Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Question on comments vs. own proposals

I have some proposals but got busy replying to User:Robert McClenon's. Now I'm wondering if I should allow my replies to stand as my opinion - or additions - on those topics he has created and let Arbitrators sort it out? Then I would create only sections that I think need adding - or perhaps ones that I feel express the views of myself and others better than others' existing sections. Thoughts? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, better late than never, got the idea from Gun Control Arbitration Workshop and others who may be confused probably also can get some guidance there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Analysis of evidence" section?

Since there is such a section and several people have used it to analyze evidence, I do not understand why TParis said my analysis belongs on the evidence page. Especially since I only have a couple hundred words left which is insufficient and I did link to it from the Evidence page. Are the links not evident?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Workshop reads: The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. (My emphasis.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not analyzing evidence, your are providing new evidence about Steeletrap's behavior. You're only barely mentioning someone else's evidence. Your comments belong in the evidence section so they can be used as a finding of fact on Steeletrap's behavior.--v/r - TP 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, looking through quickly I see a couple things that might be considered "new evidence" and I can remove them (delete or strike?).

1. that Steeletrap edit warred on Woods/DiLorenzo. ( Note that I already did list the Woods/DiLorenzo WP:Undue sections on my evidence and I can make that clear. )
2. Since I didn't thoroughly analyze problems with the SPLC link, I guess I could take it out - or expand it, as seems more useful once I review it.
3. Mention that she recently added Block link to another article.

The rest is analysis from the sources that she provided of misrepresentations and a couple additional links showing her evidence presented at Arbitration is bogus.

Perhaps my linking to analysis from evidence is a problem too? Can remove if necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, why are you over analyzing this? It's better off in the evidence section. Why is it that you insist it stay in the workshop? Do you fear it'll have less value? Don't delete anything, just move it. It's better off in the evidence section exactly like it is. It's not going to be of worse value or taken less seriously. It just simply belongs there and there is no reason to try to change it to fit here.--v/r - TP 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence: ...The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case;...... Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others.... Plus somewhere it said you have to get permission to go over 1000 words. If Arbitrators do read the Workshop, why bother to add to evidence? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a place to get around the evidence rules. Trim out the narratives and just list the facts and diffs.--v/r - TP 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last paragraph of the Evidence page I'm reminded there is a confusing conflict between that paragraph, what's going on at the Workshop already, and the Guide to Arbitration. I do remember thinking I had a choice, but I guess not. I'll see how much I can shorten it and meanwhile consult a clerk on numbers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no conflict. You'd like to misinterpret the policy as allowing additional evidence under the pretense of an analysis when you are in fact introducing new evidence. Now, I'm not saying you cannot have your evidence, what I am saying is that the rules on evidence are clear. If you want to include both pieces, trim the explanations and narratives and just go with the facts. See my section for an example. If you must, leave the evidence there and move the narratives here and call that your analysis.--v/r - TP 01:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, what else is new evidence? I've taken out bunch things that I think are plus some more editorial comment. But is it also the couple new links to material that disprove her assertions? Everything else is just my opinion based on the links she gives us.

Also, I see a whole lot of "new evidence" by the EllenCT commentators and a couple by -Ubikwit and I don't see you or anyone else chiding them, which increases my confusion. If you think putting in Evidence makes the case stronger, that would make sense. But I am saving my 300+ remaining words for a bunch of diffs on fringe and some other things. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Went to sleep and woke up with short summary for Evidence page ready to go! So I replaced the link section and link to my workshop analysis, so we have our cake and eat it too (unless Arbitrators ask me and others to take down "new evidence". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move my content if admins think it needs to be moved or they are welcome to move it. I was following the lead of some other editors, but I think there was a reason. Our evidence is not really evidence for the case topic, except to argue that EllenCT's evidence is not evidence for the case topic and appeal for intervention. I don't want our arguments for something off topic to hijack the intent of this arbitration, but we did need to respond to the charges. Again, I'll be happy to place my comments wherever they want them. I've never been involved in an arbitration, so the mechanics are unfamiliar to me. Morphh ^(talk) 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I am concerned about the many deletions and revisions of your evidence. Several times I have read your posts and begun to draft responses or compile diffs which refute your assertions, only to see later that you've subsequently changed your narrative. I am finding it unduly difficult to digest and reply to what feels like a moving target. May I respectfully suggest that you collect your thoughts, review the Arbcom guidelines, and post a well-formed contribution rather than a series of work-in-progress. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to two comments above:

• for those in Arbitration the first time, the lack of clarity of rules can cause confusion; I just noticed that the main page describes use of Workshop in yet a slightly different way, more like the Evidence page than the Guidelines page; this more clearly infers new evidence is prohibited at Workshop; so TParis seems to be right and thus I changed my analysis to be commentary on my evidence Steeletrap misrepresented hers, per the main page. That might help Morphh, or TParis could reply to Morphh's question. (I do have a question related to that in already to the clerks which may be rather dated by now.)
• Re: changing evidence/workshop comments: typically on Wikipedia if no one has responded to an entry one can change or add to it; I don't see that that rule has changed for an Arbitration. And no one has replied to any substantive issues I've raised, only made process comments encouraging me to change my content. Also Arbitration guidelines do explicitly say you can add new material in new sections during the Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update for others: Turns out that Evidence/Talk is the place to analyze (existing) evidence. I have no idea why the "Analysis of Evidence" section exists here but did notice in closed Arbitrations it was hardly used at all. In case anyone feels there's a need to move something over there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Comment about links

@Carolmooredc: With your Workshop comment edit summary in mind, the answer is yes and no. Yes, you do need links to show where Specifico was opposed to using Hayek, because that issue involves editor behavior. No, you do not need links to Austerians or Krugman because the merits of Austrian School thought or Krugman School thought will not be determined by the ArbCom. Also, evidence is allowed until 8 February. If you have not exceeded your 100 diff/1,000 word limit, then add evidence to the Evidence page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Needed signatures or {{unsigned}} templates

The instructions say "Please sign all suggestions and comments." But we have various comments and suggestions that are unsigned. Would the clerks please add {{unsigned}} templates as appropriate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC) 

Discussion involving the proposed IBAN

The following are my remarks regarding "discussion" of my proposed IBAN. They are cut and pasted from the Workshop page.

[[File:|25px|link=]] & – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted these Smileys with the hope that editors would see how trivial and off-topic their accusations were becoming. Consider, editors are commenting about a proposal that would serve to reduce their disruptive, indeed destructive, bickering with one another on Project pages. (I.e., did one editor make a typo when typing "he" when she should have typed "she".) But they do so by continuing their personal sniping at one another. As a result, even the mechanism for settling these disputes and minimizing these disruptions – the ArbCom – gets disrupted. How so? The Committee gets to see how petty and personal the concerns actually are vs. the Project. Alas, the discussion about implementing an IBAN becomes evidence in itself for the IBAN (or, perhaps, other bans). At some point I read that the ArbCom is "ban-happy". I don't know anything about this one way or the other because I have not reviewed prior Arbitrations. But if the discourse which I see on just this one proposal is a typical example, I can see why. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained I just was a bit careless in not making sure I properly identified SPECIFICO where I should have, thus leading to a typical brouhaha over the tiniest little error. Sigh... I agree it all should be moved over here since. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO's comment on Workshop page – This edit [1] by SPECIFICO is an example of how he misuses pages to make personal remarks about other editors (i.e., Carolmooredc). It has absolutely nothing to do with re-writing the "Locus of Dispute" section. It adds evidence supporting my request that an IBAN be imposed on Specifico & Carolmooredc. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, per my own later realization while the plumber was here, and reinforced by a talk page note when I got back online, I realized that analysis might belong in any Locus of Dispute proposal section. It was not appropriate in response to SRich's question. I was in middle of changing it but had an edit conflict with SPECIFICO. However, analysis of specifics in proposals will happen. In any case, maybe if we could hold our breaths and not jump on every comment immediately we won't have these problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: Is it possible, please to get a decision on my proposed temporary injunction (the immediate IBAN). Per the above and per the Workshop page we see Specifico & Carolmooredc going after each other. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's for the arbitrators to decide. Though, if you really believe it's needed, maybe doing it voluntariously would be good. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 20:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I will only speak for myself, but what I am doing on the Workshop page is discussing my evidence and your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced an interaction ban is needed here; it should be sufficient to remind people that the proposed decision will take into account editors' behavior during the case, and it is in all editors' interest to dial back any attitude or snark or aggression, even if for some reason they think it's justified. I'm not likely to be tricked into penalizing someone because their opponent said they were sneaky or evil or something; I am likely to come down harder on someone routinely being a jerk and unnecessarily making dispute resolution more difficult. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeams comment.

