Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 26 January 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. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Ellen’s evidence is misleading/off-topic. The disputes she refers to are outside the scope of Austrian Economics and as far as I know her opponents have not been involved in the Austrian Economics disputes; at least not prominently. They (Mattnad, Morphh, VictorD7, Capitalismojo) are not named as parties in the case and did not comment in the Request for Arbitration thread. Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'd say that presenting evidence concerning non-parties is allowed (it can be done to demonstrate the editing environment prevailing in a given topic area for instance to ask ArbCom to authorise the imposition of discretionary sanctions, or even in preparation for asking that said non-parties be added as parties), but the people whose actions are discussed should be notified. If EllenCT has not done so in a reasonable time I'll ask the clerks to do that on her behalf. I do not comment on whether the evidence is material to the case at hand or not, because I have not really examined it in depth yet, although I'll say that it's rare for ArbCom to exclude evidence which includes diffs at this stage (irrelevant evidence is usually just ignored at the voting stage). Salvio 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Do I reply to Ellen's evidence under her section or do I add my own evidence section, which discusses her evidence? My disputes with Ellen have primarily been with regard to her inserting WP:SYN. She uses primary sources and then applies her own interpretation to the results, then tries to insert it into any weakly related article. If we disagree, we're personally attacked as incompetent for not seeing the obvious WP:CK and labeled whitewashing libertarian "Randoids". I'd be happy to have it reviewed by fellow editors - many disputes were RFC, which in each case has !voted against her position. Morphh 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Morphh. To reply, you must create your own section: "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". You can read more at the top of the evidence page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can post rebuttals on the main page, but it's also acceptable to post them on this talk page. Salvio 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"outside the scope of Austrian Economics" in what way? The editors with the behavior problems on the subject of the case edit from the premise that taxation is theft by force instead of a means of maintaining and supporting commerce. The reasons for the belief in the United States vary from the fear that a large government may contradict the Bible more effectively with public education than would allow parents to maintain "messenger of God" status with their kids, trust in the so-called axioms put forth by paid economic advocates for the rich, inertia, and various other motivations. And just look at their talk pages if you think they don't collude. EllenCT (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)