Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator , request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the the clarification and amendment noticeboard . Only vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email . Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{ hab }} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page .

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

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

Request concerning VictorD7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by

WP:ARBAP2

.

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

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

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]

On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [33] 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 [34] 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 [35], 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, [36] "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 ([37] [38] [39] [40]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire
  Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning VictorD7

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

Statement by VictorD7

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

In response to the pertinent portion of her comments, of course I led off by acknowledging that she hadn't violated 3RR, but, as the warning another editor posted on her talk page says, one can be guilty of edit warring without violating 3RR. Surely the 11 diffs of reverts of the same material (in two sections) over a week and a half through yesterday qualify as edit warring. And she disregarded almost unanimous talk page opposition (when her proposals had been discussed at all; sometimes they hadn't) and previous reverts by multiple editors. Click through the diffs. They weren't "constructive efforts to compromise". She repeatedly removed/replaced the same info, sometimes even being sneaky about it with misleading edit summaries. That she denies these were even reverts is mind boggling. Fixing a broken link is a poor excuse to make highly contentious changes against consensus. As I told her on the US talk page [41], 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 [42] the closer informed her that an actionable close across the various sections wasn't possible [43]. 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. [44] This is the material she's been edit warring over in recent days, despite the strong talk page opposition.

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

Comment

The evidence of EllenCT's edit warring in recent days is clear. Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

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

Response to EllenCT's "Additional diff clarification"

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

1. [56] EllenCT only mentions removing this source [57], but in that edit she also removed this peer reviewed paper [58] (abstract [59]) contradicting her sources and this analysis [60] 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 [61] 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" [62], a left wing think tank piece [63], and a NY Times opinion piece [64]. 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. [65] 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 [66], this analysis by the The Washington Post [67], this CNBC piece [68], this CNN article [69], this NPR article [70], this Washington Times article [71] and this Tax Policy Center report [72] , 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. [73] Text change "Z". The Washington Times is a mainstream newspaper and the news article she removed is just reporting on a CBO release.

4. [74] Partial "Z". Her "somewhat" is closer to being the "weasel" wording that she falsely accuses us of using.

5. [75] "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 [76] 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 {{

6. [77] "X". Contrary to her edit summary, clearly the statement is very much disputed.

7. [78] "X".

8. [79] "Z". The political party/link stuff she tacks on higher up is an irrelevant distraction that should be handled separately.

9. [80] "X".

10. [81] "X"; "Z".

11. [82] "X"; "Z".

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

Response to EllenCT's "Additional source analysis"

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

I'll just summarize by saying that her three "inequality" sources (Hayes/Bartels/Page), none of which have been removed by me and are still in the article, all have more self included caveats than the peer reviewed Brunner article she tries to diminish by citing a caveat (the Brunner article directly criticizes the methodology of Bartels and similar researchers and disputes their conclusion, saying, "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Of course all these studies use samples, not the entire US population, and every such study is highly subjective in construction). Another scholarly article [83] 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 [84] 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

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 ([85] 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 [86] (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 ([87], [88]): "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 [89] (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 [90]. 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 [91]. 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 [92] EllenCT kept deleting but again failed to mention below, or this Washington Post analysis [93]. Plus there are examples I've posted on the talk page, like this from NY Times economics writer Eduardo Porter [94] (also quoted in this 2014 Economics textbook [95], 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 [96]: "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 ([97]; Making the Modern American Fiscal State; Ajay K. Mehrotra; Cambridge University Press; 2013; p 17): "When other Western industrialized democracies began experimenting with broad-based, regressive consumption taxes as a way to finance modern social-welfare spending, the United States resisted this seemingly global trend. Other modern democracies were willing to try crude forms of consumption taxes as supplements to income taxation; together these taxes generated tremendous revenue that was spent to counter the regressive incidence of consumption taxes. By contrast, the United States refrained from moving beyond income as the primary base for national taxation. As a result, rather than develop a comprehensive view of the fiscal state’s tax-and-transfer powers, policymakers in the United States became mired in a preoccupation with the progressivity of the American income tax system, with the process of extracting revenue, with “soaking the rich.” They failed to see how the regressive incidence of broad-based consumption taxes could be countered by progressive state spending on social-welfare provisions."

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

Actual source list

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

Tax issue.

