Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive182

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): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [15] she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example [16] she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it.

EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [17], and should be familiar with the rule.

When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, [18] "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts.

This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ([19] [20] [21] [22]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire United States article) presumably fall under the discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, which Ellen should be familiar with as a party in the former. Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[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

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.

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

In response to the pertinent portion of her comments, of course I led off by acknowledging that she hadn't violated 3RR, but, as the warning another editor posted on her talk page says, one can be guilty of edit warring without violating 3RR. Surely the 11 diffs of reverts of the same material (in two sections) over a week and a half through yesterday qualify as edit warring. And she disregarded almost unanimous talk page opposition (when her proposals had been discussed at all; sometimes they hadn't) and previous reverts by multiple editors. Click through the diffs. They weren't "constructive efforts to compromise". She repeatedly removed/replaced the same info, sometimes even being sneaky about it with misleading edit summaries. That she denies these were even reverts is mind boggling. Fixing a broken link is a poor excuse to make highly contentious changes against consensus. As I told her on the US talk page [23], if she really cares about fixing a link then do it separately.

It shouldn't matter here but for the record her claim about me removing "mainstream" sources and replacing them with the two she mentioned is completely false, which is probably why she provided no evidence. In fact I've only edited the article at all twice in the past month. But the segments she's removing (that I and others added long ago; established consensus) are sourced by peer reviewed academic journal articles (she's at least deleting those sources too), the CBO, the OECD, the Tax Policy Center, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, etc..

What should matter more here is that anyone can click her own links above and see that she's not even telling the truth there. She says, "(1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here." She calls these "four separate RFCs", with the latter three endorsing the results of the first one "unanimously".

Only the first link is even to an RFC. The second link is to a brief discussion with four respondents that was split 2-2 ("unanimously"?). The third is to a discussion she started where I was the only respondent (and I opposed, not endorsed her proposal). The fourth is to another sparsely participated in discussion that was inconclusive with multiple editors on both sides.

I'll be happy to comment in detail on the content dispute if someone requests it. But since it may only be a frivolous distraction, for now I'll just say that her claims are false. I accepted the RFC close, which only said the material could be included "in some form" and wasn't an endorsement of her POV wording, which became even more untenable after I provided scholarly sources directly disputing her sources (at that point what support she had enjoyed vanished). The ensuing debate over wording had spilled out over multiple sections, and when she sought a close for all of it from the close request noticeboard [24] the closer informed her that an actionable close across the various sections wasn't possible [25]. She's recently started a fresh RFC to determine consensus on precise wording and, given the evidence I've since posted, the results so far see 6 opposing her proposed wording with only 1 supporting, with even that 1 saying the other side should be represented as well.

The tax segments she keeps changing and some of her other changes aren't related to the above discussion at all, though a separate ongoing discussion sees majority opposition to the attempted tax change too. [26] This is the material she's been edit warring over in recent days, despite the strong talk page opposition.

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

The evidence of EllenCT's edit warring in recent days is clear. Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

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

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

1. [38] EllenCT only mentions removing this source [39], but in that edit she also removed this peer reviewed paper [40] (abstract [41]) contradicting her sources and this analysis [42] by influential Harvard Economist Martin Feldstein published in The Wall Street Journal.

The text changes are primarily why several editors would end up reverting her, though most of the source removals are opposed too. The original sentence acknowledged there was a debate and was referenced by sources representing both POVs in that debate. If she had just wanted to add a source or two I doubt anyone would have minded (other high quality sources had already been presented for the other side on the talk page but weren't included in the article; many could have been added for both sides, though personally I think three per side is enough). The one link she admitted removing above [43] features articles by several prominent economists and policy experts who are certainly RS for representing their side of this debate. She also added undiscussed text changes lower on the page, and new sources, including a partisan blog called "538.com" [44], a left wing think tank piece [45], and a NY Times opinion piece [46]. Basically EllenCT deleted all the sources she politically opposes, added more she agrees with, and replaced neutral text with POV sentiment expressed as fact in Wikipedia's voice at a (cherry-picked) niche detail level inappropriate for a broad summary country article.

I'll define these changes to her preferred version on inequality as change "X". That EllenCT's new statement omitted most of the sources she removed and added underscores that people shouldn't take anything she says at face value. Verify everything.

