Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Austrian economics

Participation

@Srich32977: - Your response on the project page appears to say that you will not participate fully in this process.
Is that correct? If so, that would seem to preclude any meaningful outcome from whatever efforts are invested here.
SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Full" participation is vague, and I do not see it mentioned as a precondition. I will be self-restrained in my participation, and all contributions will be in good faith, meaningful, and constructive. – S. Rich (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Are you fully able to commit to Precondition 5? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I did not mention compromise and concession, I should have been more clear myself. The various aspects of Precondition 5 are principals to which I've been committed to ever since signing up on WP. And I am certainly able. But I don't expect others to measure whether I am fully able or fully participating. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if there is to be a mediation, the goal would be a compromise agreed by all and which would not be reworked or rehashed thereafter by the group in mediation. Therefore, if any member of the group is not on board with #5 the process cannot result in a stable solution and will waste huge amounts of editor and mediator attention. This is not just like every day you've lived at WP. This is a formal mediation. You know, like sometimes lawyers do in real life. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Having conducted several hundred mediations myself, I know. If compromise is achieved, it is achieved. I don't know what more you expect of me. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless everyone is committed to investing a lot of time and attention here, no compromise will be achieved. Your acceptance said you didn't expect much participation. Yes, if a compromise is reached it is reached. The question is whether it's worth half a dozen others' time and attention if you're unlikely to be devoting what it will take to reach a settlement. If your input is, as you said, to be limited, there's no reason to be confident that the outcome will be one you'll sign on to. I'm not hearing a clear answer. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Four of the seven parties have signed on. Maybe the clearest answers are coming from the three who have not signed on. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What is precondition 5? The fifth item listed at Wikipedia:Mediation#Definition?? In any case, the above seems to be relevant to #2 "facilitate consensus-building discussion" and some people only may need to make limited comments to do that and others may need to make extensive ones. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding this convincing. There's no point going through the trouble of mediation of Rich is just going to pull out (like last time) and edit against the mediated consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a rather active Wikipedian. Lots of different articles catch my attention. I'm only saying I might leave the laboring oar to someone else. If there is consensus that complies with policy, I live with it. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, Consensus occurs when everyone agrees, not when you agree to abide by something in which you've played little role. Why would an outspoken and opinionated editor such as yourself stand back and let others do all your thinking for you? In the past, others have told you that you've been an obstinate and insistent editor -- edit-warring and meddling in various ways to promote your view of libertarian ideas as you declared it on the Adjwilley AE page. Are you telling us those days are over? Are you saying you're prepared to go cold-turkey on that disruptive behavior? As several editors stated on Adjwilley's AE talk page, it's clear that there are behavioral issues still extant, and that they need to be addressed before content discussions can bear fruit. As if we needed more proof, we just had a snarky little drive-by from @Binksternet: -- to whom you presumably shot off an urgent off-wiki email to self-revert, lest he further poison the well here.

So what I see, right now, is that three users continue to act out their dysfunctional behaviors while I express skepticism as to whether this Mediation is the appropriate way to move forward. That's how I see it today. SPECIFICO talk 04:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

N.B. Precondition 5

Specifico, I sent Binksternet the email and asked for the self-revert, which he did. He's a standup guy in that regard. You, on the other hand, can't accept the self-revert as a good faith gesture, you accuse me of edit warring and meddling and disruptive behavior, and you don't sign on to the Preconditions yourself, and you ask others to take the "negative pledge" but won't let it extend across the board, and you presume to lecture me on what consensus means, and you can't accept a limited involvement caveat which is added to the agreement to participate. But you are quite right in one aspect -- this mediation is not an appropriate forum. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: You don't want to do WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard over content issues and are having objections to Mediation over content issues. So what is your solution to the content problems that other editors have raised constantly over the last 7 months? I guess lots more requests for comments is one. (I don't think WP:Third Opinion is used much any more at all.) And of course we could try again with less formal mediation with the same or another mediator and very explicitly focused only on content so it doesn't go off track this time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Timing of mediation

By the way, I'm sure that if this is accepted it will be fine to wait until January to start the mediation. Seems to me it took a while to get going last time I did one, so figured I'd get the ball rolling. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

To Mediation Committee: Note on issue #3 & Title

Frankly I can’t remember if I read, or read thoroughly, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide#Preconditions. However, I do see a problem with Woods/DiLorenzo issue #3 which I listed, per your Precondition # 3 “Some attempt at utilising the other components of the content-dispute resolution process must have been made.” It obviously is not eligible since there hasn’t even been a talk page discussion, not to mention an RfC or WP:DNR. I have no problem with dropping that issue if the Committee thinks that is proper.

Also, my original title, which I messed up with the slash, was "NPOV in Austrian Economics/libertarian bios". Few economics articles have had content problems; it is a number of the biographies of mostly libertarian Austrian economists (mostly living, some dead) that overwhelmingly have been under dispute. Obviously, the sourcing issue #4 is relevant to both. I don't think the title needs changing, but just want to make that clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)