Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 24 January 2014 (→‎Proposed motion: Kww admonished: according to wiktionary that was the correct spelling.... In Portuguese). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action|Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action]] Motions 24 January 2014 {{{votes}}}
Austrian Economics   15 January 2014 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action

Initiated by —Kww(talk) at 05:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Admin vs admin and application of WP:OFFICE takes this one straight to Arbcom.

Statement by User:Kww

On July 17th, 2013, Phillipe placed Conventional PCI under PC2 protection, a protection state which is not valid under Wikipedia protection policy. When this was brought to my attention, I increased the protection level to full (a level permitted on Wikipedia) and placed a polite note on Philippe's talk page requesting that he choose one of the permissible protection levels for the page.

Phillipe has subsequently restored the protection level to an illegitimate level and has demanded that I be placed subject to arbcom action for "circumventing or reversing" an office action.

As my action was neither a circumvention nor a reversal, I would like to see it made clear to Philippe that he must choose one of the permitted protection levels, and, for future reference, that protections under WP:OFFICE set a floor for the protection level, not a ceiling.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:EdChem:Philippe did change the protection to semi, but he left PC2 in place. Unlike full protection and PC2, semiprotection and PC2 operate simultaneously and in parallel, so he has restored PC2 to the article.—Kww(talk) 09:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Roger Davies: My argument is that increasing protection on an article does not circumvent or reverse the office action. Had I removed protection, I would be guilty of that. By increasing the protection, I left the article in a state where every threat that the office was worried about was still guarded against. It would be impossible to argue that my action had exposed the WMF to any kind of legal threat.
As for complying with policy: yes, Philippe the admin is required to take actions that comply with our policies unless doing so is not an option. Philippe has made no effort to comply with our policies in this case. There's no history on the article of chronic problems while the article was under semi-protection, nor is there any sign that the next legitimate step (PC1+semi) was ever taken. There's simply no evidence that this article is under PC2 for any legitimate reason. It's there because Philippe consciously chose to ignore our protection policies and, just today, has proceeded to ignore them again.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Roger DaviesI see the distinction between acting as an agent of the office and acting as a local admin. That doesn't mean that there isn't an obligation on Philippe's part to make an effort to conform to our policies where possible. There's no legal issue facing the office that full protection would not have addressed, no reason to believe on the face of the available evidence that it was not being met by semi-protection, and the remaining policy compliant alternative, PC1, was never tried. That is all kind of moot, however: changing PC2 to full does not violate WP:OFFICE, as full protection is neither a reversal nor a circumvention of PC2.
  • @User:Worm That Turned:When I encounter PC2 on an article, I normally quietly adjust it to PC1 or semi-protection on the basis that it was a clear mistake on the part of the protecting administrator. In this case, when I noticed what appeared to be a good-faith error on Philippe's part, I corrected his error by upping the protection. I increased the protection specifically so as to not violate WP:OFFICE. I then notified Philippe so that he could apply one of the valid protection levels at his leisure, secure in the knowledge that, since the article was fully protected, nothing could happen in the interim that would cause harm to Wikipedia or the WMF. It has only become clear in the aftermath that Philippe was knowingly violating our protection policies as opposed to having done so unintentionally.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philippe

To begin, it appears that there are those who believe my correspondence with Kww last night lacked tact, and escalated needlessly. I agree, and for that I apologize. However, with that said: Office actions are a bright bold line that must not be crossed. It has been pointed out that OFFICE protections should be the floor, not the ceiling - I concur. If there were a valid protection reason to raise it, independent of the OFFICE action, then it should be raised. I've seen no demonstration of that, however.

The office chooses its protections carefully - we protect to the minimum level necessary in order to meet the legal requirements. We do it as rarely as possible (the logs of office actions will demonstrate that we do them much less frequently in recent years than in the earlier years - this is to be expected, as the project matures, I think) and we pick them carefully. They are almost always the subject of non-public information that we simply can not disclose. That should be assumed to be the case. An office action is a Big Deal. And the right of the WMF to make office actions is a critical underpinning for the project, and a legal safety-valve.

I believe that Kww made a gross error in judgment. I do not believe he should be desysoped for it. There are those who suggest there is lingering VE resentment here - nothing could be farther from the truth. I hold no resentment toward Kww; his actions during VE were on the whole measured and reasonable (even when I disagreed with them), and I respected that in particular. I only wish his actions here had been as measured. Of course, I can also say the same for my own.

