Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics

Statement by Rschen7754
I'm recused here because I commented on this proposal: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816 Personally, I find that problematic as an attempt to disenfranchise the community at large, on the part of one editor; that's the sort of thing that leads to intractable disputes. --Rschen7754 19:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO
My estimation is that this is closely aligned to the Tea Party Movement issues/troubles and is an offshoot of that, so maybe an adjustment in scope to that earlier case is needed, eliminating the need for a full blown case or separate amendment here.--MONGO 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam....some of the same editors but the argument seems to be pretty much the same polarized and partisan political bickering that we saw in the TPm case.--MONGO 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved administrator TParis
I've performed a few administrative tasks in this area, including closing a ban discussion on User:MilesMoney but I haven't participated in any of the disputes. I request that the final "dispute resolution" link to my talk page be struck. I was and am simply advising Carolmooredc and I hint at a few concerns but I haven't seen any evidence yet to support Carolmooredc's claims and SPECIFICO has yet to make a comment so I'm not sure that it can truly be called "dispute resolution". I also had some concerns about the interpretation of WP:SPS in this topic area. Arbcom might be useful in clarifying that part of policy. That's all I have.--v/r - TP 23:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Iselilja

 * I have been involved in and followed this dispute and this has been at ANI multiple times (Long discussion in October, leading to the topic coming under discretionary sanctions, november 2013, november again) and there was recently a failed attempt at bringing it in for mediation.
 * There is a lot to say, but one feature of the dispute is a tendency by the Austrian critics Specifico and Steeletrap (and until recently MilesMoney) to resort to open or subtle mockery of the subjects of the articles. This takes part on talk pages, but also sometimes by inserting sarcarsm in the articles themselves. I noticed this first in a discussion about which photos to use as the main photo for Murray Rothbard where Specifico and Steeletrap who mostly did their best to make Rotbard look bad, including insisting on putting David Duke as an influence on Rothbard in the economist infobox, suddenly had a rather strange concern for how a photo of a smiliing elderly Rothbard might reflect badly on him. Steeletrap: "He is panting like a dog who sees a treat, and squinting so much that his right eye looks like a sliver. His facial expression is even worse; his eyes are glazed over and he is clearly disheveled, yet he is smiling broadly in spite of this, like a senile man. This evokes the idea of a weak man suffering from severe obesity and beginning to fall prey to a creeping dementia". Specifico: "photo of Rothbard, near death, does him a disservice [...] top wall-eyed and breathing through his mouth" Specifico then says about the photo of a youthful Rothbard "Rothbard was just a few years older than Elvis Presley and one recognizes the stark elegance of that era", which, looking at the photo where Rothbard is clearly nothing like Elvis, I believe was sarcasm as well.
 * Recently I noticed what I perceive to be a sexist sarcasm in the Sharon Presley article which is a BLP. Originally the article stated "Presley was a-political until she read Ayn Rand at the age of nineteen"; this was then changed by Specifico into "Presley was aroused by reading Ayn Rand at age nineteen. She said, "It was like, 'Oh my God, what a revelation!" - In the Jesús Huerta de Soto BLP, Specifico added to information about a honorary degree that "Soto was given a doctor's gown and trencher cap" which I suspect was mockery considering that Specifico's underlying view was that he didn't consider the honorary degrees de Soto has received as notable for inclusion. I have seen many more examples, including the talk page of a now deleted article (Joseph R. Stromberg) where they mocked the title "JoAnn Rothbard Murray chair" by talking about whether there also was a "JoAnn Rothbard piano" and MilesMoney suggesting that the "JoAnn Murray chair" well might be the local eupherism for toilet. I don't keep diffs, so I can't give a lot of specifics now, but I find the subtle sarcasm and mockery that takes place on talk pages and sometimes is inserted into BLP articles to be troubling, and detrimental to the purpose of building a sort of serious encyclopedia.
 * Regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by RL0919
I'm marginally involved here because I've edited on a few articles in this topic area and commented in some related noticeboard threads. I've also watched this dispute unfold across multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. It is clear to me that community sanctions have not been effective. The (in)action list at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions shows this well enough. Since the community imposed general sanctions in October, the sum total of actions has been one single-page topic ban, imposed as the result of a long and contentious discussion at ANI -- something that ANI could do even without general sanctions. For community-imposed general sanctions to work effectively, there must be uninvolved admins ready to apply blocks, bans, 1RR, etc., without a long ANI debate beforehand. For whatever reason, that isn't happening here. Basically community sanctions have failed. Mediation has also failed (see User:Adjwilley/Austrian economics and Requests for mediation/Austrian economics). So I encourage the arbs to take this case. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Mark Arsten
My feelings on the issue mirror what Newyorkbrad has said below. I encourage the rest of Arbcom to consider accepting per his comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Lou Sander
I agree with Mark Arsten about Newyorkbrad's statement. There are unfortunate cases where Living Person A is associated with Controversial Topic B and the controversy inspires bad behavior in A's BLP: Harsh and negative (but reasonable) arguments about B sometimes end up inappropriately in A's BLP. To justify the bad behavior in the BLP, questionable claims are sometimes made that A is not notable except for involvement with B. None of this is good for anyone. Clarification of what is and isn't proper behavior would help a lot IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Robert McClenon
This is a long-simmering content dispute that is complicated by conduct issues interfering with the ability to resolve the content dispute. ArbCom is the only forum that has a history of addressing such "hybrid" issues with moderate success. For those reasons I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC) To elaborate, I disagree with the statements that ArbCom involvement is not in order. It is true that the article is under "community general sanctions", which is theory are similar to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. In practice, the two types of sanctions are not comparable. The former have not worked effectively in dealing with the dispute. Administrators are evidently much more reluctant to enforce "community sanctions" aggressively than to enforce ArbCom discretionary sanctions aggressively, and aggressive enforcement is necessary, as evidenced by the failure of multiple noticeboard threads to prevent additional noticeboard threads. In general, it is my opinion that "community sanctions" are not an effective method of solving disputes in general; they work reasonably well with trolls, flamers, and other editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia, but they work poorly with editors who are trying to build the encyclopedia but can't let go of their points of view and their dislikes of other editors with different points of view. On the one hand, an ArbCom motion to convert the current general sanctions to formal ArbCom discretionary sanctions would be a useful first step. On the other hand, I submit that it is also appropriate to examine whether additional editor-oriented sanctions are in order, and that determination is done best within the structure of a full case with a full record. Multiple previous efforts to resolve the dispute have failed. A request for formal mediation had to be declined because two editors refused to participate, which doesn't bode well for less official methods of resolving the dispute than arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I ask ArbCom, first, to put the subject under formal discretionary sanctions. I ask ArbCom, second, to identify which editors have engaged in conduct issues, such as personal attacks, edit warring, and BLP violations, that have prevented resolution of the content disputes. Should any editors be topic-banned? Should any pairs or groups of editors be given interaction bans? Should any editors be site-banned? Should any existing community sanctions (in particular, one community site ban) be lifted? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
The primary issues are related to WP:BLP and its meaning and enforcement, and are unfortunately outside the remit of ArbCom in my opinion as relating to policy decisions and content decisions. One of the editors deemed by clear community consensus to be a primary problem in the area has been banned, and it is too early to see if any other actions should be undertaken - but the framework is already in place if needed. There is no need for a chronophagous exercise at this point in time. Collect (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Ubikwit
I support the views of Robert McClenon and the comments of NewYorkBrad that Arbcom should look into this. As usual, one of my primary concerns relates to the sourcing and BLP issues that have apparently resulted in a controversial site ban. Sourcing policies are of utmost importance to Wikipedia, and if any light can be thrown onto problems related to sourcing in what seems to be an area that sees repeated problems, that can't be bad.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In following the comments as this discussion unfolds, I've noted several complaints regarding the inadequacy of admin attention, and I would like to point out that such lack of involvement tends to exacerbate tendtentious tendencies...and then someone gets site banned at AN/I...
 * To the limited extent I've observed AE, that board seems to handle matters more professionally and straightforward, and in all likelihood, controversial topics that generate as much heat as light should probably be under the scope of that board as opposed to AN/I.


