Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 18 May 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

Tiered Discretionary Sanctions System?

During the opening, it was suggested to put American Politics into discretionary sanctions. It was rejected because it would have the effect of putting much of Misplaced Pages into discretionary sanctions. I was thinking, a tiered system might work well for very board subject areas in which there will be alot of disputes. One could declare "American Politics" was under one tier. That would basically tell everyone know this broad area could be an area of dispute. However, an administrator or the community could move certain parts or pages of American politics into what would be known as discretionary sanctions today. Just a thought.Casprings (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I largely concur. I am recommending that the ArbCom have the ability, by motion, without a full new case, to put any area of American politics under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

would be more effective if an admin could do it temporally and take it to the community for input on time and rather it should be there. Let appeals go to them.Casprings (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, because I dislike the will-o-the-wisp of "community consensus" at the noticeboards. Seeking "community consensus" at the noticeboards usually just inflames already excessive passions. I would be more satisfied if an uninvolved admin could impose full discretionary sanctions at arbitration enforcement, with appeals to the ArbCom or its subcommittee. I would prefer to have the sanctions kick in on motion to the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's proposals

I don't know where to put this. It's intended as an overall comment on EllenCT's proposals. She makes reference to "peer reviewed economics literature", but seems to mean economics literature that supports her POV. The Austrian and Chicago schools of economics have peer-reviewed articles, most of which Ellen appears to reject. The debate between EllenCT and VictorD7 in the misnamed "Analysis of VictorD7's evidence" seems to reflect their respective ideas as to what peer-reviewed sources are "reliable". So far, all the sources which Ellen see as reliable, I (and apparently, VictorD7) see as WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It goes deeper than that. Ellen routinely misrepresents her own sources. These are clear cut factual misrepresentations (anyone can click on the links and see that I'm telling the truth every step of the way), not opinions, and therefore fall under misconduct, which is why I included such examples along with the other types of misconduct. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of the diffs in your evidence section about misrepresenting sources pertains to our disagreement about total tax incidence for the top 1%. EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. When a source clearly says "5", an editor shouldn't claim it says "9". Persisting in the falsehood even after multiple corrections by multiple editors is unacceptable conduct regardless of what the larger content discussions are. VictorD7 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How many years out of the last three decades do you think taxes have been progressive for the top 1%? EllenCT (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As per the discussion here, the Austrian school literature is completely devoid of predictive models, and forecasting models based on Chicago school principles have always been less accurate than the most accurate neo-Keynesian models (because of Arthur Okun's regression error in the early 1970s described here) as stated in the WP:SECONDARY literature evaluating the forecasting utility of the different schools' assumptions in DSGE economic models. If there are any peer reviewed literature reviews which agree with Austrian or Chicago school theories in terms of their predictive ability from this or the previous decade, I have not seen them. EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

General comment

Workshop proposals, especially those pertaining to individual editors, are most helpful if accompanied by diffs or links to the evidence that supports them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)