Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Rockfang (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Floquenbeam (Talk)

Case opened on 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 23:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

As I'm sure most of you are aware, Austrian economics has been a constant WP:BATTLEGROUND for some time now. Last October, the community enacted general sanctions for the Austrian economics topic-space per this AN/I discussion.[1] However, the community sanctions have failed to resolve the constant disputes that go on. I see that recently, ArbCom passed a motion directly placing the Ancient Egyptian race controversy directly under AE sanctions without a formal case.[2] I was wondering if ArbCom would consider placing a similar motion authorizing AE sanctions on Austrian economics?

I'm not sure want to file for a full case as I'm only tangently involved in this dispute. To the best of my recollection, the only substantive edits I've made in this topic-space was to remove a clear BLP violation which eventually I had to take AN/I.[3] Other than that, my involvement in this dispute is mostly in discussions at various WP:DR noticeboards (usually WP:RSN and to a lesser extent at WP:BLPN). So I don't really have any evidence to present nor am I sure which editors are causing the most problems. So, I'm requesting that a motion be file along the lines of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. You can open a full case, if you'd rather, but I'm not sure how much I can participate in it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: OK, let me dig them up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: The reason why I believe that AE sanctions would be more effective is we lack uninvolved ~~editors~~ admins willing to admin in this topic space. The only admin who's ever actually used the sanctions has indicated they are no longer interested in admining this space. (Although, I apologize, I can't seem to find the diff.) To be honest, I think a full case would be better. ArbCom can dig through this mess and figure out exactly what's going on. I'm suggesting a motion because I thought it would be simpler. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: There are at least two advantages of AE. First, AE has much more organized and structured discussions. ANI threads quickly spiral out of control. Second, AE has uninvolved admins willing to examine conduct issues. We don't seem to have any uninvolved admins willing to admin the community sanctions.

For those who say that the community sanctions are working, I'd like to point out that even in the middle of this ArbCom request, editors are edit-warring to include WP:BLP violations into a BLP.[4] This is the same edit that got User:MilesMoney topic-banned.[5] If the community sanctions are working, how come they're still edit-warring over the same issue two month later?

Twice, involved editors have brought this to WP:RSN and both times we have told them that you cannot use a self-published source as a third-party source about a living person. Even if such sources were acceptable, the moment somebody removes something on WP:BLP grounds, you need to take it talk and obtain consensus for the edit. Under no circumstance should you edit-war contentious WP:BLP material back into the article. This has been going on for months. When will it stop? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

I see no reason for ARBCOM to become involved. The examples do not show that there is a behavior dispute that could be addressed. Some of the examples refer to content disputes (BLPN, RSN, RfM, a discussion on an editor's page.) One example is a false report of 3RR, and two involve an interaction problem between two editors and another editor that apparently extends to other topic areas. I think the closing administrator on AQFK's ANI report was wrong. The Ludwig von Mises Institute with 150 scholars, hundreds of contributors and thousands of members does not come under BLP. Anyone can become a member if they send $100. So that was really a content dispute. (For disclosure, I thought the edit violated NPOV.) In any case, the complaint was against an editor who has now been banned by the community, showing that existing procedures work. TFD (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NativeForeigner, the requirement is to prove current sanctions are ineffective, not to prove they are effective. Surely you cannot be suggesting that the arbitration committee and the editors AQFK has chosen to invite to this discussion should spend the next six months talking about these articles unless someone provides a reason why they should not. TFD (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S. Rich

I see two factors which may make this inappropriate for ArbCom. One, we do not have a definite dispute laid out. Seems that it's a general request for someone to do something. Two, much of the earlier battleground was surrounding an editor who is now community banned. Since the editor has not edited or commented post-banning, I think collegiality has increased. (Of the diffs supplied, two are post banning and they should serve, on their own, to resolve the particular issues.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK is quite right about the recent/concurrent editing on a BLP question in the observation just posted. An RSN is underway, which is tending towards consensus not to use a blog with BLP issues. Despite the developing consensus and WP BLP policy problems, we see redoing of the article. Alas, Arbcom might be the solution. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carolmooredc

I agree this is not appropriate for ArbCom. There have been on and off complaints on both sides about others' behavior. However, the main problem is content issues regarding mostly Biographies of Living (or deceased) people. Sanctions under Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions should be sufficient for both behavioral and content issues. Note that none of the libertarian and/or Austrian economist subjects of biographies has been identified with the Tea Party Movement. Admins or the community should be able to deal with the most problematic issues, i.e.: multiple trips to WP:RSN and/or WP:BLPN because of repeated use of self-published negative blog entries in WP:BLP; removal of WP:RS book and journal writings of even professors because of their affiliation with the Ludwig von Mises Institute; addition of WP:Undue amounts of negative material and the removal of neutral or positive information about the subjects of the biographies (or mocking of bio subjects on talk pages); repeated failed AfDs of biographies. As mentioned, the issues were inflamed by the now banned editor and things have calmed down since then. I still have hopes that editors will accept invitations to bring these issues to WP:Dispute Resolution or to WP:Mediation so the impediments to collaborative editing can be removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:NavtiveForeigner's question does bring to mind that a major issue is that admins watching WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and similar noticeboards seem insufficiently assertive in advising, warning and in extreme cases sanctioning editors about content and behavior issues under Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. (The community sanctions usually are mentioned in such discussions.) And it would help if editors who need to go to WP:ANI wrote better ANIs so community members and Admins clearly understand issues and support any necessary sanctions. But these failings are not so great that they necessitate going to ArbCom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:RL0919 also comments on Admin inaction. Admin inaction - even to issue firm warnings - is a constant problem on Wikipedia, though I sympathize with their reluctance to be harassed when they act. The answer is to find ways to encourage admin action, not to bring more and more issues to ArbCom. Also, the failure of WP:DNR and WP:Mediation is the refusal of two new editors to try to work with longtime editors. That should be entered in the equation when admins decide who is at fault in disputes, not be used as a reason to bring an issue to ArbCom. (Unless, of course, such recalcitrance was the only issue Arbitrators were addressing, which would make for a quick settlement.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Quest for Knowledge: Obviously there are serious, repeated WP:BLP violations which I have been very assertive about bringing to WP:BLP and WP:RSN with less than perfect results. If ArbCom actually focused on those and ignore the hysterical and exaggerated personal counter-charges made with little or no evidence that always lead to things spiraling out of control - it would be great!

So here are the relevant noticeboard diffs related only to the clearest continuing violation of SPS in BLPs: May 6 BLPN; Sept 3 RSN; Oct 24 RSN; Oct 25 RSN; October 27 WP:ANI; Nov 19 BLPN, Dec 7 BLPN; Jan 14 currently at RSN (plus related reverts Srich and A Quest for Knowledge alluded to - [6], [7], [8]), [9], [10]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In brief response to Steeltrap, at this diff Binksternet has analyzed the Robert P. Murphy repeated reverts of the last few days. Dozens of examples of such edit warring, plus WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues on BLPs over the last six months can be presented. Perhaps 2 dozen noticeboard postings by various editors failed to correct the issues and did lead to repeated article talk page complaints on my part, such complaints listed in part at the Steeletrap-linked ANI. I was not the only complainant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steeletrap

First, a reply to Iselilja: Looking at the remarks you quote from Rothbard's talk page, I'm very embarrassed. It was an attempt at humor, whose aim was illustrating how unflattering that picture of Rothbard, near-death, was to him. It obviously ended up being highly disrespectful to him. I'm sorry for that. I do think that a case against me would have to center around actual edits to articles rather than talk page banter. Steeletrap (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest problem relating to these pages is lack of civility. I take responsibility for my role in that, but I believe that Carolmooredc is primarily to blame. (See here for a small sample of cases, over the course of just a few day, in which she disparages the motives and character of other users.) This hostile environment leads to inflammatory, disproportionate accusations. For instance, consider Carol's (and AQfK's) claim that I am violating BLP in an egregious fashion on Robert P. Murphy; in fact, I was citing the blog of an eminent economist (Brad DeLong, Professor at UC Berkeley) to offer his opinion on the documented economic predictions of Murphy; the source was not used to establish any facts about Murphy. At the very least, there is a good-faith argument that my edit falls under the "expert" exception to no SPS on BLP, yet it is being portrayed as a willful, explicit and appalling violation of BLP rules. Note also that I have not edit warred, and accepted the (in my view, wrongheaded) views of other users regarding BLP policy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Binksternet/allegations of TE I think Bink is a well-intentioned editor; I still say this even after he has called for me to be topic-banned. But he is simply uniformed with respect to this subject. This leads him to believe that presenting LvMI scholars as fringe is POV-pushing and contrary to policy.

It's simply a fact that the LvMI wing of Austrianism is fringe, a fact that Bink is unwilling or unable to understand. They are anarchist economists who, in contrast to all mainstream social scientists, reject the scientific method in their models. They are proudly and explicitly out-of-the-mainstream. The eminent Misesian Hans-Hermann Hoppe says they are regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all non-Misesian economists. Murray Rothbard, the central figure in the modern Misesian school, refused to publish in academic journals and (according to a colleague who calls Rothbard his mentor) met "only ostracism" from mainstream academics (see pg 87 of [|this book]). If one lacks this background knowledge, it would indeed appear that SPECIFICO and I were smearing and distorting these BLPs. But all we're really doing is adding reliable mainstream economics sources (which tend to be critical) to these article, and removing WP:Fringe ones (which tend to be glowingly positive, written as they are by friends, colleagues and fellow travelers of Rothbard) in conformity with NPOV. These mainstream sources are (predictably) critical of LvMI scholars, but we have not hesitated to add positive RS to the article; it's just that they are difficult to find. What's irritating is that Bink and Carol condemn us as biased, yet refuse to add any mainstream economics RS to the article. Prior to our arrival, the Misesians were presented as leading lights in academic economics, the equivalent of presenting global warming deniers as leading figures in climatology, or creationists as leading figures in biology. It is true that the tone of these articles has become far less favorable to the Misesians, but that's not a product of tendentious effort to reduce the credibility of Misesians. Rather, it's a consequence of our adding mainstream and removing fringe sources from the articles, and accurately describing the reception of the Misesians in academia. Steeletrap (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Without endorsing the entire narrative with which @A Quest For Knowledge: originated this request, I wish to state that I agree with AQFK that the Community Sanctions are not being enforced, despite ongoing problems in the applicable articles. I do wish to endorse AQFK's query/suggestion as to Arbcom's converting the Community Sanctions to Arbcom Sanctions which, as I understand it, would have a more sure and swift enforcement process.

Of course, each of the involved editors has personal knowledge and interpretations as to the problems on these articles. Rather than rehash those and try to sort them out in a lengthy and arduous process of research, documentation, and exposition, it seems to me the best course is for Arbcom to take control of these sanctions. With all editors on notice that the sanctions will henceforth be applied, either the disruptive behavior will cease or the offending editor(s) will soon be gone from the arena.

Regarding the comment of @MONGO: that the scope might be broadened to include the Tea Party articles: These are separate groups of articles, and I don't think the Sanctions should be merged. There have been relatively infrequent overlaps of individual editors but the content and the most active editors are largely distinct.

The problem with the Austrian Economics articles is fundamentally one of behavior, not content. Content disputes can be resolved among editors who are civil, whose discourse is clear, specific, and policy-based, and who are able to discuss "content not contribuors." The problem on these articles has been that, even after a request for mediation was recently proposed, it soon became clear that some editors would not pledge to forswear personal remarks and incivility there, espousing faith in the same Community Sanction enforcement which had failed to be effective. The fact is that Admins, for whatever reason, have not stepped in to enforce the Sanctions against disruptive behavior. In my view, the problem can be solved (without litigating the specifics of past infractions) by converting the Community Sanctions to Arbcom Sanctions. This would be an efficient solution, and it would be sufficient to get these articles back on track. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

I have wide interests but I never studied economics, and I'm certainly not involved with the Austrian School or with libertarian politics. The role I've taken here is one of a disinterested party trying to maintain Wikipedia's core policies. Originally, I started looking at Austrian School economics articles because of this BLPN thread of late July 2013, which I quickly examined and acted upon by removing some primary sourced text from Gary North (economist) with this edit. I then posted at the article's talk page and took part in the BLPN discussion. From there I investigated the disputing parties to see if I could identify a locus of the problem. Initially I thought the trouble was caused by three editors but after some pointed dialog with editor #3 (Stalwart111) I narrowed the problem to just two: Specifico and Steeletrap. I saw Specifico and Steeletrap were working to reduce and diminish the influence and reputation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and especially any persons associated with it. It became clear that Specifico and Steeletrap were ideological enemies of the LvMI folks, because of a split in the Austrian School such that the LvMI represented the other side. The LvMI had been working quite hard to promote their political and economic position, to publish articles and books freely on their servers, and put a lot of their material out in front of the public. This effort included some LvMI editors such as DickClarkMises working on Wikipedia articles a couple of years ago. Steeletrap and Specifico are aligned with the opposing schism of Austrian School economists, and they felt that the LvMI stuff must be pushed down as far as possible. This effort looked to be pushing back much too hard, damaging the encyclopedia by removing valid information, and by emphasizing conflict and controversy with the goal of biasing the reader against the LvMI person.
From that beginning in July–August 2013 I continued to help from time to time at selected Austrian School articles with the intention of keeping them neutral.
I don't expect the problem will be solved except by restrictions placed on troublesome editors. I suggest that Specifico and Steeletrap be topic banned. A more lenient solution might be to hold them to 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse as I made a comment on the related ANI, and on a time-available basis. --Rs chen 7754 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the net four to accept clock started at 18:43 January 20, some 20-ish hours ago. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Economics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/0/4>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

I would advise the filing party that, yes, we actually do expect evidence that previous attempts at resolution have tried and have failed. We are not familiar with every single long term content dispute on Wikipedia, and just saying there is a problem is not sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I see the need for a full case here, but It may be worth considering a motion to change the community sanctions to ArbCom sanctions, for which enforcement tends to be a bit stricter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept basically per Floq, although I would still like to explore the possibility of just converting the sanctions as a means to damp down this dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that anecdotally, I'm aware from various threads on AN/ANI that there have been lots of disputes on this article and topic area. But that doesn't tell us whether an arbitration case (or a motion) would help resolve the disputes and improve the editing environment—and in particular, it doesn't tell us whether or why ArbCom-imposed sanctions would be more effective than the community-based ones. I don't want the filing party to jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops, but we do need some more background to be useful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. The allegations of screwing around with BLPs and other biographical articles, in themselves, need to be reviewed. The community sanctions, coupled with existing rules about BLPs, might be sufficient in theory, but if some of the allegations in the statements are borne out by the evidence, they may not have been sufficiently applied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect, assume not the chronophagousity of any case; perhaps we can strive for a more brevis disposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting to see what comes... @MONGO:, when you say ""this is closely aligned to the Tea Party Movement issues/troubles and is an offshoot of that", do you mean it's the same general type of dispute, or do you mean the same editors are showing up in both places? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those arguing the case is unnecessary, I want to see that sanctions are effective, not that they should be in theory. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces. I am not. Some users were stating that we should not take the case, because the sanctions should be adequate. I'm more interested on diffs that show they have or haven't been, and by noting the ban of that user, your comment was effective. It showed that they have been effective. Your comments are more or less what I was looking for, but I wished to clarify my thinking publicly. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept - on reviewing the statements so far, I think a case would help here, so accept with the possibility of converting the community sanctions to discretionary sanctions at some point. Some consideration should be given to limiting the case scope to manageable levels. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept having looked at the statements, this does appear to be one of those cases where we need Arbcom involvement. I'm impressed by the community's attempts to sort this, but it just doesn't seem to be working. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Roger Davies ^talk 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. T. Canens (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure our intervention would be useful, because, from what I can see here, the community seems able to deal with this issue (they authorised the imposition of discretionary sanctions and also banned an editor whose editing was perceived to be disruptive); the main problem, in my opinion, appears to be that administrators are somewhat hesitant when it comes to actually enforce the community-approved sanctions. For that, I don't think we need to get involved at this stage except to encourage admins to be a little more proactive when dealing with disruption and not to hesitate to invoke the special authority which they have been granted by the community (and, at least as far as BLPs are concerned, by ArbCom as well, cf. WP:BLPBAN). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grudgingly accept. In theory, some kind of omnibus "ArbCom discretionary sanctions on articles about American politics" case or motion could magically sweep several recent (and multiple future) cases to AE. In practice, having seen a couple of omnibus cases, it would probably blow up in our faces. So I guess we're stuck with hearing multiple similar cases for a while. Let's get it over with, I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.