With that said, in summary - do I regret my tone? Absolutely. Do I regret defending the OFFICE policy strongly? Not for a moment. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

The facts of this case are straight-forward and (I suspect) undisputed: Philippe ‎added PC2 protection to the Conventional PCI article citing WP:OFFICE in July 2013. The article has been under OFFICE protection since 2011 (as discussed in the talk page archive following a DMCA notice to the Foundation. The present PC2 RfC shows that use of this protection approach is not authorised on the English Wikipedia and is controversial. Kww changed the protection to full because PC2 is an "illegal protection state" (in his words) and notifed Philippe with his next edit, four minutes later. Newyorkbrad expressed concern at Kww's "unilateral overriding of an Office action without consultation." Kww's response shows he was definitely aware he was altering an OFFICE action but also noted that in choosing to change to a higher protection level, he believed he was not overriding OFFICE and was leaving it to Philippe to choose the appropriate level within the restrictions of the protection policy. Brad responded "that raising the article's status to full-protected was less blatantly irresponsible than unprotecting would have been" and noted that was no need for urgent action and skipping consultation. Philippe declared that he would unilaterally desysop Kww if there were not an ArbCom, and instead has asked the Committee to act. Philippe's response also specifically quotes the talk page notice: "Under no circumstance are editors to remove this protection or edit in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it." Philippe then reduced protection to semi and configured article feedback in both cases declaring "No. You absolutely may not alter OFFICE actions, and particularly not without discussing first". Jalexander changed the article feedback settings less than 15 minutes later, presumably as a related OFFICE action that he did not indicate this, simply noting "don't need article feedback". Kww has brought this to ArbCom, as can be seen above.

My reason for posting is to ask that ArbCom not react reflexively to this case request. Declaring that Kww violated a bright line rule and summarily desysopping would be easy, but there is more here. In my view:

  • Kww was foolish to not ask Philippe first, both because there was no urgency (PC2 had been in place for months) and because changing anything marked OFFICE is politically unwise as there is almost guaranteed to be information that the admin does not know.
  • However, Kww does have a point that protection policy does not allow PC2 at present, and so whether OFFICE actions can (or should) violate policy, especially when policy-compliant options were available.
  • This all takes place within a context of PC2 being controversial, and I wonder what influence that had.
  • Brad's response started out very reasonable and sensible, expressing concern and advising Kww to not take further actions on the article, exactly the sort of thing I would expect from his. His subsequent response was uncharacteristically over-the-top and (in my view) foolish. Suggesting that raising protection was "less blatantly irresponsible than unprotecting would have been," thereby classing it as blatantly irresponsible is not reasonable on its face. Philippe quotes the talk page notice about forbidding editors / admins from removing protection or editing "in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it". Categorising full protection in this way is more than a stretch. Kww was unwise to act, yes, but the action he chose was not irresponsible, was not removing protection, and did not circumvent the spirit or letter of it.
  • Philippe's response is worse still. Yes, OFFICE actions have special protection and for good reason, in this case because of a DMCA notice and the importance of safe harbour provisions. If Kww's actions had introduced problems in these areas, then by all means, throw the book at him. However, full protection cannot possibly open risks in this area. Philippe's response reminds me of lèse-majesté, based on an assumption of infaliablity and being affronted at the idea that policy might apply to him. The community has to accept that some matters need confidentiality, but this is not such a case, and there was no reason that Philippe could not have acted in line with protection policy. That Philippe also states he consulted WMF legal about Kww is silly and arguably meant to intimidate and add weight to his position. If Philippe wants the WMF to take legal action against Kww, he should be warned or blocked under WP:NLT and told to go take a few deep breaths and come back to reality. His final comments that on "any other wiki, [he'd] be removing [Kww's] tools right now" and referring to ArbCom to "determine what sanction to take" reads more like "I can desysop but since there's an ArbCom you should do it for me" rather than "on en-wiki admin actions come under ArbCom's jurisdiction and this situation where an OFFICE protection level was changed unilaterally should be examined".

Consequently, I suggest the following:

  • Kww should be admonished for altering protection without contacting the OFFICE in a situation where urgency is not required
  • Kww should be reminded to be more temperate in his language, not complying with protection policy is not illegal, and there are often genuine legal issues around OFFICE actions (as in this case)
  • Philippe should be reminded that the special protections that go with OFFICE actions are not proof of infaliability and a right to take actions regardless of policy. An office action in relation to this article is fine, but acting within policy is also expected. Had Kww simply raised the incongruity with Philippe, it is reasonable to expect that Philippe would act to bring the OFFICE action in line with policy. Philippe should also be reminded that the WMF can refer matters to ArbCom for their attention but not to direct ArbCom to desysop an admin... if the WMF wants to act unilaterally, it should do so clearly and directly and not through ArbCom.
  • ArbCom should explicitly note that an OFFICE protection level cannot be lowered except by OFFICE action as the WMF have access to the legal issues behind the need for the action; however, this does not mean that a higher level of protection may not subsequently be necessary and admins can act in line with existing policy in raising the level. The language of OFFICE and various notices uses a mixture of prohibitions against any alterations and against circumventing these actions. ArbCom should resolve that the latter is the appropriate interpretation of the OFFICE policy, while continuing to stress the importance of discussion before acting being essential in all but the most dire of urgent circumstances.

I have left a heading for Philippe to add a post as a party above my post. EdChem (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KTC

The Wikimedia Foundation, as operator of this website, has absolute authority to do as it wishes. That includes going against the wishes of the users of the website. The risk they take if they do that is the potential alienation of its users who then leave, up to the forking of the project such as Wikivoyage did with Wikitravel. Obviously, the WMF should listen to the views of the community and act with that in mind, but it is not bound by it. The community for example could vote 500-0 to restore something deleted under Office action, but that doesn’t mean the WMF is bound to restore it. Similarly here, just because there is no community consensus to use PC2 doesn’t mean the WMF (acting through Philippe in this specific instance) cannot if it chooses use it for one of its Office action. OTOH, I do agree that Office protection should be the floor and not ceiling in terms of protection level. However, that should be considered in the normal course of editing, e.g. an edit war on an Office PC2’d article, and not because an admin doesn’t like the fact that PC2 were used. -- KTC (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spartaz

The committee will probably find the following diff from Phillippe's talkpage relevant. [1]. Spartaz Humbug! 13:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

The Foundation has said many times that it's the role of the volunteer editing community to manage articles and make any changes. This is either true or it isn't.

Kww did not remove any of the protection implemented per WP:OFFICE. In my view, there would be a case to answer for Kww if he had weakened the protection level. Given that he strengthened it, however, he was within his rights as a community-appointed admin.

Note also that more than half a year elapsed between Philippe's original protection measure and Kww's increasing the protection level. This was not a wheel war, but a routine adjustment of the article's protection level to one currently supported by community consensus.

I recall that Kww has gone against the Foundation's wishes before, on the matter of the VisualEditor opt-in. He had overwhelming community support for that, and his change stuck. I hope this will not turn into a WMF revengefest. Andreas JN466 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, LFaraone, Seraphimblade: WP:OFFICE says, in its lead paragraph, Neither this policy nor actions taken under it override core policies, such as neutrality.
Is WP:Protection not a core policy? Because it says, quite clearly, Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1.
Kww's actions were within policy as written, and the admonishment being voted on below is on shaky grounds, policy-wise.
I know that WP:OFFICE also says, Administrators, who have the technical power to undo protections and deletions, are strongly cautioned against modifying these edits. Official statements and past incidents indicate that such unauthorized modifications will be actively reverted, and possibly the rights of the modifier will be revoked. When in doubt, consult the user applying the protection/template, or the Wikimedia Foundation.
But again, there was no harm done here, except to an ego. Protection was not weakened, just brought in line with community standards. Please reconsider whether there is indeed a firm policy basis for the proposed admonishment. Andreas JN466 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, LFaraone, thanks for taking the time to look at this, and for your responses. Andreas JN466 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Begoon

per Andreas: "I recall that Kww has gone against the Foundation's wishes before, on the matter of the VisualEditor opt-in. He had overwhelming community support for that, and his change stuck. I hope this will not turn into a WMF revengefest."

I hope that too. I can't see that ending well.

(for clarity, I meant "petty revenge" won't end well, not "Visual Editor", though neither really seem destined for a particularly pretty end to me) Begoon talk 14:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding: Per Ultraexactzz below - given the history, Phillippe's hasty attempts to escalate, and veiled threats, do seem improper. I see no emergency that precluded a wait for calmer heads - but I do see the appearance of grasping at a chance for revenge. That's not a good look. Kww deserves no sanctions. I reserve judgement on Phillippe - he may realise he was hasty, and I await his considered response. Begoon talk 15:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is a farce, as evidenced by the backdown to a pissy motion when y'all were challenged. Not quite that easy, huh? Nevertheless I commend AGK for being the only one of you to have the balls so far to call out Phillippe on his evident impropriety. Well done that man. Begoon talk 17:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and @NYB's response to Andreas: Bollocks. You know the point is telling and relevant. The rest of your :;tldr scribe is mere obfuscation. I'm disgusted. I used to have respect for your comments. Of late, not so much. Begoon talk 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ultraexactzz

It's not immediately clear what brought this article to the attention of Kww. That is to say, why now? What changed, that required the protection to be re-evaluated? Or was it simply a matter of sorting out an article that was listed under a generally unused and unapproved protection level? If that's the case, some discussion beforehand might have sold Phillippe on the idea. Or not, but that's a discussion worth having.

Obviously, our policies do not come to bear on WMF employees acting in their official capacity - but Phillippe's comments on his talk page (linked by Spartaz) show a concerning lack of decorum. Phillippe's action was the one reversed, so it's bad form for Phillippe to be the one threatening a desysopping ("On any other wiki, I'd be removing your tools right now..."). Kww's action may be a violation of policy, and certainly it was unwise to take such action without discussion first - but Phillippe's immediate reaction leaves something to be desired as well, and reflects poorly on his office. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - No, I do not believe Kww should be desysopped for this incident. I do, however, believe that he rates at least a trout. I'm more concerned about Phillippe's actions here, frankly - the fact that there was a previous dispute between Kww and Phillippe means that Phillippe should not be the one acting in his official capacity (or appearing to) while threatening Kww with sanction. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fluffernutter

This seems to be escalating astoundingly quickly, which concerns me. The issues I see here are thus:

  • Did Kww use poor judgement in not contacting an admin, any admin, before reversing their action? Yes.
  • Did Kww use poor judgment in altering an administrative action when, by the definition of that type of action, he could not have all the facts related to that action? Yes. Much like checkuser blocks and oversight blocks, the existence of an OFFICE action indicates that private communication/legal issues have taken place that normal admins are not privy to.
  • Did Kww intend to substitute his judgment about the article's protection needs for Philippe's? No, he was trying to use Philippe's judgment ("This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people") and apply it in a policy-conforming way.
  • Did Kww's action fail to take into account that OFFICE actions are historically taken when out-of-policy actions are necessary? Yes. It's true that OFFICE actions may not conform to our local policy. That's why they're taken as OFFICE actions, essentially by fiat. If they could be handled by internal debate/policy, the office would delegate them to the community to handle that way.
  • Did Philippe react to Kww's action with what seems to be an alarming escalation? Yes, and I can't help feeling that there probably is a little bit of VE resentment still lurking along. Immediate threats of desysopping have never gotten anyone to speak calmly and rationally, and there was no reason to think this time would be different. Ultimately, however, Philippe needs to protect his staff's right to irreversible OFFICE actions, or the project will very quickly land in legal trouble.
  • Does Kww need to be desysopped for this? Doubtful, assuming he understands where he went wrong. It's clear that he believed he was fixing a procedural error by changing the protection setting to a corresponding, not-community-disapproved-of option, rather than that he was attempting to substitute his judgment about whether the article needed to be protected for Philippe's judgment. The issue arose because Kww doesn't seem to understand that OFFICE actions can't be reversed, and certainly not without discussion with the WMF - even if you think the change you're going to make should be uncontroversial or more "legal". Does one mistake - made with an effort to not lessen the strength of the OFFICE sanction on the article - call for a desysop, though? Not unless Kww can't or won't understand that altering actions he doesn't have all the facts for - especially when the action was taken by "special" authority - is simply unwise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

The Committee's reasoning for admonishing Kww is, in principle, sound. Even normal administrative actions should not be reverted unilaterally without appropriate discussion, let alone of course office actions, even if these actions or their form appear to be mistaken. Reaffirming this principle is helpful. However, if the Committee considers (presumably correctly) that the review of office actions is outside their purview as a community-authorized body, then they could also decline to sanction (even by admonishment) any interference with such actions. Any sanctions would then likewise be a matter for Foundation staff.

