Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:32, 3 July 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

For review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PD delayed

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but I am afraid the posting of the proposed decision is going to be delayed by at least one week from today. This being the first case I have been involved in drafting I had very much hoped to have it ready by now, but it simply is not ready yet and I am going to be entirely unavailable for the next six days. I would rather it be late than rushed and incomplete, but I do apologize for the delay. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you post your current drafts now, with the understanding that they are only very rough drafts?Casprings (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any intention of running anything on the workshop page. There has been an extremely low arb participation on that page.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was curious about that too. AGK posted the skeleton of a proposal on the Workshop page, including five principles, but only filled out one, marking the rest with "to come". I was refraining from commenting on the one until he filled out the rest. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any updates? Casprings (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I returned from being away to find things unusually busy at work. As such I have had very little time the last few days and during what time I have had off I have been very tired. I'm about to go in for another twelve hour shift in just a few minutes, but after today I have a few days off and I hope to get the full PD put together in that time. So, best estimate is 48-72 hours from now. Beeblebrox (talk)

Your real job is likely more important that this. Arzel (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Likely? Undoubtedly, absolutely, obviously et. al. are more apropos. NE Ent 02:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If the PD is about to be posted, Beeblebrox, why wasn't the Workshop closed? Have arbitrators been following recent developments on the Workshop page, or have they stopped checking it at this point? VictorD7 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I was actually planning to ask the clerks to close it today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't asking when it would be closed but if arbitrators are still reading it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at that point I was still keeping an eye on it. NativeForeigner 04:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Contrasting external discussion

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

"Proposed decision posted 31 May 2014"

^^^^^^^^^^^ Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I sincerely hope to have something to actually post on wiki this weekend. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if that is what you are trying to do, good luck. I hope it passes.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• We had one more last-minute issue which has now been cleared up, the PD is now posted and ready for voting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That is it? This whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to silence me? What a farce. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If it was 100% about you I wouldn't also be proposing ever-expanding discretionary sanctions. However, ample evidence was presented that you have been particularly disruptive with your edit warring and accusations. In other words, (assuming the remedies pass as written) you are getting off pretty easy, I seriously considered topic banning or even sitebanning as options, but I am hoping the 1RR restriction will help you learn not to edit war and that an official warning from the committee will stop you from further personalizing disputes. You aren't being silenced, you are being asked to behave in a less disruptive fashion. How well these remedies actually work is more or less up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you honestly say that I have done anything since my RfC (which was supposed to be an attempt to resolve this issues without an Arbitration) which would lead to this conclusion? I may not have agreed with some of the aspects of the RfC, but I haved followed the request. This is simply punitive. The fact that I am the only person on the whole of American Politics to be specificed shows it is arbitrary and capricious as well. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I have to ask if you researched much of this. This is your first piece of evidence against me. This edit was discussed on talk in a very reasonable manner. Was that really disuptive? If this is a good example of serious sanction against me then pretty much everyone on WP should be sanctioned. What consists of reasonable discussion if that does not? Arzel (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

That's the entire decision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain why this was worked out in private, as opposed to on the proposed decision page, such that people tasked with electing arbiters to future terms could see how you all deliberated? Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering that too. More arbitrator participation on the Workshop page would have been preferable to them just being secluded in private discussions, both for transparency's sake and because they might have had misconceptions or misunderstandings that editors could have easily cleared up. VictorD7 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Baselessly accusing anyone of anything is not appropriate. Nobody has said that it is. But asking for precise definitions of what is and is not appropriate and what is or is not sanctionable in all cases is not something we can or should be doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm really only asking about the one editor I brought evidence against that this Arbcom claimed to be examining, Beeblebrox. You're not even willing to give me a "she was wrong to do that and if she does it again sanctions may result"? If not, could you explain why not, since I only posted the evidence after asking and getting arbitrator permission, and since she was directly informed afterward by an arbitrator that she was now under scrutiny? VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that "on occasion" might be a meaningful qualifier for rough language in a heated exchange, but it's not meaningful for a standing accusation like paid editing (paid by a specific outfit to boot!). How many times does someone have to repeat the false charge in an attempt to hurt someone's credibility before it becomes sanctionable, if indeed it ever is? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

One could also ask how many times one can remove peer reviewed sources to support their own POV before it becomes sanctionable, if it ever does. The evidence was clearly reviewed and this is what the drafters thought.Casprings (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's wild assertions were garbage and unsupported by evidence (they were often incoherent), while overwhelming evidence was presented of her serial soapboxing, misrepresentations, and false accusations. I'm not sure how you know "the evidence was clearly reviewed" when almost none of it was commented on in the PD, unless you have some inside scoop on the secret arbitration meeting described above. Going by Beeblebrox's comments it sounds like he and AGK split the evidence up, each taking half to examine, while the others contributed little but copyediting. VictorD7 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about ways to AGF here, but I can't come up with any way that posting a Proposed Decision almost a month past the due date that consists entirely of boilerplate and ignores wide swaths of evidence is anything other than intentional disruption of the arbitration process. 66.162.73.238 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is an easy, policy- and evidence-based resolution to VictorD7's concern. Add this to the decision: "Evidence as to edits and comments by EllenCT (and other editors) was considered, but was deemed to be outside of the WP:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration because there was insufficient evidence that other dispute resolution measures had been taken." – S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox may be done talking to us. Your suggestion would improve things. At least it would show they aren't endorsing EllenCT's extreme personal attacks and other misconduct, though it would still mean they wasted a great deal of numerous editors' time. Maybe they feel more narrowly defining the scope now might undermine the sweeping new powers they've just granted themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, BeebleBrox' comment appears to say that the PD does not bar bringing up EllenCT in other fora.50.129.98.71 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple things:

• I have other obligations, such as sleeping and going to work. This means I am not available to immediately answer questions 24/7, not that I am refusing to communicate.
• I am not aware of any previous decision detailing what the committee is not doing and I don't think it would be a good precedent to set. Absence of explicit condemnation of something is not the same thing as endorsing it.
• I don't know what "sweeping new powers" you think this decision entails, the committee has had discretionary sanctions and the ability to amend the scope of its decisions for quite some time.

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• You had posted elsewhere multiple times before replying to my or Srich's comments here, so I wasn't sure if you intended to reply or not. Why should I or anyone else bother reporting EllenCT again when you had this opportunity to rule on her misconduct and declined to comment on it at all? If we did, why would she be wrong in citing this arbcom's failure to find any wrong doing on her part as a defense? She hasn't even received a warning, so wouldn't that at least play in her favor in a future review, mitigating her sanction even if she did suddenly receive one? What incentive does EllenCT have to stop making statements like this (from near the end of the Workshop discussion!): "I should have said, "where I am also trying to deal with the insertion of paid advocacy." However, I admit that upon several days reflection I am unable to assume the good faith necessary to believe that VictorD7's year-long effort to champion a manufactured graph...is as innocent as he says. He has shown willingness to compromise on other matters but abject refusal to budge from his position on any matters concerning the PGPF graph. So I admit I am unconvinced by his denials, because actions (behavior) speak louder than words (content.)"

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

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

Tight around the wrong culprit. EllenCT's misconduct was far worse and more clear cut than Arzel's. I see no reason for optimism at all at this point, and I'm desperately searching for reasons why I should ever waste time participating in one of these processes in good faith again. EllenCT is the most tendentious editor I know of on Misplaced Pages. Virtually every post she makes is politicized, and virtually every contribution is an attempt to advance her agenda, usually by stuffing articles with unencyclopedic propaganda. She occasionally has lull periods of little posting, but she always returns with a vengeance. Even her posts yesterday are advocating including some ridiculous segment in the Eric Holder article from an Occupy Wall Street propaganda blog complaining about the "Tea Party cabal" not being criminally prosecuted. I'm 99.9% sure she won't change, and frankly so far admin has given her no incentive to, despite having had multiple opportunities to do so. The biggest problem on Misplaced Pages isn't incivility, it's soapboxers turning encyclopedia pages into propaganda aggregation sites. This decision will only worsen that problem and increase tensions. If "edit warring", meaning reverting even trollish material twice with no disruption, is sanctionable, isn't serial POV pushing sanctionable? After all, soapboxing is supposedly against policy too. No one has been a more disruptive soapboxer than EllenCT, earning complaints even from some who share her politics. Maybe you can incorporate that aspect if you ever bring a case against her. VictorD7 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand and share your disappointment. For me, I'll keep my powder dry. I propose that if she starts up again, I'll be happy to participate in specific ANI (which may be the better place than an arbitration since it's one editor who'd be the subject of discussion).Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See her comment below? As I predicted, EllenCT views this decision as an endorsement of her conduct, and gives absolutely no indication of an intent to alter it.VictorD7 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was referring to the peer reviewed literature reviews on corporate tax incidence which agree with your initial opinion that corporations pass about half of their taxes along to their customers, on which the question of tax progressiveness for the top 1% (which includes most of the Fortune 5000 corporate taxpayers) hinges. Do you think it has escaped the attention of the arbitrators that the only economics university professor who has contributed to this discussion disagrees with your increasingly persistent position? At this juncture it would certainly be best for the longer term interests of the Misplaced Pages readership and community if you could explain to them at even greater length why you are right and the literature reviews and university faculty are wrong, by all means. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:EllenCT, if the arbitrators didn't ban you, then they probably didn't really investigate issues relating to your claims. I do find it hilarious that you cite Lawrencekhoo as supporting your position given his response to you on his talk page, and I quote him, "I think it's clear that the 2013 changes in the tax code drastically increased taxes on the top 1%. This has made federal income and payroll taxes progressive. After including all other taxes (state and local, sales tax, corporate tax, etc), my sense is that the tax system will remain progressive throughout....I wouldn't assert strongly (as you have been doing) that the system remains regressive for the top 1%. " Ouch. Care to reconsider your position? Even LK agrees that taxes are progressive and ultimately is in line with VictorD7's understanding.Mattnad (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

once per week should be made clearer

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

I agree with the above. Casprings (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "calendar weeks" and I'm not sure that would make things any clearer. However, nobody else has voted yet so I went ahead and changed it to "every seven days" which is what was intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

From outside the US? Just wondering. I always think it is interesting what is common in one English speaking country(or area of that country) but not in another. That is pretty common to me. Casprings (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"One revert... every seven days" is very clear and unambiguous. Actually, "one revert... per week" (a week being seven days) is pretty clear also. Obviously, once every calendar week would allow for gaming the restriction. For example, a revert on a Saturday night might be followed by another on a Sunday morning, which would tend to defeat the purpose of the restriction.- MrX 00:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Per-week revert restrictions, unless stated otherwise, are on the same "rolling" basis as 3RR is. If you make a revert at 1900 GMT on Tuesday afternoon, and then make another at 0700 the following Monday morning, you've breached the restriction. Essentially, you may never have two reverts be less than one week apart from one another. Seraphimblade 03:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I would think that was fairly obvious, but this being an arbcom decision it's worth trying to get ahead of the possibility of testing the edges and/or gaming. (and yes, I have lived my entire life in the states, born and raised in Ohio, last 15 years in Alaska) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality of the "edit warring" evidence against Arzel

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

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

Your looking at this the wrong way. Instead of doing a microscopic examination of individual diffs, look them all over (and by the way there are even more in the evidence) and see ify ou do or do not see a long-term pattern of revert warring. Edit warring is not allowed for good reason, and tiptoeing right up to 3RR over and over again without ever breaching it makes it clear that a user knows they are edit warring and are trying not to break a bright-line-rule while ignoring the actual spirit of the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually examining the evidence is the right way to look at this. Otherwise, a disingenuous partisan editor who failed to get his or her way in content disputes can simply run to admin and throw a bunch of crap against the wall in hopes that the sheer quantity of alleged "examples" will carry the day. If Arzel behaved appropriately here, why is it included in your diffs list? Why are you sanctioning him based on that behavior, and how objectionable were his other reverts? My perusal of the evidence indicated that his reverts improved Misplaced Pages quality. Instead of limiting those reverts, a sanction that's detrimental to Misplaced Pages quality, perhaps admin should contemplate doing something about the actions that make such reverts necessary, or maybe just staying out of such matters until actual rules are violated in a clear and concrete way. VictorD7 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, Arzel's reverts are highly disruptive to the consensus building process, often disrupting the BRD cycle with short vacuous edit summaries and no discussion, whereby he establishes a base for plausible deniability by not exposing his intentions by participating in discussion of concrete text during the content creation process. As indicated above, he games the system by flying under the 3RR radar, continually. It's impossible to see how that could be representative of a good faith intention to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How was that disruptive? There was civil discussion, a resolution that left everyone happy, and I would hope that something was learned about how to present poll responses like that particular example. If that is disruptive and a detriment to WP, then there is really very little which is not a detriment to WP. Can anyone honestly say that this particular episode was an example of disruptive behaviour? Ubikwit, you claim I " often disrupting the BRD cycle with short vacuous edit summaries and no discussion." but the above example clearly shows that statement to not be true. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the specific example above (which I haven't even looked at), just the broader scope of the diffs variously presented.