EllenCT's desired "X" is currently opposed by respondents on the RFC she started 6-2, with even the two qualifying their support by saying the other side should be represented. Not all the editors who reverted her have even responded to the RFC.

2. [47] Unilateral changes to a tax segment I'll define as change "Z". It was not merely a tweak to her own previous edit, as she falsely claims. It was in a completely different section than her previous edit and she deleted most of the paragraph, as anyone can see by clicking the diff. This has stood for years and represents long standing consensus. She also fails to mention that she deleted this peer reviewed scholarly paper [48], this analysis by the The Washington Post [49], this CNBC piece [50], this CNN article [51], this NPR article [52], this Washington Times article [53] and this Tax Policy Center report [54] , among others. Contrary to her claim, she has so far failed to produce any sources that contradict the segment in question, and many more have since been produced on the talk page confirming the segment. I don't recall anything about the first source she does admit to removing here, but conservative think tanks are just as valid sources as the leftist think tanks are that dot the article and are frequently added by EllenCT herself. Her second link is busted, but originally went to a PGPF (moderately right leaning think tank) that usefully provided clear chart visuals. The visuals were based on numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute. Her third link went to a Hoover piece providing info on social security history (along with another source). It's used to source a different segment below (not deleted by EllenCT) and someone must have accidentally moved it up at some point. I have no problem with deleting the duplicate.

By my quick count the ongoing discussion she started (and soon abandoned) on removing this segment stands at 6-3 opposed, again, not even counting all the editors who reverted her.

3. [55] Text change "Z". The Washington Times is a mainstream newspaper and the news article she removed is just reporting on a CBO release.

4. [56] Partial "Z". Her "somewhat" is closer to being the "weasel" wording that she falsely accuses us of using.

5. [57] "Z". EllenCT's claim that here she just added a tag is false. You can see EllenCT also removed the clause "and is among the most progressive in the developed world." and the same peer reviewed paper [58] mentioned before. That's the segment she's consistently opposed the most. For her to add that I should be "admonished" for supposedly misleading anyone requires unimaginable gall.

Update: Since I posted this EllenCT has radically altered her #"5". She originally said, "if you look carefully, all this edit did was add a {{pov-section}} tag. User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to mislead arbitrators by suggesting this was evidence of edit warring;". Cutting through the rhetorical nonsense, she does now concede her initial claim to have only added a POV tag was wrong. However, it's unclear why she feels that the peer reviewed, widely cited academic study by Northwestern University researchers (who if anything appear to favor a robust welfare state) published in the Oxford journal Socio-Economic Review is a "political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank" source.

6. [59] "X". Contrary to her edit summary, clearly the statement is very much disputed.

7. [60] "X".

8. [61] "Z". The political party/link stuff she tacks on higher up is an irrelevant distraction that should be handled separately.

9. [62] "X".

10. [63] "X"; "Z".

11. [64] "X"; "Z".

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

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

I'll just summarize by saying that her three "inequality" sources (Hayes/Bartels/Page), none of which have been removed by me and are still in the article, all have more self included caveats than the peer reviewed Brunner article she tries to diminish by citing a caveat (the Brunner article directly criticizes the methodology of Bartels and similar researchers and disputes their conclusion, saying, "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Of course all these studies use samples, not the entire US population, and every such study is highly subjective in construction). Another scholarly article [65] by authors seemingly sympathetic to Bartels' political aims finds methodological flaws in his work and fails to replicate his findings when those flaws are corrected. EllenCT's sources concede their own work is "crude", "tentative", and doesn't represent the expert consensus. They say more research is required before firm conclusions are drawn, and at least one of them even makes the same causality point she quotes for Brunner below. They even list by name several scholars who disagree with them, and call one book (Macro Polity [66] that disagrees with them "influential" in the field (presented as evidence by me on the talk page but not added to the article). By presenting their admittedly less than certain opinion as the consensus and as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice, EllenCT isn't even representing her own sources faithfully, and is dismissing countless sources that disagree in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

I'll add that my purpose here was to report EllenCT's edit warring and correct some of her false statements, not make a content argument, but I will say that the main sources I've added have been ones like this secondary OECD source summarizing the field's consensus on the tax issue ([67] OECD, 2012, p 27): "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."