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

Inequality

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

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

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

@EllenCT:, you just claimed "The CBPP source, clarifying the meaning of "progressive" that the OECD sources occasionally use, has never been included in or proposed for inclusion in the United States article, which is probably why Victor did not choose to associate his source descriptions with diffs." Not only have you linked to that source here and on the US talk page, but here are several diffs of you inserting it into the article: [104], [105], [106], [107]

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 [108], meaning you've been caught in yet another blatant falsehood. So thanks for the link. I'm still not holding my breath waiting for an apology. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request that Gamaliel recuse himself

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Specifico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example:

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

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

- She invites "those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions" to "count the !votes", and claims "Victors supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I disagree, pointing out that long standing material is assumed to be consensus (per

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions request by EllenCT

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

response to arbitrator inquiry

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

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

Additional diff clarification, as requested

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

1. [134]: replaced the non-peer reviewed [135], which is contrary to e.g. the peer reviewed [136];
2. [137]: removed [138], [139], and [140] none of which were peer reviewed and all three of which are far right-wing "think tank" paid advocacy sources which almost always contradict the unanimous conclusive secondary peer reviewed sources. Please note this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, which by definition doesn't count towards any definition of edit warring;
3. [141]: [142] from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation again, and [143] from the far-right Washington Times, plus [144] from the far right Hoover Institution;
4. [145]: all this changed was "U.S. taxation is generally progressive" to "U.S. taxation is somewhat progressive" and corrected the link to the correct talk page section -- again, how is that even evidence of edit warring under any defintion?;
5. [146]: added a {{
   pov-section}} tag and removed WP:WEASEL WP:PUFFERY supported by right-wing manufactured paid advocacy fabrications.[147] User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to define upholding the reliable secondary conclusive unanimous sources above his preferred political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank sources as edit warring [updated EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)];[reply
   ]
6. [148]: this is also clearly not edit warring because I was replacing additional material as approved by RFC, unanimously confirmed, and confirmed again later twice. Once again, it's an addition to my own edit, not even a revert or deletion;
7. [149]: again, this replaced non-peer reviewed sources such as [150] with peer-reviewed sources in agreement with the unanimous conclusive secondary sources such as [151] as was agreed by RFC outcome;
8. [152]: this changed "the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal" to "the Republican Party is often considered conservative and the Democratic Party is often considered liberal" in order to address a long-running talk page dispute in which I did not participate and has long since been archived. It also replaced "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world" which is abject
   WP:WEASEL wording, to, "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes," with appropriate reliable sources, again replacing e.g. [153] and [154]
   which are known far right-wing sources which have never been approved in any talk page discussion;
9. [155]: this simply restored the unanimously confirmed RFC outcome as previously described. And for the fifth time, this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, and can not be considered edit warring under any possible definition;
10. [156]: this was a combination of other edits described above; and
11. [157]: same as above. 11 edits over 11 days, all of which had abundant talk page discussion interspersed, and five of which were adjustments to my own previous edits!

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

Additional source analysis, as requested

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

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

Response to VictorD7's "Actual source list"

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

Statement by Capitalismojo

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

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

Statement by Only in Death

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

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

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

Statement by Mattnad

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

Statement by uninvolved Capeo

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

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

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

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

Statment by semi-involved Calidum

It seems as though this will be closed without any action, which is unfortunate. Victor supplied ample evidence at

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

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

Statement by uninvolved SPECIFICO

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

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

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

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

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

With the addition of Victor's source analysis it becomes clear that there are reliable sources for the claims he is supporting. It's understandable to try to super-saturate the sourcing in a dispute, but let's just stick to the best ones. Tacking some marginal sources on top just gives an avenue for the respondent to try derailment tactics like we've seen here. I can't say I've been pleased with EllenCT's responses on the RSN discussion that's happening on this same topic either.[169]. Think tanks, just like news organizations, come in different shapes and sizes. Some start with the facts and draw conclusions, while others start with conclusions and find useful facts. EllenCT seems to believe a blog from the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (one of the most authoritative sources on international comparisons of taxation systems) along with secondary reporting in the New York Times. The worst of it is that this blog doesn't even dispute the claim in question. Rather, it backs up EllenCT's fundamental POV (more aid to the poor is needed) without addressing the salient on-wiki claim (US taxation is progressive) at all. We must keep in mind that EllenCT was the filer and as such had a first-mover advantage in framing the issues here. That lulled myself (and apparently @JzG:) into accepting a certain surface reading of the situation, but its quite apparent that EllenCT is the one having difficulty disentangling POV moral justification of their views from wiki policy justification of their edits. My recommendation remains mediation. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Result concerning VictorD7

