Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Proposed decision

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

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

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Questions to frame the proposed decision

I'd like to suggest some questions that I feel would help frame the proposed decision. alanyst 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Effect of the dispute on articles

Note: To avoid the problem of the committee ruling on content, the first three questions are perhaps best addressed by noting whether there has been a consensus of uninvolved editors, either generally stated or in the context of specific articles or edits, regarding compliance with the content policies in question.

Compared to the state of the topic area prior to the dispute, what effect has the dispute had on:

1. the articles' compliance with WP:BLP?
2. the articles' compliance with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOTABLE?
3. the articles' compliance with WP:NPOV?
4. the participation by non-parties in editing articles in the topic area?

Effect of the dispute on the community

1. How have disputants properly used the community's time and attention to resolve disputes?
2. How have disputants misused the community's time and attention regarding the dispute?
3. Has the dispute metastasized into other areas of the encyclopedia or spawned disputes between otherwise uninvolved editors?

Individual editor behavior

1. What specific patterns of behavior of each of the parties have been constructive and ought to be encouraged?
2. What specific patterns of behavior of each of the parties have tended to inflame, prolong, revive, confuse, or unduly personalize the dispute?
3. Which of the parties have (not) exhibited efforts to collaborate, understand opponents' concerns, make reasonable concessions, and seek consensus?
4. Which of the parties have (not) endeavored to comply with content policies WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOTABLE?
5. Which of the parties have (not) ignored or dismissed constructive feedback?

Possible remedies

1. How might it benefit (harm) the topic area to have editors sympathetic (antagonistic) to the Mises faction editing it?
2. Which of the parties have been more (less) disruptive than constructive in the topic area? in the project generally?
3. Going forward, which of the parties are (un)likely to be able to collaborate in good faith with their opponents within the topic area? in unrelated areas?

I have my own views on each of these questions but I will not share them until the case is closed, in order not to interfere with the committee's independent deliberations. alanyst 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute continues

I realize that technical issues and other demands on the Committee, especially the drafting arbitrators, have made for very excusable delays in the posting of the proposed decision. I thought I'd point out, in case it has not been noticed by the Committee, that the core parties (Carolmooredc, Srich32977, Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, and Binksternet) have continued the dispute in the topic area since this proceeding began and, indeed, since the evidence and workshop phases ended. (I can provide a list of pages showing the recent interactions upon request.) The longer this goes the greater the chance, I fear, that it may metastasize into unrelated areas and draw other editors into the dispute, complicating the work of the Committee. Perhaps a temporary injunction is in order to restrict all parties named above from editing in the topic area or interacting with or commenting on each other until this case concludes. alanyst 15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. I voluntarily agree to refrain from editing LvMI pages provided that the other parties named above do as well. Steeletrap (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alanyst is quite correct. The following is a set of diffs I drafted anticipating a need to post on the WP:AN3:

This is regarding edits, reverts, tagging, and detagging of Thomas DiLorenzo taking place 17/18 March. This article is subject to Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. The involved editors (User:Steeletrap, User:SPECIFICO, User:Carolmooredc, and myself included), have been notified of the sanctions. The following are the pertinent diffs:

1. 1 December: [1] User:Steeletrap makes a change to use the word "examined" in a sentence.
2. 17 March: [2] Steeletrap changes "examined" to "defended". No edit summary is done.
3. 17 March: [3] S.Rich restores to read "examined criticism of". Edit summary given to justify change as using a neutral term.
4. 17 March: [4] Specifico restores "defended".
5. 18 March: [5] Steeletrap changes "defended" to "endorsed".
6. 18 March: [6] S.Rich tags sentence as SYNTH. A BRD has been opened
7. 18 March: [7] Steeletrap removes SYNTH tag.
8. 18 March: [8] S.Rich restores SYNTH tag. Edit summary points out BRD is underway.
9. 18 March: [9] Steeletrap removes SYNTH tag. Edit summary says "Please follow BRD."
10. 18 March: [10] Carolmooredc restores SYNTH tag.

In the meantime, an article talk page section on the particular edits has been opened. See: Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#BRD_on_DiLorenzo_.26_League_of_the_South. Steeletrap and Specifico have not commented so far.

Also, User_talk:Steeletrap#DiLorenzo is opened, requesting Steeletrap to restore the SYNTH tag.

But the prohibition should not be restricted to Ludwig von Mises Institute pages as Steeletrap suggests. Per Alanyst's recommendation, go for the whole gamut. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On February 10th under Workshop/Proposed temporary injunctions I recommended/asked for injunctions on editing in Austrian economics and libertarian biographies areas and still support that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink and SPECIFICO have voluntarily stayed out of these recent squabbles. I would welcome the same from Srich32977, Carolmooredc, and Steeletrap so that Admins, Arbcom and editors do not feel it necessary to keep watching these articles. I would hope that Admins would now not hesitate to hand out blocks under current Community Sanctions if voluntarism fails. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I agree not to post on LvMI/libertarian/Austrian related pages prior to the Commitee's decision. I encourage other users to do the same. Steeletrap (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The responses here seem to typify the battleground personality trait of at least some of the case participants. It doesn't need the agreement of everyone else for any one person to stop meddling with these articles: you are all responsible for what you do and should not impose any conditional requirements. I did this months ago in this very subject area and, really, it is shocking that this sort of behaviour is still going on, and it is even worse that Carolmooredc (and perhaps others) even recognised the issues by making earlier proposals but then continued to act out the same behavioural problems. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I had been contemplating the possibility of doling out temporary topic bans pending the arbcom decision (under the community sanctions) and I'd definitely welcome a voluntary edit restriction. I would like to see firm commitments from CarolMooreDC, SPECIFICO, SRich, and Steeletrap, along the lines of "I agree not to edit articles related to Austrian economics, or to interact with other parties in the AE arbitration case until the arbitration committee reaches a decision." ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. My agreement includes the IBAN, AE, LvMI, & libertarian topics. – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I agree not to edit Austrian economics/LvMI/libertarian pages, unconditionally, prior to the decision of the committee. Steeletrap (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I endorse the statement of @Sitush:. Admins are empowered to issue bans under existing Community Sanctions and each editor is responsible for behaving in accordance with WP norms and policies. I've stated previously that if Admins had enforced the Community Sanctions enacted last year we could have saved much editor, Admin, and Arbcom time and attention and would not find ourselves here today. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• First, considering mostly BLPs and one bio are the subject of the probelms, and editors kept editing against BLP policy, you'll have to excuse a couple of us from having to keep editing to deal with continuing violations, as well as all the old unresolved ones. I'm quite happy not to edit for now. SPECIFICO's response seems ambiguous and I hope he is agreeing as well. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, Carolmooredc, you don't have to do anything with the alleged BLP issues and nor should you speak for anyone else ("a couple of us"). It is entirely within your hands to leave these things well alone and let others deal with them. You just seem to choose not to do so because you are inherently a combative contributor. You could have walked away from this entire farrago many months ago had you chosen, and indeed I think you've mentioned some relief about possibly being able to do that at various times but instead you've stuck around and become perhaps the central character in it. Sure, WP:BLP is important but it is not your sole responsibility.

That said, if everyone has now stopped being little kids in a playground fight then great. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So far SRich is the only one who has agreed to everything. Steeletrap is close behind (agreed to everything but the voluntary IBAN). Carolmooredc said she's happy not to edit for now, but hasn't given a commitment that I can see. SPECIFICO? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the other editors have reservations, perhaps the exceptions allowed to IBANs & TBANs will assuage their concerns. But I (and other observers, I'm sure) encourage Specifico, Carolmooredc, and Steeletrap to accept "everything" as I have. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten to mention the exceptions, but certainly intended for them to apply here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with voluntarily ceasing to edit articles and talk pages. I disagree with an Iban. People should have to right to, e.g., defend themselves against charges leveled by another user, even though that technically constitutes 'interaction.' Steeletrap (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to rethink and accept the WP:IBAN. By now, Carolmooredc has so thoroughly shredded her WP credibility that whatever her latest forum-shopped charge-du-jour against you is, it's not going to be accepted widely considering its source, and each attack becomes one more layer in her well-documented pattern of Wiki abuse -- WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLE, WP:OWN, etc., all ripe and ready for WP:ANI at the time of your choosing. She can't help it (although I sincerely hope the arbs will, recognizing her pattern, STRONGLY HELP her help it). She is now at the point where she can no longer pour enough sugar to fully sugar over her wiki-behavior problems, and I think she knows it. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is partially my fault for such a slow slog to a proposed decision (sorry again). But so many people continuing behavior that led to an ArbCom case during the ArbCom case is infinitely depressing. Remember that any uninvolved admin can act now under the existing community discretionary sanctions. The fact that there is an active ArbCom case doesn't alter that, and no uninvolved admin should be concerned that their reasonable good-faith attempt to impose some sort of order, whether it is a topic ban, or an IBAN, or both, widely applied or narrowly targetted - just until the case is resolved - will be considered out of process or unfairly affect the case. I was tempted to do it myself, but since I'm writing/voting on the case, that would open up a can of worms. Any particular editor being subject to any DS for the rest of the case will not be interpreted as evidence of guilt or innocence. I would strongly urge any editor affected by any community DS not to appeal to WP:AE, but just wait for the conclusion of the case. I am now making progress again, really.

