if I had I never would have posted here. I have no involvement in this dispute or editing that article (nor does encouraging editors to find better sources at WP:RSN mean that I "involved [my]self in this debate", as Victor absurdly claims) and I believe my comments here prove that I have attempted to judge the evidence presented here in a fair and neutral matter and give him and everyone else involved the benefit of the doubt. Victor is right in that I should not be involved in this matter, because what I have seen of his behavior a year ago has convinced me that he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as he is a blatant POV-pusher who attempts to use poor, partisan sources to skew articles, as he is apparently doing in this case, based my experience with him and on the evidence presented above. I apologize to Victor, Harry, Dennis, and everyone else for commenting here, but at my age I simply can't be expected to remember the name of every, as I put it in the link Victor helpfully provided above, belligerent SPA I've run across over the last ten years. Victor's comments about me contain a number of blatant factual inaccuracies, including a claim that I've lied about him in a manner that does not appear to resemble any comment I've actually made on this page. He also writes "I don't want to dredge up stale details" after spending three paragraphs doing just that, which tells you everything you need to know about his deceptiveness when it comes to dealing with other editors. While in principle I do not believe that an administrator who is the victim of belligerent attacks or other negative behavior by an editor or SPA is not capable of rendering an impartial, uninvolved judgement in a completely unrelated matter, in this particular case I recuse myself because I believe that Victor should not be editing any Wikipedia article at all, much less one of our most important ones, nor should he be allowed to use a computer without adult supervision. Feel free to move my comments to another section, but if you remove them entirely I demand that Victor's inaccurate claims about myself be removed as well. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions

This section is for proposed resolutions to the dispute, comments on proposals, and limited replies to administrators. It is not for extensive discussion between parties. Please be concise. Off-topic posts or inter-party discussion may be removed at the discretion of an administrator.

Comment from Jbhunley

I have not encountered VictorD7 but his behavior here is enough that I would support a topic ban. EllenCT, I have seen around and in fact one of the first articles I thought of editing here was Economic growth while she was having a 'discussion' with Volunteer Marek. Her tendentious behavior there put me right off the entire topic area - I still have some sources in my sandbox I wanted to introduce into the debate but no way in hell was I going to engage with an editor that fixed in their POV. Her recent diatribe on Jimbo's TP, mentioned above, reaffirms my view she is a POV warrior and a topic ban, preferably on all issued related to growth, inequality and taxation since they are all tied together in her anti-Trickle-down crusade.

I am less inclined to allow them to participate in mediation, neither is likely to change or soften their POV and the walls of text and venom would insure mediation failed. I guess an AE imposed Wikipedia Cage Match might be interesting in the same way the Romans sentenced people to the gladiator pits but even then it was done solely for entertainment not to actually solve anything. I am as atavistic as the next guy, maybe more so, but I do not see how forcing these two into mediation would benefit the project. Just ban them for three months and go up from there if the same disruption resurfaces on their return to editing. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

AE requiring mediation for issues already worked out does nothing but reward persistent, disruptive editing and allow EllenCT to continue here crusade to the exhaustion of the other participants. If other editors than VictorD7 and EllenCT think mediation is required then mediation should occur. If it is just based on these two participants it is healthier for the project to simply remove them from the field for a while and let the other editors form a consensus without the constant disruption.

I doubt mediation would be successful with these editors since EllenCT is already begging the question by getting VictorD7 to agree to her views of sourcing up front with her 'Proposed mediation' section below - bad form, very bad form. Jbh^Talk 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Per this conversation I want to clarify the above is intended as a comment on the wisdom/advisability of mandated mediation as a useful AE remedy not as an additional call for topic bans. I also feel more strongly that EllenCT's behavior warrants a topic ban than VictorD7's although I do feel his behavior here indicates a ban would not be an unreasonable outcome. Jbh^Talk 00:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Capeo

Since my proposal and the reasoning behind it are hatted I'll just reiterate my suggestion. A 3-6 month topic ban from American Politics and Economics for both parties is probably in order. If just the most recent activity is taken into consideration though I would say Ellen's conduct has been far, far worse. On the article and talk page that was the impetus to this filing I see little fault in how Victor dealt with it. He also hasn't seemed to have any conflicts on articles in recent months so I could see an argument for currently only topic banning EllenCT. Capeo (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Striking the above. I had not seen those RFCs. They are quite literally EllenCT trying to include cites from sources she lambasts above including Op-Eds and the WSJ. There seems to be no logic to her arguments other than bolstering her POV at all costs. That the responses from other editors who are both sympathetic and those that disagree ask her to stop pushing her trickle-down crusade show that this is symptomatic of a bigger issue. After EllenCT stopped editing the article that prompted this report the issues were worked out amicably on the talk page. I'd suggest a topic ban for EllenCT would solve 90% of the conflict in these articles. Capeo (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why mediation is even in play here. The content issue is done. It was resolved on the talk page once EllenCT left the article alone. Capeo (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm wondering on what basis Victor would be topic banned here, as that seems to be where this is heading, with both parties TBed. Past behavior? Because if it's just this incident alone I can't see the justification. It seems Ellen is still excusing her edit-warring against consensus as justified [170] and claiming some cabal of editors were trying to use biased sources when in fact, as shown above, the sources that ended up being used per consensus are anything but. The real issue is consensus didn't reflect her POV hence we're here. In this particular report I'm only seeing one party doing anything wrong. I'd venture it's no coincidence that everything got quite after Ellen stopped editing. Capeo (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the sources EllenCT seems to think meet the criteria she lays out below: Citizens for Tax Justice? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities? FiveThirtyEightEconomics? Not to mention having an issue with a WSJ op-ed above but starting a prior RFC to include a WSJ op-ed because it supported her POV? Lastly her saying "Ideally, Victor will see the light and decide to embrace demand side economics," pretty much shows she believes her edit-warring was justified because she's spreading the Truth and will continue to do so. Capeo (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from VictorD7

Of course I oppose a topic ban for me since no evidence of me actually doing anything wrong regarding taxation has been presented or cogently articulated, much less in the last several months. Since I'm not entirely familiar with the procedures being discussed here, I would like clarification on whether an appeal is possible. I wasn't planning on editing much over the next few months but I'd prefer not to have a frivolous topic ban on my record. Either way I'm willing to engage in a mediated discussion on the topic with EllenCT, but I would also like clarification on the scope and eventual impact of this process. Because, as I pointed out earlier, a talk page consensus has already formed among editors who have been involved in the discussion and know a great deal about it. Could this mediation result overturn that? If so, I don't see the purpose or justification for it. Starting a discussion from scratch that brings in new editors who know little or nothing about the topic would likely lead to a lower quality result than what's already been achieved, and might be disastrous. We saw what happened when admins here tried to wade into a content dispute on the complex topic. They admitted being hopelessly confused by it.

Also, would it include the inequality dispute? Because an RFC initiated by EllenCT herself weeks ago is soundly rejecting her preferred wording and should be closed within the next few days.

[171]

This follows the community likewise rejecting three other recent RFC proposals by EllenCT along similar lines: [172], [173], [174] (nobody bothered closing the last two, though they overwhelmingly went against her, as you can see).

The recent discussion on tax progressivity also seems to have reached its conclusion, with a 2 to 1 majority opposing EllenCT's proposed changes, not counting multiple other editors who made their opposition known in edit summaries while reverting her.

[175]

Is all this time and effort invested by these editors now arbitrarily invalidated just because EllenCT didn't want to accept consensus? Is she being rewarded for her edit warring?

If so, out of curiosity what would happen if I declined mediation?

I would also like to ask HJ Mitchell to self revert and restore my final edit to the above discussion. [176] I was already typing it (and was likely almost finished) when the section was hatted, and had posted a place holder in my previous edit saying more was soon coming and asking for it not to be closed yet. It's only fair that I should have the right to respond to last second accusations made against me, and have that response in the record. VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a clarification on precisely what this mediation would entail, but if the goal here is to avoid future disruption, this may be a solution in search of a problem. The established consensus formed on the talk page in the links I provided above has settled both specific content issues at play here. The only documented recent behavioral issue here was EllenCT's edit warring against consensus. If that stops there is no problem. Before this I certainly wasn't planning to interact with EllenCT more or discuss these same issues again from scratch unless absolutely necessary. I don't see the need to take any action based on stale links or even against Specifico or Protonk for the false personal attacks they leveled here.

The reason this request blew up into a confusing mess is that it was malformed and confused from the start, not reflecting the facts. It didn't help that the initial admin to respond (rather than close it as malformed) ended up recusing himself over a past personal involvement. At this point, especially given the paucity of actual evidence presented (except in the edit warring report I filed) the best thing to do would be to close this with no action taken and a caution for people to follow instructions next time when filing an AE report. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If I'm truly a "problem" editor (which I'm not), then it won't be long before someone files a report here against me that actually contains clear evidence of wrong doing. In the meantime, when in doubt it's more responsible to err on the side of not being heavy handed than to rush into punitive action just for the sake of taking action. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from SPECIFICO

Per my comments above, now hatted: I propose a one month TBAN from American Politics for VictorD7. As I understand it this is the prescribed maximum sanction under the American Politics Arbcom rulings. I propose a stern warning for EllenCT that she should ensure she does not edit or use accusatory language in talk page discussions. I urge some Admin to un-hat the previous evidence here and to use some other display format to indicate that no further evidence should be presented. Hatting the section obscures the facts in the case, including diffs and VictorD7's personal attacks and undocumented aspersions which are in themselves prima facie evidence that he is worthy of tough love here. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

According to VictorD7's comments, as I understand them, he does not favor voluntary mediation of the content dispute. So that solution is stillborn. Moreover, content mediation will not resolve the behavioral issues on both sides that are evident on this thread alone. I'd be very disappointed to see the current group of AE volunteers kick the donkey down the road. Most editors react to bad behavior simply by fleeing the scene. At least we've got some contributions of evidence by uninvolved editors here. If nothing comes of this case, that effort will have been lost and more editors will walk away concluding that WP cannot deal with personal attacks, unsupported allegations, tendentious disruptive behavior, etc. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the ins and outs of AE, but it seems to me that since the Arbcom sanction relates to American Politics and because we've seen these editors have problems on several articles related to American Politics, that any temporary or permanent TBAN should cover American Politics, not an ad hoc subset defined here, e.g. progressive taxation. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Robert McClenon

I concur with all of HJMitchell, Guy, and Dennis Brown. This is in part an interaction issue, in that we have two editors who have quarreling for a long time. However, an interaction ban would not work in this case, where the dispute is mostly in one article (and interaction bans do not work very well in general), but discretionary sanctions need to be used somehow. Of course, formal mediation is voluntary, but a topic-ban via Arbitration Enforcement on the issue, with an exception to permit formal mediation, does not have to be voluntary. If one party declines to take part in mediation, or if a mediator cannot be found because of the hostility of the dispute, the AE administrators can re-address this. I concur with a topic-ban with an exception to permit and encourage formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation proposal by EllenCT

I would like to try mediation but first I would like to know if Victor agrees to the traditional reliable source criteria of basing the encyclopedia on peer reviewed literature review articles in academic journals, when available, when the primary sources disagree, no matter how scholarly or well funded those primary sources may be. My anti-trickle down crusade, as it has been called, is nothing other than proper editorial discretion when the secondary sources which reach conclusions on a question all come to the same conclusion. For the question of trickle down, or supply side economics, or whether income inequality is beneficial, the secondary peer reviewed sources which reach a conclusion have in past decades reached the same conclusion. Yes, that fact influences which sources I find reliable when the unanimous conclusive peer reviewed literature reviews disagree with paid advocacy foundations, for what should be obvious reasons distinct but apparently difficult to distinguish from bias towards non-mainstream views. If Victor was not a problem editor, why would complaints about me boomerang against him? The worst transgression I am guilty of is thinking that the secondary literature was entirely unanimous for decades, when in fact there are secondary sources which do not reach conclusions, including a meta-analysis. Mediation may give him the opportunity to air his views about how he believes advocacy foundations which reject peer review because their arguments are so unsound that they usually fail to pass peer review. Mediation may allow the process of explanation why literature review articles that pass peer review are substantially more accurate than paid advocacy which is unable to achieve peer review. Ideally, Victor will see the light and decide to embrace demand side economics. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning VictorD7

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

• I agree with Gamaliel. This is a mess and asking a few admin to read through and make sense of it is asking too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've read the wall of text; it's not the most coherent, largely due to the copying and pasting of a thread from another noticeboard, but what we essentially have is EllenCT complaining that VictorD7 is POV-pushing and using unreliable sources to support his POV, and a counter-claim from VicotrD7 that EllenCT is edit-warring. I note, for the record, that the two are not mutually exclusive. From a superficial look at the history, the claim that EllenCT is edit-warring is borne out. I would be interested to hear more from @EllenCT: about her complaint against VictorD7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• In as much as I can make sense of the above: the two editors are engaged in a content dispute, in which both are edit-warring but EllenCT has the advantage of being right and VictorD7 has the distinct disadvantage of pushing a non-neutral POV. The solution is fairly simple: Ellen makes a good and IMO compelling case for VictorD7 to be topic-banned from the subject of US taxation, following which it may become easier to unpick behavioural issues from necessary defence of the wiki. I recommend a 3 month topic ban followed by probationary review of edits with a view to a permanent ban if the issue continues. I concur with Rhoark, and thank him for the patient extra analysis. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You know what? This is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. It needs to go to WP:DR and thence to ArbCom if not settled. It requires detailed analysis of much more than I (and I venture to suggest most others here) have time to delve through. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse Robert's suggestion of formal mediation for the content issues. It's not the place of admins at AE to rule on reliability of sources or other content issues, except where problems are immediately obvious. As far as the conduct issues, it's clear that neither party is a saint. At this point, my suggestion is to defer the content issues to mediation, and in the meantime to ban both EllenCT and VictorD7 from the subject of the progressiveness or otherwise of taxation in the United States (except for discussion as part of mediation) for three months or until the mediation is finished, whichever comes first. If mediation fails or doesn't start because of the conduct of one or both parties and the disruption resumes, much more stringent sanctions will likely be forthcoming. Unless any uninvovled admin vociferously objects (@Dennis Brown and JzG:?), I will implement this and close this request in 24 hours or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't see this as an American Politics issue as much as a user interaction issue, but it may boil down to enforcement of American Politics, it is simply too messy for me to unpick. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto what Guy said. This is the least aggressive solution I can see coming from this mess while the content issues are resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a ban from the topic (except mediation) is what's needed to deal with both content and conduct issues here. My only suggested modification is that the ban lasts until mediation finishes whenever that may be. Reason is it gives them both an impetus to participate fully in the mediation rather than wait out the three months (whether they were to do that blatantly or not). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of my reservation is that at least one side is claiming that the issue is resolved and that further dispute resolution is unnecessary. I don't want to force further dispute resolution where the dispute is one party's refusal to accept consensus, but nor do I want to impose sanctions on one party for responding poorly to tendentious editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah good point, go with three months or after mediation (which ever is sooner). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Are you still planning to do this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

BenMcLean

User blocked and talk page access revoked for 24 hours for violating topic ban, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:NOTHERE. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning BenMcLean User who is submitting this request for enforcement CIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested BenMcLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Topic ban applied per discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13 Oct Topic ban violation 13 Oct Topic ban violation 13 Oct Topic ban violation 13 Oct Restoration of edits following warning 13 Oct Further restoration Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 19 Sept Notification. 19 Sept Topic ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Enforcing admins may wish to consider the comments at User talk:BenMcLean#Advice (permalink) and the declined appeal in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive181. CIreland (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notification Discussion concerning BenMcLean Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by BenMcLean The entire group of GamerGate / feminism topic bans, for all or nearly all persons to whom they apply, are a partisan agenda-driven political witch hunt, and everyone involved in them knows they are a partisan agenda-driven political witch hunt. The few orthodox users involved in the GamerGate article are dishonest scum (meaning they know very well that what they're writing is not true, and are writing it anyway for political reasons) as I've said before, and I defend this remark on the grounds that it is true. I'm going out of my way to violate this "topic ban" today just so that saying, "Anyone who disagrees gets banned" in discussions outside Wikipedia is demonstrated to be literally true. I've found it's much easier to say that than, "Anyone who disagrees gets partially banned based on the topic" and being forced to get into all the passive aggressive bureaucratic rules lawyering nonsense. "Wikipedia bans heretics" is easier for people to digest. Oh, and I also thought it was important to use my real name. These are real people being banned for heresy, not just anonymous pseudonyms. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning BenMcLean This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Slovenski Volk

