Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics

Welcome to the mediation
Hello everyone. For all those who don't me, I'm Ryan - I've been a member of the Mediation Committee since 2007 and since December 2008, I've taken on the role of chair. I'm going to be one of two mediators who works on this case. The other mediator is who is a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal and also a member of the Mediation Committee. Xavexgoem is actually going to be leading this mediation and I'll be sitting in an advisory capacity. If you have any queries or concerns, you're more than willing to contact either of us. Anyway, I look forward to working with you all to try to help solve your dispute.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening statements
Please could all participants make an opening statement under their appropriate header. It would be helpful if you could discuss what you believe the key points to the dispute are and also why you believe the dispute hasn't been solved previously.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to add this caveat - please keep statements to 250 words or less.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlamDiego
The issues are straight-forward: The dispute has not been previous resolved because some editors have been unwilling to acknowledge that policy is not sufficient to their purposes. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the the WikiProject page have guidelines on writing articles? Perhaps, but only so long as they are not used as de facto extensions of policy.
 * Is there a foundation for claiming that, in economics in particular, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources? Not in policy by itself.  Nor has anyone in the WikiProject presented one other than faith.
 * Is there a foundation in policy for claiming that academic and peer-reviewed publications count more for weight over-all? No.

Statement by Morphh
There is a question as to whether it is appropriate to restate pieces of policy that could present an out of context viewpoint. If we do present something, there is additional concern regarding creating a synthesis guideline that does not represent policy. Would the guidelines solve a problem or create an avenue for abuse as a way to exclude or overly minimize viewpoints outside of that defined in NPOV policy?

There is some confusion on the policies of verifiability and reliable sources with NPOV weight.
 * Verifiability and reliable source policy are for referencing content and we are to use the most reliable sources possible to support that material. I agree that academic sources are some of the most reliable sources to verify content.
 * NPOV weight provides balance to an article based on prominence in all reliable sources (a portion of which is academic sources).

These policies define different areas of an article. The main issue I see is an attempt to synthesize these two policies, making a much stricter guideline for NPOV weight based on a subset of reliable sources (primarily academic). In most cases, I agree with the editors suggesting this guideline and we'd likely reach the same weight conclusion for an article. But in this case, I think such a synthesis would be a direct violation of the NPOV principle. Academia can have bias. A wikiproject is a place to collaborate, not create new cabal style rules. I think it would create more conflict, rather than less. Morphh  (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrencekhoo
The situation is simple:


 * Is economics essentially different from engineering, history, medicine, physics, and other academic disciplines, or should the same types of guidelines apply as in those areas and Wikiprojects?

Those Wikiprojects have guidelines that build on and clarify Wikipedia content policies. They emphasize academic sources and mainstream views, and have little patience for editors pushing particular POVs. It is also clear from content policies that articles should reflect mainstream science (as evidenced by reliable academic sources when available). This does not mean that differing viewpoints should be omitted. All disputes evidenced by reliable sources should be included with appropriate weight. However, articles should not be overwhelmed by those disputes, making it appear that the mainstream view is muddy, when it is in fact clear. Especially, articles should not present minority viewpoints as the mainstream and vice-versa. Minority views not reported by any reliable sources should not be included. This is policy, and economics is not excepted from policy.

The trouble is that some wish to ignore policy and push particular viewpoints. They are fighting to refuse any application of content policies to economics related pages. When given a free hand, they eventually skew articles badly, becoming an embarrassment to Wikipedia. For example, witness this addition to Great Depression. If left alone, sections on 'Technocracy' will eventually appear in every economics article.

We should recognize that Wikipedia policies apply fully to economics, and not 'interpret' policies in ways contradictory to their spirit and prima facie meaning. LK (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcq
I agree with the Statement by Lawrencekhoo.

I would point to the main Economics article as one that has been bloated with fringe ideas in the text.

If editors in economics wish to say things like the policy on verifiability or reliable sources isn't specific to economics and therefor no notice need be taken of things like 'usually' in it then economics should have its own guidelines specifying the consensus of the economics wikiproject as to what sources would or would not be usually considered as reliable in economics. Opposing individual guidelines and yet saying general policy and guidelines don't straightforwardly apply as a naive reading might imply is just causing disruption. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
I agree with the statements by Lawrencekhoo and Dmcq.