If I understand Srich's concern about some of my statements here, I think he's missing the point. My purpose is to relate Carolmooredc's behavior in the Workshop to the diffs I presented in Evidence. Those diffs give context by which to interpret her actions, and they document that this behavior is longstanding and disruptive. Srich himself is concerned about her behavior at this Arbitration and has been coaching her on his and her talk pages. My statements in Workshop are about the evidence concerning Carolmooredc's behavior which I previously posted. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Where and when to respond to accusations allegedly based on evidence

To continue above, I realize I claimed SPECIFICO was harassing me based on my evidence as a reason for an IBAN. And he didn't like my sharing detailed thoughts about Newbie vs. Olster principles of interaction in the Locus of dispute section. I'm not happy he's claiming behavior by me from before this dispute, allegedly based on his evidence.

The question is: a) should we be making such claims?; b) where?; c) what is the best way to respond (ask for removal, ask to move elsewhere or what?) and d)where is best place to respond? Studies have show that if false or exaggerated accusations are not refuted in a clear and timely manner, people tend to believe them. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Need reminders on New evidence/Analysis of evidence

To make this as simple as possible, are the analysis of evidence submitted so far proper? And it is true that we should not bring up new claims or new evidence here, correct? (I just struck one example of my doing such myself; saying "I didn't present evidence" not good enough. Smack me with the big fish.)

Feb 5th User:Ks0stm wrote at Evidence talk page: Just a reminder to all parties and participants that as I said in the section above, please keep all evidence, rebuttals, and analysis of evidence on the evidence page and reserve the evidence talk page for concerns about evidence presented and questions about evidence."

Based on similar earlier comments I had moved my analysis (which just fleshed out my rebuttals) there from here. However, I see there are no complaints about any of the existing analysis sections, including of parties SRich and Carolmooredc and others. I would like to analyze some others' evidence here briefly, but given everything I write leads to a huge brouhaha, would like to get an idea of what is proper before I do so. @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As the evidence phase has closed, the time for presenting evidence has ended. The focus now should be on proposing ideas for the final decision. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Well, I think we are mostly concentrating on proposals now anyway. I have added all of mine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for workshop extension

I absolutely cannot participate fully in the process right now, due to pressing RL matters. However, if it could be extended to next Tuesday or Wednesday, I would be able to do so. Since my hide is on the line here, and we're just talking a few days' delay, I think it's a reasonable request. Steeletrap (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While the Committee is considering Steeletrap's request, I should state that I too am distracted by unavoidable real-life commitments at this time. In the interest of fairness to all parties and other interested editors, I request that the Workshop closing be extended until next Wednesday for all parties and other editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I support these requests. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: 20:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the requests. TFD (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, don't see the harm in an extension (but given the volumes of comments, I don't envy the arbitrators here). Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that if we are going to have voluminous amounts of material inserted at whatever the last minute is - including problematic new evidence, mistakes about policy, etc. that needs addressing - that further extensions also may be required. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's important that parties to the case have an opportunity to participate. I do not have a problem with extending this to Wednesday 2/19. I don't think Steeletrap's intent is to add new evidence, so I wouldn't think there'd need to be a long further extension to reply, but of course people will be given a chance to read and respond. Proposed decision target date would move to 2/26 to give me time to digest it too. @Ks0stm: @Hahc21: (pinging the clerks). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: The other issue, which you discussed at the evidence talk page which may need reaffirming here is: Should they take a lot of time to bring up all that stale pre-2013 issues already dealt with as "evidence" as several editors seem wont to do? Or do they need to be advised it will just be ignored? There's more than enough new evidence of the same issues already presented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring old evidence, but would likely discount its weight a little, depending on what conclusions are being drawn. I was ignoring the particular evidence you mention because it was provided by a long-departed editor returned to attack an old enemy, i.e. gaming the system, not because it was old. Claims based on old evidence that show a pattern of behavior is relevant; claims based on old evidence that just shows that someone used to be wrong about something isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dates have been changed. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A minor clarification. It wasn't new evidence; it had already been submitted by one of the parties as, borrowing Floquenbeam's phrase above, "old evidence that show a pattern of behavior." Goodwinsands (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Replies regarding stale evidence allegations

