Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Austrian economics proponents tend to remove, whitewash, and obscure the position of the peer reviewed secondary economics literature

The viewpoint of the secondary peer reviewed literature must always be included, in any subject which has peer reviewed academic literature reviews or meta-analyses. That is the policy. When any school, movement, party, or think tank -- left, right, center, or other -- disagrees with the peer reviewed secondary literature, that viewpoint must be excluded unless it is held by a large enough proportion of the population to be noteworthy, at individual editors' discretion, but it must always be described as diverging from the most accurate and reliable sources. Proponents of Austrian economics are a tiny minority in the peer reviewed literature, and essentially absent from the conclusions of the peer reviewed secondary economics literature.

Examples:

  1. Economic growth due to greater income equality on Progressive tax: diff, diff, discussion permalink
  2. Implications of income inequality in Economy of the United States: diff, diff, discussion permalink
  3. Returns from education, infrastructure, and health care spending on Government spending: diff, diff, discussion permalink

Several additional examples are available on request (e.g. diff and diff) but those three are very recent.

Austrian economics proponents make baseless accusations, using WP:TAGTEAMs and WP:POV RAILROADing to try to push their POV

Because I follow the policy and left wing think tanks agree with the secondary peer reviewed economics literature more often than right wing think tanks do, Austrian School proponents pointlessly waste everyone's time trying to excuse their right-wing POV-pushing by accusing me and similar editors following policy of pushing a left-wing POV. (diff, diff, diff.) Why the admins allow that behavior is beyond me.

I would also like to ask that the Committee please overturn the very rapidly closed community ban of User:MilesMoney requested by Austrian school proponents. (diff.) MilesMoney often made fun of them, and often without much tact to say the least, because of the fact that they are unable to get their primary beliefs (which they say are self-evident, but agree are not supported by empirical data: diff admitting as much from an Austrian school proponent) published in the peer reviewed economics literature, or produce any models or simulations which accurately describe historical outcomes from prior data as, e.g., the New Keynesian DSGE models do. That kind of behavior to deliberately ban productive editors for their politics is especially harmful to the quality of the encyclopedia. And I'm not sure if MilesMoney's coarseness against such deliberate assaults to the accuracy of economics articles with the potential to perpetuate so much harm to society is the sort of incivility that the civility policy contemplates. EllenCT (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Steeletrap

Austrians/Misesians are WP:fringe

The Austrians (or more specifically, Misesians) are anarchist economists who, in contrast to all mainstream social scientists, reject the scientific method in their models. George Mason University economist, libertarian and former Austrian Bryan Caplan says of the Austrians: "their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle [emphasis mine -- steele]. ... Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory." Caplan notes that their rejection of empirical testing and other mainstream social scientific methodologies leads to their "extreme isolation from the rest of the economics profession."

The Misesians -- by whom I specifically refer to those associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute -- readily concede their fringe status. Indeed, they are are quite proud of it. 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 book (see pg 87 of [|this book]). Prominent Misesian Walter Block notes that Nobel Laureates Gary Becker and James Buchanan, both of whom are political libertarians ostensibly sympathetic to the Austrians' policy conclusions, refer to the Austrians as a "cult", a characterization endorsed by Paul Krugman (who, despite his strong ideological liberalism, acknowledges Milton Friedman as a "great economist" and has great regard for other libertarian-leaning, Chicago School economists). Block observes that the two journals of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the organization which publishes the work of the Misesians), the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and The Review of Austrian Economics, arose specifically because the Austrians could not get published in mainstream journals.

Misesians gravitate toward other fringe causes. Murray Rothbard supported legalizing the torture of criminal suspects [and] the 'right' of parents to let their children starve to death; said there was "nothing" in former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 political platform, including "equal rights ... for whites", which libertarians shouldn't support; was a champion of the "historical revisionism" of Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes (though coyly never mentioned his notorious denialism) and so forth. Then there is the connection of numerous Mises Institute scholars to the League of the South, a Confederate revivalist organization which advocates a society dominated by "European Americans.". Mises Institue Senior Fellow Thomas Woods wrote in the League's "Southern Patriot" Journal that 19th century abolitionists were "utterly reprehensible agitators". A New York Times piece published today (1/25) notes that he also has written in opposition to Brown v. Board of Education. The same article. quotes a Mises Institute economist as characterizing slavery as “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.” Even more radical is Mises Institute scholar Gary North, who has called for homosexuals and women who lie about their virginity to be stoned to death).

Visit the website of Mises Institute chairman Llewellyn Rockwell, and you see all sorts of fringe nonsense: evolution denial (1) (2) (3), AIDS denial (4) (5) (6) 9/11 Trutherism (7) (8) (9) (10), and whatever else these "scholars" can dream up.

By removing positive material and adding negative, it superficially appears that I and other editors are engaged in POV-pushing on the Austrian pages. But all we're really doing is adding reliable mainstream 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 I have not hesitated to add positive RS to the article; it's just that they are difficult to find.

Various distortions by User:Srich32977

A few examples where he distorts my reasoning behind various edits (see his talk page for more). Numbering matches the code he used on his table.

  • B1/Hoppe Claims I am guilty of a double-standard by removing the LewRockwell.com blog from Hoppe's article but keeping it in Rothbard's. My rationale (which Rich inexcusably omits) is that the former (unlike the latter) is a living person, so a blog cannot be used for info about his views, no matter how reliable. NOTE -- The Ron Paul content in the paragraph is sourced (by Rockwell) to The Daily Dish, which is an RS. It is not established by the SPS LewRockwell blog. The Fred Reed stuff (which does appear to violate WP:SPS) was added by Carolmooredc, not by me.
  • B5/Harvard Political Review Claims my issue with this source is that it is written by an undergraduate. My issue with it is that it's entirely written and edited by undergraduates (i.e. is an undergraduate publication), and focuses on politics and economics. It is not a reliable source for a review of a book which presents itself as a serious work of philosophy and economics, because its authors lack sufficient expertise in those fields.
  • B4/Stossel. Claims I removed Stossel's praise of Block's economics book because it makes Block look good. In fact, I removed it because he is a cable news pundit akin to Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. This does not (in my view) qualify him as an RS for a book which presents itself as a a serious work of philosophy and economics. Steeletrap (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Iselilja

First quote is completely out of context -- I said my dislike for LvMI (which I responsibly disclosed so other users could rein it in if it became an issue) motivated me to purge Mises pages of bias. (you can disbelieve those words, but don't distort them). I do apologize for mocking Rothbard's physical appearance in his old age, and for joking S. Presley won’t be notable unless she’s related to Elvis. There’s no excuse for that, and I understand if Arbcom is compelled to act on it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by The Four Deuces

MilesMoney, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO have all been tendentious, concentrating on adding negative information and removing positive information based on their incorrect use of the "neutrality" policy. For negative information they have a relaxed interpretation, while for positive information, they have a strict interpretation. They have continued to argue their positions long after consensus has developed against them, which is in violation of "Failure or refusal to "get the point"", part of the guideline about disruptive editing. I will provide two examples.

"Murray Rothbard." SPECIFICO supported the inclusion of "Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." It was sourced to an article, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid." by James Kirchick in the Daily Beast.[1] Carole Moore wanted to add "According to James Kirchick" and set up a discussion thread, Talk:Murray Rothbard#Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable? I later took the discussion to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and it can be found here. Kirchick wrote that "Rothbard...published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that...supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."[2] I pointed out that Kirchick was referring to Rothbard's article "Right-wing Populism", that was written after Duke's run for governor, and that the article was already substantially discussed in the article. (One cannot "endorse" a candidate after the election is over.)