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

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

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

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

• [170]

Sanction being appealed

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

Statement by S.V.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by Glrx

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

Statement by Athenean

Slovenski Volk pushes a very strong POV at

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

Result of the appeal by Slovenski Volk

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

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

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

Request concerning 19999o

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Blackmane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

19999o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

 :

Diffs

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

1. [182] Revert of sourced text 21/9/15
2. [183] Revert of same text on 25/9/15
3. [184] Revert again on 26/9/15
4. [185] And again on the same day violating 1RR
5. [186] Revert on 27/9/15
6. [187] Revert of same text on 28/9/15

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User:1999o notified SilentResident also notified

Discussion concerning 19999o

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

Statement by 19999o

Statement by SilentResident

The user 19999o's edits on the page

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

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

Request concerning Caste articles and talk pages

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to limit editing of Caste pages

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Background

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

Current issues

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

NA

Courtesy pings to contributors: @Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: —SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Caste articles and talk pages

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

Statement by Bishonen

I support this proposal. Disclosure: I took part in the preliminary discussions, and I'll repeat a little of what I said there. The area is dogged by socking, off-wiki canvassing and

Response to

Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar

— and then see how that goes and whether more are needed. Nobody wants to restrict the whole area, or in any way be aggressive about this. As far as I know, the (few, overworked) admins who enforce discretionary sanctions on caste articles aren't known for being trigger-happy, and I don't believe they would be wrt to this restriction either.

To make this reasonably smooth to administer, I think two things are important: firstly, single uninvolved admins need to be empowered to put an article under the restriction without asking for consensus, going to AE, or any other pushing-a-locomotive-up-an-incline nonsense; simply per admin discretion, which I hope is considered as trustworty in this area as others. (And to remove restrictions without any special by-your-leave, too.) And secondly, it's quite important that talkpages can also be restricted if needed. @

Ryk72: you ask why editors should be restricted from discussion of content. This is because bloating-up of talkpages by disruption and eternal repetitiousness by meatpuppets and throwaway socks prevents useful discussion of content. Look at Talk:Nair and its archives. It's only when talkpages are in imminent danger of becoming unusable that we would want to restrict them. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply

]

WP:EDR; I only see individual restrictions there. The GG restriction is logged in the discretionary sanctions log, which does have provisions for page-level sanctions. Do you think that would work for our articles? Btw, I want to thank you for pinpointing the problem: "Everybody wants their own caste to be descended from warriors". That's it in a nutshell. :-) Bishonen | talk 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply

]

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

Statement by (next user)

Result concerning Caste articles and talk pages

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

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

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

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

In the case of Gamergate, there are several associated articles but the editing restriction only affects the

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

]

• I agree with Floquenbeam. There should be a full 500/30 rule on articles. (Talk pages could be omitted from the blanket ban, but admins would have discretion to include specific talk pages). Wording should be the same as the ARBGG 500/30 rule if that is possible. For comparison, here is the scope of the
  WP:RS rules to a very unwilling audience. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Bishonen's further comment sounds right. Just need to spell out whatever the rules are. Perhaps there should be a category for articles that are placed under the 500/30 restriction. Also
  WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Request concerning Bachcell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions

:

Diffs

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

1. 20:50, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating
   WP:EXTRAORDINARY
   claims.
2. 20:59, 28 September 2015 Adds unsourced info to
   WP:BLP
   article, with unsourced description, attempting to connect an innocent living 14-year-old-boy to claims of terrorism.
3. 21:06, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating
   WP:BLP to same page, sourced to what editor admits is "Conservative blog Weasel Zippers
   .
4. 16:34, 29 September 2015 Adds back, again, same unsourced info to
   WP:BLP
   article, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Numerous previous talk page warnings for disruption:

1. May 2010 - edit warring warning.
2. June 2010 - canvassing warning.
3. July 2010 - spam links warning.
4. August 2010 - canvassing warning.
5. November 2010 - Wikiquette alert.
6. June 2011 - Disruption at BLP warning.
7. May 2015 - edit-warring and
   WP:NOR
   warning.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• NOTE:
  WP:BLP violations were after discretionary sanctions warning by admin Liz. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Discussion concerning Bachcell

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

Statement by Bachcell

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

Statement by IP Editor

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

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

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

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

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

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

Statement by LavaBaron

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

Result concerning Bachcell

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

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

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

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

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

Request concerning John sargis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Randykitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

John sargis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

Diffs

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

1. 29 September 2015 Edit on Takis Fotopoulos, the founder of the Inclusive Democracy movement. John sargis is topic banned from all topics related to Inclusive Democracy.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff] of notification.