• First, [Added later: regarding Floquenbeam's comment "Claims based on old evidence that show a pattern of behavior is relevant;] claims based on old evidence that just shows that someone used to be wrong about something..."

Reminder Jehochman was chided by an admin for poor evidence in his Dec 2010 WP:ANI against me and by other editors in his Jan 2011 WP:COIN against me. And my late January block and ANI discussion is filled with discussion of my losing my temper because of that and other harassment.

• Yes Drsmoo, in a 2013 ANI brought up 2009 and 2011 stale diffs, one mentioning Goodwinsands who after two years suddenly reappeared to participate in this discussion.

I note all Drsmoo links are regarding my complaints about partisan editors not following WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy in the Gilad Atzmon article. (Pretty much like what should be the main topic of this Arbitration.) He was heavily involved in that article.

Atzmon definitely goes out of his way to tick off other Jews, but does he deserve more condemnation in his article than Adolph Hitler and David Duke combined? Much of the criticism material is WP:Undue, redundant, and even from WP:SPS blogs and advocacy groups. Over the years various editors would revert it and Drsmoo, Goodwinsands and various Anon Ips and WP:Single Purpose Accounts would consistently revert it back. There have been more than a dozen WP:BLPN complaints and a number of WP:ANI complaints regarding the negative tone of the biography by various editors, including this one vs Drsmoo. But little or no administrative action, leading to my and other editors abandoning it in despair.

Atzmon complained about this article to the Wikimedia Foundation four or five years ago, to no avail. And one can bet this Wikipedia article has had a negative affect on Atzmon's musical career and political reputation. (Whether or not deserved is a whole 'nother conversation.)

Is there anyone here - besides Goodwinsands - who would call the existing article in compliance with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV? Such violations of BLP policy should be the focus here; a focus on my complaining about it repeatedly in 2009-2011 because Administrators refused to do anything about it would be a bit much.

In fact I added to my discussion of SPECIFICO evidence: Later note: If such stale evidence is to be taken seriously, I should be allowed to supply lots of diffs regarding the article to which they relate: the extreme BLP problems in the Gilad Atzmon article which as of 2/11/15 includes more criticism of this (sometime outrageous) Jewish critic of Israel than the Adolph Hitler and David Duke articles combined. There's no exemption from WP:BLP for those a lot of highly partisan editors do not like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Could you clarify which of these points, exactly, is a Wikipedia-accepted reason to commence a program of blatant, politically motivated, multi-phased tag-team harassment of the sort you and your now-permabanned tag-team partner committed against me? Evidence of a pattern isn't stale if the pattern itself isn't stale. It's up to the arbitrators, not you, to decide what is or isn't a pattern of WP:BATTLE or other long-term abusive behaviors, and I believe they have plenty to go on. Your inability to take any substantial personal responsibility for your own abuses of Wikipedia, including your tendency at all times (this thread included) to deflect the blame with "I was bad but THEY MADE ME DO IT," is also possibly a pattern the arbitrators may wish to consider. With that, I am leaving this thread. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I did fully add to the above the quote from Floquenbeam on "Claims based on old evidence that show a pattern of behavior is relevant; etc. It would have been helpful to know that since I have a lot of evidence of SPECIFICO engaging in such behavior from September 2012 to March 2013. It's just frustrating to find it out late in the game where I would prefer not to have to scamper around looking for new evidence.

On the other hand, read User:Floquenbeam's Feb 12 note on the evidence talk page about whether to add any evidence from User:Goodwinsands here: (e/c) I don't see the point; as the drafting Arb, I am not going to pay any attention whatsoever to 2 year old evidence submitted by an account that has been dormant for 2 years, but pops back up when there's an ArbCom case against their old enemy. None whatsoever.

I guess I focused on the old evidence and not the note that it was Goodwinsands that was not acceptable. Mea culpa. However, adding a few more diffs to show how non-credible Drsmoo is should do the job. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about what can be used from my evidence

@Floquenbeam: If I were to state at Workshop that party A had a tendency to edit war, and I had cited diffs X, Y, and Z found in one of the links at Evidence to support the claim (those diffs not having been specifically mentioned at Evidence), would those diffs be allowed, or would they be regarded as untimely evidence? In other words, are the links that appear in my Evidence section sufficient to cite details from for workshop proposals, or must proposals be based only on specific diffs brought forward during the Evidence phase? Thanks, alanyst 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: All good things must come to an end, so I'm reluctant to ask. However, would you condsider extending the Workshop until seven days after whatever the time of the last posting of @Alanyst:'s evidence compilations. My real life distractions are nobody's problems but my own, but I would like to take the time to make a succinct and well-documented proposal of Principles, Fact, and Remedies and there's a lot to compile and organize (as I'm sure you're aware.) Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, especially because a new user has posted her/his analysis regarding WP:FRINGE on the evidence page. Steeletrap (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a friendly ping to User:Floquenbeam in hopes this stays on the radar. alanyst 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a mistake by not being rigid and inflexible. Let me figure out how I can minimize further damage, I'll comment here later today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, the statement by well-drafted statement of Volunteer Marek is more of a policy based interpretation addressing big picture issues in response to sweeping statements made in evidence as opposed to specific diffs related to conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I would cheerfully accept a negative answer to my question if that makes it easier to manage the case. The most important thing is that the committee has the information it needs in order to found its decision on facts; whether those facts need to be brought forth first by individuals outside the committee doesn't seem as vital, since this isn't a rigid legal system. alanyst 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone (you, or anyone else) wants to refer to diffs from an interaction listed in your evidence, they can do so without the exact diff being on the evidence page. So, yes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Learning curve

There are deadlines for the evidence phase and the workshop phase because otherwise things tend to drag on, and otherwise new evidence gets added 1 hour before a proposed decision. But the problem with rigid deadlines is that they can be gamed, with new evidence added 1 hour before the deadline and no chance of reply. But then the problem with making the deadlines flexible is that we're back to the first problem, with each new addition of evidence having a cascade effect on the other deadlines. Lesson learned: laissez faire doesn't work for Arb cases, and I'll keep that in mind for the future.

But, to answer some questions about this particular case (pinging @Ks0stm:, @Hahc21:):

1. The evidence page has got to be closed now. There will be no further additions/tweaks to evidence, with one and only one exception: fixing typos that have resulted in broken links. Clearly state that you're fixing a typo in a link in your edit summary or a clerk will revert your change.
2. I'd like a clerk to remove @Volunteer Marek:'s evidence; it's been added more than a week after evidence closed (I understand why he thought it was OK to add, but Alanyst had my permission to add evidence later than the deadline), and is certainly not a tweak or small addition. Perhaps an experienced clerk can advise VM whether it is suitable as a workshop "analysis of evidence" section, or similar, I'm not actually sure about that. It doesn't really look like "evidence" per se, so that seems reasonable.
3. Workshop now closes on 23:59 23 February UTC, about one week after the last addition of Alanyst's evidence. This deadline will not be further extended except in the case of Global Thermonuclear War.
4. Alanyst, I will get back to you on your question later today.
5. Except for Alanyst, if anyone else is waiting on me to answer a question, I either missed it or think I already answered it. Ping me.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to move my comment to Workshop or wherever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome the solution of moving Volunteer Marek's remarks to the Workshop page. I hope that the thoughtful analysis of VM or any other uninvolved editor will be useful to the Committee. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Alternatively to #1, would you like me to just fully protect the evidence page and if a typo correction is needed the party can ask on the talk page? @Volunteer Marek: If you would like to move your evidence to the workshop as analysis, please feel free to do so yourself, that way you can place it there in the format you would prefer; else, one of us clerks will just remove it from the evidence page without adding it to the workshop. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Either solution works for my purposes, so whatever we usually do is fine with me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if something's not right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Floquenbeam's #3: You might not want to make an exception for Global NuclearWarfare; seems to pretty widespread already. ;-) alanyst 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: (Floquenbeam) I get the impression most Arbitrators are not going to look at the workshop until the end of the period and we can change our statements if no one has replied to them. If someone has, we can strike or add material to statements per general talk page editing practice. (Obviously within reason.) Is that correct?