Perhaps EllenCT feels the OECD has joined the vast right wing conspiracy that's supposedly persecuting her and undermining her crusade for "social justice", but she hasn't produced a single source disputing that segment. The one piece she cites, hypocritically a leftist think tank called CBPP [68] (apparently only conservative ones are off limits), acknowledges that US taxes are relatively progressive, but simply changes the subject to spending and overall income inequality reduction, as it views those topics as more conducive to its political agenda. However, income inequality is already extensively covered in the US article's Income section, and on overall redistribution I added this segment myself to the article's Economics section long ago ([69], [70]): "It (the US) has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income through government action than European nations tend to.[406]" sourced by the same 2012 OECD report quoted above [71] (not the same one mentioned in EllenCT's CBPP piece, btw).

I'm not the one engaging in POV editing here. I'm just covering the issues faithfully from all appropriate angles. Tax progressivity is a valid stand alone issue in its own right for reasons that aren't limited to a narrow concern for income equality, including impact on growth and revenue volatility. The basic underlying fact on tax structure isn't in dispute, unlike the opinionated, speculative, causal statements on income inequality, but EllenCT is trying to delete or misrepresent this tax topic because she perceives it as disadvantageous to her political crusade. If administrators really want to focus on POV editing, I'll be happy to shift gears and do so since EllenCT is the most tendentious editor I've encountered on Wikipedia (many other editors have said the same thing about her), but that would involve much greater commentary and possibly hundreds of diffs, and I had preferred to keep this report narrowly focused on her clear, recent edit warring.

I'll close by noting that some of the sources focusing on federal taxation were included because the article segment contains a mention of federal taxes. The busted PGPF link she attacks below (with some low brow partisan hit pieces) was to a clear, educational explanation of different federal tax components. It has since been updated and moved [72]. As you can see, it's well sourced and entirely uses numbers from the Tax Policy Center, a left leaning source. Compare the numbers to verify this [73]. PGPF just drew useful graphs, so wasting time discussing their alleged bias is a silly distraction (though the piece is very reasonable and non-partisan). For overall taxation there's the 2012 OECD summary quoted above, the peer reviewed article example [74] EllenCT kept deleting but again failed to mention below, or this Washington Post analysis [75]. Plus there are examples I've posted on the talk page, like this from NY Times economics writer Eduardo Porter [76] (also quoted in this 2014 Economics textbook [77], page 428): "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations." EllenCT cites a different NY Times analysis on another topic as "reliable" below, so surely even she concedes this one is too. Or this Harvard Business Review article [78]: "The U.S. already has about the most progressive income tax system around. European social democracies tend to have flatter income taxes, plus value-added taxes that hit all consumers. They tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than regular income, just as the U.S. does, but they also all have lower corporate tax rates than the U.S." Or this topical scholarly book actually laying out historical reasons why Europe has more regressive taxation than America ([79]; Making the Modern American Fiscal State; Ajay K. Mehrotra; Cambridge University Press; 2013; p 17): "When other Western industrialized democracies began experimenting with broad-based, regressive consumption taxes as a way to finance modern social-welfare spending, the United States resisted this seemingly global trend. Other modern democracies were willing to try crude forms of consumption taxes as supplements to income taxation; together these taxes generated tremendous revenue that was spent to counter the regressive incidence of consumption taxes. By contrast, the United States refrained from moving beyond income as the primary base for national taxation. As a result, rather than develop a comprehensive view of the fiscal state’s tax-and-transfer powers, policymakers in the United States became mired in a preoccupation with the progressivity of the American income tax system, with the process of extracting revenue, with “soaking the rich.” They failed to see how the regressive incidence of broad-based consumption taxes could be countered by progressive state spending on social-welfare provisions."

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

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 WP:SOAPBOX sentence making certain causal claims on a very complex issue where there are countless views.

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: [86], [87], [88], [89]

In the first one you even give that source inclusion its own edit. The source is currently in the article, as I said. This is a long running pattern with EllenCT, and shows what countless editors on various articles have had to deal with over the years with this editor. I ask reviewing administrators @HJ Mitchell: , @Dennis Brown:, @JzG: to consider whether a site ban is in order. Serial lying, among other things, has made rational, productive collaboration with EllenCT impossible. It's caused me and many others to waste enormous amounts of time unraveling the falsehoods and cleaning up the messes. There should at least be some consequence for such blatant misrepresentation at AE.