Also, @Goodwinsands: shut up, or I will block you indefinitely, can of worms or not. Resurrecting an account after a 2 year hiatus solely to attack another editor is not acceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit cynical about this process. If the Arbcom folks needed more time, they should have set a later date to begin with. Changing the date multiple times with no notice is really not the way to go about it. While continuing to squabble over the pages in question with an open Arbcom case was very poor judgment on our part, it wouldn't have happened (or at least, wouldn't have happened to nearly the same extent) if the process was resolved when the committee said it would be. Also: I don't see why Goodwinsands motives and whether he bears a grudge against Carol are relevant; what's relevant is whether his allegations about Carol's conduct are right or wrong. (same with my critical comment here: it should be completely irrelevant as to whether I'm guilty of misconduct on the Austrian economics issue.)

That said, I agree with you that we should stop editing these pages and interacting with each other. That was inappropriate to say the least. Hence I previously agreed to not edit Austrian/libertarian/LvMI pages, and now agree to the Iban User:Adjwilley proposed. Steeletrap (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"I'm quite happy not to edit for now." defined: "For now" means during the Arbitration, and to be more specific on articles that have Austrian economics templates on them [added later or specificly refer to Austrian economics or individuals known to be Austrian economics or concepts used almost exclusively by Austrian econonomics, AKA "broadly construed"]; obviously afterward if I am topic banned. And I certainly am all for an IBAN if it means SPECIFICO and STEELETRAP will stop wikihounding me outside the topic area. As for why the dispute continues, a number of individuals in evidence expressed a most definitive opinion on that and it was not that it was all Carolmooredc's fault. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think anyone has said that anything in this case is all your fault, Carol. I certainly haven't, and I'm not even sure that "fault" is a choice of word anyway. There's no need to create yet another sideshow with sweeping generalisations. And that's me done here, you'll doubtless be pleased to read: it appears that a temporary peace, of a sort, has broken out. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carolmooredc, for the clarification. That's 3 of 4. I'll keep an eye out for Specifico, though he hasn't edited much recently, and I don't expect he'll cause any problems by himself. (I haven't included Binksternet in the count because I haven't seen him involved in any of the recent disputes, and I don't expect he'll be doing much on the AE front in the next few weeks either.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually added above the following that I will not edit: [added later or specificly refer to Austrian economics or individuals known to be Austrian econonomics or concepts used almost exclusively by Austrian econonomics], AKA broadly construed; A search indicates there probably at least 400 articles in that category. However, not all of them rate Austrian Economics Sanctions" templates.

Now I usually don't edit those myself, even when I see others have been busy at it, unless there is some annoying BLP/bio problem. However, I know that throughout his time at Wikipedia SPECIFICO has been busy purging such articles of even well-sourced material mentioning Austrian economics and various of its theorists. And of course he has and will continue to have conflicts with others who object to it, a couple of whom got banned after several past run-ins with him on ANI. So any decision regarding parties to this arbitration should specify any content regarding Austrian economics or its adherents, whether or not the article is tagged as such. @Floquenbeam:

In the interim I'll assume we all, including SPECIFICO, is agreeing to that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

By questioning me specifically here, I guess SPECIFICO isn't going by the voluntary IBAN. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems to relate to non-Austrian Economnics stuff. I thought that voluntary IBAN only extended to that topic area.. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, are you referring to "or to interact with other parties in the AE arbitration case"? Kind of got lost in the haze of qualifying statements. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have requested an IBAN on all interaction with SPECIFICO so obviously have been thinking in those terms, though I think Arbitrators could and may impose a complete IBAN on all topics for other parties as well. If I do not get an IBAN on all topics, and there is continued following of and harassing of me by SPECIFICO (and/or Steeletrap), I will request one where ever is best, ANI or regarding this Arbitration. Only since the voluntary IBAN started have I dared to start editing again in articles of interest to me. I see both Steeletrap and SPECIFICO followed me to an article they had not edited before, though they did not address me or my edits. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been called out, I'm entitled to respond. I have edited Bill Clinton-related pages such as Bill Clinton, Defense of Marriage Act, and Clinton's section on LGBT rights in the United States, repeatedly, for nearly a year. It is absurd to suggest that I was "following Carol" to the page when I am a longstanding contributor to Clinton-related pages and made no edits that conflicted with hers. I think Carol went to the page in response to me, since I was editing an accompanying Clinton page a day before. She has no prior history of editing Clinton pages except -- back in August, in response to my expression of support for some of Clinton's achievements -- adding sensationalist and BLP-violating characterizations of dismissed sexual harassment/assault allegations. It is possible I followed SPECIFICO to the page (I don't recall this, but I do think he has a keen eye for detecting and rectifying vandalism and BLP-violating content) but the IBAN I agree to doesn't apply to him because our relationship is fine.

Carol has broken the IBAN through her above criticism of me. SPECIFICO never agreed to it (it was not a creation of the committee, but a proposal by Adjwilley). Steeletrap (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of information - The edit I made on the Clinton article was to remove text that predated Caorlmooredc's only edit in that article. I hope this will put the matter to rest. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap: I doubt IBAN applies here. SPECIFICO: Both of you editing same article - which neither had edited before - within 24 hours of my doing so, if practised repeatedly, easily could be seen as a way of harassing an editor without technically violating an IBAN. So I'm just making that point clear the first time it happens as opposed to waiting til the 5th or 6th time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been a blatant violation of our agreement by Srich. Earlier in this thread he stated that "My agreement includes the IBAN, AE, LvMI, & libertarian topics", yet edited the Ludwig von Mises article today. Steeletrap (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably Specifico has not signed on to the voluntary TBAN. If he had, he would not have edited the article, and might have brought up the topic on the talkpage. In any event, I've opened Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Recent_edits on the particular edits, so if anyone thinks my edit is improper, they should please feel free to discuss at that point. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Since all the other parties to the IBAN have repeatedly broken it, I no longer feel obligated to abide by it. Srich's reversion of my edit to an economics page was the last straw. (yesterday, he edited the page of Ludwig von Mises Institute.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. Maybe a renewal of contentious editing will prompt the drafting arbitrator to post a decision (or proposed decision). – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to edit the Mises/libertarian-related pages, even though you and Carol continue to do so. And I have no idea why you'd hope for "contentious editing." An IBAN, however, makes no logical sense when only one party abides by it. Since you both broke your word, I am no longer bound by the IBAN. Steeletrap (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't hope for contentious editing. I hope the arbitrators can craft a decision that will end the contentious editing. I said "Good" because you no longer feel obligated to abide by an IBAN. We (i.e, all of us) can certainly interact civilly even if there are disagreements about content. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tick, Tock

Instead of brown-nosing "the Committee", I'm going to say what everyone's thinking: this process is not credible. The massive delays and the Committee's total disregard for its (self-imposed) deadlines, fairly or not, make its members look lazy and unconcerned with stopping alleged violations of policy. The Committee's vague assurances that "progress" is being made actually undermine its credibility, because it (glaringly) fails to specify what "progress" means (the repeated apologies for the supposedly justified delays also evince a sense of personal guilt characteristic of an individual making a 'dog ate my homework' type excuse.) That the Gun Control Arbitration also features extravagant delays along with vague excuses and assurances that 'progress is being made' provide more reason for cynicism.

All of that being said, I have to ask the Committee-members: What specifically have you been up to for the past month? And, why must it be kept more secretive than the Manhattan Project was?

I understand that resolving this issue would take several hours. But if you aren't the sort of people who over the course of two months are able to take an afternoon or two off (and the vast, vast majority of Wikipedia editors are those sorts), this isn't a role you should volunteer for. Either apologize for taking on a commitment you don't have time for and delegate it to other users, or (if laziness rather than necessity is driving the delay) quit being couch potatoes and get this done by the end of the week. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I must say, in defense of the arbitrators, that this delay is extremely unusual. In my time as clerk, this is the first time I see this. → Call me Hahc21 06:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I followed the Tea Party Case last year which opened 5 March and was closed 6 September. Several arbitrators recognized that the handling of that case wasn't optimal so hopefully both this case and the gun control case will be soundly rounded up before summer starts. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do feel we have to cut volunteers slack, especially since I note most of them probably keep busy putting out constant but tiring minor fires in their roles as admins. One more argument for the Foundation figuring out a legal way to hire a couple hundred paid part-time admins so that important jobs like this could be taken on by volunteers. Of course, with more admins willing to be tougher, there might not be as much need for as many arbitrations and problems could be solved quicker; and fewer better editors would quite because they get fed up with the antics of disruptive editors. A girl can dream.... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a shift in tone from your complaint about arbitrations going on "forever" on your page. But I can appreciate the strategic insight that makes you say this now.

If you volunteer to do two pretty important things, miss the self-imposed deadlines for getting them done by a month, and provide no clear reason as to why you screwed up, you're being irresponsible. They are volunteers, but they assumed responsibilities that they are unable to live up to.

The sloppy reasoning employed by one member of Arbcom here also makes me doubt whether we will have a just (and frankly, competent) resolution to this problem. One of many anti-Carol editors here (Goodwin) is having all of her/his carefully presented arguments dismissed without consideration by Arbcom because of his alleged motives in making them. That is not cogent reasoning. Goodwin's arguments about her behavior are either correct or incorrect, policy-wise. The fact that the Arbcom fellow (Floquen) has to augment his fallacious ad hominem criticism of Goodwin with over-the-top threats of "indefinite blocks" is also discouraging. Here and elsewhere, you can see that the Commitee wields its power a little too enthusiastically, and demands over-the-top deference and personal respect/admiration rather than mere respect for procedure. Steeletrap (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'Smatter, you got a hot date? You afraid Wikipedia will be finished and written in stone before the case is decided? Is a bomb going to go off if the Committee slows down too much, as in Speed?

Yes, sooner is better than later, but that in itself doesn't justify your claim that the "process is not credible". The process will be credible if it ends in a credible result (not necessarily the result you want, but a result that the general community can accept). So relax, take a chill pill, your attitude is probably part of the reason there's a ArbCom case in the first place. BMK (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Status updates here

Could one of the drafting arbitrators (Floquenbeam or Newyorkbrad) please update this section each week, starting now, with an indication of how things are progressing toward a draft decision being posted? Thanks, alanyst 14:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I will consult and post an update by the end of the day today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed decision will be posted no later than one week from today, and hopefully much sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision imminent

I will be posting the proposed decision within the next 48 hours. Further posts to this or the other case pages, until it is posted, are unlikely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Still having to deal with blanking and other tag-team nonsense

In case they missed it, I want to bring this set of WP:ANI issues, in line with the evidence I submitted, to the Committee's attention as they consider the decision. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment RE: "Locus of the dispute"

I think it would be more accurate, and more helpful to the resolution of this matter, to define the locus as "articles relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and its affliates". There's been no particular problem on other, non-vMI-related pages concerning Austrian economics. Indeed one of the principal disagreements has concerned whether or to what extent the Mises Institute is part of or related to the Austrian school of economics or economics in general. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not matter very much. If the decision is adopted as I've proposed it, including my first choice as to the remedy concerning yourself, then the only people topic-banned from "Austrian economics" outside "Mises Institute" will be the two editors who said on the Workshop they want to leave the topic anywhere. And if editing on Austrian economics outside LVMI stays problem-free, then no one will be sanctioned and editors can work together to improve the articles. But I'd welcome comments from others on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you're going to evaluate the battleground behavior and linked uninvolved party criticisms of the behavior of Srich32977 and Binksternet. I have no doubt they'll reinsert the promotional and ill-sourced whitewash content that we've worked over a year to remove from these articles. They've demonstrated that they do not understand either the subject matter or the sources well enough to refrain from such behavior. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In my evaluation of the evidence, none of the parties not currently sanctioned in the decision requires a remedy. The other parties will be reminded that they remain subject to the general/discretionary sanctions in the event of any misconduct. Please also note that the other arbitrators each also have a voice, and if any deems additional findings or remedies in order, he or she is free to propose them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Hello. I'm distressed by this [11] post, which begs the question of defining the locus or as you say the "center of this dispute." Also, as I've said elsewhere there's ample evidence of the disruptive editing and personal attacks by Srich32977 and Binksternet and I would hope that all the Arbcom members review the evidence on those users despite their omission from the initial recommendation of Newyorkbrad. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions:

• Locus wise, I am assuming that if editors in any economics - or really any articles - cause problematic conflicts re WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. related to Austrian economics or economists, they will be subject to this Arbitration. (Just like people who make bigoted remarks - or false allegations of bigotry - are subject to relevant Arbitrations.) Editors thus should be warned about it and taken to Arbitration enforcement if necessary. Am I correct or am I wrong?
• Whatever the case, will we topic banned editors be allowed to warn them on talk pages and/or complain at Arbitration enforcement about such violations?

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I'd be disappointed if you do not reply with respect to the issue I raised above. If I did not state it clearly, please say so and I will try again. Without disputing your statement of your favored remedy, I don't see what the Community will benefit from an overly broad definition of the "core". With respect to myself, there are two alternative sanctions proposed and I do not see that you have explained your rationale for considering the first one consistent with the goal of banning from the "core." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk

Miss Steele's topic ban

I think there is a reasonable case for topic-banning me from LvMI related pages. But I have difficulty understanding the justification for a broad topic ban on Austrian subjects. It doesn't appear that any of the evidence or arguments introduced support my being banned from Austrian (as opposed to simply LvMI) pages. Steeletrap (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll address this in the morning. In the meantime, can you point me to some articles relating to Austrian economics, but not to the LVMI, that you have edited successfully to this point? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, should I take your section header as a request for feminine pronouns? I would be glad to accommodate any party's preference in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to spend time editing your post to include the feminine pronoun. Just know it for the future. Steeletrap (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd welcome any response to my other question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Carolmooredc

I have a few comments and questions I'll share later, but I would like to see a factual correction if possible:

• "Carolmooredc has focused a significant portion of her editing on articles relating to the Austrian school of economics, including BLPs." Actually I only started focusing on them after Steeletrap started editing, only having edited a few relevant articles (including Rothbard, Rockwell, LewRockwell.com) on and off over the last 7 years. Also, in the last year I primarily edited on Austrian economics biographies. Just would pref it not look like this has been my main editing area over 7.5 years and 29,000+ edits. (Certain off-wiki slanderer(s) doubtless would then claim I was banned from my main area of interest. ;-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The allegations of partisan, POV editing can be extended to the Israel-Palestine dispute, where you have engendered much controversy and criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at this in the morning and do any appropriate tweaking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, links and narrative in the Evidence demonstrate that Carolmooredc has repeatedly acted out the same patterns of behavior in other topic areas unrelated to the Austrian or Mises Institute articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re: Topic ban: I suggested a topic ban for myself because I was exhausted by dealing with the problems you have pointed out and constant IDIDN'THEARTHAT editing of BLPs, as well as personal harassment. Also I recommended it for others and wanted to take some responsibility for losing my temper a few times in this topic area, even if I was never sanctioned for it. Yes, I’d pref someone else clean up the Biographies, especially the absurdly POV/OR/Synth Murray Rothbard one. However, FYI, I did suggest a shorter topic ban for myself, in case no one else does clean them up and they remain saturated with a negative POV and berefit of WP:RS information that is available.
• Re: Interaction bans: I think the exaggerated and unsourced accusations on this page even in the past 24 hours indicate that despite topic bans, Steeletrap/SPECIFICO will continue to follow me to articles on other topics. If they do so, repeatedly reverting and/or criticizing me and/or my edits, making trumped up and even false allegations, etc., where should I bring my complaints? To Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement referencing this Arbitration? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I've added "in the past year" to paragraph (A) of the proposed finding to address the original point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: insufficiently supported personal attacks: Findings of fact reads: Carolmooredc:...:(B) In the course of disputes concerning editing of these articles, Carolmooredc has made certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors. See for example this ANI thread, which was closed by an administrator's stating that "[w]hile Carolmooredc's concerns are not unfounded, she is advised to focus more on content and refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages."

• @David Fuchs: questioned the phrase "insufficiently supported personal attacks" and it took me a couple days to grasp the larger issue here.
• Sitush actually complained to ANI that I engaged in "continual whining" at talk pages after various attempts to deal with issues had failed at noticeboards, including ANI. He thought I should do an effective ANI or RfC/User or whatever.
• At this diff (later tweaked a bit) I explain why his items were innocuous and several editors agreed. And per Sitush's request I "WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP" - i.e., presented evidence of my complaints, putting together a complete summary at the ANI, at this diff (later tweaked a bit). It starts with "Heavy negative biases", my primary complaint throughout.
• If that ANI is your evidence of something a more accurate phrase would be "complained too much about issues on talk pages after noticeboard and ANI complaints failed to bring administrative action".
• Alternately, it would be nice if a diff of an actual WP:personal attack per Wikipedia standards I made would be used instead. There must be something in already in evidence, or at these talk pages, after all.

I am the only person accused of personal attacks. Since few people will go to that ANI and read what it actually says, I don't feel like having to explain for the next twenty years at Wikipedia why the allegation in Arbitration was not quite accurate. (Not to mention my having to explain what an "insufficiently supported personal attack" is.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Or I can say I'm the only person ArbCom says is allowed to make sufficiently supported personal attacks? Well, ambiguity can be a lot of fun. Whatever... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments on proposed decision

• I remain puzzled by what Editors urged to assist is supposed to actually mean / do / accomplish ... There exists 120,163 editors, I doubt the clerks are going to notify all of 'em, I think the most watched page where decisions are announced is AN, currently watched by ~4000
• Remedies Discretionary sanctions and Editors urged to assist worked to opposite aims -- why would any sane editor edit in a DS area when you can edit most of Wikipedia without feeling like Damocles? NE Ent 03:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't assume that "editors urged to assist" is automatically going to enforce itself, but I believe it could be helpful in (e.g.) posting to a relevant wikiproject and asking the members to help out. And I don't think people who have no personal investment in an area should be unduly afraid of discretionary sanctions, which simply require editors to avoid non-neutral editing, BLP violations, and the sorts of things we are all supposed to avoid in any event, or occasionally to abide by a clearly stated additional rule or two. But rather than simply respond negatively, let me ask you what you suggest instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As interpreted by any one of 840 admins ... in an environment that can't decide, for example, on what our civility policy means (as evidenced by the civility enforcement arbcom finding and failure of the moribund Civ enforcement RFC. My concrete suggestion would be to exempt Wikipedia:: spaces from DS sanctions (while still allowing run of the mill admin sanctions). 03:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Half seriously / half philosophically -- if DS is such a good idea, why doesn't the committee impose them on the entire Wikipedia? NE Ent 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Because the Arbitration Enforcement page and backlog would be outrageously long? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Only for the first month or so. NE Ent 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Findings of fact