A 1RR isn't the end of editing, let's face it. Why not just deal with it for a year and ask for it to be lifted at some point, instead of crying foul over a sanction with a comparatively limited scope. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't even looked at that evidence then how can you comment about it or make statements like the one above? Arzel (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at enough already, and you have reverted my edits in precisely the manner I described, as presented in a previous Arbcom case. The fact that you are back here again after a fairly extensive RfC is not insignificant, and is indicative of an ongoing pattern.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What previous Arbcom? Almost everything presented here was prior to the RfC. Do you have anything from after the RfC which shows a continuing of your preception of bad behaviour? Your main issue appears to be something I did to you personally. Arzel (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A logical interpretation of "gaming the system" would be exceeding 3 reverts in a short period of time, but carefully avoiding technically doing so in a 24 hour period. Arzel doesn't do that. He reverts 1-3 times total in a dispute. I'm not sure precisely how "edit warring" is defined, but one should be careful about accusing him of "gaming the system" as that's a conclusion of bad faith. VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I would suggest that my "micro" examination is relevant for the following reason: In order to learn about the whole , one needs to take a look at the parts. Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to bring forth all those diffs in an effort to get rid of Arzel. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the diffs in question show Arzel at his worst. Yet it turns out that the very first set of diffs in the PD involves Arzel pointing out an actual problem with a proposed contribution and winning his opponent over. The upshot is that someone who wants to get rid of Arzel, and attempted to provide evidence to do that, actually came up with evidence of Arzel doing something useful. That said, you're the arbitrator, and I'm not.50.129.98.71 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please retract the personal attack: "Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to bring forth all those diffs in an effort to get rid of Arzel.", or present evidence that I am trying to "get rid of Arzel". Thanks.- MrX 17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7:I'm glad you have acknlowedged that you do not actually know how edit warring is defined as that had been my impression from our discussion of this matter so far. I have endeavored to clarify it for you but I feel like you don't want to hear what I have to say or think I am making it up or something. The three revert rule is a specific application of the edit warring policy, a "bright line rule" that more or less guarantees a block should a user violate it. However, it is entirely possible to edit war without breaching that rule. The spirit of the edit warring policy is best summed up as "don't repeatedly revert the same or similar edits to try and make an article say what you want, even if you know you are right."

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

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

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

Second "edit war" link examined

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

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

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

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

The added content simply said that an allegation had been made and "refuted", not that the allegation was true. It is a documented fact that the allegation was made.

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.

UC Berkeley economist Brad Delong has put up a timeline of Ryan’s 2008 trades in bank stocks. This has been getting attention from unfounded accusations that Ryan may have used information he learned by virtue of his position in Congress to inform his trades. (Slate columnist Matt Yglesias linked to and then retracted a post accusing Ryan of insider trading.)

Contrary to Arzel's claim, the Huffington Post article does back up the proposed content, which simply states that accusations were made and "refuted".

The Richmonder's "Paul Ryan traded on insider information to avoid 2008 crash" says:

Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008 to beg Congress to pass legislation to help collapsing banks Ryan left the meeting and sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble...