The dispute is about how various views of economics should be presented and what weight different views should be given. My view is that these articles should be based on mainstream academic sources and fringe views should be mentioned only if they have received academic recognition and then WP:Weight should apply. Non-academic sources describing economic theories should be avoided and newspapers should only be used as a source for news, for example for biographical information about living economists.

SOURCES Academic sources are better than other sources for several reasons:  By providing footnotes they allow the reader to learn more about the subject by following the sources, they are more likely to be free of factual errors, and it is generally possible to find critical commentary on them, either substantiating or contradicting their conclusions.

WEIGHT Some editors have argued that the Austrian economists are under-represented in the academic world compared with their influence and therefore should have greater coverage in WP economics articles. I do not find that argument convincing. It is up to the Austrian economists themselves to win their arguments in the academic world and not the role of WP to correct any perceived imbalance in their influence there.

RECOMMENDATIONS As an academic subject, economics should have stronger content guidelines similar to medicine-related articles and other academic subjects. Non-academic sources should be avoided except in limited cases, like current biographical information of living persons.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cretog8
Some orthodoxy has been enforced on articles by various editors, but this is difficult to do fairly. Economics is a controversial discipline with significant academic and non-academic debate. Several editors believe it would be helpful to have economics-specific advice to follow and refer to in determining material's weight. I believe the bulk of the disputants would like such advice. Some appear to oppose any attempt to enforce any sort of orthodoxy. Others have developed distrust, I believe based more on personality than differing goals. Some appear to feel that such advice might be nice, but isn't needed given existing policy and guidelines.

I use "advice" to avoid "policy" and "guideline", since wikilawyering has muddled the discussion.

Considering the various positions, the debate has been a heated, undirected mishmash of
 * Should there be any advice?
 * How do we construct the advice to be compatible with policy, or is that even possible?
 * What form should advice take?
 * What's the place of academic sources?
 * For a given phrasing, how could it be deliberately misinterpreted?

The centrality given in this mediation to (a) reliable sources, and (b) "academic sources" are both misdirected results of the muddle. (a) The issue is overwhelmingly about weight, and reliable sources are a roundabout way of approaching weight. (b) The goal (of many) is to constrain, and focusing on academic sources is but one way to achieve that constraint. There has been receptivity to sources such as mainstream news media when it's appropriate. C RETOG 8(t/c) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Quiggin
I broadly agree with LK. I think the general principles that apply to academic disciplines should apply to economics. That is, viewpoints should be represented with weight broadly consistent with their representation in the academic literature - textbooks, journal articles and so on. In this context, technocracy is a minor fringe position The Austrian School is represented in the academic profession and undertakes the usual activities of publishing journal articles, books from academic presses, conference papers and so on. But, it is the view of a small minority, similar in this respect to a number of other schools of heterodox economics. I remain mystified by SlamDiego's request for proof that this is the right principle. I can't see that a principle like this is susceptible of proof for economics or for physics or history. The problems I see are twofold. One is that Austrian viewpoint, and some fringe viewpoints with one or two strong advocates have been much more strongly represented in Wikipedia than in the academic profession. Until recently, the Austrian viewpoint on inflation was given more weight than the dominant views in the profession. The second problem is that a small number of editors associated with the viewpoints mentioned above have behaved poorly, routinely seeking to exclude material that contradicts their preferred POV, and maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of articles. Economic freedom is a prime example. A guideline would be helpful in indicating that this is not the right way to go.JQ (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JQ (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo
The dispute relates to source Reliability, and the establishment of Due Weight in economics related articles, and the attendant breakdown of Civility at project level.

Economics as a praxis in our societies is politicised as a matter of policy formation, and the struggle between classes. "Owning" the mantle of economics is a brass ring. Economics is beset by FRINGE practices attracted by the fantasy of power, or of intellectual promethianism.

Economics as an academic discipline is politicised. Schools of thought have mutually incompatible standards of proof establishment behaviour. In addition, there is a dominant practice, and at least three significant non-dominant practices I can think of off the top of my head. These practices are not reconcilable through a shared academic journal / publication system where their truthiness can be compared. (Only sociology's truth behaviour is more politicised).