Like others, I think that community feedback about Mr. Beaudette's actions in this case would also be beneficial. While we, the editorial community, cannot and should not attempt to review the grounds for actions made by Foundation staff for legal reasons, we are allowed to expect that such actions are taken and communicated in a professional and competent manner. By using a form of protection not currently allowed by this project's community, instead of the equally preventative tool of normal protection, and by responding to Kww's good-faith (if erroneous) action as a volunteer administrator in a less than collegial and constructive manner, I think that Mr. Beaudette did not meet these expectations in this case, which is a matter of concern considering that his duties are "to serve as an advocate for and to the Wikimedia community". I think that the Arbitration Committee would be justified in expressing these concerns.  Sandstein  18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf

While I understand and agree with the admonishment for Kww's actions in this case, I think it is important for the Arbitration Committee to explicitly state whether normal administrative actions for reasons unrelated to the OFFICE action are acceptable or not. The motion is clear that OFFICE actions must not be changed without discussion with the office when there is no emergency. The motion is not clear whether an admin risks admonishment or desysopping in the following situations:

  1. There is an edit war or other emergency and an admin increases the protection level in the same way they would on any unrestricted article.
  2. The protection level of an article under office protection was increased to deal with an edit war or other emergency situation, but that situation is now over and an admin restores the protection level to that set by the Office without asking beforehand.
  3. Same as 2 but the protection level was restored to that set by the Office with community consensus but no comment from the Office after several days. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SB_Johnny

I don't have a particular favorite dog in this spat, but I think the Committee should take care here because of the "politics" involved:

  1. Kww recently went up against the foundation in the "VE battle", where he used technical means to force the WMF to take community preferences into account (when they hadn't been doing so).
  2. There really is a conflict, however minor and technical, between Phillipe's actions and current policy.
  3. Any decision or motion the Committee makes in this case will position the Committee squarely in the position as an intermediary between the English Wikipedia's community and the board and staff of the WMF.

I urge the Committee to carefully consider the ramifications. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/7>

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

  • Comment: Before I go further, I should mention that, per policy, "the Committee has no jurisdiction over ... official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff". Now, if I understand this correctly, Kww's position is that the strict prohibitions in WP:OFFICE don't apply in this instance because the type of action (Pending Changes) applied by Philippe is not one approved by local (en-wiki) policy. I may be missing something but I don't follow this at all and I'd really appreciate an explanation. Also, is there any reason why Kww didn't raise this with Philippe Beaudette first? As Kww's actions are not in dispute, this is probably something that can be dealt with by motion.  Roger Davies talk 09:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kww. When Philippe is applying office actions, he's not acting as a local admin. It rather worries me that you do not see the distinction.  Roger Davies talk 10:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kww: The thing I'm really struggling with is that you didn't contact Philippe or anyone else in the Office prior to acting. Our admin policy is quite clear - ... administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. Combining that with WP:OFFICE which accounts for a total 5 actions on the entire encyclopedia that you must not overturn, I find your unilateral actions concerning. Could you please explain why you felt discussion on this matter was not needed? WormTT(talk) 10:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue seems clear enough that, I believe, it can be dealt with by motion. Before doing anything, though, I'd rather hear from Philippe, if he wants to leave a comment here as well.

    That said, I think it's worthwhile to remind everyone that the Foundation don't have to abide by consensus and that their WP:OFFICE actions are not subject to en.wiki policies. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it hard to see Kww's actions as anything other than deliberate provocation. I understand the whole VE debacle may have led him to believe that he was the community's white knight fighting against being pushed around by the WMF, but this is not about some new feature that doesn't work right, this is about legal issues and that is an area that is not subject to consensus. I see no compelling reason why he could possibly have honestly believed that altering an office action and then discussing it afterward would lead to anything other than a drama fest. That being said I agree a full case is not probably not warranted here and we can deal with this with some motions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others, I am confused by why Kww (talk · contribs) felt it was urgent to adjust the protection settings for a page affected by WP:OFFICE. As stated elsewhere, those actions are not subject to local consensus, so stating that Philippe "knowingly violated" anything is simply not correct. We don't have full information for why things are the way they are; for this reason administrators are strongly cautioned on taking actions that undo office changes. Beyond that, I would hope that prudence would indicate that an administrator should avoid taking an action on a change made under WP:OFFICE, even if they perceived compliance with the spirit of the restriction, without further discussion. LFaraone 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In re @Jayen466:, I mostly echo Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)'s comments below. There may have existed reasons why PC-2 was the required protection level for this article, as per say a negotiated agreement between the WMF and another body. Regardless of whether that was the case, taking rash action without discussion is unacceptable. LFaraone 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am proposing a motion, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the points made by Jayen466 are not frivolous, and I considered them before posting last night and before offering the motion, the appropriate means by which Kww could have addressed them would have been by a query to Philippe, rather than by an undiscussed, unilateral action. It is apparent from Philippe's post on his talkpage that there may well be sound and valid reasons for PC-2 to be the state of this article by Office designation, notwithstanding that PC-2 is otherwise deprecated on En-WP at this time. It may also be that if reasonably queried and reminded that PC-2 has not been endorsed by the En-WP community, Philippe would have adjusted the protection level (although it is difficult for me to understand why indefinite full-protection would be a better state for this article than PC-2 if, as the listing on the WP:OFFICE page suggests, the concern is to keep one particular type of edit out of the article). Unilaterally making the change without even discussing it with anyone first was not acceptable and in that light I think an admonition, which I proposed at this time partly to defuse further escalation and the prospect of a more severe proposal, is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My response to the questions Thryduulf poses is that an administrator should ask the Office first if there's any doubt about whether a proposed administrator action would trench on an Office action. Beyond that, while I understand his hypotheticals in theory (and could come up with some more of my own), the WP:Office policy has existed for eight years and I don't recall any of these issues ever arising. We are talking, at this stage, about five articles in the entire encyclopedia. Review of the list of articles currently subject to Office actions reflects that some of Thryduulf's scenarios could not currently arise on any article at all. While a clear policy is generally better than an unclear one, I'd prefer to see us not spend too much time anticipating or debating how we would address vanishingly rare situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the motion is adequate for the moment. Hopefully it will send a very clear signal that modification of OFFICE actions is never acceptable unless the permission of the office is first obtained. We don't generally know the full story behind why these actions are the way they are and they are extremely serious issues, in many cases issues where legal jeopardy could result from an inappropriate action, so assuming they can be modified in a certain way is very unwise. There was no emergency here precluding discussion or requiring a precipitous action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jayen466: I also don't believe your concerns are meritless, and do understand why you bring them up. In this case, Kww's actions are not likely to have caused any harm. But they could have, and that's why there's a bright line around office actions.
Imagine, for example, that the WMF had reached a settlement with someone agreeing to maintain a certain protection level on an article for X months. Like most such settlements, it can't be disclosed. Someone then fiddles with the protection. Technically, the WMF has just broken the agreement, and a judge may not understand the nuance of "greater" protection. Unlikely, perhaps, but then office actions are for extreme edge cases with serious potential consequences. The protection had been set to PC2 on this article for several months. There was no reason Kww could not approach Philippe and say "Consensus was against using PC2 on articles on this project and I noticed this one does. Do you object to using full protection instead?" That's generally a basic courtesy before altering another admin's action in any case, and where an office action is involved, it is more, not less, necessary. Precipitous action here was not the type of calm, reasoned action we should expect from administrators when using the tools. As to the protection policy, to put it as succinctly as possible, office actions are not bound by policy or consensus. One would hope WMF would respect these when possible, but because of the reasons for office actions, that won't always be possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll echo the other arbitrators here when I say that I too am confused as to why Kww felt that immediate change to the page's protection level was necessary. This whole issue could easily have been avoided by a quick note to Philippe asking him to change the protection level. I agree that a motion is sufficient to handle this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion: Kww admonished

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again.

Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though his actions are outside our jurisdiction, I would also strongly advise Philippe to take a less confrontational, immotile line with well-intentioned community members in the future. AGK [•] 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This isn't about whether the article should have had an "illegal" protection on it, it is about the right way and the wrong way to approach an issue,and Kww picked the wrong way. A prior discussion, as opposed to just telling the office you already unilaterally modified one of their actions, could have easily prevented any drama here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Office actions should never be adjusted without prior discussion with the office. Kww's failure to discuss before adjusting the protection level, especially when there was no apparent urgency, is deserving of admonishment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. If Kww had reduced it to PC1, I could easily understand the uproar, and I would likely even join in. But the protection level was increased - which Phillipe specifically says he would not have had a problem with if it had been done for any other reason. Even though discretion would have suggested asking Phillipe first instead of acting first (and I'm sure Kww knows that now), the whole over-reaction to this is utterly stupid and a waste of time, and I'm not going to play along. I suppose I'd be willing to admonish Kww for bringing this to ArbCom instead of saying "oh, sorry Phillipe" and dropping it, but that's not what this motion is about. Oh, and decline as a case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Austrian Economics

Initiated by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) at 18:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

As I'm sure most of you are aware, Austrian economics has been a constant WP:BATTLEGROUND for some time now. Last October, the community enacted general sanctions for the Austrian economics topic-space per this AN/I discussion.[8] However, the community sanctions have failed to resolve the constant disputes that go on. I see that recently, ArbCom passed a motion directly placing the Ancient Egyptian race controversy directly under AE sanctions without a formal case.[9] I was wondering if ArbCom would consider placing a similar motion authorizing AE sanctions on Austrian economics?

I'm not sure want to file for a full case as I'm only tangently involved in this dispute. To the best of my recollection, the only substantive edits I've made in this topic-space was to remove a clear BLP violation which eventually I had to take AN/I.[10] Other than that, my involvement in this dispute is mostly in discussions at various WP:DR noticeboards (usually WP:RSN and to a lesser extent at WP:BLPN). So I don't really have any evidence to present nor am I sure which editors are causing the most problems. So, I'm requesting that a motion be file along the lines of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. You can open a full case, if you'd rather, but I'm not sure how much I can participate in it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

For those who say that the community sanctions are working, I'd like to point out that even in the middle of this ArbCom request, editors are edit-warring to include WP:BLP violations into a BLP.[11] This is the same edit that got User:MilesMoney topic-banned.[12] If the community sanctions are working, how come they're still edit-warring over the same issue two month later?

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

Statement by Rschen7754

I'm recused here because I commented on this proposal: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Sub-proposal:_Require_administrators_who_evaluate.2Fsanction_editors_to_be_educated_in_economics Personally, I find that problematic as an attempt to disenfranchise the community at large, on the part of one editor; that's the sort of thing that leads to intractable disputes. --Rschen7754 19:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

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

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

Comment by MONGO

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

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

Comment by uninvolved administrator TParis

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

Statement by S. Rich

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

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

Statement by Iselilja

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

Statement by Carolmooredc

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

  • User:NavtiveForeigner's question does bring to mind that a major issue is that admins watching WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and similar noticeboards seem insufficiently assertive in advising, warning and in extreme cases sanctioning editors about content and behavior issues under Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. (The community sanctions usually are mentioned in such discussions.) And it would help if editors who need to go to WP:ANI wrote better ANIs so community members and Admins clearly understand issues and support any necessary sanctions. But these failings are not so great that they necessitate going to ArbCom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:RL0919 also comments on Admin inaction. Admin inaction - even to issue firm warnings - is a constant problem on Wikipedia, though I sympathize with their reluctance to be harassed when they act. The answer is to find ways to encourage admin action, not to bring more and more issues to ArbCom. Also, the failure of WP:DNR and WP:Mediation is the refusal of two new editors to try to work with longtime editors. That should be entered in the equation when admins decide who is at fault in disputes, not be used as a reason to bring an issue to ArbCom. (Unless, of course, such recalcitrance was the only issue Arbitrators were addressing, which would make for a quick settlement.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Quest for Knowledge: Obviously there are serious, repeated WP:BLP violations which I have been very assertive about bringing to WP:BLP and WP:RSN with less than perfect results. If ArbCom actually focused on those and ignore the hysterical and exaggerated personal counter-charges made with little or no evidence that always lead to things spiraling out of control - it would be great!
So here are the relevant noticeboard diffs related only to the clearest continuing violation of SPS in BLPs: May 6 BLPN; Sept 3 RSN; Oct 24 RSN; Oct 25 RSN; October 27 WP:ANI; Nov 19 BLPN, Dec 7 BLPN; Jan 14 currently at RSN (plus related reverts Srich and A Quest for Knowledge alluded to - [13], [14], [15]), [16], [17]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In brief response to Steeltrap, at this diff Binksternet has analyzed the Robert P. Murphy repeated reverts of the last few days. Dozens of examples of such edit warring, plus WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues on BLPs over the last six months can be presented. Perhaps 2 dozen noticeboard postings by various editors failed to correct the issues and did lead to repeated article talk page complaints on my part, such complaints listed in part at the Steeletrap-linked ANI. I was not the only complainant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steeletrap

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

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

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

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

Comment by RL0919

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

Comment by Mark Arsten

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

Comment by uninvolved editor Lou Sander

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

Statement by uninvolved editor Robert McClenon

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


Statement by uninvolved Collect

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

Statement by uninvolved editor Ubikwit

I support the views of Robert McClenon and the comments of NewYorkBrad that Arbcom should look into this. As usual, one of my primary concerns relates to the sourcing and BLP issues that have apparently resulted in a controversial site ban. Sourcing policies are of utmost importance to Wikipedia, and if any light can be thrown onto problems related to sourcing in what seems to be an area that sees repeated problems, that can't be bad.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In following the comments as this discussion unfolds, I've noted several complaints regarding the inadequacy of admin attention, and I would like to point out that such lack of involvement tends to exacerbate tendtentious tendencies...and then someone gets site banned at AN/I...
To the limited extent I've observed AE, that board seems to handle matters more professionally and straightforward, and in all likelihood, controversial topics that generate as much heat as light should probably be under the scope of that board as opposed to AN/I.
  • Second, I noticed more sourcing related issues raised by Binksternet, and then I checked the article on Ludwig von Mises Institute and found this quote, for example

    The Institute has published views critical of democracy, which authors in Mises Institute publications have called coercive, incompatible with wealth creation, replete with inner contradictions, and a system of legalized graft.

That make me wonder as to whether or not all of the sources published by them meet WP:RS, for starters, or if some of them should be considered primary sources put out by an advocacy group and be restricted to use within the corresponding scope WP:PRIMARY, etc. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

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

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

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

Statement by Binksternet

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

Statement by NE Ent

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

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

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse as I made a comment on the related ANI, and on a time-available basis. --Rschen7754 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the net four to accept clock started at 18:43 January 20, some 20-ish hours ago. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Economics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0/4>

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

  • I would advise the filing party that, yes, we actually do expect evidence that previous attempts at resolution have tried and have failed. We are not familiar with every single long term content dispute on Wikipedia, and just saying there is a problem is not sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I see the need for a full case here, but It may be worth considering a motion to change the community sanctions to ArbCom sanctions, for which enforcement tends to be a bit stricter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept basically per Floq, although I would still like to explore the possibility of just converting the sanctions as a means to damp down this dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can say that anecdotally, I'm aware from various threads on AN/ANI that there have been lots of disputes on this article and topic area. But that doesn't tell us whether an arbitration case (or a motion) would help resolve the disputes and improve the editing environment—and in particular, it doesn't tell us whether or why ArbCom-imposed sanctions would be more effective than the community-based ones. I don't want the filing party to jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops, but we do need some more background to be useful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. The allegations of screwing around with BLPs and other biographical articles, in themselves, need to be reviewed. The community sanctions, coupled with existing rules about BLPs, might be sufficient in theory, but if some of the allegations in the statements are borne out by the evidence, they may not have been sufficiently applied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collect, assume not the chronophagousity of any case; perhaps we can strive for a more brevis disposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While waiting to see what comes... @MONGO:, when you say ""this is closely aligned to the Tea Party Movement issues/troubles and is an offshoot of that", do you mean it's the same general type of dispute, or do you mean the same editors are showing up in both places? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those arguing the case is unnecessary, I want to see that sanctions are effective, not that they should be in theory. NativeForeigner Talk 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces. I am not. Some users were stating that we should not take the case, because the sanctions should be adequate. I'm more interested on diffs that show they have or haven't been, and by noting the ban of that user, your comment was effective. It showed that they have been effective. Your comments are more or less what I was looking for, but I wished to clarify my thinking publicly. NativeForeigner Talk 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - on reviewing the statements so far, I think a case would help here, so accept with the possibility of converting the community sanctions to discretionary sanctions at some point. Some consideration should be given to limiting the case scope to manageable levels. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept having looked at the statements, this does appear to be one of those cases where we need Arbcom involvement. I'm impressed by the community's attempts to sort this, but it just doesn't seem to be working. WormTT(talk) 09:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept  Roger Davies talk 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. T. Canens (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not sure our intervention would be useful, because, from what I can see here, the community seems able to deal with this issue (they authorised the imposition of discretionary sanctions and also banned an editor whose editing was perceived to be disruptive); the main problem, in my opinion, appears to be that administrators are somewhat hesitant when it comes to actually enforce the community-approved sanctions. For that, I don't think we need to get involved at this stage except to encourage admins to be a little more proactive when dealing with disruption and not to hesitate to invoke the special authority which they have been granted by the community (and, at least as far as BLPs are concerned, by ArbCom as well, cf. WP:BLPBAN). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudgingly accept. In theory, some kind of omnibus "ArbCom discretionary sanctions on articles about American politics" case or motion could magically sweep several recent (and multiple future) cases to AE. In practice, having seen a couple of omnibus cases, it would probably blow up in our faces. So I guess we're stuck with hearing multiple similar cases for a while. Let's get it over with, I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=592248184"