Not due to these diffs, but due to my long and frustrating experience, I believe (strongly) that restricting Arzel to 1RR will help to improve the articles on American politics. — goethean 18:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A fringe partisan blog makes a factually inaccurate claim that's quickly debunked by most of the media and retracted from most of the few outfits that did initially run with it, and you think their charge merits inclusion in Misplaced Pages's Paul Ryan bio article? It laid out the charge but didn't even say how it was "refuted", and only used a fringe anti-Ryan blog as a source, leaving a skewed impression for readers. The "insider trader" mention is what would stick in their minds. None of the details were presented. No reasonable, responsible, experienced editor could think that segment possesses the weight to merit inclusion here. No one complained about its removal. Arzel caused no disruption. VictorD7 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You are still totally missing the point. In cases of edit warring, policy does not discriminate between who may be right or wrong in the underlying content dispute. Anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong, regardless of the merits of the position they are edit warring to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How many reverts per year are editors allowed before being sanctioned for "edit warring"? You only posted 10 links. The one I just examined showed Arzel tweaking one edit once and reverting a completely different edit (altered the second time to boot) twice. The first link ended with the other edit warring party agreeing with Arzel that the material shouldn't be used. The other links were all from January or earlier, covering a long time span. Most of that evidence had been considered and rejected as sanction worthy by the RFC that preceded this arbitration. If you still believe Arzel's two recent "edit wars" are inappropriate, wouldn't a simple warning be preferable to singling him out and restricting his ability to edit? VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a fringe anti-Ryan blog? — goethean 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Alternet, but Huff Po is certainly a liberal, anti-Ryan blog, though even it defended him on this score by explaining why there was nothing to the accusation. False claims are made by fringe partisan media all the time. Such items typically don't belong in an encyclopedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposed content itself, which Arzel REMOVED said that the accusation had been refuted. I'm going to walk away now. I made an error in attempting to have a conversation with you. — goethean 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read my commentary on that above? Tacking on a "refuted" disclaimer (particularly when saying the refutation came from the "Ryan campaign staff", as opposed to the media, including leftist outlets) hardly undoes the damage done by placing the accusation prominently in his Misplaced Pages article, especially when using an Alternet blog as a source that's arguing the accusation is still legitimate, and that admits its own fringe status on that score. Loudly denying that your opponent is a "child molester"/"murderer"/ "racist"/"robber"/"whatever" is an old dirty political branding trick. That's why it was a left leaning editor trying to add the segment in the first place, rather than a right leaning one. VictorD7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, are you arguing that even material such as this should not be reverted twice by the same user?50.129.98.71 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of a "disruptive effect"?

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

In the only two post RFC evidence links provided, as laid out above, the first "edit war" ended with a civil talk page chat where the other party ultimately agreed with Arzel that the material shouldn't be added, while in the other (which consisted of two reverts) Arzel was the only one who ever posted on the Talk Page. There were no complaints by anyone or any evidence of any disruption. Does Beeblebrox or anyone else have any evidence of a post RFC "disruptive effect" caused by Arzel "edit warring"? VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a bold misrepresentation of what actually occurred. First, this case was not solely about post-January conduct; it was about a multi-year history of conduct. Second, the RfC did not "reject sanctions". That's not what RfCs do. They gather comments from the community in an attempt to intervene, find consensus, and alter conduct. Predictably, the RfC ended with no consensus. Third, I presented evidence of post-RfC disruption in my response to Newyorkbrad on April 16, on the main case page here. I also presented the evidence on the evidence page and on the workshop page, for example this April 26 edit war. How is it possible that you didn't manage to find any of this evidence in any of the three places where it was conspicuously posted? Complaints about how unfair this case has been to Arzel, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, seem utterly bizarre.- MrX 21:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If the point of the RfC is to alter conduct and my conduct has been concurrent with the point of the RfC, then what is the point of the arbitration sanctions? The fact that I disagreed with the basic principle behind the RfC in general does not change the fact that I have followed the basic principle behind the RfC anyway. The only reason the ARBCOM was started appears because Casprings thought that the RfC should have resulted in some sanctions against me. Thus my question is, "What was the point?" Was it to change my editing behaviour or to punish me? Have I been uncivil to you or anyone else since the RfC? Have I engaged in editing without discussion on the talk page since the RfC? And if this really was the whole point of all of this, then several editors wasted their own time on other issues (Victor for example). I can at least take solace that I didn't waste much time on what appears to have been a foregone conclusion in the first place. My time with my new daughter was much better spent. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The RfC did not resolve the issues. You didn't acknowledge that your conduct had been an issue, nor did you agree to change it any way. Unfortunately, some of the same conduct issues (edit warring; personalizing disputes) resurfaced after the RfC, as shown in the evidence that I presented. I can't comment on Caspring's intentions, but if they had not opened this case, I or someone else eventually would have. The point of this case should be to protect the project, by cultivating a collaborative editing environment and by preventing disruption that negatively affects other contributors' ability to enjoy editing here.