In the article's discussion page, Steeletrap said "it's up to RS (not us) to determine what constitutes an "endorsement"." (00:47, 17 November 2013)[3]

"Walter Block" Walter Block's 1976 book, which was published by "Fleet Publishing Corporation", apparently part of the Macmillan Company, contains a page with comments by Friedrich Hayek providing an endorsement of the book. John Gray, in a book about Hayek published by Routledge, which is an academic publisher, says that Hayek endorsed the book and uses the book as his source.

SPECIFICO removed mention of the endorsement based on RSN.[4] The discussion is on WP:RSN#Hayek info RS for same two articles? with a permanent link as at 22:49, 27 January 2014 here. Here are some of their comments:

  • What's the source of the Commentary? SPECIFICO 21:23, 24 January 2014
  • You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?" SPECIFICO 01:53, 26 January 2014
  • Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. Steeletrap 03:28, 26 January 2014
  • The personal correspondence is published on Mises.org, on a promotional page for the book. That is what is being cited, not the Gray book; and that is what I'm calling unreliable. Steeletrap 07:46, 27 January 2014

TFD (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EllenCT

You wrote that the community ban of MilesMoney was "requested by Austrian school proponents." I requested the ban and have never edited in a way that would suggest that I am a proponent of the Austrian school. While I agree with you that Austrian opinions should receive little or no coverage in economics articles, this case is about articles about Austrian economists, not economics articles. AFAIK, MilesMoney never edited economics articles, except for articles about Austrian economists and articles about American right-wing figures. TFD (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Fringe"

The Austrian School, per se, is not fringe, although it is a minority position. Hayek for example won a Nobel Prize for economics and Austrian economists regularly contribute to academic journals. However, original publications of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) are fringe and present views not present in academic writing. In the same way we could say that Marxism is not fringe, but articles published by small Marxist groups, such as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA may be considered fringe. But this may be a distraction, because this case is about the editing of articles about the LvMI and individuals associated with it, not the use of LvMI sources for economics articles in general. TFD (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Alanyst

Scope and parties

  1. Based on the pattern and number of edits to Austrian economics related articles (see [5]), the deeply involved parties in terms of content are Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Srich32977, and Steeletrap. Binksternet is moderately involved, and A Quest For Knowledge and The Four Deuces are only peripherally involved, primarily in talkpage discussions (see interaction summary below).
  2. One other deeply involved editor was MilesMoney, who is indefinitely blocked under the auspices of a community ban. MilesMoney has indicated on his user talk page that a ban appeal is in the works, but the status of the appeal is unclear. If the block or ban has a possibility of being lifted before this case nears its end, MilesMoney ought to be added as a party. Because MilesMoney's appeal has been declined, the evidence presented includes interactions by MilesMoney only in order to provide context for the other disputants' behavior.
  3. Though largely centered on the topic of Austrian economics, the same core disputants have also engaged in conflict in topics related to American politics (especially libertarianism); see the editor interactions linked below for specific articles.

Interaction summary

  1. Interactions of core content disputants are given for the article namespace.
  2. Added interactions of A Quest For Knowledge and The Four Deuces for the article talk namespace due to their involvement in content discussions.
  3. Added interactions of Adjwilley for User and Wikipedia (and corresponding talk) namespaces due to involvement in related dispute resolution efforts.
Namespace Interactions Editors
Article [6] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney
Article talk [7] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, A Quest For Knowledge, The Four Deuces
User [8] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, A Quest For Knowledge, The Four Deuces, Adjwilley
User talk [9] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, A Quest For Knowledge, The Four Deuces, Adjwilley
Wikipedia [10] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, A Quest For Knowledge, The Four Deuces, Adjwilley
Wikipedia talk [11] Srich32977, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, A Quest For Knowledge, The Four Deuces, Adjwilley

The dispute in content space

  • There are 160 articles that at least two of the parties have contributed to.
    • Topic breakdown: 25 articles on Austrian economics; 39 on broader economics subjects; 34 on libertarianism; rest are smattering of U.S. politics, social issues, miscellaneous.
    • 43 BLPs and 21 BDPs
  • Of these 160 articles, I count 65 with contentious interaction between at least two of the parties in article space itself. The disputes in 59 of these are connected to Austrian economics, and in the other 6 are disputes on other topics.

BLPs under dispute

In addition to the 23 BLPs with disputes related to Austrian economics, 2 others have disputes between two or more of the parties on unrelated topics.

Article Interactions Nature of dispute Disputants
Thomas DiLorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Mostly about weight and tone of material reflecting negatively on article subject. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Weight given to controversial views/statements of article subject. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, Binksternet
Ralph Raico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Whether sources establish notability of article subject Mostly Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO (non-party Sitush also involved on Talk)
Gary North (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Weight and sourcing of material concerning article subject's controversial views Mostly Srich32977, SPECIFICO, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, MilesMoney; some talkpage involvement by Binksternet and non-parties Stalwart111, Collect, StAnselm
Mark Thornton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Notability of article subject Mostly Srich32977, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, and Binksternet at article and talk; also weighing in at failed AfD were Steeletrap, MilesMoney, and a handful of non-parties
Walter Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Notability of article subject; weight and sourcing for positive and negative material Srich32977, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, light involvement by MilesMoney
Jesús Huerta de Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Notability of article subject; representing sources; NOR dispute. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap; brief appearance by MilesMoney
Lew Rockwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Neutrality of material covering the question of article subject's authorship of newsletters with racist statements. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap
Robert P. Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Wording and sourcing for material covering a prediction the article subject made regarding inflation, and for material covering article subject's religious views. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, with appearances by MilesMoney, Binksternet, A Quest For Knowledge, and non-parties Ubikwit, Gamaliel, and Goethean
Sharon Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Notability of article subject; reliability of sources. Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, non-parties TonyBallioni, Agricola44, Sitush and Collect; minor involvement by Srich32977
Gary Chartier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Relevance/weight of article subject's association with a libertarian blog; whether subject's association with a law professor is properly characterized as friendship. Srich32977, MilesMoney, Binksternet, non-party Qwyrxian
Stephan Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Notability of article subject and reliability/use of sources. (Mostly collegial discussion.) Srich32977, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, non-party Stalwart111
David Gordon (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, [12] Notability of article subject; whether an article calling the subject a polymath is a reliable source. Srich32977, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap, Binksternet, brief appearance by Carolmooredc
Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Whether section on controversial newsletters should be tagged as unbalanced or undue weight. (Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 11#Newsletter section -- Undue) Srich32977, Steeletrap
Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Sourcing and appropriateness of "controversy" section on article subject's involvement with League of the South, and whether part of subject's own explanation of the relationship deserves mention. Srich32977, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, brief appearance by The Four Deuces
Adam Kokesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Whether [13] is a reliable source or opinion/promotional reporting. Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, non-party DA1
Nassim Nicholas Taleb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article Whether article subject is accurately labeled a statistician; conformity of article text to sources. Srich32977, SPECIFICO
Elizabeth Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Weight of material on article subject's claims of Cherokee ancestry. Steeletrap, Binksternet, non-party Gandydancer
Stanley Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, [14] Whether material is unduly weighted that notes how the article subject's dual citizenship affected their nomination to a political post. Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO
Leland B. Yeager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Whether Category:Mont Pelerin Society members is supported by sources. Srich32977, SPECIFICO
Gene Callahan (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article Skirmish over material describing article subject's past association with Austrian school and LvMI, and subject's subsequent criticism of LvMI. Srich32977, Steeletrap
Virginia Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, talk Removal of external links. MilesMoney, Binksternet, non-parties Thargor Orlando, Roccodrift, 71.23.178.214, Capitalismojo
Robert Hall (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article Notability tag. Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO

The dispute in project and user space

Project space

Date Began Venue Link
2013-04-07 AfD Stephan Kinsella (4th Nomination)
2013-05-03 AfD Ben Swann
2013-05-04 Editor assistance CarolMooredc threatening bans/accusing me of being libelous
2013-05-04 AN/I CarolMooreDC making false accusations of libel/threats of banning
2013-05-04 AN/I Baseless allegations of PA/threats to block from user S.Rich
2013-05-05 FTN Uncritical presentation of AIDS Denialists on LewRockwell.com page
2013-05-06 RFPP LewRockwell.com
2013-05-06 BLP/N Self-published blog on living person
2013-05-07 NPOV/N Concerns on WP:Undue regarding AIDS Denial and LewRockwell.com
2013-05-09 SPI ThomasHart1972
2013-05-20 AfD Jesús Huerta de Soto
2013-05-22 RFPP Hans-Hermann Hoppe
2013-05-22 ANEW User:Sageo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Warned)
2013-05-23 WT:Canvassing Campaigning on excessive number of wikiprojects
2013-05-24 RfC/Request board Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom section heading title
2013-05-34 ANEW User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap reported by User:Sageo (Result: Warned)
2013-05-26 DRN Hans-Hermann Hoppe RfC
2013-05-27 AN/I WP:Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO
2013-05-27 AN/I Repeated BLP violations despite warnings on Hans-Hermann Hoppe
2013-05-30 WT:Canvassing Discussion sections and Template:Canvassed
2013-05-31 NPOV/N Repeated POV soapboxing
2013-06-13 BLP/N Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR/Synth
2013-06-14 WT:Canvassing Revising 'Campaigning' type notifications
2013-06-16 WT:Canvassing Only notify one place?
2013-06-19 Editor assistance Forumshopping if no opinion given on noticeboard?
2013-06-20 NOR/N WP:OR/Synth argumentation in biography
2013-06-23 RS/N Academic book for statement about author
2013-06-29 AN/I Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO
2013-07-07 WT:Fringe theories Are claims fringe if no WP:RS calls them fringe?
2013-07-27 AN/I Repeated hostile, insulting remarks by User:Carolmooredc
2013-07-28 BLP/N Gary North (economist)
2013-07-29 Editor assistance Where to go when RfC violates WP:RS??
2013-07-31 WT:Canvassing Appropriate notification of editors on clear policy issues
2013-07-31 AN/Requests for closure Murray Rothbard RfC
2013-07-31 AN Request Admin Closure of RfC erroneously closed by involved editor
2013-08-01 Editor assistance Appropriate notification of editors on clear policy issues
2013-08-01 BLP/N Walter Block etc; On adding WP:OR material
2013-08-03 WP:Walled garden Interactions of parties
2013-08-03 Editor assistance Wikilink to foreign language WP
2013-08-06 RS/N "Walled garden" argument with regard to the Austrian School and the Mises Institute
2013-08-07 BLP/N [15] (and subsequent reverts over next 2 days; see history)
2013-08-12 Good article reassessment Murray Rothbard
2013-08-18 RS/N Removal /distortion of RS-cited text at Murray Rothbard
2013-09-03 RS/N Gene-callahan.blogspot.com
2013-09-10 RFPP Ayn Rand
2013-09-11 RFPP Objectivism (Ayn Rand
2013-09-15 RS/N consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy
2013-09-16 RFPP Objectivism (Ayn Rand
2013-09-17 AN/Requests for closure WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com
2013-09-20 ANEW User:MilesMoney reported by User:Srich32977 (Result:Warning)
2013-09-22 ANEW User:Srich32977 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result:No Violation)
2013-09-24 AN/Requests for closure WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy
2013-09-26 AN/I Bizarre case of intentional incivility
2013-09-29 RFPP Murray Rothbard
2013-09-29 AIV (Complaint by Binksternet against MilesMoney)
2013-09-29 AN/I WP:Harassment from User:Binksternet
2013-10-02 RFPP Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-02 SPI StillStanding-247
2013-10-06 SPI QuebecSierra
2013-10-06 RFPP Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-08 AN/Requests for closure Talk:Ayn_Rand#Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence
2013-10-08 AN RfC validity review requested
2013-10-16 RFPP Property and Freedom Society
2013-10-16 SPI Nrcprm2026
2013-10-16 AN/I Tag-team removal of NPOV-section template
2013-10-17 AN/I Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-21 AN/Requests for closure WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-25 RS/N Volokh Conspiracy
2013-10-25 RS/N Three sources on Ludwig von Mises Institute article
2013-10-26 BLP/N Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-27 AN/I WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-10-31 AN/Requests for closure ANI: BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute
2013-11-01 AN/Requests for closure WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Volokh Conspiracy
2013-11-02 ANEW User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: Closed)
2013-11-02 AfD The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
2013-11-03 COIN User:Carolmooredc
2013-11-04 AN/Requests for closure Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article
2013-11-04 AN General sanction notices by non-admins
2013-11-07 FT/N HIV/AIDS denialism
2013-11-07 AfD A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
2013-11-12 RS/N RS for Murray Rothbard as an historian
2013-11-17 RS/N Murray Rothbard article
2013-11-19 RS/N Demos blog criticism in BLP
2013-11-23 BLP/N Temporary removal of BLP violating material
2013-11-24 RS/N Institute profiles/bios for views
2013-11-25 AN/I Tendentious referencing of other people's motives
2013-11-30 AN/I WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO
2013-12-04 RFPP Liberty University
2013-12-07 BLP/N Robert P. Murphy re: Paul Krugman quote
2013-12-07 AN/I User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks
2013-12-09 AfD Joseph R. Stromberg
2013-12-10 AfD Mark Thornton
2013-12-10 AfD Jeff Riggenbach (2nd nomination)
2013-12-15 Requests for mediation Austrian economics
2013-12-15 AN/I User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)
2013-12-17 AfD William L. Anderson
2013-12-21 AfD Sharon Presley
2013-12-23 SPI Steeletrap
2013-12-23 WP:Competence is required history
2013-12-27 AN MilesMoney
2013-12-27 AE MilesMoney
2014-01-02 RFPP Virginia Thomas
2014-01-02 AN/I Apparent Battleground/POV editing
2014-01-06 AN/I Misuse of talk page by banned editor
2014-01-09 RS/N Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections
2014-01-14 RS/N Brad DeLong blog RS?
2014-01-15 AN/Requests for closure WP:RSN#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections
2014-01-22 RS/N Harvard Political Review RS for economics book review?
2014-01-26 WP:V [16] and subsequent revert
2014-01-26 WT:V Expert SPS ban should not apply to opinion statements

User space

Users Carolmooredc, Srich32977, SPECIFICO, and Steeletrap are all in the top five contributors to each others' user talk pages (excluding bots).

User Interactions at user's talk page
Carolmooredc [17]
SPECIFICO [18]
Srich32977 [19]
Steeletrap [20]

Evidence presented by VictorD7

Most of EllenCT's "evidence" is false, off topic, and should be disregarded

EllenCT linked to posts by me and other editors on various pages that have nothing to do with this case, which should be clear from reading the context of her linked comments. I don't recall ever discussing or editing about Austrian economics on Wikipedia, and I don't identify as an Austrian. She's apparently trying to piggyback on this process in hopes that it will aid her in wider content disputes. Ellen uses "Austrian" like an epithet, and, given her record, I seriously doubt she could even articulate a coherent definition of the school without some panicked, hurried googling. I could post mountains of evidence, but some of the other falsely accused editors have already posted on the Workshop page, and this is off topic, so I'll keep this brief.