@Newyorkbrad:. I'm at a loss to see anything in your points (C) and (D) which entail any violation of WP policy, NPOV or any other core principle. I stated forthrightly and perhaps in too ironic a tone that I believe the Mises Institute's reputation is based on energetic self-promotion with little independent corroboration of their self-descriptions and claims, e.g. that they are the "world center of Austrian School economics". It's not a policy violation to disclose my view. If there were biased, ill-sourced, or OR edits which I made to support a personal opinion, that would be quite a different matter. The fact that I scrutinize what appears to be unwarranted self-promotion, referenced in your (C) and (D) does not appear to support the sanction you propose for me. In fact, (C) and (D) are the Carolmooredc mantra which she repeated numerous times in her campaign of personal attacks against me. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC) My observation that the promotion of an "insitute" based on self-referencing and reciprocally supportive statements of affiliated parties is similar to a "network marketing" scheme was a talkpage reply to another editor -- not a soapbox -- about what brought me to those articles. The same problem, of using affiliated parties and references to source undue and promotional content in many of the vMI-related articles, has been discussed extensively on various talk and noticeboard pages and is linked in the Evidence of this case. I am surprised and disappointed that you state it's "self-evident" that my editing is biased without identifying the basis for this assertion. Are you recommending that I be topic-banned for stating a personal "bias" against undue self-promotion in WP articles. Do you have specific edits in mind? If the accusations of Carolmooredc in fact contained a shred of truth, other editors would have reverted my work here. But, in fact, the vast majority of my article edits have remained intact over the past year and a half. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO chooses to ignore the fact that six editors, not just me, criticized his editing, sometimes in great detail. I was glad to see Wikipedia Arbitrators pay attention to the Steeletrap/SPECIFICO quotes illustrating their strong biases; these same quotes were ignored the several times I brought them to noticeboards.

I don't think a relatively narrow topic ban will solve the problems created by either editor, since both are committed to expunging from Wikipedia any mention of Mises Institute, anyone associated with it, or any Misean theories that lends them any credibility, even if the WP:RS are impeccable.

Examples of the expunging of such information from general economics articles was presented in evidence, though six editors focused on problems in biographies. At the very least, it must be made amply clear that even in general economics articles SPECIFICO should not make any edits regarding individuals (living and dead) or economic views having even the loosest of association with Mises or the Mises Institute and also be reminded that sanctions continue to apply to general Austrian economics articles should editor conflicts arise. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh, this must be what it is like to watch people commit suicide. Even now, it seems that people cannot drop the stick. Do we need to consider IBANs also, bearing in mind that there have apparently been negative interactions between some of the named parties at non-Austrian Economics articles? - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommended it in Workshop and allude to it above. I'm not opposed at all! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sad to say, I feel it necessary to state that the factual assertions about me in Carolmooredc's post above are false. Sitush, in a proceeding such as this one, it's necessary to be specific. Saying "people..." without name, or "apparently..." without links or citations is exactly what leads to belabored, garbled threads. One can never know whether nor how it's necessary to respond. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, one example of non-AE problems can be seen at User_talk:Adjwilley#WP:AGF. Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO and Steeletrap seem to be uncannily drawn towards controversial topic areas (Steeletrap, for example, has also been involved in Jewish and gun control articles; Carolmooredc in Jewish and LBGT articles): if you haven't met yet, you soon will because you all seem to be so entrenched in what is now a personal battleground. It all seems a bit like you're trying to score points off each other here and elsewhere, and it is terribly childish. I realise that sanctions should not pre-empt actions but, honestly, the bad blood is obvious and there are examples where it has spread well beyond AE or even libertarianism generally, as indicated in the link provided. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sitush, you've just done it again. You list SPECIFICO without demonstrating any basis for having done so. You, too, appear to be drawn to controversy and you, too, appear to have more than your share of dysfunctional interactions, the current thread being an example off the top of my head. You should also be aware by now, if you've read the history and Evidence here, that Carolmooredc began her disruption of these articles with an anti-Semitic slur in a talkpage thread involving then freshly arrived newbie Jewish editor Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from last week: your response to a comment by Carolmooredc. SPECIFICO, you're very good at spewing stuff and wikilawyering all over this shop, which makes it difficult to keep up. But not impossible. The linked example is an article that you seem not to have edited but to which Carolmooredc has contributed quite a lot. While your comment is basically just nitpicking, was there really any need to insert yourself into that thread - your sole contribution to the article? And how did you find it? It just seems to be a bit like a ship firing its guns over the boews, letting another ship know that it is there. I'm not particularly keen to dig around for a long list of examples of what I've seen but Carolmooredc can probably provide you with more. There is certainly no point in you denying that such peculiar interventions have taken place. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding to SPECIFICO's original post: It is clear from the collective experience on Wikipedia that it is a recipe for disaster when biographical articles are edited most heavily by the article subjects' ideological opponents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Newyorkbrad, that's not a response to the concern I stated above. Moreover, I am not an "ideological opponent" of any Austrian economist nor of the Mises Institute. Nor does the Carolmooredc mantra quote say that I am an ideological opponent. It states my concern for the self-promotion of the Misesians and the "walled-garden" references and self-descriptions which give the appearance that the Insitute's views and personnel hold a more widely established role in the world than is in fact the case. And really, saying SPECIFICO is X and when X edit, it's a recipe for disaster -- that is hardly an evidence-based rationale for your findings of what is captioned Fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: SPECIFICO's comment " You should also be aware by now, if you've read the history and Evidence here, that Carolmooredc began her disruption of these articles with an anti-Semitic slur in a talkpage thread involving then freshly arrived newbie Jewish editor Steeletrap." which I think refers to my stating that there was more conflict in the Austrian economics area than in the Israel-Palestine area (and before I had any idea any editors were Jewish, not that that should make any difference anyway for such an innocuous comment).
A couple months back I left SPECIFICO a talk page warning message about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and that he could be sanctioned for such false charges of antisemitism. I really have had it. So I am going to bring a complaint to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - unless Arbitrators prefer to or are willing to deal with this here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

These are a few of the links in Evidence for this case: [12] [13] [14] It goes without saying that these remarks are offensive not only to Jewish editors, but to the entire community. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO dredges up an old issue and two I already replied to in this Arbitration's evidence to support his allegation that I am the source of all problems - and perhaps to infer the other five editors criticisms of Steeletrap and SPECIFICO are somehow tainted because they are similar to mine?

• Diff 1: Is a February 2013 discussion on Libertarianism which did not involve SPECIFICO, before Steeletrap started editing. There’s a long term problem with the article with antiproperty and proproperty libertarians totally rewriting the article, back and forth, and edit warring. (I've quit the article a couple times because of it.) And thus in frustration I commented on fights more neutral editors have with the more hardcore Zionists in Israel-Palestine articles, a comparison which I thought might wake up these editors to the absurdity of their fighting. Obviously, it was sloppy editing in my not writing “those Zionists who” since I do not think all Zionists have those opinions. FYI, I think there’s nothing wrong with Zionism as long as the state is on justly acquired property and isn’t aggressing against its neighbors.
• Diff 2: I already discussed in this Arbitration’s evidence and I was making the point that National Review is a poor source on historical revisionism because the publication is against it; it doesn’t want inconvenient facts about US and Israeli wrong-doing revealed.
• Diff 3: This refers to DrSmoo’s posting about my three year old complaints about a possible sock puppet and edit warring in an Israel-Palestine related BLP which I've since quit editing. I was forced to discuss the issues at length in this Arbitration’s evidence, if anyone cares to look at it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get into any of this here. The parties should not use this page to continue their arguments with each other, or pursue new ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was getting tired of still having to defend myself over and over and over again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap's mockery of article subjects

I am disappointed with the findings that Steeletrap’s mocking of biography objects has not recurred in recent months. In my view, it clearly has, as I wrote in a comment about Steeletrap’s February editing on Hoppe. For instance Steeletrap writes in the edit summary «Hoppe was mesmerized by Rothbard and his life revolved around him», «appear to have been de facto 'roomies' for a decade», "let's not understate their relationship. This is a loving Platonic friendship." The whole thing is weird, über-sentimental language not appropriate for an encyclopedia and placing way too much weight on personal relationship (mostly based on Steeletrap's own interpretation of an obituary written by Hoppe shortly after Rothbard's death; no secondary sources is provided that covers the relationship between Rothbard and Hoppe the way Steeletrap does) "Hoppe loved Rotbard deeply", "Hoppe's calls his relationship with Rothbard "the highlight of [his] life" "Hoppe was "living side-by-side with him, in constant and immediate personal contact"", "Rothbard lived "side-by-side" with Hoppe, and loved him as a son". "Rothbard thought of Hoppe as "one of his favorite sons"" Now, normally this kind of über-sentimental language is used by inexperienced users who edit they pop-idol or something. In Steeletrap's case we know that they have no love left for either Rothbard or Hoppe, which makes it reasonable to believe that the whole thing is a kind of mockery. They even repeats two kind of mockings that they did in the admitted Rothbard picture mocking: inserts the old Rothbard picture and inserts an underhand jab of "60-year old Rothbard getting his first full-time job". The fact that Steeletraps uses a lot of direct quotes makes it more sophisticated; but it's still mockery by inserting a focus and a tone that looks weird in an encyclopedia. And the edit summaries are Steeletraps own. On a more formal note; the claim that "Rothbard loved Hoppe as his son" is sourced solely to Hoppe and should have been attributed. I would have liked to offer some more thoughts on what was going on here, but I wil refrain out of fear of being accused of "casting aspirations". Because what is clear to one editor may not be seen by another; and if you happen to have an impression that is not shared by an admin or an arb, you can be sanctioned. The safest thing is therefore to not raise any concern. And be very cynical about the seriousity of Wikipedia. Iselilja (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, as a reminder. I also expressed similar concerns about this, as did User:The Four Deuces here in March on the workshop talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a malicious, out of context attempt to smear me.

Hoppe said he lived with Rothbard, loved him as a father, and considered their relationship to be the most important part of his life. It is perfectly encyclopedic to talk about a BLP's major personal relationships; this is done routinely per WP:Aboutself. Further, describing how close the men were adds context to their academic collaboration. My mentioning Rothbard's "first full time academic position" in Nevada was an explanation for why Hoppe moved to Nevada with Rothbard, not a dig at Rothbard (it's revealing that you don't actually quote me there, but instead create a fake quote). The mockery you did detect in my tone was directed at right-wingers like yourself who apparently think the idea of two men living together and loving each other (in a clearly Platonic/non-sexual relationship) is somehow scandalous. (I used the younger picture because they're only two pictures of Rothbard on WP, and he was still a relatively young man when he met Hoppe.)

Note that I was willing to drop the matter and simply directly quote Hoppe on his love for/relationship with Rothbard. But people were even more hostile to the prospect of directly quoting him than using my paraphrases. For illustrative purposes, here are the relevant remarks from Hoppe: "for the last ten years I have been ... living side-by-side with him in constant and immediate personal contact ... Murray became my dearest fatherly friend. I love him like a son loves his father, and Murray looked upon me as one of his favorite sons. My ten years with Murray were the highlight of my own life, and the memories of our association will forever remain my most precious personal treasure." Steeletrap (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Iselilja's original post, I missed your comment posted late in the day on April 11 because it came so late in the history of the case and I'd already made my notes from the case pages.

Given the seriousness with which I took your original evidence about the biographical articles at issue in this case, I don't know why you would assume you would be in jeopardy for raising any legitimate issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously why they didn't raise this (utterly out of context, ridiculous) allegation of smearing Hoppe in evidence. I would've been able to shoot it down easily, as I did above. But by making it into last-second posting, Iselilja sought to distort the drafting Arbitrator's perception of me when I wouldn't be able to respond. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence was closed on February 25th. You made your first edit on this subject February 28, here, starting a whole new round of contentious editing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it was weird and not fortunate that I posted it so late and I apologize for that. I started writing the comment off-line about the time it happened, but then partly because I wasn’t quite well just left it there unfinished. Later I had the draft in the back of my head, but I wasn’t very motivated to go back to it, so it wasn’t posted before very recently (incidently just before the PD was announced as imminent). Like I indicated in my comment above; the wisest thing is probably not to bother raising such concern; there isn’t any reward for me in doing so, and it may rather just cause me trouble. Hence, the lack of motivation. Iselilja (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of this arbitration: If Iselilja's concern is that Steeletrap habitually exposes WP to liability which might arise from libelous article text, this does not seem like a good example given that the reference is to Hoppe's own words. I disagree with Steeletrap on many of her edits, but in this case it appears to me that a few editors were unduly squeamish about Hoppe's statements concerning the time they shared during the semester in Las Vegas. Was there some homophobia or censorship urge involved in Iselilja and TFD's concerns? Who knows? I didn't support Steeletrap's particular text. It was discussed on talk, but it's really tenuous to cite it as a critical policy violation and hold it up as some kind of smoking gun. Hoppe clearly wished to convey the closeness of their interactions and relationship when he wrote his description of their time togeher. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• @NYBT. The one thing I stopped short of accusing Steeletrap for was the point he kind of admits in his reply to me: The mockery you did detect in my tone was directed at right-wingers. This was my reading of the situation all the time. When they write edit summaries like «roomies for a decade» it’s meant to mock "right-wingers who think the idea of two men living together and loving each other (in a clearly Platonic/non-sexual relationship) is somehow scandalous" or more precisely to be able to later make the claim that those who objects to their edits are "right wingers who think the idea of two men living together …is scandalous". I believe Steeletrap knew very well that the language and overall presentation in the Rothbard-Hoppe section would not stick, but still thought it was fun to insert it there and then mock editors who tried to make the presentation encyclopedic as being afraid of friendship between men, like they chose to do in their reply to me above and at the Hoppe talk page "I feel that the discomfort of some editors regarding loving (but also Platonic/not at all sexual) relationships between people of the same gender leads them to mischaracterize and downplay the relationship between Hoppe and Rothbard as 'just friends.'" They also had the strange habit of pointing out in edit summaries that the relationship was platonic, when those who copyedit the section in no way said that they believe that Steeletrap’s presentation implied a sexual relationship.Diff, diff

This is all my interpretation and reading of the situation and even though I present diffs and administrators or arbitrators may not share this interpretation and that’s why I fear I may put myself in jeopardy by giving my interpretation (as opposed to solely give diffs that speak for themselves). But I hope the arbitrators will notice how Steeletrap willingly admit mockery of rightwingers and apparently thinks that totally fine behaviour in an editing sitiation. – For the record; I think having a section on the relationship with Rothbard was totally appropriate, mentioning that their relationship was both professional and personal. But the emphasis on the personal was just weird. Iselilja (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

First, my proposed, allegedly 'unencyclopedic' text has mostly been retained, despite all the controversy. Second, multiple users (including Carol and TFD) said the text, which was basically a straightforward paraphrase of Hoppe's remarks, implied a sexual relationship (see their complaints on the workshop). That (absurd) inference is what I was ridiculing. You lose credibility when you make false statements. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: You repeatedly refer to "they" above. What are "their" names? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you perfectly well know the answer to your own question. Otherwise, you will find it by checking the name of the editor in the provided diffs. Iselilja (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja, your snide response to my straightforward question is not appropriate. I was trying not to accuse you of intentional wrongdoing, but since you failed to respond to my question, I will state my concern directly: You say "they" which I take to be a plural pronoun, not a gender-neutral replacement for "she" referring to Steeletrap. The most likely interpretation of "they" seems to be that you are claiming that I, SPECIFICO, engaged in the same behavior as @Steeletrap: in this thread. Now, that is not in fact the case. However since most editors and maybe even some Arbcom members will not invest the time and effort to fact-check your assertion, it ends up casting a false aspersion on me, namely, that Steeletrap and I are birds of a feather and that there's no need to differentiate between us for the purpose of this arbitration.

In that event, not only is your action unfair to me personally, but it is also disrespectful of this venue and the fact-finding responsibilities of the Arbcom. In the long run, the community and the Project as a whole cannot prosper when casual accusation, innuendo, or hearsay is held up as the basis for community governance. Your action therefore threatens, in its own small measure, the long-term viability and success of the WP Project. So, having been blunt about it, I'll again ask you whether you were asserting to this forum that my article and talkpage behavior was of a piecce with Steeletrap's in the Hoppe/Rothbard Las Vegas matter? Presumably there are Admins and Arbcom members reading this page. If Iselilja is not prepared to address my concern, I ask them to sanction her under the existing Community Sanctions for her personal attack on me. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

::boggle:: alanyst 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is a mess. I apologize that I sniped at you. I took it for granted that you understood that the pronoum "they" was a gender neutral reference to Steeletrap since Steeletrap was the only individual mentioned. I see now however that I made a mistake in the above paragraph by referring to Steeletrap by referring to them as "he" in the first sentence (now corrected). This pronoun error was solely due to lack of concentration, but I can understand then better why it might not be totally clear who "they" referred to. I have not made any allegation against you, neither directly or indirectly, regarding the Hoppe/Rothbard editing. Hope all is well now, and I will leave this discussion, so as not to clutter up the page with matters not relevant for the ArbCom case. My apology also to the arbitrators. Iselilja (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: Same to you, bro. You think that's helpful, constructive, or clear? You should be sanctioned as well, for that disruptive remark. Get a grip. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you all need to calm down. We are nearly done here, finally. Maybe find something to do besides sniping at each other for a few days while we finish this up. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I should have either expressed myself more clearly above or, better yet, simply refrained from posting. My reaction to SPECIFICO's remarks is being discussed on my talk page and I hope the two of us can come to a mutual understanding and not let this become a new personal dispute. For adding to the drama and responding unconstructively to SPECIFICO, I apologize to SPECIFICO, the Committee, and the other participants in this case. alanyst 18:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Iselilja's concern for biographical subjects, and also the willingness to acknowledge when an error has been made. The rest of this thread has become a digression. It is closed. Any and all requests for sanctions to be imposed based on comments made within this thread itself are denied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

grammatical choice

Under Carolmooredc:

an administrator's stating

is odd -- though "technically correct" if one uses "stating" as a gerund, but removing the "'s" would be far more common in normal English here. Collect (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To my ear it's more idiomatic the way I wrote it. What do others think? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect is obviously in error here. NY's usage is not only common but grammatically necessary. ("An administrator stating" would be grammatically correct in some contexts, but not in the one we're referring to.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the context, I stand corrected. If you're talking about a hypothetical situation "an administrator's stating" would be appropriate. But if you're talking about something that actually happened (which you are in this context) it is indeed awkward to use the gerund form, as opposed to 'the situation was resolved by "an administrator stating x"'. Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Inverse topic ban

The following idea is a novel approach to situations like this, where a small group of (mostly) mutually antagonistic editors dominate a narrow topic area and, by virtue of their unwillingness to disengage or make concessions, spread the dispute across various noticeboards and venues on Wikipedia. Our instinct in such cases is to topic-ban and interaction-ban the editors, but too often such bans end up themselves the subject of further dispute as one editor accuses another of violating a ban and as bans are used to gain advantage in other topic areas.

I propose a fairly radical approach: what I call the "inverse topic ban". It is a restriction on the core disputants in such a case, limiting them to contributing only to a specific set of article talk pages in the topic area and to their own user talk pages. No direct article edits; no noticeboard discussions; no use of another editor's talk page; no participation in Wikipedia outside that set of pages.

The purpose is to contain the dispute to a venue in which the disputants are required to work out or put aside their differences, reach a consensus on content questions among themselves, and persuade an unrestricted editor to implement the content changes they propose. When they reach an impasse, their options would be to make concessions, solicit outside input (via "ping" notifications or asking an unrestricted editor to post to a noticeboard on their behalf), or walk away from Wikipedia.

The restriction would be indefinite, to be lifted whenever the disputants can persuade three administrators (whom they would have to agree on) that they can be trusted to interact constructively with each other in the topic area and in unrelated venues. (Successfully working together under this restriction to bring an article in the topic area to FA status might be one good indicator that the restriction has served its purpose.) If their interactions continue to be nonconstructive after some length of time (6 months?) then an admin may convert the restriction to a total ban from Wikipedia, for any or all of the restricted editors. This allows some admin discretion in case one or two particularly intransigent editors make it impossible to make any progress.

I realize this may be an untimely proposal for this case, since the Workshop is now closed; but I'm posting it here in case arbitrators see any merit to the idea either for this case or for a future dispute with similar characteristics. alanyst 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This novel approach might be viable in an area where well-behaved editors who differ on a content issue could be "locked up in a room together" and encouraged to work those differences through. I don't think it would work well in a situation like this one where the main parties clearly despise each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

First, being chronically annoyed does not necessarily mean despising someone :-) In any case, assuming Steeletrap/SPECIFICO do not carry their POV editing into all things libertarian, or follow me to articles, there is little likelihood that we'll run into each other -- except when articles of interest mentioned at noticeboards bring us together, as has happened once or twice. (I don't edit LGBT articles much, but I am interested in feminism articles and there is occasional overlap on those.) A simple application of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding is all that is necessary here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Newyorkbrad: A fair point; but I think there is some merit in requiring such editors to choose between maintaining their grudges and editing Wikipedia. If they choose the latter, great; they have learned something about collaborating with ideological opponents; if they choose the former, then they have demonstrated their own priorities and have thereby justified a ban based on WP:NOTHERE. alanyst 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (Addendum) But if this idea is a non-starter, I think some sort of interaction ban will be necessary to prevent the interpersonal disputes from sparking conflicts outside the LvMI topic area; for I fear the topic bans proposed might not cover enough of the areas of interest that the core disputants have in common, such as libertarianism, modern U.S. politics, and economics, to provide a natural separation. They seem quite unwilling to leave each other alone. alanyst 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually like this idea a lot. If the participants really wanted to contribute to the disputed articles they would be forced to set aside the personal grudges, attacks, and logical fallacies, and make logical source-based arguments strong enough to convince an outside observer to make the requested edit. (This is, in essence, how full protection of an article works, only full protection creates a lot of collateral damage because nobody can edit the article.) One might note that the temporary topic ban I placed on User:Steeletrap had hints of this, in that she was still able to participate on talk pages if she so desired. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation made sense and am saving this to think about more for when less burnt out on these issues. I can see it might be help cut down on editors having to spend so time dealing with attempts to trash BLPs of those involved with any number of issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Placed "on notice"

The wording of the notice said, "Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message."[15]

The wording in the "Community sanctions" section implies that notices were sent out as a sort of sanction, when in fact the administrator chose to send them out to everyone involved in these articles. I suggest that should be clear in the section.

TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll consider a copytweak to address it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'heads up' is my general description of what these notices really are. "Heads up: You're entering restricted airspace."--v/r - TP 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added a few words to the proposed finding to address this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. TFD (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable relations

Are editors interested in Austrian economics but topic banned from it allowed to help with the fallout from the vested interests who use it for a veneer of respectability which is on display at Talk:Progressive tax? Supposedly the effects of progressive tax aren't allowed to be mentioned because they involve spending. Also United States very often tries to purport that US taxes are progressive when they are regressive at the top. There are also attempts to suppress polling and this weird thing about how Medicaid really isn't really a single payer system at Talk:Single-payer health care. And Economics itself avoids the decoupling of real wages from productivity which regressive taxation brings about, as does Unemployment. Also Government spending has been whitewashed of the multipliers for infrastructure, education, and preventative health care spending. Someone needs to create Corporate income tax incidence to collect the bibliography or just summarize the secondary sources, which say that companies pass along about half their taxes to their customers. Are the topic bans in this case going to take two good editors away from those issues, or add two good editors to help? EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to canvas, you should at least describe the discussion neutrally and without misrepresentation. Morphh ^(talk) 23:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CANVASING is going on. But this section really does not address the proposed ArbCom decision. That is, editors might be restricted/topic banned from Austrian Economics & Mises Institute/personnel related articles, but I don't see anything which restricts them from editing in other non-heterodox/non-Austrian economic articles. Indeed, their contributions may be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I would rather it be clarified early. EllenCT (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

necessarily rude ...

Given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Proposed_decision#Behavior_during_arbitration_cases says ya'll expect editors not to be "unnecessarily" rude or hostile, does that mean there's occasions to be necessarily rude? Seems inconsistent with the whole camaraderie and mutual respect thing of finding one. NE Ent 02:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For starters, I am not sure this sort of nitpicking at grammar is particularly helpful. But if you insist, I would take that to mean that we acknowledge that by the time a matter comes to the committee people's nerves are frayed and they may be slightly more inclined to be snippy with one another than usual. And although this effect is amplified when the case unexpectedly takes far longer than expected, with no action at all for weeks on end, there are still limits and some of the parties here have stepped over those limits a few times. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Some adverb-adjective phrases just seem to fit together automatically after a long arbitration case. Such as "unnecessarily rude." Or "uncomfortably numb." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES

This page is not created as an additional forum for the parties to continue sniping and arguing with each other. Please confine any comments to discussion of the decision itself. Parties misusing the page for other purposes may be directed by any arbitrator or arbitration clerk to cease posting here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some explicit commentary on EllenCT's evidence and recommendations, since she made herself such a big part of the process (indeed she was the first to post evidence, drawing several others in, consuming their time), and is continuing to do so on this talk page? VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome that. Moreover, I think that the Committee owes it to the Community to comment further on all of their votes and findings. Frankly, from what we've seen so far in this case, there's nothing to suggest that the Committee has given much thought or attention to the evidence and certainly nothing to give the Community confidence that they've followed the links and evaluated the facts or assertions adduced by various editors here. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"self-evident" guilt

In the Proposals section, NY Brad claims 1) that my (and SPECIFICO's) biases are a detriment to the project and 2) that this is "self-evident[ly]" the case. Disturbingly, the latter implies that producing actual evidence of our guilt is unnecessary. I demand an explanation for this. Steeletrap (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is self-evident that editors such as yourself are the only thing standing between Wikipedia's reliability and its incorporation as another arm of the Koch Brothers' PR tentacles. However, you're useless as long as you are stuck editing articles about obscure failed economists who were never in accordance with mainstream secondary sources to begin with, which you appear to be. So in that sense it is true: as long as your biases make you waste time with articles that only a tiny fraction of our economics readership bother to load in their browsers, while the false disciples of greed who admire those dead failed economists continue to ride roughshod over the health of the world's middle class to the benefit of the top 0.1% in our core economics articles, then Brad is is exactly right: the net result is detrimental to the project. EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute is not well-defined. This must be corrected in order to implement operationally effective remedies.

This really needs to be addressed if it is to be used to implement sanctions. I am disappointed that Arbcom members continue to vote for the proposed definition which does not provide any operational definition. The term appears to be too broad in that there has been no significant conflict on articles which concern Austrian Economics but not the Mises Institute. On the other hand at least one editor, Ellenct, advocates extending the definition to any criticism of mainstream economics which shuns government policy.

With respect to SPECIFICO personally: Having researched the Mises Institute and edited those articles for over a year, I have nearly exhausted my ability to improve those articles. Most of the bias and non-RS content has been removed and to the very limited extent possible, new RS content has been added to those articles. On the basis of my research, I think there are few RS references remaining to be found for these subjects. Therefore in practical terms, although I disagree with Newyorkbrad's proposed findings, I have little reason to care whether I continue to edit on that topic. The proposed decision presents no rationale to justify any sanction on me with respect to Austrian Economics, under a broad definition. 12:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

This actually is a continuation of your locus thread above where I replied:

Locus wise, I am assuming that if editors in any economics - or really any articles - cause problematic conflicts re WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. related to Austrian economics or economists, they will be subject to this Arbitration. (Just like people who make bigoted remarks - or false allegations of bigotry - are subject to relevant Arbitrations.) Editors thus should be warned about it and taken to Arbitration enforcement if necessary. Am I correct or am I wrong?

FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, as I was editing Timothy C. Draper who has an interesting proposal for splitting up California and runs a school for entrepreneurs, it occurred to me - do we have to investigate if everyone is a supporter of "Austrian economics"? As opposed to being a supporter of free market economics who might integrate Austrian with other free market views? So we should be careful to specify that individuals must self-identify as being Austrian economists and economic views should be those predominantly or exclusively advocated by Austrians. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have stated elsewhere that I believe that the conflicts occurred, and accordingly any remedies should apply, only to the Mises Institute and its affiliated persons. That is narrower than the class of people who self-identify or are publicly considered to be "Austrian economists." SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually conflicts outside those areas have been occurring for years and even recently. A few examples: Sept 2008 ANI, Feb 2013 ANI, Feb 2013 ANI leading to sanctions on editor, March 2013 ANI leading to sanctions on editor; edits related to Austrian economists or theories Keynesian economics, Chicago school of economics, Austrian business cycle theory, Fractional reserve banking, Capitalism, Opportunity cost.

Also I would amend my statement to read something like: "we should be careful to specify that the locus is individuals self-identifying as being Austrian economists, economic views predominantly or exclusively advocated by and/or labeled 'Austrian economics' or any mentions of Austrian economics". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You ignore the central point. It's not Austrian economics in this case. It's the Mises Institute and its affiliates. Period. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was speaking more broadly of Discretionary Sanctions than of individual topic bans, though I think different administrators would have different opinions on how broad a topic ban on LVMI etc would be and who would be considered an associate of the Institute, especially if there was conflict on the article by a person topic banned from LVMI related articles/bios/etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The findings have not addressed policy issues concerning article sourcing

Editors Steeletrap, Binksternet and other involved and non-involved parties have raised, or their views been linked in evidence, concerning policy issues concerning sourcing of content which relates to minority and promotional views concerning the Mises Institute and its affiliates. These policy issues affect not only the current group of articles, but a wide range of articles in diverse content area of WP. I'm surprised that these issues were not addressed in the proposed decision page. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The committee only addresses behavioral issues. It does not resolve content disputes and is not authorized to alter content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I thought that interpretation and enforcement of policy such as was raised here in this case within your purview. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There were other types of examples in my list, if people care to examine it. Plus there is the issue of individuals as WP:RS who only may have had one article published by LVMI, or appeared at one conference - are they fellow travellers who can't be used if they say something nice or if they say something nasty about some LVMI pet theory - or some other individual who has such a tangential association with LVMI? Of whom there probably are dozens.

For example, Lawrence H. White of George Mason University. See White's page on Mises.) If I couldn't edit his page again because it's Mises-related, then it's under sanctions imposed here generally and individually. Well, I guess people can argue these points to Arbitrators as the occasion arises. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Larry is not an affiliate of the vMI. The list of affiliated individuals is at this link: [16]. The term "Austrian economics", especially prior to the 1980's, refers to a broad swath of what's currently considered mainstream economic theory, research, and policy. The use of the term to refer to the Mises/Rotbhard group originated with the founding of the Mises Institute in the 1980s after Rothbard departed the Cato Institute. This is all detailed and cited to RS in various WP articles. It should not be controversial. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess this response from above applies here as well: Actually, I was speaking more broadly of Discretionary Sanctions than of individual topic bans, though I think different administrators would have different opinions on how broad a topic ban on LVMI etc would be and who would be considered an associate of the Institute, especially if there was conflict on the article by a person topic banned from LVMI related articles/bios/etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Huge logical fallacy ('content vs behavior') at heart of Arbcom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is a recommendation to post proposals abut ArbCom policies in community forums such as Village Pump (Policy).

---

Arbcom almost never passes judgement on the merits of content. Yet it passes judgment on editor behavior, including allegations of tendentious or disruptive editing. How is it possible to evaluate such allegations without evaluating the merits of an accused editor's contributions to articles? I've pointed out this fallacy many times in the process. It's so embarrassingly obvious that I thought my comments alone would bring about a policy change. Since each of the (Redacted) who comprise the Arbitration Committee apparently have no problem with this distinction, I'd like to hear one of them try to justify it and respond to my objections. Steeletrap (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(Sigh) What do you hope to accomplish with this comment? It looks more like bait than anything else. It looks like a preemptive effort to have something to complain about after the case closes. ie Either you say that Arbcom ignored your concern, or you say that they only banned you because you called them dittoheads and that makes them involved. Either way, I just don't see an Arbcom member making a comment here. Do you? If you want change in Arbcom's process, you have to propose a policy change with an RFC. Why don't you focus your efforts there and, if successful, you can appeal this case on those grounds later?--v/r - TP 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm already banned, silly. The point is raising attention to a glaring flaw in the process. Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you? Like, banned by an admin or are you talking about this case? It hasn't closed yet. But anyway, Arbs don't get to change their own policy. You'd have a better chance proposing changing at the WP:Village pump or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy.--v/r - TP 01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

They're not potted plants. They can and should object to policy that is incoherent. To say "OK, we need to judge whether Steele is guilty of tendentious editing, but we can't judge the merits of any content she has added" is self-referentially incoherent. Steeletrap (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about apples and oranges here. You can add appropriate content and still be exhibiting bad behavior doing it. Let's say I go to Sky and all it says is "The sky is above us" and I change it to "The sky is the blue thing above us." Let's say an editor reverts it and says that it's not blue. We edit war back and forth four or five times. Am I right? Well, it's mostly subjective but people generally agree that the sky is blue. Does that mean the behavior is appropriate? No. You're not being judged on if you are right. You're being judged on if you followed all behavioral processed. Being right is not an acceptable excuse for the behavioral guidelines around here. Does that make sense?--v/r - TP 03:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You can be "right" and misbehaving. But the specific charges here -- and in many arbitrations -- relate to alleged additions of biased content. Does that make sense? Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't edit the same articles ya'all do. I can only comment on general principals.--v/r - TP 03:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

General principle wise, obviously admins and Arbitrators do comment on content if it is chronically unsourced, poorly sourced or sourced vs. policy, especially if it is material that defames living people. So that is one exception to the rule. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

They'll comment on the behavior that leads someone to ignore the principals of WP:V and WP:IRS. But they arn't going to say if the content is good or not. The content may be great, entirely accurate, the truth, and widely accepted and still be poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Arbcom will remind everyone that WP:V applies to everything, especially to anything that may be or is disputed. And they may sanction any person who introduced the material or edit warred to keep it in without providing a source. But again, they will not say whether the content was good or bad.--v/r - TP 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

When the Committee considers whether the BLP and NPOV policies have been violated they do implicitly rule on content and they will in several instances link to content edits they find in violation of policy. This is very clear in the ongoing GunControl case where the Proposed Decision links to several edits which insert Nazi gun laws to the Gun Control article and name those edits as undue or inappropriate (soapboxing). Salivio Giuliano states in a comment «In this case, one side was trying to push a fringe theory into the gun control article while the other was trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia» So yeah, the committee does rule on content. But they will only struck down what they consider clear cases of neutrality violations etc. I guess they call it behavioural because they consider such clear breaches of policy to be the result of either bad faith (advocacy) or incompetence. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In the current case, nothwithstanding and not to minimize the behavioral issues, the precipitating factor was personal attacks based on alleged "bias" on the part of editors who were making a good-faith attempt to create NPOV articles and remove self-serving content. Some of this content was originally added by the subjects of the articles, some was cited to references published or written by affiliates of the subjects. The articles as they existed a year or so ago were biased. While I excuse neither the behavior that developed in the escalating conflict nor the failure of Admins to address that PA and battleground behavior, it's nonetheless clear to me that there is a policy issue in this case which Arbcom could address. I tried to raise it in an earlier thread here. Steeletrap tried to raise it in this thread, and I thank Iselilja for her comment, which states it more articulately than either of the other attempts. It would be a shame if this issue, which is widespread on WP far beyond the Mises Institute articles, were not addressed. I also note that Srich, Binksternet, and uninvolved editors (cited in Evidence) have discussed what Bink calls the "walled garden" and related issues. Many parties have identified this policy issue, they've been unable to resolve it. ANI, Community Sanctions, and Admins have not resolved it. I would welcome hearing from Arbcom on this in some detail. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That issue is why I proposed this principle:

Content disputes between those agreeing with and opposed to reliable sources are behavioral issues

