Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop

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 Wikipedia 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 '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 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)

Arbitration Committee drafter proposals?
Will either of the drafters be offering proposals on the workshop page? I would like to see them and at least have some chance to make comment before they went for voting. I just ask because there are only two days left in the workshop.Casprings (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we will have anything that is ready to go live before then. However, you will be able to comment on the proposed decision once it is posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the Workshop now closed?
Just curious. Is this part now closed?Casprings (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Re, do the arbitrators intend to respond to Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop?

I am also interested in guidance on how it could be possible to discuss conduct in a content dispute where violations of the reliable source criteria are alleged without discussing content. EllenCT (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In order to do that, you need to show either unambiguous misrepresentatuon of sources or show that the sources that people are attempting to use are unreliable. In the first case, an example would be that an editor uses a source to claim the sky is green, when the source clearly states the sky is blue.  In the second case, you would need to show that the source does not meet the reliable sources criteria, like showing the source is just some guys personal blog.


 * You appear to believe you are doing the latter, however it seems to me you are just bickering over which source you like better because it says what you agree with. For example, you state you prefer to use CTJ instead of the Peterson graph because it includes sales tax.  Since the use or lack of use of sales tax does not determine if a source is reliable, then it is simply an argument over content.  An argument you were rightly told to end. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone cites a study of sunlight at 9am, noon, and 3pm as a source for the statement that there is no night, that is a violation of the reliable source criteria because there is a huge body of peer reviewed literature reviews describing night that all make statements of the contrary. How do you complain about that behavior without talking about content? EllenCT (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Does your hypothetical study SAY there is no night? If not, its original research.  If so, I expect there is ample evidence elsewhere to show the source is a crazy person and therefore unreliable.  Neither of those suggestions require extended discussions about how the study was enacted (such as location, time of year, weather, etc).


 * Since politics usually isn't as black and white as night and day you may want to select a better hypothetical situation.  That one was too easy. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If the question was easy, you would have been able to answer it without talking about evidence elsewhere, location, time, and weather. How do you talk about behavior issues with the reliable source criteria without referring to content? EllenCT (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read what I said, I specifically noted that I answered the question without the need to discuss location, time or weather. As for "evidence elsewhere" that was a semi-joking reference to the idea that if a scientist declared that night never happened there would be documentation of his being committed to an asylum.  So without ever discussing content (i can't, since it doesn't exist) I have shown the source can be refuted in at least two possible ways. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How is documentation pertaining to a scientist making false claims not underlying content? EllenCT (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the documentation pertaining to a scientist making false claims. I am talking about the documentation about the result of him making false claims.  One happens after the other.  Of course, this example has him being crazy because of his cartoonishly over the top false claims, making the entire thing appear tautological, but then I did mention that this was a bad example.  204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The findings need to make some statement on removing peer reviewed sources
Part of this dispute seems to be centered around the removal of peer reviewed sources. WP:SOURCE is pretty clear on the status of peer reviewed sources in this respect. Given that it seems to be at the heart of part of this dispute, the committee would be remised not to make a statement in this regard.Casprings (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)