EllenCT has a history of tendentious editing and wasting admin and editors' time with frivolous accusations. This complaint she filed (archived section link) on the admin noticeboard boomeranged on her after she made false accusations and displayed a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. She has persistently misrepresented sources (diff, diff), refused to answer vital questions on topics she raised (see previous diffs), misrepresented other editors' positions (see this page), and at times even her own edit summaries. Here she feigned a simple reversion of some brief, recently added "Nazi" historical material while covertly slipping in a massive edit on various contentious tax/economic segments (diff scroll down, diff) that were already in the process of being discussed and rejected by strong consensus in a RfC Talk Page survey for, among other reasons, POV skew. (section permalink). Her behavior has alienated posters from across the ideological spectrum (section permalink).

She sparked weeks of extensive debate about corporate incidence on multiple Talk Pages based on an erroneous assumption she made. When I patiently refuted her premise with quotes from her own source, she ignored the evidence, repeated her false claims, and resorted to trying to "win" by running to admin and arbitration and seeking sanctions against those who disagree with her. I won't lay out the details of this extensive series of exchanges here for space reasons, but I'll be happy to elsewhere if asked.

Ellen has caused enormous disruption to multiple articles, and habitually refuses to acknowledge facts even when undeniably demonstrated. She's likely aware of the chaos she's causing. Her own user page (user page permalink), the intro presented in the form of a will, acknowledges the possibility that she could be banned at any time, and complains about other, allegedly politically motivated editors' alleged dishonesty, praying for mercy to a "robot Devil". Her "evidence" here should be totally disregarded (except for maybe the last paragraph, which at least deals with someone involved), unless she's involved in this Austrian case, in which case her behavior should be held against her. Regardless, it's long past time for someone familiar with the procedures to initiate a formal review of her conduct on Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by TParis

Support for MilesMoney Community Ban

Below is a chart that details the levels of support for a community ban for MilesMoney, including percentages based on all 3 interpretations of WP:IBAN. The interpretation that EllenCT uses above actually works against MilesMoney but his defenders have refused to acknowledge such despite the very real and very clear evidence. This is because the defense of MilesMoney has selectively removed the !votes supportive of a community ban of those involved in the underlying dispute without striking the opinions of those opposed to the ban who were involved. When you accept the interpretation given by EllenCT, the number of those opposed is actually reduced by 3 which is a greater percentage of those opposed than those supportive. The supportive percentage actually increases by 3%. Analyst's chart above provides more context for the level of "involvedness" of the !voters in this chart.

Name Position Involved in Underlying Dispute @Talk:Pamela Geller Involved with MilesMoney Comments Community Ban Topic ban BLP ban Oppose
The_Four_Deuces Support Yes Yes X X X
Gamaliel Support/Oppose No No Administrative Capacity Only X
Nil Einne Comment No No Left ANI notices that were unmade
Mangoe Oppose No No Assisted at BLP/N X
MONGO Support No Talk:Phil_Robertson X
Two kinds of pork Support Yes Yes X
Collect Support Yes Yes X X X
Iselilja Support Yes Yes X X X
Safehaven86 Support No Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey X X X
Johnuniq Support No No X
Cullen Support No No X X X
Roccodrift Support Yes Yes X X
StAnselm Support Yes Yes X X X
Sportfan5000 Oppose No No X
ViriiK Support No No X X X
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Support No Talk:Scott Rasmussen X 2 2
RL0919 Support No Talk:Ayn Rand X
John Reaves Support No No X
goethean Oppose Yes Yes X
Gaijin42 Support No Talk:Gun control 2 X X
Drmies Support Yes Yes X X
Someone not using his real name Support No No X X X
MrX Support No Talk:War on Women X
A Quest For Knowledge Support No Ludwig von Mises Institute X
Sportsguy17 Support No No X
I, JethroBT Support No Talk:Ayn Rand 2 X X
Lukeno94 Support No No X X X
S. Rich Support No Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe 2 X X
Capitalismojo Support No Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers X
Epicgenius Support No No X
SPECIFICO No Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute
Georgewilliamherbert No No Acting only as an administrator
Writegeist Oppose No No X
Morphh Yes Yes
Carolmooredc Support No Talk:Gary North (economist) X
Binksternet Support Yes Yes X 2 2
Niteshift36 Support No Talk:Phil Robertson X X
Beyond My Ken Support No No X 2 2
Steeletrap Oppose No Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe X
MarnetteD Support No No X 2 2
Darkness Shines Oppose Yes Yes X
NinjaRobotPirate Support No No X X X
The Devil's Advocate Support No No X
QuackGuru Oppose Yes Yes X
Itsmejudith Oppose No No X
Medeis Support No Talk:Ayn Rand X
Adjwilley No No
Sitush Support No Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute X
All !votes !Votes not in !Votes never interacted
underlying dispute with MilesMoney
34/8 26/5 12/4 All !votes 29 23 20 8
TOTAL SUPPORT 81% 84% 75%
!Votes not in underlying dispute 23 16 13 5
!Votes never interacted 12 8 7 4

Evidence presented by Carolmooredc

Context of biography-related violations/disputes

In 2007 I started serious editing in areas of interest (nonviolence/antiwar/libertarianism). In spring 2013, exhausted from years dealing with BLP-violating edits in the Israel-Palestine conflict area, and frustrated by admins' reluctance to enforce ArbCom’s BLP sanctions, I unwatched those BLPs.

Concurrently I noticed violations by new user Steeletrap working closely with new user SPECIFICO. Steeletrap primarily adds WP:Undue negative and often sensationalist info from partisan sources to biographies of living and some deceased individuals; SPECIFICO usually defends Steeletrap's edits through aggressive reverting and discussion. Both consistently remove WP:RS info that makes subjects look notable and/or credible. I agree there were primary source and original research problems with these biographies; I've tried to add WP:RS info; I'm fine with BLP-compliant criticism.

Per my evidence below, I believe Steeletrap and SPECIFICO see Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy via denigrating economics professors and writers associated with the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute. (It is connected to Ron Paul, father of prospective Presidential candidate Rand Paul.) Resulting talk page disputes with long-time editors supporting long-standing policies, and repeated noticeboard reports by multiple editors and admins, eventually led to Austrian economics/General sanctions. They were invited to Formal Mediation and "disagreed" with participating. Since then SPECIFICO1 and Steeletrap2 each have been blocked for behavior issues. A Quest for Knowledge initiated the Arbitration January 15 because of this discussion on a behavior issue.

BLP Issues

Self-published sources in BLPs

Biased/WP:Undue additions

  • Existing WP:Undue/biased article sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • Talk page/noticeboard discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
  • Questionable claims about controversy as basis of notability: 1, 2

Removal of RS info

WP:Fringe excuses denigrating minority viewpoints/related BLPs

  • Steeletrap on fringe: 1, 2, 3, 4
  • SPECIFICO on fringe: 1, 2
  • Note other editors vs these uses of "fringe": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Behavior issues

Edit warring

Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry

  • Users: SPECIFICO (registered Sept 2012) and Steeletrap (registered April 2013) quickly became "collaborators" and engaged in mutually reinforcing edits and discussions promoting their POV. Until MilesMoney (registered July 2013) was banned, they worked closely with him and were his most vehement supports during three WP:ANIs (1, 2, 3) and later at closing admin's talk page.
  • After a WP:SPI on Steeletrap and MilesMoney, the closing admin wrote: "In the worst case scenario, this is meatpuppetry, which can be handled outside SPI."
  • Editor interaction analysis shows that SPECIFICO and Steeletrap overlap on more than 100 article and talk pages, user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (They overlapped with MilesMoney on over 50 such pages.)
  • Wikipedia:Single purpose account editing against Mises Institute-related BLPs, etc., probably applies also.

Attacks against groups of editors

WP:Harassment of me

Mocking Wikipedia administration of policy

  • Steeletrap/SPECIFICO/MilesMoney in user talk section called "Mises Sanctions as a Horror movie plot: Anyone can die?"
  • Steeletrap mocks her 24 hour block and admin.
  • Admin complains about insult
  • Steeletrap's proposal at ANI that admins could not judge issues under Austrian economics sanctions unless they were "educated in economics".

Motivating biases

  • Steeletrap's recent research for a "Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements", where her adviser recommended she look at those involved with the Ludwig von Mises Institute made her admittedly “strongly biased against them”(1, 2), and even "mildly obsessed"(3). She called them "cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans"(4), a "dogmantic-cult"(5), repeated the "cult" accusation(6, 7), called herself "anti-libertarian"(8).
  • SPECIFICO writes: I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition.(1) and expressed similar biases(2, 3).

Unsigned/Original entry Carolmooredc 15:02-1/28/14

Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence

In her "shock value", biased and perhaps defamatory editing style, in her Arbitration Evidence above. At these links:

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LewRockwell.com articles, see their “About” page'd no endorsement policy statement. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steeletrap’s “B1" reply illustrates her inserting negative inferences with poor sourcing(1). I removed material; she reverted it (2)). Two of my Rothbard talk page explanations(3, 4). I was too busy/frustrated to take to noticeboard; rather than edit war with Steeletrap/MilesMoney, 11/3/13 I added also inferential links from her existing source. Only on 2/5/14 did Steeletrap revert it(5). She complained in Evidence it was "SPS" just 1 minute later. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SPECIFICO

SPECIFICO's last minute flood of evidence blames everything on me, using stale (see end) and misrepresented/exaggerated allegations of the type that led to his December 2013 block.

Pre-2013 stale evidence/issues dealt with:

  • New editing and my former activism: a) Editing under real name: when registered in 2006 I didn’t know better; b)here as FYI I noted I was quoted in an article relevant to talk page discussion; c) User Page edit, was my 14th on Wikipedia; d) note probably 100,000 other editors have some past or current activism history; restraining POV is what counts; e) edited article about self because didn't understand policy fully. My comments at AfDs: 1, 2
  • "believes she is personally under siege": my comment after another user notes attack on me in this Jehochman December 2010 WP:ANI against me.
  • Re: Jehochman ANI vs me, ANI's closing admin writes: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV".
  • Re: “Carolmooredc has a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli POV-pushing... etc." Note that during the ANI above I warned SPECIFICO here that Palestine-Israel arbitration could lead to sanctions for accusations of antisemitism.
  • Re User:Jehochman material: a) My 2011 comment refers to a 2003 off-wiki email discussed/explained ad nauseam already, which was still used against me; later SPECIFICO used it, leading to his block; b) 2010 Jehochman COIN vs me should be read in full, not selected diffs. (I see on 2/5/14 Jehochman removed here some self-promotional links from his user page, similar to ones I mentioned at WP:COIN.)
  • "been blocked for serious harassment". See whole WP:ANI here and community support regarding harassment of me.

Placeholder: Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting: Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Shii

WP:FRINGE is a general guideline irrelevant to the Austrian economics dispute

I have never edited the Austrian economics article, but the sophistry on this page is disappointing. The actual WP:FRINGE guideline is this:

When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

So?

Austrian economics is certainly a heterodox viewpoint, but what is its relationship to the mainstream viewpoint? How much space do sources published by the school deserve? This is the beginning of the argument, not the end of it. WP:FRINGE is not being cited rationally here. It is functioning as a talisman to ward off discussion. (1) Reliable sources describe Austrian economics as "heterodox", (2) WP:FRINGE, therefore (3) all sources linked with Austrian economics are untrustworthy. Would we accept this argument on an article about a minority viewpoint in string theory, or Catholicism?

When we remove the talisman, Steeletrap's "evidence" presented above is merely an assertion in disguise: "If you agree with me, then you will see that my POV is NPOV." I would expect to see a reasoned argument about relevant scholarship that addresses Austrian economics. Instead, a succession of personal accusations follow, and Steeletrap contents herself with poisoning the well without ever explaining how WP:FRINGE is relevant here. I am disturbed that someone with such a poor understanding of POV disputes has been given free rein over the article. (edit: After writing this comment, I reviewed many related talk pages and found Steeletrap to be basically civil, while Carolmooredc struck me as being hard to deal with. I therefore struck my final comment. However, I am still concerned about the language used on this Evidence page, which appears to be an attempt to demonize the subjects of the Austrian School article.) Shii (tock) 07:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Adjwilley

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

A couple comments

  • It looks like I've been mentioned a couple of times here. I've been involved in this mostly in an administrative/moderating role, but my participation recently has been limited. Some of my thoughts on the dispute are found here. I may add some here as well.
  • @EllenCT, I think you might be making the mistake of conflating people who supported the ban of MilesMoney with proponents of Austrian Economics.
  • @Steeletrap, I was reading some of the your arguments above and I'm having problems with the source you provided to support the statement that, "Murray Rothbard supported legalizing the torture of criminal suspects" (permalink, 4th paragraph). After reading the relevant paragraphs in the source article, I think you might be unintentionally oversimplifying Rothbard's views to add extra "shock" value to your own argument (a straw man of sorts). As far as I can tell from reading the article, it seemed like more of a thought experiment (in a perfect libertarian state...) and it only would have been legal to torture guilty criminal suspects. As best as I understand, according to Rothbard it would be ok for police to coerce a murderer to tell where he buried his victims, but if when brought to trial the suspected was not convicted, then the police who did the torturing would have to stand trial for torturing an innocent man. Anyway, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Rothbard, just that you seem to have misrepresented, or at best, oversimplified his position. Also, the second link you give in the same paragraph (on letting children starve to death) is giving me a 404 error. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (edit: Thanks for the update. 05:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Evidence presented by Srich32977

Edits related to Steeletrap

User_talk:Srich32977
# Diff/s Austrian Economics connection Problem Comments
A/1 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 4#User talk:Steeletrap Early interaction with Steeletrap. Steeletrap says I did PA & she has lots of evidence supporting the complaint. No followup whatsoever
A/2 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 4#Fringe science thing Early interaction regarding fringe. Steeletrap's misuse of FRINGE was discussed on other pages. Problem reemerges.
A/3 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 5#Civility thing Interaction regarding personal jabs in article talk page comments. Steeletrap complains, as I recall, about my admonition about making personal comments on article talk page. Fairly self-evident discussion.
A/4 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 6#Clarification on empiricism Steeletrap discusses her views of empiricism, science, philosophy. See text. None.
A/5 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 6#fringe page Change of FRINGE content guideline. Comment about my reverting a change that Steeletrap had done here (a major change & not ce) Content guideline remained unchanged.
A/6 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 7#Steeletrap.27s comment section Interaction with Steeletrap on article talk page(s) Section set up on my usertalk page to encourage comments not related to article improvement. (I believe, at the time, I had been banned from commenting on Steeletrap's TP.) Contains a mixture of comments C&P'd from other pages (with timestamps omitted) and comments initiated by Steeletrap. Specifico participated too. Per the section and subsections.
A/7 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Deletion of racism material on LvMI Mises.org Misunderstanding on how to analyze RS. (I believe this relates to the discussion surrounding evidence B/12.) In subsequent postings the misunderstanding persists.
A/8 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Comment from Steeletrap re fringe category FRINGE v. fringe Comments regarding fringe. Demonstrates that the concern re fringe is on-going.
A/9 User talk:Srich32977#Please check your understanding of 'fringe' S. Rich talk page Steeletrap continues to mix fringe with WP:FRINGE. Specifico & User:MilesMoney chime in about my competence.
Article edits
# Diff/s Problem Comments
B/1 Murray Rothbard Says, apparently, that anything from Lewrockwell.com blog is RS.* Her edit summary ignores WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Also, compare to other edits where the blog is described as non-RS.
B/2 Murray Rothbard & Murray Rothbard Edit summary says quoted material – which has quote marks – is not a direct quote and "does not need verification". duh -- isn't WP:V important in WP?
B/3 Murray Rothbard Edit summary refers to "obstructionist tag". Not the only incident where this non-wikipedian description of a tag is used.
B/4 Defending the Undefendable Labels John Stossel as non-RS. Why? Because Stossell said positive things about Walter Block?
B/5 Defending the Undefendable & Walter Block Removes Harvard Political Review (a publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics, produced by Harvard College students) material because the article is done by an undergrad. Ignores WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
B/6 Hans-Hermann Hoppe &
Hans-Herman Hoppe &
Hans-Hermann Hoppe &
Hans-Hermann Hoppe		 In comparison to another edit involving BLPs, says LewRockwell.com blog is not acceptable. Contradicts self when removing or adding disagreeable material (see first item in this listing).
B/7 David Gordon Restores notability tag. Complains that there was no discussion.
B/8 Milton Friedman Removes sourced material (3 different items) because it is FRINGE & UNDUE. Removal included others beside Rothbard.
B/9 Friedrich Hayek More disagreement about fringe. Would be better to re-write.
B/10 Defending the Undefendable & Walter Block Removes sourced material because Steeletrap surmises that Hayek was pressured to write it. IMO will invent excuses to remove disagreeable stuff.
B/11 Murray Rothbard In this edit the removed "Primary Sourced" material is published by The Online Library of Liberty. Ersatz edit summary.
B/12 Ludwig von Mises Institute Says "source (not author) is what counts" when evaluating RS. Compare this to the Harvard Political Review comments above.
B/13 Ludwig von Mises Institute Removes description of LvMI as a "world-class think tank" sourced by the Wall Street Journal; leaves "cult" comparison as is, capitalizing sentence with cult description.** Edit summary rationale is purely an invention created because Steeletrap prefers to think of LvMI as cult/fringe. The cult allegation has been the subject of extensive discussion eventually resulting in removal of the description.
*The particular lewrockwell.com blog was first added by Steeletrap on August 11, 2013. The lewrockwell.com blog mentions the then deceased (non-BLP) Murray Rothbard, but was about the living (BLP) Ron Paul, Fred Reed, and Andrew Sullivan. Also, this particular bit of editing was the subject of some discussion. (Per the diffs in the discussion, CarolMooreDC was removing the item, while Steeletrap and MilesMoney were arguing to keep the item. Specifico also restored it following a later removal.)
**As the ArbCom is progressing, Steeletrap has added the WSJ piece [in this edit] to the LvMI article page. However, Steeletrap commented on my talk page contenting the WSJ piece was "OR". See my Workspace commentary for analysis of this comment. In any event, thank you, Steeletrap, for restoring the RS.

Edits related to SPECIFICO

User_talk:Srich32977 edits
# Diff/s Austrian Economics connection Problem Comments
C/1 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 6#Disruptive Editing Gary North talkpage Specifico accuses me of disruptive editing on an article talk page. Per the diffs. (I had already changed the edit to which Specifico referred. E.g., Specifico was making an accusation after I had considered my edit and made a change.)
C/2 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 7#SPECIFICO.27s comment section Editor interaction Section set up to encourage comments not related to article improvement. Contains a mixture of comments C&P'd from other pages (with timestamps omitted). Per the diffs.
C/3 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 8#Edit Warring on von Mises Institute Mises.org Edit Warring warning. Discussion had been started, warning was BS.
C/4 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Mises ANI MilesMoney Specifico's objections to a table of diffs I provide WRT MilesMoney. Table assisted closing admin and none of the diffs were ever refuted.
C/5 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Please be constructive S. Rich talk page Specifico accuses me of unconstructive & uncivil comments. Per the thread.
C/6 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Talk Page Harassment S. Rich talk page – please unhat to read Specifico complains to me that I have commented on CarolMooreDC's talk page. Per the thread.
C/7 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 8#Edit Warring on Callahan Material Callahan Edit Warring warning. Discussion had been started, warning was BS.
C/8 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Edit Warring on Rothbard Rothbard – please unhat to read. Specifico initiates warning about EW on article which had had BRD opened. MilesMoney joins in; I hat the discussion.
C/9 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#DiLorenzo edit DiLorenzo – please unhat to read Specifico initiates polite discussion re DeLorenzo, but discusses my supposed lack of editorial judgement; User:MilesMoney joins in. Topic of DiLorenzo is better on article talk page, so I hat discussion.
C/10 User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9#Edit Warring on DiLorenzo DiLorenzo – please unhat to read. Specifico initiates warning about edits; I had explained same on article talk page. More bullshit, so I hat the thread.
C/11 User talk:Srich32977#Bullying Women Editors on Wikipedia User:EllenCT related thread – please unhat to read. Specifico accuses me of bullying a woman editor based on this thread. More bullshit, so I hat the thread (Notes: CarolMooreDC struck her remarks only because I had closed the thread & she had added them post-hatting. Also, female editor Safehaven86 made remarks about Specifico's accusation here.)
C/12 User talk:Srich32977#RSN Brad DeLong RSN Earlier, at this Noticeboad, I had pinged Specifico (and myself) about posting personal admonitions on article/noticeboard talk pages. Specifico doesn't get it. He thinks he can personally admonish other editors about non-article improvement/personal comments on article talk pages and uses the article talk pages to do so. (Even as the Arbcom progresses, Specifico does so again.)
Article edits related
# Diff/s Problem Comments
D/1 David Gordon & David Gordon Removes suitable, RS material. Material is restored by subsequent editors, edited to reduce UNDUE aspects.
D/2 Ralph Raico Removes suitable, RS material. Improperly justifies edit because material is not from "notable" sources; source is, in fact, RS; he could have (and should have) re-written to remove weasel text.
D/3 Mark Thorton Removes primary sourced material. Why not re-write or tag as UNDUE?
D/4 Thomas DiLorenzo & Thomas DiLorenzo Adds criticisms of DiLorenzo, adds puffery about how distinguished the critic is. Examples of how Specifico seeks to selectively criticize authors he disagrees with.
D/5 Milton Friedman Removes sourced material. Wholesale removal of material because it is "undue" & "fringe" & "affiliated" with someone.
D/6 Peter G. Klein Removes material because it is not noteworthy & primary source. Basically removed bibliographic/background material; could have re-written to reduce UNDUE aspects.
D/7 Joseph Salerno Tags for notability. Already tagged for primary source & refimprove. Could POV be a motivating factor for the notability tag?
User talk page edits
# Diff/s Problem Comments
E/1 Specifico Usertalk Deletes my comment without reading.* Message had been posted because Specifico had with others, repeatedly and improperly characterized a Austrian Economics sanctions, e.g., "I think it might have been inappropriate for you to close that discussion" notification as misbehavior on my part.
E/2 Specifico Usertalk Long time editor (User:Liz) and administrator (User:Adjwilley) admonish Specifico. Per the comments.
E/3 Gamaliel & Gamaliel Specifico, among other comments, remarks about my poor judgment; Gamaliel asks for an example. Specifico does not respond to Gamaliel's request.
*Specifico has recently commented on my talk page. I believe he objects to this item because he had banned me from commenting on his talk page.