As for the rest of your new post, EllenCT, I said the NY Times opinion piece didn't support your edit. I just said the Levy Institute was a low quality source, though I also said that particular edit was removed more because it was inappropriate for the article than because of sourcing per se. Every source I listed above has either been put into the article or has been posted in the ongoing talk page discussions. I didn't bother with diffs for time reasons, but if you want to challenge anything in particular, be my guest. I can back everything up, as I just showed with your CBPP source.

And, while it's irrelevant since your initial claim would still have been completely wrong anyway, and while this seems like a lame attempt to canvass/summon an editor you know to be hostile to me, Protonk says he's not an administrator on his own talk page [90], meaning you've been caught in yet another blatant falsehood. So thanks for the link. I'm still not holding my breath waiting for an apology. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[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]

@EllenCT: "Mistakes"? [91] You call going out of your way to deny that a source had ever been in the article or even proposed for inclusion when you personally did both several times over the past few weeks a mistake? Wow. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, that was my point, and what I meant by "canvass/summons" - naming someone to get his attention in hopes he shows up because one already knows where he stands on an issue. You were named by EllenCT. At that point it was already done, and I had to mention your name to clearly address her claim. I wasn't blaming you for showing up, though I will note that our interaction over a year ago is quite stale and has nothing to do with EllenCT's edit warring of recent weeks or her debunked claims about my source use. Administrators here have already even dismissed the failed ANI sanctions attempt against me from several months ago as pointless to raise. VictorD7 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I didn't say "canvassing", but "canvass/summons", though reading the WP:CANVASS page I'm not sure that the stand alone word doesn't apply. The description is broad and the essential point involves selectively notifying editors known to agree with one side in hopes they join the debate. Regardless, whether I coined a new term or not, I made it clear what I meant. EllenCT notified you by posting your name, and it worked; indeed you replied within minutes. I could summon many editors who have had problems with EllenCT and/or have had productive, positive interactions with me, but have refrained from doing so since that would violate at least the spirit of the canvassing rule, and because an examination of clear evidence should carry the day here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, good question. Especially since a petty, insane rant laced with (false) personal attacks against me sitting there in the admin section hardly gives one confidence that this is a fair process. I even offered to delete all my comments on the matter in exchange for him deleting his last two posts, a reasonable request that was apparently rejected.

I'm still not sure precisely what Guy is confused about. I posted evidence of misconduct by EllenCT and she failed to provide any evidence at all regarding me (not a single link). If he has any questions I'd be happy to answer them and help clear things up. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, "topic banning" someone who hasn't done anything wrong just for the hell of it is a terrible idea. This isn't two equal sides "quarreling". The content dispute has already been decided by talk page/article consensus. There's no need for mediation, dispute resolution, or arbitration. This was a simple edit warring complaint. If admins want to act on that then fine. If they don't, then this section should be closed and done with. If EllenCT resumes edit warring I'll probably let someone else do the reporting next time. VictorD7 (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and I had a prolonged (several month long) content dispute on another article last year that became personal and nasty at times. Among other things, he engaged in trolling by replying to serious, on topic comments with giant pictures, linking to youtube videos in edit summaries, and on at least one occasion abusing his admin powers to delete a harmless edit summary in the dispute he was involved in. He ultimately acknowledged [92] that he had behaved in ways that he "should be ashamed of" and announced he would leave the article (this was after the content dispute had been settled in my favor by multiple RFCs), though his apology wasn't to me but the general community, and in fact in that post he doubled down on his false claim that I was a "SPA" (single purpose account, meaning an account that only edits one article, the implication being that one is a paid editor or has some other personal COI).

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

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

Gamaliel also involved himself in this debate by participating in this RS noticeboard discussion [93].

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

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

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

The section he links to [94] starts with EllenCT calling out another editor for reverting her latest edit warring attempt. She had changed the text in multiple sections against strong editor opposition, and removed numerous sources [95],[96], including multiple peer reviewed academic journal articles and mainstream news sources, yet her op only mentions two minor sources she's supposedly trying to get rid of that had nothing to do with the text she removed (they sourced a text segment she let remain), and leads off with an irrelevant party label issue that had nothing to do with the contentious portions of her edits.

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

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

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

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

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

- Without rationally, substantively addressing what I said, she then posted to condemn me for being the latest editor to revert her, including the complaint that the revert had restored a defunct link in the unrelated party label segment she had tacked onto the top of her edit. I suggested that if she really cares about that link then edit the segment separately. A few days later she again tucked that segment into an edit [97] that made the same massive contentious changes, but her edit summary only mentioned the party label item and "other things".

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

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

Another example:

- After I reply to another poster EllenCT swoops in to claim that a recent ANI (the old one she linked to above) had seen "experienced editors" overwhelmingly "ivote" to topic ban me. [98]

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

- She invites "those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions" to "count the !votes", and claims "Victors supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with WP:COMPETENCE issues", while "the experienced administrators overwhelmingly supported the topic ban", and she indicates she's tired of my alleged "POV pushing". [99]

- Using an admin identity tool page I confirm that the only admin to have even voted in the ANI poll voted against the sanction.

- She now admits that many people she had thought were admins are actually only editors (she provides no explanation for her earlier confusion), but names one other admin she claims voted for the sanction. [100]

- I confirm that no, the other editor she named is not an admin. As much if not more experience was on the side of those who opposed the sanction, including the only admin to vote. I suggest she apologize for accusing me of bad faith, especially since she's been forced to concede the premise of her own "good faith" test isn't true. She leaves the thread and never apologizes or retracts her attack. [101]

This is a typical exchange with EllenCT. How is rational collaboration possible here? VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[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 [102], [103]. If he/she is male after all it would be unfortunate if he/she was just trying to further derail this process with a frivolous pronoun complaint.

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

That Specifico was topic banned [104] last year for biased, often mocking/trollish editing should cause anyone to take his/her unsupported assertions about me or any other person's editing with a heap of salt.

Specifico asserts I'm fixated on him/her? On the contrary, I've scarcely given Specifico a second thought since our last interaction until he/she showed up here to attack me and defend EllenCT (as he's/she's done in the past). He's/she's the one who's creepily attached himself/herself to certain "enemies". For example, Specifico has posted 389(!) times on this other editor's talk page [105], mostly to harass with excessive "warnings", interjecting himself/herself into discussions he/she wasn't involved in, or faux praising (like encouraging the editor to have someone nominate him for admin on April 1st)). He/She's frequently accused this editor (and now apparently me) of "misogyny" and sexism without any basis whatsoever apart from the fact that the editor he was criticizing at the time happened to be a woman (also EllenCT). A quick scan suggests that the editor often just ignores or archives Specifico's posts. Specifico likely followed this other editor to the article where we clashed, and by "clashed" I just meant that he/she disagreed with virtually everything I said or did. He/she joined a small group of other editors in POV pushing by ignoring policy and applying partisan double standards. Ultimately the matter was resolved by multiple RFCs, but I appreciate his/her link as a sample scan shows what I had to deal with there for a long time. In one discussion near the top Specifico opposed an attributed quote from an RS source already used extensively in the movie article (Box Office Mojo) supposedly because it contained the word "fantastic". He/she and a couple of his/her ideological fellow travelers insisted they didn't know what it meant, despite in context it being clear to any modern English speaking reader that it was praise. He/she expressed confusion about what he/she called my "Hollywood jive jargon" and said a "Sri Lankan monk" might get the wrong idea from it. Then he/she accused me of committing "OR", when original research obviously can't apply to a direct quote from a single source.

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

- Specifico starts a section claiming I was wrong to say that consensus is required to remove a long standing item from a page. He/she snarkily adds, "Please review policy or consult others who can explain it further to you." [106]

- I disagree, pointing out that long standing material is assumed to be consensus (per WP:EDITCONSENSUS), and that not only is there no consensus for removing the item, but that a majority of participating editors oppose removal.

- He/She replied briefly with more snark, sans specifics, and left the section. [107], [108]

Specifico has swooped in various times when I or someone else was engaged with EllenCT. In these examples I posted evidence that she had been (falsely) accusing me of being a paid editor, a serious charge on Wikipedia that shouldn't be recklessly tossed around or made for cynical tactical advantage. [109], [110]. The first link was him/her doing a driveby post reaching the false conclusion that EllenCT had only been calling my sources "paid advocacy", not my editing. The second was months later in a section on EllenCT's talk page where one of her ideological fellow travelers was taking her to task for baselessly accusing me of paid editing (he did also falsely accuse me of POV pushing, because I favor sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, IRS, and OECD over the lobbying group CTJ, while tossing out some bizarre off topic crap about the KKK, but it's noteworthy that even some of her ideological allies have taken exception to her over the top personal attacks; here's another example [111] read the other editor's comment above hers, [112]), and Specifico showed up to repeat his claim that he/she had seen no evidence of EllenCT accusing me of paid editing, asking that someone produce it. So I did, complete with links to her quotes (esp. ""You took two weeks to deny that you were a paid editor after I asked you directly with a Ping on WP:ANI, which you cited in your evidence, and you made many intervening edits in the middle of April. Why did you wait so long to deny the accusation?"). Specifico never replied or acknowledged this evidence. He/She just abandoned the thread.