Congratulations, and blessings to you and your family, on your new daughter.- MrX 21:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Thanks! it has been a great blessing. As for the RfC I did not accept the premise that I use biased conservative sources to balance out liberal sources (there is simply no evidence of this). I did not accept BR statement that the use of highly partisan sourcing is a perfectly fine way to create an encyclopedia. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Not sure what you think is an attack. I was mostly paraphrasing the initial comments of the Arb's. If you don't believe I should be sanctioned I am fine with that. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the one example you linked to (which wasn't included in the decision's list here) was from March. The RFC closed on April 15. That was two and half months ago, with your example having occurred a month earlier. Since the RFC's purpose was to gauge community opinion, and it received massive participation, those results shouldn't be totally ignored. What it showed was that views on the anti-Arzel complaints broke down almost entirely along party lines, which should be a huge red flag. The closing admin noted this and, while saying that future personal commentary by Arzel could result in sanctions, found that the "edit warring" accusation was particularly bogus:

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

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

Misrepresentation of sources

It would have been desirable to see a statement of principle related sourcing; more specifically, to the misrepresentation of sources. Such a statement might contribute to forestalling pov-warriors on either side of the partisan divide from making recourse to such tactics, fostering more rational discussion on article talk pages.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that we have adopted thst principle in the past: see for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Accuracy of sourcing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link.

After another thread at RS/N of epic proportions with little to show in the way of results due to the lack of an administrative consensus mechanism there, I've started an RfC related to one source that was at issue in this case. Anyone with time, input would be helpful. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WTF? An RFC opened at 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)? Is this RFC supposed to change the results or PD here? Or is it some sort of advertising? – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Advertising? I think that choice of verbiage is somewhat amiss. What is it that you're implying? That posting a link to that is considered improper here?

The sourcing issue is one that was raised directly in this case, with no end in sight.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The topic of this page is the proposed decision. Nothing else. The RFC will not impact the decision. Your notice here about the RFC is tangential at best. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tangential it may be, but every time I've been here at Arbcom sourcing has been a primary focus in the content disputes resulting in conduct violations.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed by the unwillingness of the initial proposed decision to support the reliable source criteria in the face of efforts, including the repeated and strenuous insertion of paid advocacy, to undermine them. But I have hope since the case is not yet closed that arbitrators will find the courage within themselves to uphold the honorable sourcing standards of the past. EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Discretionary sanctions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Active & inactive arbitrator count

This page shows 10 active and 4 inactive arbitrators. The PD page says we have 11 active & 3 inactive. Do these counts need reconciling? – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they do – now  Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Salvio 11:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Meta

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

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

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

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

Post RfC

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

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

Actually, you requested this Arbitration before the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed on the 15th of April this case was opened on the 20th of April. Regardless, even during the RfC I have fully discussed edits on the talk pages and remained civil. As I have stated several times I did not agree with the false premise that I use conservative sources to balance out liberal sources. Not a single editor has backed up that claim. That was your original statement on this Arbitration as well. I have asked you to back up that claim and you have not. Regardless of my view of the RfC I have not violated your underlying grievance from the RfC since the RfC started in February. I have asked Beeblebrox this question twice now, I think it deserves an answer. Arzel (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Jst to clarify. Yes, I did request this it before the RFC closed. However, it was requested when there had been no activity on the RFC for months, the parties had failed to agree to close it, and a request to close it had made months ago. It isn't like I requested this in an ongoing RFC. For whatever reason, an admin decided to close it when the case was about ready to start.Casprings (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• Since this decision presumably has implications for other editors, Beeblebrox, it would be nice if you helped clarify things by answering 50.129.98.71's question to you above regarding that specific piece of "evidence" you posted. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what implications you are referring to. The edit warring policy has been well-defined for quite some time and this PD does not alter it's meaning at all. The problem here as I see it has been lax or uneven enforcement of that policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel. The answer to all your questions can be found in Beeblebrox's vote to accept this case. Even back then, he considered the RFC garbage that solved nothing. The fact the you may have improved your behavior afterwards is beside the point. As far as he was concerned it had already failed. You were never really intended to be given a chance to adjust your behavior based on the RFC, it was just a box that needed to be checked off before accepting a case. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)