Argument/analysis

Per guidelines, my argument and analysis regarding this evidence is presented in the Workshop.

Rebuttal to "Various distortions by User:Srich32977"

In the section Steeletrap's Evidence, above, there are comments about 3 items in my listing.

  • Regarding B/1, the source, which Steeletrap first added, is improper because it does not directly support material about Rothbard. It has a tangential remark, saying that Rothbard was not a Darwinist. But, in the edit, it becomes Rothbard's skepticism of evolution. If Lew Rockwell's remark or skepticism was supported by other RS, such as Rothbard's own writings, it might be helpful. (Even so, Rothbard was not an expert on evolution or a figure in the anti-evolution/Creationist movements.) My concern is with the edit summary. Just because a source is found RS in one edit does not make RS in all circumstances. But I think Steeletrap is doing selective analyses when she likes one blog comment, but dislikes others. The particular blog comment was actually about Ron Paul and should not have been used from the get-go.
  • Regarding B/5, Steeletrap misses the point. The HPR article is a review of a book which is not a scholarly book, but does have popular appeal. It is proper to mention that Harvard undergrads, writing under the supervision of the HIP, have read it and commented on it. That fact serves to show the book is of interest and importance beyond scholarly circles.
  • Regarding B/4, again, the fact that Stossel likes the book is important and should be presented. It serves to show that an Austrian Economist/Ludwig von Mises Institute affiliated scholar is having impact outside of academic circles. Stossel, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck, et al. may be pundits, but they do have audiences, and their thoughts are often worthwhile.

Also, I do not think any of these diffs are distortions, but I am happy to make corrections and clarifications. Indeed, I have done so.

  • Steeletrap brought up a fourth "distortion" on the Evidence Talkpage, here, about removal of the Wall Street Journal description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute as being a "world-class think tank". (Item B/13.) I think the rationale in Steeletrap's edit summary, along with the Evidence talk page rationale, the fact that Steeletrap left the "right wing" and "cult" descriptions intact, and Steeletrap's own expressed distain for Mises.org shows that POV was the motivating factor in the edit. The WSJ piece was a positive one for Mises.org, so why didn't Steeletrap edit the RS to "more evenly" reflect what it had to say? The removal of the text and the reference did not comply with WP:PRESERVE. I note that User:Orlady commented on the cult description. At Please discuss, she said she could not find RS that supported the description. The support for the "cult" description was brought up here. Steeletrap, Specifico, and User:MilesMoney argued to keep the cult description. The RSN was closed with a decision that said "...if there are no sources describing the institute as a cult within the article, it violates WP:NPOV big time."
  • Regarding item E/1, which seems to be the only specific objection that Specifico has raised (on my talk page and on the Evidence talk page), I think I have clarified the context. To restate, Specifico had banned me from commenting on his talk page, Specifico was repeatedly referring to a sanctions notification (extremely mild) posted regarding me. The administrator who posted the notification said "The notice was given in regards to a minor transgression, and shouldn't be used against you in the future. You're free to use this diff to rebut claims that you were warned for a serious violation." I did so, noting the particular misuse of the notification. I do not think my posting of the notice was an un-collegial gesture. If Specifico was interested in collegiality, he would have said "thank you" and retracted the needless, ad hominem posting.

My comments about SPECIFICO's evidence

Notes, paragraph-by-paragraph, with my response in italics.

Second paragraph says my evidence does not support the characterizations. No specifications are provided.
Third paragraph say only he & Steeletrap would pledge to refrain from PA. Actually, the Adjwilley mediation attempt failed for many reasons. A separate no-PA pledge was hardly needed (and not requested by Adjwilley) because NPA is a basic Policy. MilesMoney was involved. The attempt, begun as an effort to improve editor interaction, became mired in Specifico vs. Carol allegations.
Fourth paragraph asks for a diff where he mentions "Fringe". I did so above in Diff D/5. (The conflation between fringe and WP:FRINGE had been on-going in discussions previously. This was not a random use of the word.)
Fifth paragraph. How does this point relate to editor conduct concerns?

Overall observation: Specifico is correct to a (very) limited extent – CarolMooreDC makes comments haphazardly and at times without sensitivity. (Her own listing of evidence above starts off poorly and I have had only limited success in getting her to clean it up.) But Specifico does not take the wiser course of ignoring Carol. As noted in Diff C/6, Specifico comments to me that I had commented on her usertalk page, as if I was harassing Carol. Diff C/12 is on point. Specifico repeatedly disrupts article talk page discussions to complain about CarolMooreDC. Finally, I posted Evidence (above) about the 25 postings that Specifico had made on the Evidence talk page. Thirteen of the twenty-five postings involve CarolMooreDC!

Evidence presented by Iselilja

Steeletrap's stated motivation for involvement in articles is problematic

Steeletrap: "I personally find LvMI to be the most dislikeable fringe group I've come across [...] By "taking it out" on Wikipedia [...] I have found a way to channeling that irritation/dislike."

Mockery of article subjects on talk pages; sarcasm in an article

  • Specifico and Steeletrap mocking Rothbard photos in RfC
  • Specifico: "the current infobox photo of Rothbard, near death, does him a disservice. In his prime, Rothbard was clearly a man of some vigor and accomplishment. Seeing his image featured up top wall-eyed and breathing through his mouth does not convey the sense of his youthful accomplishments" "Rothbard was just a few years older than Elvis Presley and one recognizes the stark elegance of that era. I've added the photo of the younger more vital-looking Rothbard." I suspect the latter is mockery too, as in the photo, since his look is very contrary to Elvis/rock culture and Rothbard honestly looks more dreamy than vital in the photo.
  • Steeletrap "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". Steeletrap prefers the young photo, makes another jab at Rothbard: «taken when he was just in his late 20s (about a decade before he took his first job)»
  • Based on Steeletrap’s generally demonizing view of Rothbard, I don’t think his stated concern that the picture of the elderly Rotbard did him a disservice is sincere. Allthough this was a talk discussion, an RfC has very direct influence on article content; it was a close RfC and the mockery indicates that Steeletrap and Specifico did not vote in good faith.
  • Mocking of BLP at Talk:Joseph_R._Stromberg (now deleted; I cannot access it, but admins can). (As I remember it, Specifico, Steeletrap and MM were involved)
  • Specifico makes sexualized mockery of BLP. Replaces "Presley was a-political until she read Ayn Rand at the age of nineteen" with "Presley was aroused by reading Ayn Rand at age nineteen. She said, "It was like, 'Oh my God, what a revelation!". In the ADF of Presley, Steeletrap wondered "This is a shot in the dark, but is she related to Elvis?[...] If she's his cousin or something, even his second cousin, that may be her best claim to notability."

Personal attack, linking to vile blogpost

  • Specifico indirectly calls CarolMooreDC's editing anti-semittic and links to blog with hateful commentary on CarolMooreDC, blog includes comment that she and family should be gassed.

Evidence presented by Binksternet

The Ludwig von Mises Institute represents a minor viewpoint, not fringe

Publications originating from the LvMI have been cited hundreds if not thousands of times by mainstream publishers. For instance, the well-respected textbook publishing house ABC-CLIO cites the LvMI a dozen times in Economic Thinkers: A Biographical Encyclopedia (2012) ISBN 0313397473. The book lists LvMI founder Murray Rothbard as one of the "economic thinkers" of the title. This is just one of many possible examples showing that the LvMI is discussed seriously by mainstream economists.

The problem we have been having is that mostly Steeletrap and sometimes Specifico have argued against Austrian sources because they are "fringe":


This kind of argument is a misrepresentation and it skews the discussion in a disruptive manner. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is larger than the WP:Walled garden essay

Many complaints were put forward last April about how the LvMI is a walled gardeng. Discussions can be seen at the following places:

As I argued at RSN, "A relatively large number of articles on Wikipedia are connected by close association with the Mises Institute."

The sheer number of notable people show that the LvMI is larger than the "walled garden" described in the essay WP:Walled garden, in which the lack of three or so links to other articles will make an article an WP:ORPHAN. Instead of working to eliminate orphaned articles by way of adding interconnecting links, Steeletrap and Specifico have used the walled garden argument to prevent such links, to prevent reliable sources from being used to flesh out various biographies such that LvMI observers cannot be used to comment on other LvMI members, even though such observers would typically be the most expert on the topic.

An example is Specifico saying "Srich, the goal is not to create larger walled gardens, it's to connect the garden to the real world when such connections exist. We have found no such connection in this case." Of course links to the outside non-LvMI world would be helpful, but I believe that the "walled garden" argument is being misused here, that expansion of the LvMI interconnections would indeed help grow the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SPECIFICO

The problems are due to the participation of User:Carolmooredc

This is a longstanding conflict. There are many editors whose behavior has from time to time been unfortunate. Nevertheless at this Arbitration, we need to find the underlying root cause. If we can do that, there can be a remedy to ensure that the editing environment will return to an orderly and collegial process.

There are hundreds of diffs in which all of the "involved" editors, including myself, were unclear, impatient, confused, or downright mistaken. It's important to evaluate diffs in context, and not cherry-picked or cited out of context. I see many diffs presented in evidence, for example in Srich32977's elegant table, which, in context, don't support his characterizations.

I summarized my history and overview of the articles here in Adjwilley's attempt to mediate these disputes. A subsequent attempt at formal WP Mediation failed, ultimately, because only Steeletrap and SPECIFICO were willing to pledge to refrain from any personal remarks in the mediation.

I don't think AE is "Fringe." Some theories or assertions of some individuals might be fringe, but that's not always helpful with the details of an edit. The RS, BLP, NPOV, V and other policies must be the determining factors. Anybody who attributes the "Fringe" argument to me: Please produce diffs and quotes, so as not to misrepresent my view.

One related point however: Unlike academic professors who can criticize their institutions and colleagues without fear of the consequences, writers at think tanks and research institutes can lose their affiliations if they stray from the agenda of their institutions and colleagues. The issue of independence sourcing must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The root cause of the dysfunctional environment is the participation of Carolmooredc. She is a battleground user who edits almost exclusively in three areas so hostile that each has come before Arbcom: Israeli-Palestinian, Gender Issues, and now Austrian Economics. She edits WP under her real name and has freely shared her strident real-life activism, her involvement with subjects of some WP articles she edits, and a link to her "biography page" on her personal website detailing her activism. [32] [33] She has stated that her real-world activism is winding down and she now focuses her efforts on Wikipedia. She edited a WP article about herself before it was deleted. She constantly denigrates and disparages other editors, claiming (perhaps in a projection of her own behavior) that they are here to promote a personal POV agenda: [34]

Carolmooredc has a longstanding personal narrative depicting herself as a defender of Wikipedia who's burdened with staving off hordes of disruptive and destructive new editors. [35]. Her edit summaries and talk page comments are conspicuously replete with personal ruminations and first- and second-person remarks. She has proven herself unable to "discuss content not contributors". [36] She believes she is personally under siege at Wikipedia and that this justifies her Wikilawyering tactics" [37]. [38]. [39] A recurring tactic is to feign ignorance, error, or remorse when her behavior is challenged. Here, this tactic was exposed at ANI: [40] [41] She believes that she is persecuted by editors who are her political opponents: [42] She has previously been blocked for serious harassment: [43] The block was reduced after a typical apology.

Carolmooredc cloaks much of her tendentious editing in BLP policy. However less than a month ago she went to the talk page of economist Paul Krugman, a critic of some Austrian views, and violated BLP with derogatory text. After it was removed and identified as a BLP violation, she reinserted it. Her concern for BLP appears to be selective: [44]

Carolmooredc and Binksternet use"Fringe"and "Walled Garden" in disparaging, false accusations against editors Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, and Stalwart111. Carolmooredc and Binksternet have posted straw-man arguments and misrepresentations of other editors' views. They have attacked other editors by claiming they willfully used "Fringe" and "Walled Garden" descriptions to evade WP editing and content policy. Carolmooredc made the accusation on BLPN, accusing others of bad faith and misrepresenting their views: [45] In discussion, Carolmoore failed to respond to direct questions, as noted by an uninvolved editor: [46]. User Binksternet then joined Carolmooredc in misrepresenting the views of Steeletrap and myself by equating the two of us and then presenting straw man arguments against claims neither of us had ever made: [47] User:Stalwart111 then set the record straight by documenting Carolmooredc's repeated policy violations. [[48]], as did I [49]. Binksternet then started a parallel thread full of straw men, personal disparagement and misrepresentation, on RSN: [50]. Again, User:Stalwart111 responded and documented Carolmooredc's WP:TE, WP:PA and other violations: [51]

I posted notices to various WP Projects announcing an RfC (opened by User:Srich32977) to get closure on a matter in which Carolmoore had been tendentiously denying the talk page consensus. As the RfC began going against her viewpoint, Carol then claimed I had been canvassing because I had used improper wording in my notices. She then posted notices on other Project pages with the exact same wording that I had used: [52]. Forumshopping, she opened a thread on DR but was not satisfied with the response. She then opened an ANI against me for canvassing: [53] despite being advised to desist by Srich32977. [54] [55] She began using various tactics to disrupt and invalidate the RfC, including tagging some users’ votes: [56]. Meanwhile she went to the Libertarian Project page to disparage SPECIFICO and Steeletrap [57]. She has launched at least a dozen unsuccessful Noticeboard complaints against editors with whom she disagrees. [58]. She cites links to the failed complaints as proof that her view is correct. Sounds strange, but it's true. Her complaints on noticeboards are frequently unclear and ill-formed. [59] [60] She's been told not to forumshop, but she denies the problem. [61] [62] [63]

Carolmooredc repeatedly claimed, as fact, that SPECIFICO was “wikihounding”. [64] She also claimed that Admin TP stated (including in this Arbitration) that SPECIFICO was wikihounding, and Admin TP finally instructed her that her claim was false: [65] Carolmooredc has repeatedly been told to stop disparaging other editors, for example here: [66] [67] [68] But she does so nearly every day: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] She continues this behavior, despite the fact that she knows this violates policy: [79] This ANI has many links which document her tendentious editing and incessant undercurrent of WP:PA [80] [81] [82] [83] Carolmooredc has a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli POV-pushing and harassment of other editors. [84] This was documented by Admin @Jehochman: [85] [86] Carolmooredc responds with a personal attack and baseless accusations that Admin Jehochman is using WP for financial gain: [87]

In Austrian Economics, she delivered this slur to User:Steeletrap, a self-identified Ashkenazi Jew, only days after Steeletrap began editing: [88] Carolmooredc had already bitten the newbie even earlier: [89] Soon, it was a daily occurrence: [90] Carolmooredc continued her Jewish/Israel related rants harassing Steeletrap, while also attempting to assert that The National Review is not RS: [91] Carol harassed and attacked other editors on many topic articles long before AE: [92]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the third assertion; for example, your third assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence&oldid=1082680574"