Restrictions lifted--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs) / Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User imposing the sanction HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification of User imposing sanction [177] Sanction being appealed Indefinite topic ban since January 23 2014 from all articles and discussions related to Balkan history, sensu latu, for alleged violation of restrictions relating to ARBMAC. [178] Statement by S.V. I have been indefinitely topic-banned by HJ Mitchell, subject to appeal after 6 months [179] (" but you may ask for it to be reviewed after six months. If, in six months' time, you have built up a history of uncontentious editing in another subject area, and you have not been sanctioned for any violations of this topic ban, I would look favourably on loosening or lifting it, and I would hope other admins would agree"), after being accused of violating my specified restrictions. Those in place had been: 1) an indefinite 0RR in Ancient Macedonians article since 2011 for violating the 3RR once [180] AND simultaneously a restriction to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case (ARBMAC article). 2) In August 2012, I was placed on a partial topic ban for breaching restriction # 1 [181] by Blade of Northern Lights, although the BoNT initially suggested a 3 month ban only. I was allowed to edit prehistoric and Roman period Balkan article [182], however. 3) This was then extended to all Balkan articles, because of a complaint by an editor for my editing to Illyrians. However this article clearly falls into the Neolithic- Roman time frame, and thus I felt was OK, and had little if anything to do with Ancient Macedonians. I nevertheless, did not appeal, admittedly I might have taken at times a too liberal interpretation of my allowances, and took a Wiki break. • I initially believed that the very first sanction was heavy handed ( an immediate 0RR and 1RR for all other articles just for 1 breach).I understand that Balkan articles are a hot bed of editorial conflict, and can retrospectively understand the need for such. In addition, because I’d had previous 24 hour blocks, I suspect this had something to do with it. However, the first one (“sock accounts”) was when I very initially began, and was a honest error of creating two accounts because I’d made a spelling error in my username (in 2007 I had just started using the Internet)  ! Another block on the Scythians for edit warring, (but the article has nothing to do with the Balkans, but is in Iran and Russia). • Nevertheless, I plainly see that my behaviuor has been hardly been model. I did edit war. I really saw my edits as non-partisan, academic, in perfect English, etc, and thus had an air of arrogance about my editing, I admit. Moreover, I felt often cornered into edit wars because I was facing ‘tag-teams’ of editors. I now know that there are better ways to approach this – attempting to reach consensus on talk pages, asking for third party advice, arbitration, or simply walking a way for a few days ! I have since participated in other forums and feel I have ‘grown up’ as a contributor. • I also want to point out that the content of my editing has always been non-inflammatory. I.e. I have always edited- indeed that is my interest- prehistoric and medieval topics, and discussions about prehistoric minutiae of little relevance to modern controversies. I have never discussed about modern wars, conflicts and politics. I’d argue my interest is ‘pure’. I'm a western born person with mixed Balkan ancestry, and feel I am impartial and respectful of all nationalities, and my only aim has ever been to infuse the often poorly written, un-referenced, and partisan Balkan article with an air of impartiality and scholasticism. Unfortunately, this had attracted resistance by several editors. And even, then, there was nothing personal or inflammatory. In fact, one editor who’d I’d edit-warred thanked me for highlighting better references [183] . Overall i have very cordial interactions with other users. Dare I say, I'm often a go-to person for advice and pointers [184] (and there's 7 volumes). :) • Not to sound high and mighty, but I believe my edits are of an excellent calibre. For example, I wrote this section [185]. I trust it speaks for itself. In fact, after the 0RR, I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images [186] in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. The non-biased content and the sheer databank of references I have at my disposal again speaks for itself. I have also created numerous maps for Wiki Commons, some of which are here [187], and indeed have won Wikipedia renown as even erudite scholars have used them, like James Mallory in his talk in Indo-Europeans. • In summary, I am a very well informed, and well intentioned editor who in the past erred with hot-headedness. I am now beyond that, and a more mature contributor. I ask that I can be re-allowed to edit on Balkan history topics, and continue my contributions to further improving areas of needed work. Athenean, I'm sorry that is untrue. The only view i do strongly push is that all perspectives supported by evidence and reputable sources be fairly represented. That is often not the case prior my involvement in articles, which I seek to remedy. Otherwise I'm personally disinterested in matters of "historical significance". The "bickering" you refer to is negotiating, and yes, at times intense debate. But that's how it is supposed to work, isn't it ? Anyhow, i can assure you that should that I'll continue to bring forth quality material and current state of the art materials to all historical topics (time permitting- as I'm rather busy these days). I look forward to your feedback and collaboration. We have both been on wiki for years and are mature and cordial enough to negotiate things open mindledly should any perceived differences of opinion arise Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Alexikoua, As I stated clearly and transparently in my opening sentence, my initial topic ban was ABMAC - placed in 2012, with allowance of appeal after 3 months. I clarified what I could edit from the admin in Question. He said "Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province (other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine). You're not supposed to edit any of the articles or discussions, but should someone start an AE thread on the topic directly concerning you you're allowed to respond" Also The Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem, no. Those are fair game." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC).[188] Clearly my contributing to Byzantine/ Roman Peoloponesse was permissible, as was my editing on Illyrians (who are a prehistoric/ Roman Age discussion). And I did not 'edit -war', i undid the mass-reversion of Alexikou who felt my otherwise excellent quality edit was not allowed, although I discussed with him on the talk page I was in fact allowed to do so. And this was in 2014- well after the 3 month appeal time was up. But i did not appeal the ARBMAC out of good faith and as a prolonged cooling off period, and stuck to things I considered Roman, Celtic, Iron Age - which are clearly very peripheral to anything on the main crux of ARBMAC - and I had obtained express clarification to do so. Nevertheless, you and Alexikoua complained after the abovementioned edit to Peloponessu, and Illyrians. My ban was resultingly extended to all Balkan articles in Feb 2014. This was unfair, and very harsh I felt at the time. Nevertheless I accepted it and let it be. I was allowed to appeal after 6 months, but did so only ~ 18 months after. I think I have done my penance, for a ban that was rather harsh to begin with. I urge to you chaps to be fairer and less partisan. All I ever want to achieve is more academic and balanced articles.Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) no such "sporadic violations" exist- apart from one instance of my replying on a talk page when asked. Everything else you have mentioned is pre-2014 and this not pertinent to this discussion (and in anycase fell within permissible editing as per admin "Northern Blades" stipulations. You cannot claim I have wronged in this when I clealry and demonstrably got his clarification on the matter). Thus, you have not brought any evidence at all that i have been anything less than compliant with the restrictions imposed, and you have not provided any solid reason why I should still be on restrictions other than you "feel" I should. If the admins feel a probation period is justified, then fine. But you're reasons are absent or false; and only rests on the fact that I did edit war in the past (2010 (!)), and am somehow incapable of amending this behaviour in the present. I very much beg to differ. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Athenean, I disagree. The poor climate was due to an entente-blockade style tacticking by certain members, yourself included. mass reverting cited, relevant, NPOV and up-to-date referencess. It is only your perception that i had a slant to play, becuase the article previously read like a propaganda forum site than an encyclopedia article. Changing it to a more NPOV, balanced and academic article was always going to be a tough job, and required someone to be WP:BOLD. Unfortunately, you a priori assumed bad faith, when the opposite was the case. It has never been my intention to prove that AMs were not "X", but were "Y", etc; and in fact yu never had any problem with my edits to any other article but AM (seems a bit odd?) Anyhow, my overhaul of the article, with your kind help now (rightly) displays various lines of evidence and interpretations - from ancient and modern scholars - as it should ! Anyhow, Im happy to discuss any significant changes with you in the future, if I ever get around to editing the article in question. My current focus is Celts, etc Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relevance ? Everything you're referring two is from 2010-11. Yes, I edit warred in 2010. The reasons were my frustration in lieu of tag -teamed reversions of sourced content - but I do not pretend in blameless and could have handled the situation better. The restriction has been in place for 5 years; it can now be removed as I now know what other avenues to pursue in case of content debate; plus I'm simply calmer :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I have not made allegation that others are "POV pushers' or other words to that effect. Rather, I can honestly state that my edits are academic and non-partisan. To claim this is not to "miss the point", as it not attempting to accuse anyone else or shift the blame in anyway. I'm fully aware that ultimately its one's own actions which earn one consequences (stating 'I do not pretend to be blameless and could have handled the situation better"), and admitted from the outset that no matter the sophistication of language or reference base one perceives to posses, I understand very clearly that consensus is the name of the game on Wikipedia and I should not arrogantly engage in edit warring. Moreover, I am now aware of the dispute resolution process (yes, I was actually ignorant of its existence until last year !). I had not edited the AMs article since 2011, and indeed, the bulk of my editing has focused elsewhere, as is clearly visible on my log (more than 95% of all contributions ) and the maps I have created. So I;m not really sure why your focusing on this; the AMs article is merely what began my initial 1RR back in 2010. Since then, I had been editing as per Northern Blades guidelines ("other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine" as per Northern Blades, and "Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem"). So, for example, i made a contribution on the Byzantine theme of Peloponessus. Aleikoua reverted it citing not a problem with the content, lack of references, or anything substantive, but that he felt it was a violation of my ARBMAC terms, although it was clearly not. I thus felt justified in re-instituting what was an erroneous mass revert of a well intentioned edit ( I even wrote to him to try and explain). Nevertheless, I was Topic banned for this (in Jan 2014). It is now 18 months since that, and 5 years since the very initial restrictions. The conditions which required my restrictions are no longer present: I am a more mature contributor now, more relaxed (after all, these are just article) and I now know about Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (yes I was actually ignorant of this !). I am not bitter, I am not resentful. I just have a lot to contribute, and after all this time, I humbly believe that a return of full editing privileges (as any other editor) is not unwarranted Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by HJ Mitchell Statement by Glrx His writing is dense but otherwise seems good. I'd remove the restriction; it's been 18 months. Glrx (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Athenean Slovenski Volk pushes a very strong POV at ancient Macedonians. His claim that "I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images [189] in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. " is totally misleading. He most certainly did NOT edit that article in full cooperation with other users. I remember endless bickering and edit-warring, which is what led to these sanctions in the first place. While the blanket topic ban on all Balkan topics is excessively harsh, I'd be very cautious about lifting the 0RRR restriction on Ancient Macedonians. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC) SV, it appears you were editing Balkan topics throughout the duration of your ban [190]. Here is a diff of you edit-warring in an article covered by the ban [191]. Such diffs are not hard to find. Can you please explain? Athenean (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC) That's not what I remember. I remember you being blocked three times for edit-warring on Ancient Macedonians, including once when you socked to circumvent the 0RR [192] (June 20 2011), and each time it was over the same topic: the "Greekness" question. There is a reason that 0RR was imposed in the first place. It's only after that restriction was imposed that the climate in that article improved and we started making progress. Like I said earlier, I think the blanket ARBMAC topic ban is excessively harsh, but the revert restriction at Ancient Macedonians is for the better. Athenean (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) No, you edit-warred in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Your latest comments show you have not understood the problem. Of course you think you were right and you were NPOV and they were POV-pushers and they ruined the article. Of course you thought you were right when you edit-warred. No one edit wars thinking they are wrong, do they? Don't get me wrong, you are a valuable contributor I think the topic ban is excessively harsh. But your latest comments are the best indication that the revert restriction at Ancient Macedonians should stay. Athenean (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Alexikoua I can't understand why SV claims that his restriction is already over [[193]] while this wp:ae is not closed yet. From his history log it's clear that he not only edits Balkan-related articles freely while this AE was already filled, but in a vew cases he was already violating his topic ban in the Balkans-field in this 20+ month period for example [[194]] patricipating in talk:Croats, a Balkan people.Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Nevertheless, after a long period of absence (if we ignore sporadic violations of his restriction) I agree that a 1rr restriction will be a good start, but SV should realise that wp:ARBMAC concerns the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans.Alexikoua (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC) really ? Chatting on a talk page in April 2014 is a violation? You are topic banned from February 2014 and per policy this is supposed to include the correspodent talkpages too. Per wp:TBAN a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles). It's not the first time you breach a topic ban, this was also mentioned in the previous wp:AE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) 20+ months is a long period, but seeing that sporadic violations during the current topic ban occurred, I still believe that a 1rr restriction in ARBMAC topics for a limited time period will be a good restart.Alexikoua Statement by Aigest I was so much surprised seeing this thread. As far as I remember I know user:Slovenski Volk since 2009, from conversations we've had with him and user:Andrew Lancaster here in wiki. Our debates here were one of my best experiences here. Both him and Andrew Lancaster were very good contributors on genetics and prehistory. Their articles or edits were on the point and extremely well researched and referenced, a rare thing from what I've experienced with many contributors here in wiki. This is the quality wiki needs and we can not afford to lose. I want to add something else. I've taken a wiki break of about two years because I was tired of the continuous edit wars, hate and lack of collaboration between wiki users from different countries, especially between neighbors. From his article interests I presume user:Slovenski Volk to be of Slavic origin from somewhere in ex Yugoslavia. Being myself an Albanian editor one would presume automatically some kind of clashes here between us. On the contrary, I have only good memories and our collaboration showed me that we can overcome such things. As I told above, I was surprised seeing in his talk page this thread, dragging on stories so old that none can even remember how it started. Dear administrators. We all know wiki is losing contributors. The reasons are many and the more I read wiki article on that, the more I beg you to embrace his appeal. He is an excellent editor and a good collaborator. We should be happy for him to come back and contribute. Don't push him away. Show us that something is evolving for good. Please don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Best Regards Aigest (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Slovenski Volk This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. No blocks since 2013, seems to understand the problem, he doesn't agree with all previous sanctions but accepts responsibility and seems more mature, at least in this filing. When the tban was put in place, the admins participating seemed very open to a review later. I've looked only a little into this, but I wonder if lifting the restriction, or at least relaxing to 1RR would be ok. I also see that he could have filed this request a year ago, but didn't rush to meet the first deadline, which I see as a positive. I'm inclined to say give him a chance and a fresh ARBMAC warning template so any inkling of a problem can be dealt with quickly. Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Slovenski does not seem to be the sort of ideologically motivated warrior that we all to often see at AE, and he seems to have mellowed in the past 20 months (which is a long time on Wikipedia). Unless there was evidence of significant recent disruption, I'd be inclined towards lifting all restrictions and seeing how things go from there. I can't work out whether all the sanctions are mine and thus whether we need a consensus of admins or not. I'm certainly happy to vacate all the restrictions I've imposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) I agree with comments above. It seems that Slovenski Volk understands the reasons for the sanctions, even though they don't agree that some of them were necessary. There doesn't appear to have been any (recent) misconduct which would suggest that the sanctions are still necessary. Therefore I'm in favour of lifting all sanctions and seeing how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)