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

He/She also makes a habit of baselessly accusing others of gender hostility/discrimination. Specifico derailed this noticeboard discussion of EllenCT's conduct (which I wasn't involved in) by leveling the blanket accusation of sexism on those participating. [113] When multiple editors took offense and asked Specifico to support his/her charge, he/she failed to do so. [114], [115], [116] The closest Specifico came to answering their reasonable questions was to actually suggest that editors should gender discriminate, by not treating female editors the same as they would a male editor, contradicting his/her earlier assertion that they had engaged in sex discrimination.

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

Protonk claims I mentioned his name first here, linking to this diff [117] (19:57), when my reply was clear a response to EllenCT's earlier post citing Protonk by name and (falsely) claiming he's an administrator. [118] (19:12). Protonk is factually wrong. Period. I would like Protonk to apologize and retract his false claim. Just as he was wrong here, his characterization and likely his understanding of what happened over a year ago in the only interaction I recall us ever having is wrong.

As for me mentioning "canvassing/summoning", isn't that exactly what happened? EllenCT named an editor she knew to be hostile to me to attract him to this page, and he showed up minutes later. If anything is noteworthy here, it's how extreme and over the top his hostility toward me is based on one interaction over a year ago. That's a battlegroundy as one can get.

(more to come; please don't close this yet). VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. [119]: replaced the non-peer reviewed [120], which is contrary to e.g. the peer reviewed [121];
2. [122]: removed [123], [124], and [125] none of which were peer reviewed and all three of which are far right-wing "think tank" paid advocacy sources which almost always contradict the unanimous conclusive secondary peer reviewed sources. Please note this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, which by definition doesn't count towards any definition of edit warring;
3. [126]: [127] from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation again, and [128] from the far-right Washington Times, plus [129] from the far right Hoover Institution;
4. [130]: all this changed was "U.S. taxation is generally progressive" to "U.S. taxation is somewhat progressive" and corrected the link to the correct talk page section -- again, how is that even evidence of edit warring under any defintion?;
5. [131]: added a {{pov-section}} tag and removed WP:WEASEL WP:PUFFERY supported by right-wing manufactured paid advocacy fabrications.[132] User:VictorD7 should at least be admonished for trying to define upholding the reliable secondary conclusive unanimous sources above his preferred political POV unreviewed supply side trickle down think tank sources as edit warring [updated EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)];[reply]
6. [133]: this is also clearly not edit warring because I was replacing additional material as approved by RFC, unanimously confirmed, and confirmed again later twice. Once again, it's an addition to my own edit, not even a revert or deletion;
7. [134]: again, this replaced non-peer reviewed sources such as [135] with peer-reviewed sources in agreement with the unanimous conclusive secondary sources such as [136] as was agreed by RFC outcome;
8. [137]: this changed "the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal" to "the Republican Party is often considered conservative and the Democratic Party is often considered liberal" in order to address a long-running talk page dispute in which I did not participate and has long since been archived. It also replaced "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world" which is abject WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL wording, to, "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes," with appropriate reliable sources, again replacing e.g. [138] and [139] which are known far right-wing sources which have never been approved in any talk page discussion;
9. [140]: this simply restored the unanimously confirmed RFC outcome as previously described. And for the fifth time, this was an adjustment to my own previous edit, and can not be considered edit warring under any possible definition;
10. [141]: this was a combination of other edits described above; and
11. [142]: same as above. 11 edits over 11 days, all of which had abundant talk page discussion interspersed, and five of which were adjustments to my own previous edits!

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

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, [146] helps explain the extent to which the underlying OECD data used in sources on both sides is frequently misrepresented by biased authors. EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

EllenCT has been regularly pushing her POV across several articles and has particular interest in changing the United States Article into an indictment of income inequality. This has been a problem for a couple of years and the subject of multiple administrative discussions. As for her complaints about VictorD7, she has also complained [147] [ [148] about the one and only edit I've made to the article in more than a year.

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

• Notice of Disruptive behavior by EllenCT
• A sample of one arbitration where EllenCT decided to accuse several editors of editing where they had not including an excellent summary of her disruptive editing on these topics by another editor

It's overdue that EllenCT gets even a minor block for her pattern's of disruptive editing.Mattnad (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[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]

• @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]

• Looking over the fairly recent edit histories of both parties it seems to me the entire topic area of American Politics and Economics is better served without either of their participation. They both express extremely strong POVs in their editing including (and not limited to) use of biased sources, bludgeoning talk pages in attempts to wear people down, edits against consensus and claiming people who disagree with their edits are doing so simply on ideological grounds. Simply, there's conflict centered around both of them almost everywhere they show up. A recent example of Ellen's would be this talk page [149] where a clear agenda is pushed, edits to the article itself are against consensus, there's an all too common dismissal of sources that don't support her views while also confusing primary and secondary sources. She took her fight to Jimbo's page [150] not once but twice [151] with ridiculously pointy threads. Mention of Jimbo on the talk page above actually prompted Jimbo to reply [152]. Ellen's response here "Since you have provided an inconclusive secondary source, I no longer believe the issue is as settled as I did prior. I remain convinced that all of the secondary sources which take a conclusive position do so opposed to the supply side trickle down position. I also remain convinced that the sooner you come to realize that fact, the better off we all will be." sums up her intractability quite well.

SPECIFICO's difs sum up Victor's behavior quite well below. Just his bludgeoning in the RFCs related to that page alone are too much. The entire subject area would be better off without them in my view. Capeo (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though this will be closed without any action, which is unfortunate. Victor supplied ample evidence at WP:AN3 [153] that showed continued edit warring by Ellen. An admin advised him to take the issue here [154] but he did not have the chance to do so because Ellen copied and pasted his original complaint here but as a complaint about Victor [155]. By doing so, she hijacked the discussion and deflected her edit warring to another user. She should not be rewarded for obfuscating the process. Calidum 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I stumbled on this page and followed a link which led me to this talk page thread concerning article text on taxation in the US. [156]. I am an economist and I'm quite familiar with the flaws and biases of a variety of sources in this subject, from news media through peer-reviewed academic articles. That having been said, I urge Admins here to spend some time on this typical talk page thread and the history of the discussion and article edits surrounding these two editors. Without endorsing all of EllenCT's statements, I think it's evident that she is trying to raise an important policy-based principle as to the sourcing and due weight of article content. She's been met, as in the linked thread, with ad hominems, disparagement, and other nasty behavior from her colleagues on various articles. Regardless of whether she has responded effectively or calmly to these attacks, I hope the Admins here will try to deal with the current request in the context of the parties' behavior and activities over the range and history of the articles in which these issues have recurred. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[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, [157] I see no history that I "clashed" with him, although there are numerous instances of him personally-attacking me after I stated a talk page opinion, not even replying to him. It feels as if he's kept me on a personal "enemies list" for a long time, due to some long-forgotten threads on a few articles. That's kind of creepy but it has nothing to do with anyone but VictorD7. In the context of the current discussion, however, I think it demonstrates an irrational battleground mentality which prevents him from collaborative editing on WP. I agree with Gamaliel, (with whom -- contrary to VictorD7's assertion -- I both agreed and disagreed on that one article) that VictorD7 is unable to function within WP community norms. Call it a competence problem or tendentious editing or whatever. I agree that VictorD7 should be banned from articles relating to American Politics or, for simplicity, from the Site (since he edits no other topics.) Finally, I don't endorse or reject the substance of EllenCT's views. She defends them assertively, but I find her editing and behavior to be well within policy and WP norms. I have spoken up on several occasions because I believe she has been the target of some subtle and not-so-subtle gender-related harassment. And PS, what makes VictorD7 think I am a he not a she? I won't be revisiting this thread because I find VictorD7's behavior unpleasant and a waste of time. I hope some of the volunteer Admins who work this page will investigate the evidence here and do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: Comment RE: @Robert McClenon:'s insightful framing of the issue. Robert, you provided context which should make this an easy decision for Admins here. In the larger context, VictorD7 has repeatedly disrupted articles relating to American Politics. I should have provided diffs to back up my statement here, so here are diffs from just a single example in which an article was hog-tied by VictorD7's tendentious editing against consensus:
  

[158][159][160][161] [162][163][164][165]

• Is VictorD7 a Single Purpose Account tendentiously editing American Politics articles? Here is a summary of his edit counts. [166]. This does not seem to support his statment that he edits plenty of other topics. I checked his "sports" edits and all I see is a single string of 10 consecutive unsourced OR statements he inserted to an article about the Dallas Cowboys. Just about every other one of his edits is pushing his POV, including in the article about the Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame, whose comments inflamed a brief political controversy a while back. [167] [168] SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @VictorD7: How, exactly, was I canvassed? I was mentioned 3 times in this thread by two different users, one of whom was you. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that all sounds like BS, frankly. You've been around long enough to know what the word canvas means here. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I'm not sure what motivates this chin scratching. VictorD7 has established a pattern of tendentious, uncivil editing in this topic area. They repeatedly harangue editors for merely disagreeing with their position and their participation in discussions seems designed to shout down anyone who might have a contribution but isn't willing to read a long screed (often) filled with personal invective. In the RfC I pointed to above, I came in as an uninvolved admin and offered my position on an RfC which had already run its course. The first reply to me started with "I appreciate you coming along and proving me right". What followed was an exchange where I repeatedly asked them to tone down the invective and they essentially told me to piss up a rope. That was not an isolated incident, as Gamaliel and SPECIFICO show. Imagine working on articles where there are already divides among reasonable editors and running into this person. Would you keep editing that article? I wouldn't. What's the upside to getting repeatedly attacked?

This all looks complicated because we've permitted the filer and VictorD7 to fill up this AE request with dozens of content related diffs, transmogrifying this into some hoary debate over content when it's really just an editor behaving like a complete jerk at every opportunity. I mean good God, look at their replies to any editor who dares to come into this discussion. Those supporting VictorD7 receive effusive praise for what looks like (frankly) tactical support of the underlying agenda. Those who bring up past behavior or even ask them to not accuse editors of canvassing are treated to vituperative replies with no real content or willingness to engage. Their first reply to me here when I brought up the plainly obvious was to accuse EllenCT of canvassing (forgetting that they mentioned my name first It seems I was wrong about this, but it's a pretty trivial distinction. Mentioning someone in a thread is not canvassing. Also, demanding an apology for inconsequential mistakes is classic battleground behavior), adding "I admonished him for his subsequent behavior and unwarranted hostility. He has problems with me as an editor. The feeling is mutual, and I'm glad he's not an administrator". HJ Mitchell even had to close a clearly retaliatory AE request in the middle of this discussion. I'm not sure how to make this more clear. There's no good reason to tolerate editors who behave like dicks when challenged. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, VictorD7 has presented evidence that you and he have had some fairly serious personal disagreements a few months ago in another article. I see that you've recused yourself, but why didn't you strike your comments? Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by the statement by administrator Guy or JzG: “You know what? This is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. It needs to go to WP:DR and thence to ArbCom if not settled. It requires detailed analysis of much more than I (and I venture to suggest most others here) have time to delve through.” Exactly what is he suggesting needs to be done before further administrative action is taken? He says that it should go to Dispute Resolution. The Dispute Resolution policy lists multiple procedures for content disputes and for conduct disputes. As a conduct dispute, it has already gone all the way to ArbCom. The quarreling between User:VictorD7 and User:EllenCT, primarily about inequality in the United States, while not directly addressed in American Politics 2, was very much the sort of toxic tension that led to American Politics 2. ArbCom put the area under discretionary sanctions precisely because of this sort of continuing battleground editing. If NO ONE is willing to do the detailed analysis to determine whose behavior is more egregious, then topic-ban both of them for a period of time. There is one content dispute forum that has not been tried that might (but might not) be useful, and that would be formal mediation, but that would require that both editors assume good faith, and I am not sure that good faith is present. At this point, it is formal mediation (which might not be feasible), or Arbitration Enforcement, which is where we are. I don’t think ArbCom wants to be asked to open American Politics 3. Alternatively, there might be some creative approach, such as topic-banning them from everywhere except a battleground page where they can work out an RFC to submit to the community. The idea to send this back to ArbCom, when ArbCom already sent it to Arbitration Enforcement via Discretionary Sanctions, seems to miss the point. Either that, or I have missed the point to something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the uninvovled admins' section. 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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