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. When a content dispute is comprised of one set of editors who are adhering to the reliable source criteria, and another opposed to identifying the most reliable sources as such, then it is also an editing behavior dispute properly within the purview of the Committee. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Committee refuses to say whether they agree or disagree with that principle, or if they refuse to opine on the question of whether the topic bans include the core economics articles under assault by the Austrian fringe opposed to the secondary peer reviewed sources as I asked above, then I suggest a formal clarification question or a poll of the arbitrators on their talk pages is in order. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: that would require ArbCom to assess the reliability of sources and is way outside its remit. This seems like an attempt to enforce your comment here by the back door. I think that you should go take a read of WP:CENSORED, consider the spirit in which it is written and drop this stick: your "my way or the highway" approach, expressed across many noticeboards and talk pages, is simply not in alignment with how we work. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that true? That the ArbCom will never assess the reliability of sources when determining which editors are behaving in accordance with pillar policies? Well then what about admins? Do admins ever apply information about who is editing in accordance with reliable sources and who isn't in a dispute? EllenCT (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is true that content disputes are outside the remit of ArbCom and that the reliability or otherwise of sources is a content dispute. We have other procedures for such situations. Your statement about admins is irrelevant, although it looks like you may need to read WP:CONSENSUS again. In fact, given your history, you probably would benefit from reading a lot of our policies etc again but doubtless if you do not then that, too, will end up at venue such as this. I don't think you will succeed in getting ArbCom to make massive generalisations in this case, just to suit your own POV purposes: they exist to resolve specific behavioural issues and hyperbole such as "under assault by the Austrian fringe" is unlikely to change that, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When the peer reviewed secondary sources diverge from editors' consensus, which are editors instructed to prefer? Does being an admin or arbitrator exempt them from that instruction? I do not consider the phrase you quoted to be hyperbole or even misleading, and I would like to know why you say it is hyperbole. Would it have been better if I had said something like "selected for propaganda insertion to try to compensate for the Austrians' inability to obtain any traction in peer-reviewed secondary sources" instead? Doesn't that state of affairs mean they are at least one step down from fringe? What do we call groups whose paid advocacy corrupts the encyclopedia's representation of reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus rules, period. This has been explained to you before, I'm sure, and is in the very thing I linked to above. But consensus is more nuanced than a mere count of hands: it is the weighing-up of policy-based arguments & so if you can show that your sources are reliable then they should be included in accordance with the provisions of WP:NPOV. Admins and arbitrators have no more clout regarding this than any other contributor; it is not even strictly necessary for them to be the arbiters of consensus - for example, there are plenty of non-admin closes at WP:AFD, which is a particularly consensus-centric area. For someone who keeps linking to policies etc when tendentiously arguing with other people, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the things. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has that been explained to me? WP:CONSENSUS has a list of exceptions to consensus, including arbitration decisions. WP:V and WP:NPOV do not have exceptions, and they are about making improvements to the encyclopedia, not just discussing them. If there was a consensus among editors that the Earth was 6000 years old, where does it say that the peer reviewed literature reviews would not be preferred? EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You are still misunderstanding. WP:V trumps WP:OR (verifiability trumps editor opinion) and note what I said earlier about consensus being based on policy-compliant arguments. This is my last word on the subject: it is my opinion that you're never going to agree with 90 per cent of the experienced contributors to this project because you are intent not on building the encyclopaedia per se but on pushing your point of view in economics-related articles. I've realised that it is a waste of my time debating with people who have that attitude, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was unable to convince you that the point of view I have been trying to make sure the articles reflect is that expressed by the peer reviewed secondary sources on their topics. Please let me know if you ever find any reason to think otherwise. EllenCT (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, if all the editors of an article thought that content policy allowed them to say the Earth was 6,000 years old, then one would have to persuade them that they were not following that policy correctly. Or one could post to noticeboards to get a new consensus. But if one tried to edit against the consensus then it would be disruptive and could result in a block. That happens all the time at the edit-warring noticeboard. The argument that one correctly followed content policy is no defense. TFD (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So even though the ArbCom has a specific provision in WP:CONEXCEPT allowing them to prevent that sort of thing, they choose not to? What prevents special interest groups from simply ganging up en masse against accurate editors to push their preferred non-factual versions? EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Decisions not subject to consensus of editors" says "The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus." Its ""scope and responsibilities" are clearly defined, and do not include content disputes or the interpretation of content policies or guidelines. Part of the reason for this exception is that they may base decisions, such as sock puppet decisions, on information that cannot be released to the community in order to protect the privacy of individual editors. TFD (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What kinds of premises are necessary to believe that failure to follow the reliable source criteria are not behavior issues? EllenCT (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no behavioral policy that cover it. See Wikipedia:List of policies. TFD (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is willful ignorance of WP:V and WP:RS not a behavior issue? EllenCT (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WHAT is the purpose of this thread? Is the tally going to change? Are ArbCom policies going to change? Are WP policies and guidelines going to change? Has the project been improved in any fashion? It is interesting that editors are willing to spend time commenting here, but so far I see only the last two lines of Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Perhaps some kind administrator will come by and close the thread. – S. Rich (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This case is, for all intents and purposes, over. If you wish to change the types of problems the committee is authorized to deal with you are free to make a proposal to the community to do so. Beeblebrox (talk

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which DS?

Does the revised DS remedy mean ya'll are considering the New Improved Discretionary Sanctions (NIDS) discussed here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? NE Ent 02:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's going to be under the current version of DS until the DS review concludes (very soon), at which time the new version of DS will take effect in this area like all other areas under DS. The point of the shortened version of the remedy is that we don't have to modify it when we pass the new version of DS, whereas NYB's original version will require changes. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification -- that's exactly how I would recommend executing the implementation. NE Ent 22:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that NYB's version of the DS provision including broad but reasonable applicability, something that the new version has pared back to support the traditional overbroad and arbitrarily unreasonable interpretation. I realise that some Arbitrators like (or, at least, appear to like) having the DS system provide as close to unlimited and unquestionable admin power as possible, but surely some of you recognise that Brad is right that some semblance of reasonableness as a component of admin action would be a nice addition? EdChem (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We are very close to finishing the DS review, and the new version of DS provides guidance on how its applicability should be interpreted ("When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy."), which is probably more concrete than a vague reasonableness standard. Also, the whole point of standardizing DS is that admins can enforce them in all DS-authorized areas without having to check case-specific fine details in wording, so using different standards for deciding whether an edit falls under DS for different topics would rather defeat that purpose (i.e., if a reasonableness standard in addition to the guidance provided in the new version of DS is to be added, the place to add it would be in the main DS provisions rather than a case-specific authorizing remedy.) T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to side-step the wording of the topic ban policy (or indeed, any policy document) as the admin only needs to declare that the policy is out-of-date, has been changed without agreement, or that policy is "what we do" and that the documents can be changed anytime to reflect that. I have seen that very argument run before ArbCom successfully (the Climate Change case comes to mind), and also know that some admins at AE behave as if thy are incapable of error and have virtually limitless discretion (remember the absurd ban of Lecen?). Courts use a reasonable person standard all the time (I know, ArbCom is not a court) and an ArbCom-mandated standard cannot be side-stepped in the way that a reference to an allegedly evolving standard where changes are documented inconsistently and in retrospect can. I do understand the desire for consistency, which is why reasonableness should be in the main DS provisions, but I am sure that it would be shot down if Brad proposed it, just as it was deliberately excised when proposed in this case. It is frustrating that the idea of admins being required to act reasonably is not recognised as desirable by a majority of ArbCom, even if only in the narrow area of using the Committee's powers through delegation. EdChem (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@EdChem: I don't really buy into that, because no sysop can change the DS remedy without committee permission.

This is not about me or another arbitrator not valuing "acting reasonably". You offend me, and ignore what has just been said to you, by implying so. The briefer remedy was introduced in this case because we want to avoid remedies that include wording with tiny differences to that used elsewhere, which causes problems down the line and is part of the reason DS is such a messy system. AGK [•] 10:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions on outcome

• Do we get an official talk page notice?
• Where's the best place to ask questions not covered or covered ambiguously by WP:Banning, WP:Arbitration, WP:Sanctions and any other?? relevant policy pages??? Just Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment?
• Will I get in trouble if I generally mention that WP enforcement of BLP policy by admins is so bad that you have to complain and complain til something to Arbitration before anything will be done and the complainer may get banned too? Was just getting ready to put that somewhere and said - WHOOPS! Don't want to get in trouble! Though that's probably happened more than once.
• And can I complain about SPECIFICO's edits at Arbitration enforcement? There are ways he can continue to push his POV of undermining the Ludwig von Mises Institute and those associated with it that are not obvious to most editors, unless they know enough about Austrian economics to be able to further research what SPECIFICO is up to. A more obvious example is that on the 21st - when the votes were in - he worked on edits regarding Friedrich Hayek who was a founding member of Mises Institute (Reference here here. (See [17], [18], [19].) Less obvious is that that day he also removed this content which clearly refers to ideas promoted by Miseans; most of the paragraph was poorly ref'd, not just what he removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the clerks will post to the talk pages of all sanctioned users, as well as postings at our noticeboard and the admin noticeboard. The particular sanction you are being subject to seems pretty clearly worded to me, but if you have questions about it the clarification and amendment page would be the appropriate venue. There is no merit to complaining at AE as the case is not quite closed yet, although if your accusations are true it certainly doesn't reflect well on that user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll think positive thoughts he gets the point about "broadly construed" and meanwhile for new questions will read relevant pages I linked to and you mentioned. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CONEXCEPT, "The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time." I intend to raise the questions of whether discretionary sanctions apply to misapplication of the reliable source criteria in economics articles impacted by the fringe Austrian-sympathtic editors and whether the topic bans apply to core economics articles. Since I was accused of canvassing when I asked those questions before, I would like to resolve the question of whether it actually is canvassing to ask for enforcement of the reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)