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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the |talk page.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed 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.


 * Support:
 * The first several principles are adapted from Floquenbeam's draft on the Workshop. My thanks to everyone who commented there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (a/k/a the "Decorum" principle, with some copyediting). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (a/k/a the "Casting aspersions" principle, with some copyediting). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (with some copyedits from the workshop version). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (a/k/a the "Battleground behavior" principle, a term I personally don't find helpful, with some copyediting from the Workshop). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With minor grammatical copyedit, please revert if disagreed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (with some language added to the Workshop version). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * (also from the Manipulation of BLPs case). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Adapted from Manipulation of BLPs with modifications for this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Adapted from Manipulation of BLPs and some other prior cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * New principle for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not particularly germane to this case, but I would add that the converse applies as well. There is often an urge to "whitewash" the image of those who have recently died. Neutral point of view means neutral point of view, period. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A sound principle I think, and I think Beeblebrox makes a good point as well that the social taboo in much of the world about "speaking ill of the dead" should have no more force than those who treat the death of a subject as airing of grievances. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With minor spelling fix. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially noting Beeblebrox. NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Although this Committee has intervened to set up a binding dispute-resolution mechanism in a handful of cases involving otherwise intractable disputes, the disputes in this case do not rise to that level. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Echoing NYB. NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * I do, however, acknowledge that the excessive time it took the Committee to reach a proposed decision in this case was by no means helpful in calming the waters. I am not using case-related conduct as the basis for any proposed findings or proposed remedies in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is safe to say we all regret how long this took, but although that may help explain some of the subsequent behavior it does not excuse it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More to the point, you're better off pounding on the doors of arbitrators to complain about our tardiness than engage in useless and fraught sniping on arb pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with above comments Worm TT( talk ) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * One of the parties mentioned has pointed out on the talkpage that these notifications were given simply as notices, without any finding of fault against any of those named. I've added some wording to make that explicit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 15 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."


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree, although I might suggest a tweak in that "insufficiently supported personal attacks" suggests that "sufficiently supported personal attacks" are acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Edited by adding "in the past year" per comments on talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed 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) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles, including but not limited to biographical articles, relating to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, both construed broadly but reasonably. These discretionary sanctions supersede the previously adopted community sanctions, but any sanctions previously imposed remain in effect. The parties to this case, who were already placed on notice of the community sanctions, are deemed to be "on notice" of the discretionary sanctions.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To achieve consistency with the DS review, 1.1 is fine with me. (In other words, the procedures for the discretionary sanctions in this case will follow the standards that we have been working on more globally.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC) due to clashes with DS review
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck in favor of 1.1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Should have thought about the impact of the DS review! <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Proposed but I will not support as I am inactive for voting on this case. AGK  [•] 14:53, 17 April 2014 (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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

SPECIFICO topic-banned
3) 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. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.


 * Support:
 * Proposed; for me, second choice in favor of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First choice I think it might be best to entirely remove the current crop of the most problematic users at the center of this dispute and allow new blood into the area. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First choice, per Beeblebrox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice in favour of 3.1 <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First choice per reasoning from Beeblebrox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice. NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Equal preference with 3.1. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed as alternate; for me, first choice. I believe SPECIFICO is able to edit properly and add significant value on economics articles in his field of specialty if he stays away from his flashpoint. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO has shown himself to be knowledgeable on the wider issue, falling down primarily on the Mises point. As such, I'd put this as my first choice. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First choice. He seems knowledgeable and reasonable about the broader topic area, but his involvement with regards to Mises has been highly problematic. NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Equal preference with 3. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. In drafting the decision, I considered whether also to impose interaction bans among the parties, but I am hopeful the topic-bans would be sufficient to separate them. If the parties or others believe that interaction bans should be added to the decision, please feel free to speak up (note that non-arb comments go on the talkpage) and I will consider the input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * not sure this will do any good but I certainly agree. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With hope <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the critical part. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is one thing this case has demonstrated it is that these articles should be looked at. NativeForeigner Talk 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Standard enforcement
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)


 * Comments:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

These notes were last updated by Rockfang (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * Notes

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * Move to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments