User talk:EllenCT/ACE2014

You may delete this, obviously, but anyone who has worked with you knows that your questions were written for a situation to which they do not apply. Your "reliable sources" are mostly opinion pieces, even when published in peer-reviewed journals.

My scoring of answers to EllenCT's questions:

A respectful answer to the questions as stated (both "yes" or "no" could be justified, in most cases): 2 point

An answer to the underlying question (the same as stated, with "reliable sources" in quotes, meaning sources whose reliability is disputed) 5 points.

A snarky answer to the underlying question (which is probably what I would have done if I were to run this year): -2 points.

Other: -1 to 1 points.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Your 'reliable sources' are mostly opinion pieces, even when published in peer-reviewed journals."
 * Care to provide some examples? EllenCT (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First question
Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not? Answer: Yes, because failing to follow the criteria is disruptive. Answers such as "no because they should have been dealt with before they got to arbitration" show a profound lack of understanding of dispute resolution reality.

Ok, I failed this. But I don't understand why, as I said "I’d say no. If that’s the only problem, then it should be easy to deal with the editor through the ordinary tools, from dispute resolution to Admin action to community bans. In any case, a decision concerning what is a reliable source is for the community to make, not ArbCom. If the community can’t resolve a problem like this then we’re in trouble." that you encapsulate my answer as though I'd restricted it to what I think of when I say "dispute resolution". By that I meant DRN, which I agree doesn't solve all problems. If I hadn't mentioned it but only "Admin action to community bans" would I have passed, or do you include those in "dispute resolution"? I do hope people don't think I limited my answer to dispute resolution. And I think my colleagues and AN can, do and should be able to handle a problem like this. I'd be interested to hear why you think they can't. 07:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My experience in the American politics arbitration case was tremendously frustrated by an editor who kept claiming that US taxes were progressive in 2011, but none of the arbitrators seemed to care that he was using a single biased advocacy group's source, and worse, that all of the secondary reliable sources disagreed with him. They let him go on and on as if we were merely having a difference of opinion. When I asked them directly to do something about it, this is what happened: silence. :( EllenCT (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your frustration there. Reliable sources used properly are extremely important to me. But I still think that normally this can be resolved either by Admin action or community action. I don't know the context but you might have been more successful there. I know that I was involved in getting one editor community banned and misuse of sources was a major part of the reason others supported the ban. And again I agree that DR won't often work. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue had been to ANI previously, with the same refusal to look in to the matter. I realize now that I should have taken it to RSN first, where it probably would have had a greater chance. But the fact remains that we see content disputes predicated by failure to follow the reliable source criteria underlying arbitration cases all the time, and ignoring that makes for poor arbitration. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I too sympathize with your frustration, and think you might have gotten better insight into the candidates had you framed your questions in a different way. It's one of the five pillars that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". Re: "an editor who kept claiming that US taxes were progressive in 2011, but none of the arbitrators seemed to care that he was using a single biased advocacy group's source":
 * US taxes were progressive in 2011.{cite of source "x"} -- This is not acceptable, it is stating an opinion as if it were a fact, and is thus not accurate
 * According to source "x", US taxes were progressive in 2011.{cite of source "x"} -- This is acceptable, as it is simply stating the opinion of "x"
 * And it's fair to also include the differing opinions of source "y". I think readers have a right to make their own judgments as to whether they believe "x" or "y" to be "more reliable".
 * Fundamentally, one cannot make any conclusive determination about whether taxes are progressive, without a clear definition of what "progressive" means. I suspect that different sources will have different definitions. Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)