Economics editors on Wikipedia tend to strongly identify with a favoured school, as this is the way most people interested in academic economics engage.

The principle activities of economists revolve around model construction and critique. Some critique is notable, some is essentially, "According to my school, your school is wrong."

Some terms play a key role in multiple Schools, for example: Price.

The weighting of importance cannot be universally established, it needs to be established article to article based off some general principles.

For a historical articles where economics is tangental, how do you write succinct appropriately weighted economics judgements. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk
I support the push to establish some guideline for WP:ECON similar to WP:MEDRS. An ideal version of such a guideline would give preference to central views (relative to the discipline) over marginal views, suggest the use of review and comment articles rather than simply the use of papers, and give some sense of where and when it is appropriate to privilege a take from outside the discipline.

I feel that this can and should reflect the ongoing conversation among economists (and others), not attempt to circumvent it. As is noted on WT:ECON, many of the appeals against a guideline like this (not SD's) rely on the insistence that the prevailing sets of consensus views in economics are wrong. Another more serious criticism is that the guideline as written did not respect the pluralism within economics as a discipline nor did it respect the station of economics within a constellation of social sciences. As a particularly salient example, the most recent Nobel laureate in economics (and the first woman to win the prize) is a poltical scientist by training. A guideline that automatically diminishes her view on wikipedia would be perverse indeed (See most notably concerns about citation and publication of political economy papers). But the ongoing refrain for WP:ECON should be that economic consensus is not monolithic but that we are required to report it responsibly.

The dangers of failing to report the consensus responsibly are laid out variously on WT:ECON. I won't belabor the point here. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CRGreathouse
I broadly agree with LK, Dmcq, The Four Deuces, Cretog8, and JQ (though I would characterize the Austrian school as a "minority" rather than a "small minority").

There are many questions about how policy affects WikiProject Economics and economics articles in general. Guidance would reduce the problems surrounding these issues: at best, common issues will be hashed out and the consensus will be respected; at worst, at least the discussion can take place off the main project Talk page.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by skipsievert
On Weight. Discussions at the WikiProject Talk page point out that WP:WEIGHT says nothing about giving some 'reliable' sources more weight as to determining where 'neutrality' is. Basic policy of verifiable, not truth is paramount. Academic sources do not outweigh other “reliable” sources because that would leave us at the mercy of some academic fields where corporate fascism as to funding and political corporate fascist special interest organizations control mainstream media. Other, non-academic 'reliable' sources provide balance and create an over all neutral presentation and more well rounded information. A mixture of sources is the most thoughtful way.

The science of economics is a misnomer term and controversial. A group of editors led by mainstream advocates do not get special treatment for their views because that would mean a special interest group would be able to control articles. There is a pattern by self identified mainstream editors, to tandem edit that pov on economics articles. This is not good. If those editors wish to publish their thoughts and feelings about what has value in regard to what is meaningful or true or right then they are in the wrong place and contentiously rejecting information that is sourced, encyclopedic and of value in regard to understanding the big picture of a subject becomes problematic. Commandeering articles to a pov because some people think that pov is more valuable violates n.p.o.v. policy, and that approach can rightfully be rejected. Also mainstream and heterodox are confused terms especially in regard to citing one or the other for weight in economics. Neither have weight. I see certain people here as intransigent about wanting to edit without using policy and guidelines to a view of making articles into some made up view of their interpretation of mainstream. That makes a poor presentation of information. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help me catch up
Hello, you can type my name as "xav". This will keep your fingers from bleeding. If you haven't made your opening statement, please do so above!

I'm not an expert in this field in any way, shape or form. I've seen lots of words I do not understand, and being that there is a dispute in your project, I think it'd be better if I got everyone's definitions. I'd like everyone's brief description in their own section, just so I can feel a bit more grounded. If someone gave the definitions as you would give them, then it's fine to just agree. If you think someone has failed to explain the nuances, please say so and fill in the blanks.


 * What is orthodox economics? What falls into that category?
 * What is heterodox economics? What falls into that category?
 * What is fringe economics? What falls into that category?
 * What theories are causing the most conflict, if any?

I figure there will be some disagreement, and that's partly why I ask the question. However, if someone disagrees, then we'll hold that discussion later if need be; this is partly an exercise in allowing disagreement. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Of course, you might all agree, which is great, too.

The Four Deuces

 * What is orthodox economics? What falls into that category? Generally accepted in academic sources (e.g., Keynes)
 * What is heterodox economics? What falls into that category? Minority view in academic sources (e.g., Mises)
 * What is fringe economics? What falls into that category? Not recognized in academic sources (e.g., Social Credit)
 * What theories are causing the most conflict, if any? Austrian School, particulary when sourced to non-peer reviewed articles, such as those on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website
 * Excuse me refactoring to here. I wish to avoid threaded discussions for the moment. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Slam Diego
It does not matter which theory presently occupies the rôle or orthodoxy, and which occupy the rôles of heterodoxy. Any guidelines should be such that, if the rôles are switched about, the guidelines will still apply. The theories causing most of the relevant conflict — the one for which we agreed to seek Mediation — are not theories of economics; they are theories of guidelines, of sourcing, and of weighting. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * JQ— No, it really isn't necessary to know what the accidentals are. Further, asking disputants to characterize the party at fault invites answers that largely beg the question at hand, and invites caricature and contention that ought to be avoided. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John Quiggin
[refactored from section above, Xavexgoem (talk)]

"Any guidelines should be such that, if the rôles are switched about, the guidelines will still apply." Absolutely agreed. But to understand what's going on it's important for the mediators to understand as we (or nearly all of us) do, which groups are in which roles in the current state of the economics discipline. The statements by LK and Four Deuces cover this. JQ (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo
Agree with Four Deuces above, but I would also add:


 * What is orthodox economics? What falls into that category?
 * Orthodox (mainstream) economics is the thinking found in academic journals and handbooks, and is reflected by what is taught in Economics Departments in accredited universities. Open any widely used undergraduate economics textbook. Everything inside is mainstream economics. There are diverse views and political stances, but some core methodologies hold (e.g. mathematical modeling, statistical testing, maximizing agents, etc.) Examples include Behavioral economics, Game theory, Efficient markets hypothesis, Real Business Cycle theory and Keynesian economics. (See Outline of economics and JEL classification codes.)


 * What is heterodox economics? What falls into that category?
 * Minority views that seldom make it into the major academic journals, and are almost never mentioned in undergraduate textbooks. These views usually reject some aspect of the mainstream methodology eg. the Austrian school rejects the use of math models and statistics. Other notable heterodox views are Marxist economics and Post-Keynesian economics. These views are notable because they have a non-academic following that is larger than their weight in academic sources.


 * What is fringe economics? What falls into that category?
 * Viewpoints that have not been mentioned in any academic sources. Some fringe viewpoints may be covered by non-academic sources, making them notable. But their theories should not be part of articles on general economics topics (e.g. price, money, consumption, trade, taxation). Technocracy and Social Credit are fringe views.


 * What theories are causing the most conflict, if any?
 * Because of the relative abundance of Austrian school sympathizers among Wikipedia editors (male internet users from Western countries), that viewpoint receives undue weight in many economics articles. Eg. one third of the article on Price is on 'Austrian Price theory', and until a long struggle last year between Econ Wikiproject members and Austrian school sympathizers, the article on Inflation presented the Austrian definition of inflation (inflation is the debasement of money) with more weight than the standard textbook definition of inflation (inflation is an increase in prices).
 * LK (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cretog8

 * What is orthodox economics? What falls into that category? The overall conceptual framework would be recognized by most economists without a large amount of background, and not rejected as either known fallacy or complete nonsense. (expected utility theory, perfect competition)
 * What is heterodox economics? What falls into that category? Would be recognized and accepted by some economists, but is mostly either rejected / not recognized / not understood. Sometimes requires a fair amount of background explanation before most economists would be able to discuss it sensibly. (ambiguity aversion, neuroeconomics)
 * What is fringe economics? What falls into that category? Could be a known fallacy, but more often it's material coming from a very different background that most economists won't be able to follow without a great deal of additional study. (Georgism, Marxian economics)
 * What theories are causing the most conflict, if any? For majority it's mainstream economics and/or mainstream economists relating to currently significant policy debates (Paul Krugman), for minority it's primarily Austrian School, for fringe it's technocracy and related theories.
 * Expansion on all the above: Unfortunately, these are really, "I know them when I see them" categories. Other things come into play, for instance novel or specialized work could be well within orthodoxy but still not be well understood/recognized by most economists (this may not matter for WP purposes since such novel or specialized work likely still deserves little weight here). Hints toward fringiness can be seen when material consists more of advocacy than analysis.
 * I've tried to pick examples which are not currently controversial on WP. Ambiguity aversion and neuroeconomics are often accepted within the mainstream, but are still very much alternative approaches and so should be treated as minority within articles not focusing close to them. For instance, neither should receive much weight in efficient market hypothesis although both might be very relevant. Georgism and Marxian economics have both been relevant historically, but would be quite foreign to most economists currently.
 * I agree with SlamDiego that there's movement between the three categories and that we'd like to find a way to advise editors without pointing the finger too much at specifics. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo
What is orthodox economics? The major academic literary publishing tradition of the day in economics.
 * What falls into that category? Modified 19th century micro / modified Keynsianism.  At other times and in other societies the orthodoxy has been different.  Right now, its this.

What is heterodox economics? Any other academic literary publishing traditions in economics.
 * What falls into that category? Currently Marxist Political Economy, Non Marxist Political Economy, the Austrians, the Post-Keynsians.

What is fringe economics? Non academic publishing
 * What falls into that category? Gutter Marxism, Technocracy, Single Taxers, Social Credit

What theories are causing the most conflict, if any?
 * The Austrians have some overly enthusiastic adherents on Wikipedia who don't seem to be pulling within WEIGHT: this doesn't seem to be a problem with project editors though. Some Marxists fail to accept the diversity of Marxist economic praxis, and corrupt Marxist articles without reference to WEIGHT within Marxist discourse: this doesn't seem to be a problem with project editors though.  FRINGE adherents tend to totally neglect WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Slippery slopes
It seems that much of the concern about a guideline is that it will become hardened, where creating a consensus for change will become time-consuming and difficult... or it will be too soft: it will be another thing to fight over, and will frequently change to prove an argument down the road. It will be another tedious distraction, in other words. Am I reading this part right? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you've identified very reasonable concerns, but I didn't understand those concerns to be quite those expressed by parties to this mediation. The main "slippery slope" concern I understood was expressed particularly SlamDiego and somewhat Morphh, that what appears to be reasonable advice could wind up being used as a bludgeon in unforseen and improper ways. Other possibilities in line with what you mention are of concern to me (that the advice will wind up being useless noise in spite of much time invested) but I was willing to overlook that to give advice a test run. I don't think this concern of mine (or anyone else here who shared the concern) was a significant element of the argument. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this assessment of concerns, except in-so-far as I would condition the word “unforeseen” with “by some”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Frankly, I'm tired of fighting. I just want to clean up economics articles. But when I go clean up, and try to have articles reflect current academic consensus, I get into disputes with people who want to push a pet theory or worldview. I'm hoping that stricter, more explicit, guidelines will reduce some of those fights. However, I'm beginning to suspect that the fight over the guidelines will take up even more time. I'm hoping that it will pay off in time saved in the future, or as a legacy for future generations of editors. So, what I want, and what I suspect many of the academic economists here want, are strict guidelines that we won't have to fight (much) about in the future. Similar to what WP:MEDICINE has with WP:MEDRS. LK (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The mediation is over
Around the beginning I was attacked maliciously by an editor Cretog8 here. Also members of the Mediation piled into a Ani issue with nothing but negative, and in my opinion, wrong headed personal attacks mostly led by Lawrence Khoo who also solicited people along with John Quiggin on the Wiki project economic page here. I have found this experience and recent experiences on Wikipedia to be boorish and comical as in not intellectual or creative. I suppose I could move to Encyclopedia of Earth... better quality and peer reviewed information, and ONLY n.p.o.v. - skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Continue?
In principle, the decision by one editor to leave Wikipedia because he is unhappy with an unrelated issue shouldn't scuttle progress on mediation. I suggest we continue mediation without Skip. LK (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, its over L.K. with your editing tactics like posting outside attack information on the Ani as part of the reason to an avatar name Your behavior... and also user Protonk coming in to trash me there, is a good indication that good faith is not present. It is not going to be present either from the drift of what I am reading above, and bad relationships never get better. Just worse. Even your sentence above In principle, the decision by one editor to leave Wikipedia because he is unhappy with an unrelated issue shouldn't scuttle progress on mediation. does not make a lot of sense, and frankly seems odd. skip sievert (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Formally, the request could be remounted. Whether the Mediation Committee would accept it is something that I cannot say.  But skip sievert is unfortunately correct that the present Mediation ends upon any disputant quitting (which was one of the reasons that I was keen to avoid manipulation of the agreement to seek Mediation); skip raised this question with the Chairperson of the Mediation Committee, and the answer was unequivocal.  Since you commented to that thread, you were well positioned to know that flogging other action against skip at this time threatened the Mediation. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of problems between users myself, but that's usually workable. This is an unfortunate turn of events, though: the editor that wishes to continue is being rebuffed by the editor who wishes to leave, and both are at each others' throats, it appears. Do I appear to side with the editor who wishes to end the mediation, or appear to side with the editor who wishes to continue? And it appears that a lot of folks here are on a continuum between the two editors. You can see my dilemma as a mediator.