 * Second, I noticed more sourcing related issues raised by Binksternet, and then I checked the article on Ludwig von Mises Institute and found this quote, for example"The Institute has published views critical of democracy, which authors in Mises Institute publications have called coercive, incompatible with wealth creation, replete with inner contradictions, and a system of legalized graft."
 * That make me wonder as to whether or not all of the sources published by them meet WP:RS, for starters, or if some of them should be considered primary sources put out by an advocacy group and be restricted to use within the corresponding scope WP:PRIMARY, etc. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Please see also Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. NE Ent 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In the words of Clara Peller ... where's the beef? I'm reading statements that "community sanctions haven't worked" but I'm not seeing any diffs of any noticeboard (e.g. WP:AN requests) for enforcement of the existing sanctions. Think long term and reject this -- tell filing parties to try filing some requests on AN, and get back to ya'll after it's demonstrated such requests for help have failed. Or pass a motion that request for community sanctions may be filed at WP:AE and skip all the pixelwork of converting a GS into a DS. NE Ent 18:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Austrian economics (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 05:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Discretionary sanctions


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Discretionary sanctions
 * Requesting that the Arbitration Committee rescind the remedy

Statement by BU Rob13
It appears that the discretionary sanctions in this topic area are no longer necessary. The last application of discretionary sanctions in this topic area occurred on October 4, 2014, over two years ago (see log). Additionally, a review of the pages most affected by the dispute that generated the original case reveals no disruption above the level expected of a reasonably "mainstream" article. For instance, Ludwig von Mises Institute was central to the case, but the article history shows only common vandalism/removal of sourced information over the past two years. The rate of disruption there wouldn't even be high enough to justify semi-protection. The community can handle this topic area without an arbitration remedy at this time. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Austrian economics: Clerk notes

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



Austrian economics: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems decent enough. I proposed a motion below following the template that I used for this in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Austrian economics
Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
 * 1) Remedy 1.1 of the Austrian economics case is rescinded;
 * 2) Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
 * 3) In the event that disruptive editing resumes in this topic-area, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) why not? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments