Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Austrian economics

Austrian economics

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Binksternet (talk · contribs)
3. MilesMoney (talk · contribs)
4. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
5. Srich32977 (talk · contribs)
6. Steeletrap (talk · contribs)
7. The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Murray Rothbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Thomas DiLorenzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics
• User talk:Adjwilley/Austrian economics
• Numerous threads on talk pages of articles; numerous threads at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Murray_Rothbard#Ethical_and_philosophical_views:Is this section unrepresentative of his views, focusing on minor negative statements and later life comments that are not central to his importance and notability? Plus other instances of WP:Undue descriptions. (He is deceased so not specifically a BLP issue, but the negativity of the article reflects upon many BLPs on Wikipedia where he is mentioned as an influence.)
2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Are the "Democracy: The God That Failed" and the "Controversy over remarks about homosexuals and academic freedom" sections WP:Undue and biased?
3. Thomas_Woods#Controversy_on_League_of_the_South_membership: Does the sectioning "compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject" per the current tag? (Also an issue in Thomas_DiLorenzo#Controversy_over_League_of_the_South_involvement. Editors have not responded to concerns expressed 3 weeks ago.)
4. In all of the above, are high profile news and partisan opinion sources more reliable and usable than neutral or positive statements from either insufficiently "prestige" or "mainstream" academics or publishers or from libertarians or Austrian economists/Institutes who some editors consider "fringe"? (These repeatedly have been the rationale for removing neutral or positive material.) Has this contributed to making the articles unduly biased?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Agree. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Agree. (I expect my input to be rather limited.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Agree. TFD (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Disagree. It was proposed here that the parties agree that there may be no incivilty, denigration, personal attacks or other comments about contributors at the proposed mediation. For my part, I am prepared to make a pledge to that effect, but so far the editors who have posted "Agree" have not done so. As soon as all participants agree to restrict this discussion to content I will reconsider my participation. Otherwise, I feel that the mediation would be fruitless and unfair to the mediator who will devote time and attention to it. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Disagree. I was willing to do this under the condition that CMDC cease personal attacks and sign a pledge to that effect. She has failed to do so. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We are awaiting the agreement of three of the named parties. I will contact them to see where they stand on this. I would also like to hear from those who have signed as to whether they think that the mediation would be viable with just those who have signed. Sunray (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The three who have not signed (as yet) are "the other side". No mediation can go forward without them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so far two of the three editors "on the other side" have made exaggerated, trumped up and even false allegations about personal issues rather than try to mediate what are primarily content issues, as well as intermittent complaints about their frequently expressed negative POVs against various Austrian economists. The third editor who has not signed up does not edit as much on the articles in question.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to proceed, we would start with an agreement to abide by WP behavioural guidelines, in particular focusing on content, not the contributor and working toward consensus. If participants cannot agree on this, mediation is not possible. Sunray (talk)

Within the context of a Wikipedia mediation I certainly would agree to that. It's much easier to agree when there is a neutral party deciding if any specific behavior is not appropriate ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that under the Sanctions, any Admin can act as such a neutral enforcer. The fact is that you have refused to pledge to follow core WP behavioral policy, and until you do -- both here and in the article and talk spaces -- there will be no mediation. The cantaloupe is in your sack. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is assumed we all try to "follow core WP behavioral policy". It's not up to partisan groups of editors to demand that other editors agree to some additional pledge. It seems absurd to me. And I'm not the one who has been blocked by neutral admins for not following behavioral policy in the last couple months. Does the admin overseeing this have any thoughts? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And ^ this ^ is why I refused even to have my name listed here. Some people involved in the dispute are trenchantly incapable of following the norms despite their considerable experience of Wikipedia. This dispute, of which the items listed are only a very small part, needs to go to ArbCom, not Mediation. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to put it out there: Carol's behavior is the reason I refuse to even attempt Mediation. It's also the single biggest factor in the negativity surrounding the dispute. It's not that the disputants are generally incapable of following norms, just that Carol in specific has never followed them. If this goes to Arbcom instead of being resolved amicably, it will be due to Carol's interference. MilesMoney (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ^above^ shows that User:Sitush is correct. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Mediation requires the agreement of all parties. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)