Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics

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

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

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

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch Wshp.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

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

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * Robert P. Murphy re: Paul Krugman quote
 * User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977
 * Tendentious referencing of other people's motives
 * WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO
 * User:Adjwilley/Austrian economics
 * Requests for mediation/Austrian economics
 * Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections
 * Wikihounding by SPECIFICO

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

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. This is the same edit that got User:MilesMoney topic-banned.  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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 -, , ), , . Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 03:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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 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)

Statement by SPECIFICO
Without endorsing the entire narrative with which 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 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)

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)

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)
 * Recuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Austrian Economics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/0/4>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)


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


 * 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&mdash;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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * While waiting to see what comes..., 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)


 * 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)
 * Accept having looked at the statements, this does appear to be one of those cases where we need Arbcom involvement. I'm impressed by the community's attempts to sort this, but it just doesn't seem to be working. Worm TT( talk ) 09:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept  Roger Davies  talk 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept. T. Canens (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

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


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Standards of editor behavior
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Making allegations against other editors
3) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Interpersonal conflict
5) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeking community input
6) Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Patterns of behavior
7) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
8) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Standards for BLP articles
9) Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing, particularly of BLPs
10) An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of a conflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Remedies for non-neutral editing
11) Editors whose editing on an article or topic is persistently non-neutral may, after appropriate counseling or warnings, be banned from editing that article or on that topic. This is particularly, though by no means exclusively, appropriate where such non-neutral editing involves BLPs.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of deceased persons
12) While biographies of deceased individuals are not (with the possible exception of persons who died very recently) directly subject to the biographies of living persons policy, such articles still must be written from a neutral point of view and may not be edited for the purpose of gratuitously mocking or disparaging the article subject without an encyclopedic purpose. The same applies on these articles' talkpages.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
13) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Behavior during arbitration cases
14) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.


 * Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers around editing in the broad topic area of the Austrian school of economics, particularly including the Ludwig von Mises Institute and biographies of both living and deceased persons associated with Austrian economics and the Mises Institute.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions
2) As the result of a long history of problematic editing on Austrian economics-related article, in October 2013 the community adopted broad general sanctions for this topic-area. Under this community decision, "[a]ny uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Editors who have been placed "on notice" of the community sanctions (without any finding of fault having been made) include the principal parties to this case including (in the order listed on the sanction page) Srich32977, Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, Carolmooredc, The Four Deuces, Binksternet, and A Quest For Knowledge. Unfortunately, the general sanctions have not put an end to disruptive editing of numerous articles within the topic-area.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap
3)(A) has edited heavily in the area of Austrian economics, including on biographies of people associated with the Ludvig von Mises Institute.
 * (B) When accused of having a conflict of interest with respect to the Mises Institute, about one year ago, Steeletrap denied having any COI, but stated that Steeletrap's current academic thesis relates to "behavorial dynamics of fringe political groups" and that "I personally find 'Ludwig von mises institute' to be the most dislikeable fringe group I've come across so far. By 'taking it out' on Wikipedia through correcting the record on their absurdly biased WP: pages, I have found a way to channeling that irritation/dislike in a manner independent of my (strictly empirical, ideally) thesis."
 * (C) Steeletrap's acknowledged negative view of the Mises Institute has self-evidently colored Steeletrap's editing throughout this topic-area, including editing of biographical articles and their talkpages.
 * (D) In several instances, Steeletrap's edits and talkpage comments on biographical articles overtly mocked the article subjects (see evidence here). Steeletrap has acknowledged that "I understand if Arbcom is compelled to act on" this issue, and it has not recurred in recent months.
 * (E) Steeletrap is knowledgeable about the topic area, and may well have been primarily motivated by an attempt to remove rather than introduce bias into the articles, as Steeletrap has stated. Nonetheless, it is plainly in the best interests of the project that Steeletrap no longer participate in editing articles relating to this topic.
 * (F) Steeletrap proposed on the Workshop page that Steeletrap (along with some other editors) be "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed" either for one year or indefinitely, stating that "[w]e need some fresh blood on these pages -- unconnected contributions who know about the subject and haven't been involved in past disputes."


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO
4) (A) has edited heavily in the area of Austrian economics, including on biographies of people associated with the Ludvig von Mises Institute.
 * (B) SPECIFICO self-identifies as an academic specialist in the Austrian school of economics and appears to be highly knowledgeable about the topic-area. SPECIFICO describes having been drawn into editing Wikipedia articles on this topic after having seen mistaken assertions in the articles cited elsewhere online.
 * (C) SPECIFICO acknowledged, about one year ago, having a severely negative view of the Mises Institute. SPECIFICO stated that "I am an 'Austrian School' economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack ... this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes that claim to be based on obscure medical facts."
 * (D) SPECIFICO's acknowledged negative view of the Mises Institute has self-evidently colored SPECIFICO's editing throughout this topic-area, including editing of biographical articles and their talkpages.
 * (E) In some instances, SPECIFICO's edits and talkpage comments on biographical articles have overtly mocked the article subjects (see evidence here), although this has not recurred in recent months.
 * (F) SPECIFICO is knowledgeable about the topic area, and may well have been primarily motivated by an attempt to remove errors rather than introduce bias into the articles, as SPECIFICO has stated. Nonetheless, it is plainly in the best interests of the project that SPECIFICO no longer participate in editing articles related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc
5)(A) has focused a significant portion of her editing in the past year on articles relating to the Austrian school of economics, including BLPs.
 * (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."
 * (C) While many of Carolmooredc's edits in this topic-area have addressed legitimate BLP concerns, overall it appears that she became overly involved in editing the topic-area on a personal or ideological level. Carolmooredc's userpage opines that "[p]artisan tugs of war are better played outside Wikipedia!", a view that is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy and prior decisions of this Committee.
 * (D) Carolmooredc has proposed on the workshop that she be "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed" for six months, adding that "I really don’t care if I am banned from this area permanently" so long as the articles are kept neutral.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
1.1) Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Superseded by motion at 22:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Steeletrap topic-banned
2) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO topic-banned
3.1) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc topic-banned
4) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors urged to assist
5) Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Austrian economics (December 2016)

 * Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 22:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)