So, brass tacks: is this primarily a conduct issue? Is there hope that, despite differences, you folks can get stuff done? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that an orderly Mediation would be hugely helpful, one way or another, towards the ultimate goal of producing better articles on economics. If this is primarily a conduct issue, then the Mediation will help to resolve that, either by better illuminating the conduct (which illumination would be helpful at some next stage of Dispute Resolution) or by inducing editors to reduce the conduct that would otherwise be illuminated.  In the latter case, we will indeed get an agreement on guidelines, whether it is to produce guidelines and assurances that all parties accept, or to decide that what guidelines we might have are not worth the bother.
 * As to what you as the Mediator should do, well, the chairperson has said that the Mediation ends, so now you must decide whether you support a remounted Mediation. I hope that you will.  If individual Committee members are permitted to accept a Mediation on their own, then I hope that you'll accept a remounting of this Mediation.  But, at the least, we need first to pare away any listed parties who wouldn't want to be part of the Mediation. (As it was, at least one editor seems to have agreed to the original Mediation only as a kindness, really preferring to just walk away from the dispute.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. User:SlamDiego appears to be correct on process, though I don't know how the mediation-crew run their gig. Though, coming from a common-law mentality I'm going to wait at least until the mediation-crew decide if they're going to be bold, or close, or whatever before feeling disheartened about this.  What a way to waste community interest in a mediation process, and many editors' contributions to moving forward in a spirit of mediation. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We could agree not to pursue other dispute resolution methods during the mediation, and to forget past conduct. Is the problem a failure of some editors to properly follow content guidelines or is it a failure of content guidelines to adequately explain how articles should be written?  My opinion is that content guidelines need to be more clearly written while editor behavior can always be addressed when and if it arises in the future.  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the mediation is well and truly over if skip sievert says so and that there would be little point in reviving it. How about giving it one day to see if skip comes back? The bit on the talk page pointing out the ANI has been removed. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd be free not to participate in a properly remounted Mediation, but the underlying dispute is certainly not resolved by the departure of skip sievert. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No way, am I getting involved with the crew here. The underlying dispute..?. has not been gotten at. It is certain editors trying to hijack articles, while forming editing tandems/teams to a pov of mainstream, and calling mainstream, what ever that is weighty as in more qualified as to more viable or important information, instead of looking at all aspects of something creatively as to overview. Also trashing others views that they refer to as fringe has become a fine art of editing cliques.


 * I don't like the ill will and ganging up pattern of behavior of those editors. I got trashed for neutral p.o.v. editing on the Sustainability article by L.K. and a bunch of his mainstream friends who very carefully mounted a propaganda war, enlisting their buddies or other gullible people or people that did not take the time to figure out what was actually going on there, but open to be suggested as to what was happening. I am not liking Wikipedia now because of a lot of stirring of nonsense issues and a failure of Admins to figure that out. How is it that I should take this kind of stuff happening at the same time of a mediation to be anything more than using Wikipedia as an attack site for some people, that have a very very narrow pov and edit maliciously with taunting and baiting tactics? Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question. skip sievert (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Discontinue this line of conversation, please. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediator's response
I didn't feel it necessary to tell you folks not to go around AN/I calling people incorrigible and disruptive. That has happened, and we've lost an editor for it. During the entire course of the AN/I thread, where people were saying that "this is a content dispute", there was little if any mention of this mediation case. I don't know if this goes to show...

This is all especially disheartening, as many of the folks still here have supported skip's topic ban while some folks here have not. I can't continue this mediation until there is some reconciliation between the two groups. That means getting skip back, and how you go about that will be indicative of where this dispute lies on the content-conduct continuum.

The other option is to drop this case and remount it under different names. Since skip having left is likely to have made a few folks who agree with him a bit itchy (balance-of-forces and whatnot), you'll have to convince them that a remounted effort without skip is reasonable.

To what extent either of these can be accomplished is also indicative of where this dispute lies. If it's primarily a content issue, then it should be easy. If it's primarily a conduct issue, then you'll all have to try pretty hard to get this back on track. Your call, economists! Xavexgoem (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I'm a bit grumbly with all y'all. But on Wikipedia, if there is a will then there is a way. I suggest a warm cup of tea and a sit-down, lest we take things Too Seriously (and when that happens, things become too hard)


