Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Sphilbrick (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Beeblebrox (Talk) & AGK (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Current word length: 296; diff count: 4.

Arzel has not yet attained the competence required to edit successfully

My first and only interaction with Arzel that I can recall was a few days ago: diff. That shows inability to understand source material (or refusal to read it) and blatant original research of the hypothetical off-the-cuff manufactured anecdote variety. After a cursory review, that edit appears to be a sufficient and accurate summary of Arzel's contributions. I will be happy to provide additional examples should any evidence to the contrary be forthcoming. EllenCT (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors misrepresent Wikipedia policy in an attempt to prevail in content disputes

By @Collect: [1]. There are several other editors who have displayed similar misconduct over the past year and who I have already brought to the Committee's attention.[2] EllenCT (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to VictorD7's evidence

I have responded to VictorD7's evidence about me in the Workshop's Analysis of evidence section. In summary, most of it is simply continuing our long running content dispute, arguing for a graph which uses a factually incorrect tax incidence to try to suggest that U.S. taxes are very progressive for the top 1% of income earners, when the consensus of the peer reviewed secondary sources supports the fact that U.S. tax incidence is regressive for the top 1%, and arguing against an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy graph showing that fact. That fact is so widely reported in media these days (and the subject of the first diff in my evidence above) that I suppose I should be grateful that my attempts to eliminate the very fringe manufactured advocacy to the contrary is the reason given that I should be sanctioned. Of the other evidence VictorD7 presents, the most legitimate complaint is regarding this edit summary which admittedly should have been "rv to previous version removing fringe Nazi and other inaccuracies." I regret the incomplete edit summary. EllenCT (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MrX

Current word length: 630 ; diff count: 65

Arzel has a history of making personal attacks

Arzel makes personal accusations lacking evidence, and is openly hostile toward other editors, sometimes referring to them as biased, activists, POV pushers, or conspiracy theorists: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]→(which probably contributed to this editor being chased from the article:[25]) [26]

  • Arzel has characterized edits as or accused editors of "POV pushing" at least 84 times in edit summaries alone: [27]. Such accusations occurred early in Arzel's editing history: [28]
Admonishments have not curtailed this behavior
  1. These personal attacks occurred after I twice asked ([29] [30]) Arzel to discuss content, not motivations: [31] [32] [33]
  2. See also the examples of personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith listed in my statement on the case request page. These occurred after the RFC/U was opened.

Arzel has a history of edit warring

Arzel edit wars across multiple articles, usually stopping at three reverts.

  1. Paul Ryan: [34]
  2. Gun politics in the United States: [35]
  3. Fox News Channel controversies: [36]
  4. Ludwig von Mises Institute: [37]
  5. Ted Cruz: [38]
  6. War on Women: [39] [40] [41]
  7. Political activities of the Koch brothers: [42] [43]
  8. Steve King: [44]
  9. True the Vote: [45]

AN/EW reports: [46] [47] [48] [49]

Arzel politicizes content disputes

Arzel uses edit summaries and talk page discussions to inappropriately frame content disputes in politically polarized terms.

  1. "The goal of this article is to continually attack Republicans. Just wait until 2016 when it is used to attack Republicans in favor of Clinton." [50]
  2. "Liberalism at its finest. Free speech for all unless it is the wrong kind of free speech. No place better than wp to turn a molehill into a mountain." [51]
  3. "IP, the goal of this article is to attack Republicans now for political purposes. Historical accuracy is of limited value." [52]
  4. "Hopelessly POV. Lots of Original Research and outright lies. Republicans have offered suggestions and modifications. Please don't use WP for political posturing." [53]
  5. "This article was little more than a political meme being used by the left to attack Republicans." [54]
  6. "I continue to not be surprised by the long string of liberal editors that defend the use of sources like this." [55]
  7. "Actually, I think the work here is partially to blame for the shooting. IMO, editors trying to use WP for activism purposes are partially to blame for the shooting." [56]

Collect's evidence suggests that he may view Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND

  • "Wikipedia gloss: "I disagree with what you say, and will fight to get you banned." "

The evidence provided by Collect below is indicative of the argumentative, condescending obfuscation that typically makes politically-related article talk page discussions so fruitless where Collect is involved. However, Collect is not usually uncivil.

Collect's assertion (below): " Goethean and MilesMoney were the battleground folks, not Arzel. And so on for the "diffs" given, in case after case." is not factually accurate.

Arzel misapplies core content policies

Arzel frequently violates the dispute resolution policy

  • Although he sometimes participates in talk page discussions, his approach is combative and frequently does not lead to resolution: [64] [65]
  • Arzel often expects others to fix what he views as content problems: [66] [67]
Specific example
Arzel reverts content cited to Forbes magazine [68], characterizing it as "hugely confusing and misleading". I start a discussion on the talk page. Arzel joins the discussion almost a full day later. I ask if he has any specific edit suggestions. He comments about having read the source and something about a feedback loop, then: "I don't have time to look at it further right now, but it still doesn't look logical." [69].

More than a third of Arzel's article edits are reversions

Net
count		 Percent
of article
edits		 Type Notes Source
4519 Total article edits [70]
1219 27.0% "Undid revision" edits 1303 total, minus 50 Talk:, 2 User:, 24 User talk:, 7 WP:, and 1 WT: [71]
479 10.6% "WP:UNDO" edits 512 total, minus 18 Talk:, 0 User:, 14 User talk:, 1 WP:, and 0 WT: [72]
1698 37.6% Total reversions
110 2.4% Vandalism reversions [73]
1588 35.1% Non-vandalism reversions

Evidence presented by Collect

Current word length: 1314 '; diff count: 18.

Diffs are a problem where it is the context over a period of time which is important, and not "single edits" so only one example is covered in detail below.


Voltaire gloss:

"I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it."

Wikipedia gloss:

"I disagree with what you say, and will fight to get you banned."

Here, Arzel has a POV. And so do his complainants, who failed to gain consensus for their view at the RFC/U.

The difference is that, in context, Arzel's position frequently obtains WP:CONSENSUS which is not a matter of a "single diff."

WP:NPOV posits that it is the balance of editors with POVs which can result in a neutrally worded article, which is thus a policy-supported position. Upsetting balance is against policy, absent a substantial behavioural issue.

In the RfC/U, many "diffs" showed Arzel trimming articles, and editors pointed out that trimming is a often wise course of action. [74] I suggest the close of the RfC/U is of critical weight: 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. [75]

As the only issue which would be actually disruptive is failure to abide by WP:CONSENSUS and there is a lack of evidence for such behaviour, it is hard to give diffs showing an absence of something which I trust the committee will understand. As for "personal attacks", note the context of edits to see precisely the same disdainful conduct from the complainants.

[76] was the first diff at the RfC/U - and note that the "cult" reference has now been removed. This simple edit was reverted by Goethean with the comment lede should summarize the article, which this sentence dos appropriately which was clearly incorrect. Arzel's summaries were apt. User:MilesMoney (now community banned) did the next revert. Then Goethean did the revert cycle after Arzel politely reverted. Goethean and MilesMoney were the battleground folks, not Arzel. And so on for the "diffs" given, in case after case. Collect (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellen: I have not the foggiest idea of the relevance of your aside. Collect (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA you should have noted the WP:BLP issue with ascribing words in a quote to Keating when they were not his words. No 3RR violation present, and it is f nugatory value here. Collect (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubi I am strange -- I tend to use what the source says and not what I "know" to be the "truth." This applies to all sides of every controversy. Period. And for you to raise your own posts as "evidence" is outré.

@MrX It is better to use full context than to take a phrase out of context. The context is in the full paragraph - and the flow of that paragraph is clear. Also note the rewording of Voltaire is my impression of how some folks view ArbCom cases. And it is clear that the "gloss" is correct far too often. Where animus is shown in "evidence presentations", the committee would do well to deprecate its value. The proper goal is creation of articles of long-term encyclopedic value, and deliberate drama-mongering is not a reasonable means of pursuing that goal.

Addressing Ubikwit's allegations

Re: Talk:Plutocracy the "poorly defined RfC" is how dispute resolution is properly done. Decrying use of Dispute Resolution processes is weird. The RfC has broad participation (more than ten editors weighing in) , and, curiously enough, seems to find the material improper in the article.

Re: requiring "evidence of absence" - I find it not to be a valid argument. Unless a unique claim is cited by others, we are not required to treat is as "fact". I believe my position on such sources is sound.

Re: having the effrontery to suggest that material in an article be germane to the article - I find that to be a Captain Obvious dictum.

Re: "Stubbornness" the issue was me using a word found in the source, which Ubikwit believed should not be used -- that is he wished to only have the wording he liked from a source, and not allowing other material in the source.

Re: Using the same writer and same actual source twice in the same section to make the same point twice in a section - which I find overuse of a single source, and the fact "it won a prize" has nothing to do with using any source multiple times to make the exact same point.

Ubikwit is currently under ArbCom sanction for Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has ignored sound arguments about article content ([52]), and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith ([53], [54]) about and condescending ([55]) to other disputants.

In each case, I suggest the committee examine the opinions of the other editors on the pages, and note that my positions have generally been held by the majority of other editors on those pages. And I cannot believe that any editor who uses DR can be considered disruptive or evil in any manner. I would hate to think Ubikwit is simply extending animus to me from the past, as I have no animus towards him. Collect (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[77] is a proper edit. And the concept that anyone would defend use of "argues" in Wikipedia's voice - is odd. We do not use words which imply that Wikipedia is taking any position on the value or implication of anyone's position. See WP:WTA.

[78] "however" sentence constructions also fall under WP:WTA. In the case at hand, the wording was intended to convey information not in the source. Saying something is "not" in a source is SYNTH at best. Like saying "the National Zoo has no employee names Gnarph"is pretty much a worthless claim - we can only use claims actually found in reliable sources.

[79] is an editorial decision regarding use of a block quote where simpler wording works. And again - "though" is a word to avoid per the MoS.

WRT my use of "source does mention unions and other membership groups - removal is vandalism at that point", I erred, denial that something is in a source and is properly used is not "vandalism" by itself but I find the "repeated removal of sourced material" to rather verge on that. Mea culpa.

WRT Sewonathy - that editor is not a "new editor" IMO - vide such edits as [80] etc. Unless this is Minerva from the head of Jupiter <g>.

And winning an award makes the book into the official consensus? Often books gainawards for being thought-provoking, awards do not make books into the "truth" and I fail to see what that has to do with any claims of behaviour issues at all here. And Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article is policy.

Evidence of Absence

Evidence of absence is a tough nut to crack.

I do not choose to offer evidence against anyone here at all.

The gloss I cited at the start is absolutely on point, and it is a game I choose not to play. So my goal is to show that claims of POV on my part are not based on the entirety of my editing on political topics, and that this page does not allow me to list my watch list, which clearly shows over well over three thousand pages that I do not edit with any political POV.

[81] BLP issue abouut use of "anti-Semitism" charge.

[82] simple BLP issue

[83] related to international politics if anything and not "conservative" in any way

[84] an absolutely non-POV position

[85] political???

[86] political position shown???

[87] bias??

[88] see article talk page to see what was happening

[89] try this.

[90] this?

[91] this?

Asking for "evidence of absence" (proving a negative) is futile - the issue is that the evidence so far given is not only weak, it is (unfortunately) clearly based on the "gloss" cited at the start. More evidence to follow next week.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

Current word length: 204; diff count: 3.

The following arbitration cases from the past year all reasonably concern the topic at hand and include many of the same actors:

Recurring negative appearances by editors regarding topics primarily connected to American politics should be a factor in deciding the outcome.

Partisan feuding has occurred between several parties

The following are examples where issues connected or primarily connected to American politics have been the subject of feuding between parties generally divided between sympathies for the right and sympathies for the left in American politics:

Many areas covered have problems with feuding, tendentious editing, and other policy violations

Among the areas where problems have occurred:

Evidence presented by Casprings

Current word length: 351; diff count: 14.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Group Battlefield behavior shown in Redirects. Shows pattern of battle field behavior off content pages

Arzel

1 2 3 4

IP Editor 75.15.218.248

1

IP Editor deleted notification of similar IP Editors removing content

1

Anonymous209.6

1 2

Talk discusison and redirect for discussion

Talk page discussion

Redirect for discussion

Group behavior to prevent pages from being redirect to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Possiable use of IP by Arzel to avoid being known for one revert

There was a group effort to prevent pages from being redirected to Rape and Pregnancy controversies. This included ignoring the discussion on the talk page and removing links (see difference 1 by Arzel and difference 1 by IP editor) to the redirects for discussion page. The removing links to the redirect for discussion page was made by Arzel and a IP. This shows Arzel may have used an IP so that he would not be known for the revert. The other revert by the IP is of a notification of an IP editors removing content. This is off content battlefield mentality that is often overlooked. It can also be seen by Arzel and Anonymous209.6 in the following:


Collect's behavor (and how that behavior is viewed) during this Arbitration is a good example of the dysfuntional group dynamic in American Politics conduct disputes.

user:collect Orginal Post: 11


Response by "liberal editors" 2 3


Continued discussion found here after User:Floquenbeam removed post. Here

Discussion on rather user:AGK should recuse himself: Here

An editor's POV and how they view content are interconnected

I posted this on the evidence page. I understand that most would have already seen this. However, I think it points to a primary problem with a highly polerized subject area. Wikipedia trys to somewhat disconnect one's view on content from behavior. However, in subject areas that are highly polerized and editors have a fundamentally different outlook, the conduct of an editor will be seen through the len's of the content they want in an article.

Evidence by Ubikwit

Current word length: 500; diff count: 13.

The US sections of Oligarchy and Plutocracy pages have presented problematic conduct.
Collect's tendentiousness, condescension, misrepresentation of sources, and comments/edit summaries referring authoritatively to policies with refusal of clarification undermine the integrity of the editing environment.

PLUTOCRACY
Talk page
Collect dismisses scholarly source and related RS articles, while claiming a need to be "widely cited and accepted in the area of study" not to be considered "WP:FRINGE views".

  1. the onus is on those who wish to include a study to show that it is widely cited and accepted in the area of study
  2. Give cites that your refs are widely cited by others, that they make specific claims that the US is a "plutocracy" and that they arenot WP:FRINGE views.

Collect then started an RfC that is poorly defined, referring only to an edit including the above-mentioned sources. He makes recourse to WP:Consensus in a manner overriding WP:RS and WP:NPOV, then makes reference to WP:NPOV with respect to protesting use of the term plutocracy--over concern about it being "pejorative"--in an attempt to WP:RGW.
In RfC, I seconded[94] question from EllenCT[95], referencing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It should be noted that it was me, here, that raised a possible concern with WP:SYNTH.
Collect doesn't answer queries on his policy-based rationale.
[96]
But when he responds to an editor making a question, he doesn't answer the question.
[97]
Here, it must be pointed out that Collect deleted RS material[98] demonstrating the study is "widely cited", but fails to address the basis for the deletion, giving rise to an apparent contradiction.

Article
Collect refers to WEIGHT and "a matter of concern as other have not weighed in on the claim", while numerous RS discussing the paper have been deleted.[99]　

Condescension and unwarranted allegations in Collect's edit summaries. Here he accuses a newly registered editor User:Sewonathy of vandalism for making an edit that I find to be in accord with the content.[100]

Reverts again, stating he doesn't want to "disillusion" me, apparently with regard to unspecified sourcing policy. [101]　

Misrepresentation of source The above edit crosses the boarder of a simple content dispute because Collect insists on attributing a statement to the source that the source doesn't make.
In brief, the source sets out an analytical schema including "Economic Elites" and "Average Citizens", and respectively aligned "Organized Interest Groups". I posted the entirety of the two paragraphs that refer to unions on the Talk page [102]. Collect repeatedly reverted (with no Talk page discussion, undermining the WP:BRD cycle), and the text conflates unions with corporate interest groups on an individual level that goes against the statements in the above referenced passages.

OLIGARCHY
Article
Collect makes edit summaries in an authoritative tone referencing WP practices/policy, with no elucidation thereof.
sources do not get multiple mentions on the same topic
an argument in WP's voice

Collect's Talk page
User_talk:Collect#stubbornness

My Talk page
User_talk:Ubikwit#Winters_used_twice.3F
Collect asserts that
Winters is clearly a bit on the "fringe" on the Oligarchy topic.

Responding, I noted that
Jeffrey_A._Winters 2011 book Oligarchy was the 2012 winner of the American Political Science Association's Luebbert Award for the Best Book in Comparative politics.

Other

  1. Nothing WP:FRINGE about Winters' book/views. The blockquote taken from the Gilsen/Page paper is based on Winters and Gilsen/Page is widely cited, though almost all media analysis (multiple RS) of the paper has been deleted (from both articles).
  2. I note that Collect appears to have a penchant for referring editors to Captain obvious, instead of being considerate enough of other editors to take the time to communicate effectively.

Evidence presented by uninvolved 70.36.142.114

Current word length: 144; diff count: 1.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

70.36.142.114's Apathy

I'm writing this at /Evidence since it's intended as presentation of a factual data point. 70.36.142.114 (talk) (that's me) did not comment in Arzel's RFC/U. It was open for a long time and I had some things to say, but never got around to gathering diffs or writing them up, due to a sense of futility towards that part of Wikipedia in general (not specifically Arzel). My sentiment boiled down to "someone is wrong on the internet".[103] I don't even read the affected class of articles since I see them as generally useless. I was surprised there were so few posts to the RFC, but I can sympathize. I don't think it's valid to infer that non-commenters were necessarily ok with the editing being commented on. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by NE Ent

Current word length: 206; diff count: 5.

We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means. Carl von Clausewitz

Reviewing the RFC/U, and the evidence presented thus far, I'm not seeing anything beyond a continuation of Wikipedia intercourse carried on by means of a arbcom filing. It's reminiscent of the type of ANI post asking for admin "help" to settle a dispute which is usually rejected as not a suitable issue for that forum.

Take, for example, the first links in Casprings' Arzel section: 1 2 aren't evidence of anything beyond an edit war in which both Casprings and Arzel participated, with neither bothering to post to Talk:Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy. A 3rr matter, not an arbcom case. The corresponding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy discussion had a good amount of community participation but no consensus for anything.

Has the behavior been less than civil? Yes, but that's not notable in wiki context per previous failed proposals ( Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks ) and arbcom cases ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement ) and the technically open but moribund RFC ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement ). NE Ent 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Two kinds of pork

Current word length: 247; diff count: 1.

Disingenuous claims of attempting to resolve a dispute

My view is best described in this comment I made a few months ago [104]. My take on the whole thing is that Arzel annoys several people because he holds a different political view from theirs, and he refuses to acquiesce to their demands that he accept their preferred sources and views. Being unfamiliar with a RFCU I read through the case a bit just out of curiosity. Seems to me a RFCU is just another form of DR, and in my professional life I've been involved in many dispute resolutions, mostly mediations. Any good mediation requires good faith from all participants. Without it, you are just wasting everyone's time. The "plaintiffs" in this RFCU, MrX and Brangifer may have valid complaints against Arzel, but upon reviewing the RFCU process and the "evidence" they submitted to prove their cause of action IMO shows they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel. The documentation they submitted to prove this attempt is incredulous. This may have been due to ignorance of the process (we all make mistakes), laziness(they didn't want to do the research), frustration (understandable), or bad faith (unleash the hounds). In this case I think the line between frustration and bad faith has been tiptoed for the purposes of silencing an opponent.

Evidence presented by Thenub314

Current word length: 232; diff count: 6.

Experience with Arzel

First, I appologize if I shouldn't be editing here, I understand it is past May 10th, but I thought I would contribute, even if a day late.

I have only recently started wiki'ing again and I don't have much history with politics articles. Arzel was one of the first users I bumped into. My interactions have been positive. It seems silly to provide diffs of things that are not a problem, but he was fairly helpful, so I thought I should mention it.


Refusal of Clarification by Collect

I have also encountered Collect and my experiences are similar to those described by the Ubikwit. Particularly the comment about his "refusal of clarification". An example of which I will detail below with diffs.

  • I added some material [105]
  • Collect reverts, claiming problem with source. [106]
  • [107] I add the source and copy of my addition to discuss.
  • [108] Collect misdirects to a discussion about a different source.
  • [109] I tried again for an explanation. (After the subject came up at AN/I)
  • [110] he replies, but doesn't want to "rehash".

In his defense, he and I have come into a lot of disagreement lately, and seems to suggest my demanding explanations about why I was reverted are seen by him as drama seeking. I likewise wouldn't reply to drama-seeking if I felt that was all that was going on.

Evidence presented by Arzel

Current word length: 418; diff count: 3.

Defense

I was asked if I was going to provide a defense by AGK, to which I asked myself "Defense of what?" This is not an arbitration effort against me, that much has been made clear. I don't have that much free time right now, so I don't have much time to put together a complete response to the allegations which have been made against me, and don't really feel like participating in what appears to be little more than a Witch Hunt. Pretty much everything leveled against me has already been brought forward through the RfU, and the only reason this Arbitration is even taking place is apparently because I would not sign off on this closure. Even so, if anyone can show that I have been in violation of that RfU, they should point to the evidence.

If WP really wants to limit the animosity within political articles, then the solution is quite simple. Eliminate the use of highly partisan blogs and quazi-news sources as prima face sourcing. Sources like Newsbusters/MRC, MMfA, TP, Newsmax, etc. should not be the primary source for anything. These sites do nothing but troll for anything opposing their world view. I have long argued that if something is notable it will show up in mainstream sources and eliminate the need for highly partisan sourcing and thus the source of many of the conflicts.

The corollary is that if they are regular reliable sources than everything little gripe they cover is reliable and one could effectively argue that everything they say should be included on their targets article.

In essence, there is no limiting factor to much of the crap that causes conflict in the first place. This is what needs to be fixed.

I won't be providing a bunch of diffs which illustrate these problems, they are well known. The difference is that no one is willing to take the step and limit the underlying problem of these articles.

However, I would like to address a false accusation by Casprings. Accusations of user name avoidance by use of IP without any evidence should not be tolerated here.

@MrX. I have mostly ignored your baseless allegations, but it is really starting to become little more than attacking. In your last section one of the the removals was part of an ongoing RfC because of a BLP issue. Your assertation is completely false. Additionally, your last allegation was an attempt to avoid edit warring because the other party was reluctant to fix the problem they created. Please don't mis-represent your evidence.

Evidence presented by VictorD7

Current word length: 1279 ; diff count: 70

Reply to EllenCT's evidence

I haven't participated in most of the discussions mentioned, but in EllenCT's first link she, not Arzel, was the one exhibiting incompetence (at best) by confusing the issue of how progressive US taxation is with how progressive it is compared to other nations, the latter being the actual section topic ([111]). When I corrected her on this ([112]) she replied with off topic commentary on capital gains that had nothing to do with anything I had said (despite her false assertion later) ([113]), and Arzel was simply being polite enough to civilly answer her question after (correctly) noting that it didn't support her assertion either way ([114]). For that one exchange she rewards him with a venomous section here, even rushing to be first in line?

Reading through the other links presented on this page confirms this is a pot/kettle case, and seems to be an attempt by two or three ideological fellow travelers to eliminate an editor they've had content disputes with, often not getting their way. In my experience both Collect and Arzel have been reasonable, quality editors. I'm not sure precisely what the scope of this vaguely worded case is, but if it's sincerely interested in unacceptable behavior by editors, then it should be focused on EllenCT, the most disruptive and tendentious regular editor I've ever encountered.

Every following category only highlights a few of the many examples.

EllenCT openly admits she's here to push a partisan POV

Though she falsely claims her assertions represent RS consensus.

"There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense." ([115])


Unlike some editors who legitimately try to counter POV skewing in a reasonable fashion, in her crusade she routinely makes false claims, uses low quality sources (like lobbyists or partisan blogs) and poorly worded prose, engages in propagandistic coatracking across Wikipedia (often via massive undiscussed edits), inserts material beyond an article's scope, removes legitimate material, and falsely accuses others of things she's actually guilty of. She treats Wikipedia as a platform for one sided soapboxing:

[116] (17,000+ character page rewrite! One of her many edit wars against consensus), [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]

She even explicitly defended some of her one sided, off topic edits to the United States article as being central to recent "campaign debate themes", as if stuffing an encyclopedic country summary page with recent partisan talking points (while deleting non talking points as irrelevant!) is appropriate:

[128], [129], [130]


Whenever more than a couple of editors are involved, her edits are typically rejected for, among other things, POV skew:

[131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]/ [140], [141]

She repeatedly tries to insert the same material in other articles whether it's been strongly rejected or not.

EllenCT resorts to baseless personal attacks and frivolous attempts to get opponents banned

When she doesn't get her way she resorts to name calling, accusing her opponents of whitewashing, various other baseless ad hominem charges (e.g. [142], "libertarian Randoids" [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]), [149]), and frivolously attempts to use admin to ban or silence content opposition. Here she absurdly suddenly demanded that no fewer than five editors be topic banned after we disagreed with her ([150]). Earlier another attempt boomeranged on her ([151]).

Recently she blew up an arbitration on Austrian economics articles by roping in numerous uninvolved editors with false accusations. Like here, she was first in line with a dubious evidence section, and everything she said was ultimately ignored, but not before wasting many hours of innocent bystanders' time. ([152]). These replies by various editors document much of her long pattern of tendentious editing ([153], [154], [155]).

I think unflattering descriptions are sometimes necessary (as this process shows), but EllenCT recklessly tosses out unwarranted and bizarre charges in droves, sometimes with a sudden extremeness.

EllenCT falsely accused me of paid editing

[156], [157], [158]

She continued after I warned her twice to stop, and in my (one and only ever) ensuing noticeboard complaint ([159]), an admin prematurely closed it (good faith, but rushed), charitably assuming she was referring to a source rather than me, despite multiple editors seeing it differently. When I made a good faith effort on EllenCT's talk page to let her clarify her accusations she just gave me the runaround, obstinately refusing to do so ([160]).

Lest there be any doubt that she was accusing me of being a paid editor, I've since uncovered these posts from last fall where she repeatedly condemned "paid advocacy" in discussions about paid editors (using the same language she applied to me):

[161], [162], [163], [164]

EllenCT removed any residual doubt on the Workshop page.

[165], [166], [167], [168]


Such insidious charges poison the collaborative process.

EllenCT misrepresents sources, actions, and statements

Habitual. I'll highlight a few clear examples.

She tried to covertly slip in a massive set of contentious economic changes already being discussed and ultimately rejected by strong majorities under the edit summary guise of simply reverting a small, recent, unrelated change (scroll down and compare her entire edit with her edit summary [169], [170]).

She repeatedly claimed this article ([171]) states that there's a scholarly consensus that consumers bear roughly half the corporate income tax burden (e.g. [172]). Anyone can read and see that the article, like most scholarly literature on corporate tax incidence in recent decades, is about the labor/owner split, not consumers at all. The word "consumers" doesn't even appear in the article. My repeated requests that she retract her claim or post a single quote supporting it have gone unanswered (e.g. [173], [174], [175], [176], [177]).

She made similar claims ([178]) about page 17 of this source [179], which anyone can quickly scan and see is also about the labor/capital split, not consumers. She apparently confused labor with consumption (raising deep competency concerns), but persisted in the falsehood on various pages even after multiple editors patiently explained her error to her.

She's blatantly mischaracterized an old statement I made on corporate taxes countless times despite my numerous corrections, as if to troll me (e.g. [180], [181]).

She only fixated on corporate tax incidence to begin with because she had insisted that a chart on overall US tax incidence from a partisan lobbyist she was trying to include in various articles was only dramatically contradicted by the other sources because it largely attributed corporate incidence to consumers (making it regressive) instead of to shareholders (making it progressive) like the others do, and when I used quotes from her own source to prove that actually it attributed corporate taxes to shareholders as the others do (and explicitly argued against attributing it to consumers, labeling corporate taxes "progressive"), eliminating her excuse for the discrepancy, she refused to acknowledge it, accusing me of "continued cherry picking of non-peer reviewed sources" for quoting her own source, ultimately resorting to claiming that her own source's public statements about itself were inaccurate, and that we should instead rely on a secret conversation she allegedly had with a former, anonymous employee of the group. An irrational drama played out for months across multiple articles, but these debates ([182], [183]) capture it well.

EllenCT seems incapable of rational collaboration, she's caused great disruption, and her behavior has alienated ideologically diverse editors, with many warning her against her partisan, insulting tone to no avail (e.g. [184], [185], [186], [187]). Her own user page ([188]) indicates that she's aware of her misbehavior, mentioning the possibility of her being "banned" and implying that she sees herself in a perpetual state of conflict here. I'm reluctant to pursue sanctions, but I posted this because it would be a travesty if quality editors like Collect and Arzel are punished while someone like EllenCT is allowed to continue rampaging across this project. VictorD7 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by your user name

Current word length: 0; diff count: 0.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence&oldid=1137488348"