Discussion concerning John sargis

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

Statement by John sargis

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

26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning John sargis

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

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

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

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

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

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions

 :

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

Diffs

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

1. 20:50, 20 September 2015 = Violation of
   WP:BLP
   making statements about 14-year-old-boy about crimes not committed.
2. 03:28, 30 September 2015 = Violation of
   WP:BLP
   , making statements about sister of 14-year-old-boy
3. 04:04, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring to add back in same
   WP:BLP
   violations as above.
4. 04:49, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring, again, to add back in same
   WP:BLP
   violations, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 January 2015 = Block by admin
   WP:GS/GG
   community sanctions
2. 13 March 2015 Topic ban by admin Gamaliel related to interaction with MarkBernstein

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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

Statement by DHeyward

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

It is quite clear that the sole purpose of the content is to paint the whole family bunch of people running around making bomb threats.

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

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

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

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

Statement by IP

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

Statement by Fyddlestix

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

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

Statement by Cwobeel

This first interaction by DHeyward did not bode well, and from that point on there has been a continued effort by this editor to violate BLP (my highlight): Delete BLP1E NOTNEWS and there are tons of kids that draw pictures of guns that get detained and we don't need cruft like that. If he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later.[192] When asked, they don't even acknowledge their animosity against the subject and the obvious tone deafness.[193] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix see above. I didn't add Hoax language. --DHeyward Really? And what is this exactly if not a revert adding that language?[194] Reverting to a BLP violation is the same as adding a BLP violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

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

Statement by Arzel

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

statement by Collect

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

Diffs 2-4 refer to information sourced from direct quotation from the subject of the claim, as published in the Daily Beast. The most pertinent RSN discussions concerning the Daily Beast [195][196][197] express reservations on where it stands w.r.t. fact vs opinion, but has generally been found reliable as a source at least that opinions are held. If editors share concerns along these lines, they could insist that the article read that the Daily Beast believes the sister believes she was suspended, but that seems pedantic to me.

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

• I personally think this is non-actionable. It's not really related to the restrictions, the AfD comment was defensible, the BLP edit not so much and should have gone through
  WP:AN/EW. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This editor has a history of edit warring on controversial articles and is not sufficiently able to resist the temptation to be obnoxious to editors he is in conflict with. That said, I'm not sure this rises to the level of enforcement. The AFD comment was crass but not actionable. The article edits are sufficiently sourced and though poorly worded initially, this editor is making changes which appear to be an attempt to take into account objections by others and is participating in talk page discussion. Should the edit warring continue, I would consider a 1RR restriction, but beyond that this appears to be a content dispute and not a BLP violation so far. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The first diff is not particularly problematic, but the other three show edit-warring to reintroduce a fairly serious BLP violation, in my view. DHeyward wrote that a living private figure was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax." The cited source clearly presents this incident as a false accusation of a bomb hoax against the living person. DHeyward's edit removes this essential context. I'm surprised more people don't see this as a problem.

  If this private figure (whose name DHeyward helpfully included in the edit) applies for a job and her prospective employer Googles her, one of the first things likely to come up is a Wikipedia page saying that she was "suspended for a bomb hoax"—devoid of the context present in the original source indicating that she was falsely accused. This is exactly why BLP exists: to protect living people (especially private figures) from the adverse consequences of careless editing on one of the most high-profile websites on Earth.

  Now, I have no idea whether the "GamerGate" sanctions apply to this article, or whether these edits fall under AE's purview. I'd be just as happy with an injunction to get a fucking clue and edit more responsibly (cleaned up and phrased

  WP:CIVILly, of course) rather than a block. But we need to be a little bit clearer about where the BLP line is. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]