 * I'm afraid to say much for fear of making things worse. Essentially, we have a content dispute (although "content" is itself a funny word for the meta-content of advice on editing articles). There are associated conduct issues, however. I don't hold out much hope for this mediation effort getting back on track. I am willing to either participate in or sit out a remounted effort, depending on what others feel is most helpful. (feel free to refactor this anywhere it's appropriate, I don't know this is the right place.) C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way as Cretog8. The main issue is a 'meta' content issue – appropriate weight in economics-related articles. There are some behavioral issues, but apart from one editor, who we should drop from any remounted mediation effort, other editors' behavior probably fall on the right side of the line. I doubt that Arbitration can adequately address the content issue, since arbitrators have announced that they do not look at content issues. If we want to remount, can we remount here on this talk page, or must we refile on the main page? LK (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the remark from Lawrencekhoo above, and that he is still campaigning against skip elsewhere, I take it that no meaningful effort will be made by those who drove skip from the Mediation to draw him back into it. Stick a fork in it; it's done, but quite inedible. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it from this that unless Skip rejoins, you will refuse to join mediation? LK (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For once I agree with SlamDiego. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Better to rely upon what was actually said before expressing agreement. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * LK— So far, you're the only one who has tried to treat remounting as mere continuation; it isn't. This Mediation is aborted.  The process starts over from scratch (and this time, a good-faith filer would poll any editors whose presence isn't somehow essential before listing them as disputants), and those who want a Mediation have to hope that the Committee won't turn us down on a new Mediation based upon the behavior of disputants in this Mediation.  I explained that a new Mediation would be the only option (for Mediation) given skip's departure, and subsequent told the Mediator that I thought that an orderly Mediation would be helpful and hoped that he would support one. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you have just accused me of bad faith. Again. LK (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might believe it again, but it's not true, again. What I said was “this time, a good-faith filer would poll any editors whose presence isn't somehow essential before listing them as disputants”.  That speaks to what it would be if any filer over-listed the disputants again, regardless of whether the first over-listing was bad faith or merely ill consideration.  If you  again make a claim of accusation of bad faith that you cannot substantiate (as you've done thrice now), that too would clearly be an act of bad faith. (There's simply a limit to the power of other explanations, as each time the distinction between an accusation of bad faith and what I've actually said has been clearly expressed in response.) So I suggest that you cease. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop, the both of you. I gave you the opportunity of an out, you did not take it. Xavexgoem (talk)09:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I expected this Mediation to fail, and to be a step on the road to arbitration, because the issue of guidelines was tied up with conduct problems of particular editors. Given the large number of disputes involving several different groups of editors, in which skip is involved, I think his problems are best addressed separately. Despite the heat above, I think a new Mediation on the guideline question might be of some use.Before bothering the Mediators again, though, maybe we should reconvene at Wikiproject Economics (without skip, if I understand his posts correctly) and see if we can't sort something out, or at least get our disagreements to the point where Mediation might be useful.JQ (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The issues are already well defined. If no one else will do so, then I will launch a new request, naming those whom I recognize as essential disputants and including those who indicate at the WikiProject talk page that they wish to be included as disputants. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And, if anything shows the need for a Mediator (as opposed to just thrashing it out ourselves), then it's diff 320775008, effected at the very same minute as my previous comment. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's behavioral issues we should pursue after all, since you quickly reverted with the edit summary accusing me of blatantly lying. LK (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I reverted you with an edit summary claiming that your edit summary was blatantly false, which it demonstrably is. As to whether you were deliberately misrepresenting the truth (lying), or somehow otherwise disconnected from it, that's another matter.  But I'm quite prepared to demonstrate the blatant falsehood of your edit summary, citing relevant diffs, should that issue be raised in Arbitration. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time, you two: Move your discussions elsewhere. This is not the venue for it; it's exactly the opposite venue. I'm very close to full protection, and whoever gets the last word gets the last word. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As near as I can tell that AN/I request was posted by people in some other topic area independently describing Skip's behavior. I don't know how kosher it was for parties to the mediation to offer their views of Skip's behavior on various Econ pages and obviously it would have been better had we all not commented, but I don't want to hold the mediation hostage to someone's feelings. Either we drop the request and declare it to be intractable or we convince skip to continue without threatening to leave. I am cool to the prospect of just reforming a request without skip, given that he is one of the parties to the dispute and such a reformed request would not be much of a fig leaf covering our exclusion of him. But if you want, we can close this, start another, inform all current parties minus skip and I can post my same statement on that new request. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not quite how formal mediation works. All parties need to have the opportunity to take part in a mediation request. Should a party decide that they no longer wish to have anything to do with the request and state that they're not going to edit the page (at least in relation to the dispute) again then that's fine, but if a party decides they are simply not going to participate in the mediation then we can't proceed because not everyone agrees. Users can't simply be excluded from the mediation because they don't agree to participate. It might be good if someone asked Skip what his intentions are; if he wishes to move out of the dispute completely and states that he has no intention of getting involved in it further then we could proceed on a new mediation request. If on the other hand he doesn't want to participate in the mediation then unfortunately the request can't move forward. I hope that helps explain the position that we're in here. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been explicitly polling to see who wants to be included, and haven't declared anyone to be persona non grata. One of us could go further to explicitly ask skip if he wishes to be included, if you feel that this would be best. (I'm fairly sure that he'd say no, though I cannot absolutely guarantee that.)
 * (BTW, Protonk wasn't suggesting that skip's participation be blocked; he was just going on the presumption, which I share, that skip has truly withdrawn.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The key to this is whether Skip has withdrawn from the entire dispute (which would mean we could form a new mediation request) or simply withdrawn from the mediation (which means he simply rejects the mediation terms, tantamount to a refusal to take part which always leads to us, as a committee, declining the mediation request.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (copied from User talk:Xavexgoem as it's relevant here) I came to explain about why I participated in the ANI discussion on Skip (which I did not bring or participate in bringing). I felt it my duty as part of the team editing Sustainability to participate in the ANI discussion about Skip's behavior there. It was my thinking that as a completely unrelated issue to the issue being mediated (weight in Economics), that this was proper. If any of this was inappropriate, I do apologize. Being new to mediation, (actually any dispute resolution in general apart from RfCs) I'm not sure what is appropriate and what is not. I'm happy to start mediation again if Skip comes back (unlikely it seems), or if other parties wish to continue without Skip. If we do start mediation again, perhaps you could clarify about what is proper behavior? Thanks. Anyway, just wanted to apologize for anything I did which may have been inappropriate. Regards, LK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)