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally, yes, normal talk page practice can be applied. I would quibble with the comment that Arbs aren't going to look at the workshop until after it closes, but it doesn't affect the answer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Ks0stm:, @Hahc21:: per my comments above, could a clerk please:
  • protect the workshop page from editing
  • change the case navigation header thingy target dates to match the above (ie 18 February for evidence close, 23 February for workshop close)
  • change target for proposed decision to 2 March (giving me a week from close of workshop)

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, Done the latter two. SInce I'm not an admin yet, I am technically unable to perform the protection. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hahc21, you did the part I couldn't figure out. I've protected the workshop page, so I don't become too used to imperiously demanding others do things I can do myself (it's addictive). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc still commenting on workshop after deadline

This is quite ironic, given her professed fear of "last second submissions." Has the deadline been extended for everyone, or just Carol Moore? Steeletrap (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I was confused too, but from Floquenbeam's item #3 in the section immediately above, the deadline is now the end of day UTC on the 23rd. alanyst 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for the clarification. Steeletrap (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC) They really should make a section announcing this and update the header at the top of the page, as it's easy to miss. Steeletrap (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Steeletrap wrote on the Workshop page, "For [ Harry Barnes and James Martin ], it relates to the fact that Holocaust denial was the defining feature of the "World War II revisionism" for which they were known (and for which Rothbard broadly praised them, while coyly never mentioning the Holocaust)."[2]

That statement is misleading. International Encyclopedia of Political Science, p. 2310, says, "The legacy of Barnes is twofold. One the one hand, he remains a source of inspiration for many libertarianians connected to the Mises Institute, among whom Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) stands out. According to them, revisionism should be considered as a teacher of freedom of speech and thought, of truth and rationality in a world subdued by propaganda, and of indoctrination and spectacular mythologies taking advantage of the gullibility of a misinformed general public. On the other hand, Barnes work is used as a cornerstone by the massive body of literature displaying a diverse array of conspiracy theories, efforts of revision of national canonized histories, the explicit or implicit denial of the Holocaust, and other varieties of negationism."[3] In her book, Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt, says that Barnes was a link between historical revisionism and holocaust denial.

Barnes had been a highly esteemed historian before the Second World War for his anti-war revisionism of the First World War. He would later apply similar criticism to the Second World War and the Cold War, but his doubts about the culpability of the nazis would relegate him to the fringe. However he never explicitly denied the Holocaust.

This subject was extensively discussed on the Rothbard talk page, now archive here.

One may question why Rothbard would remain close to this historian and if any reliable sources discussed that, they could be added. But this tenacious effort to link Rothbard and the LvMI to holocaust denial, when reliable sources have not made that connection, is I believe disruptive.

TFD (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. This is what I refer to in my Evidence reply to SPECIFICO, the last bit of contemporary evidence, where I quote Steeletrap as having replaced WP:RS info with the National Review rant which she quotes in part as saying Rothbard found himself making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich...' This sort of distortion, the kind that already had been brought to BLPN regarding BLPs, is the sort of thing about which longtime editors concerned more with policy than POV pushing can get really really annoyed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What are the diffs to which you refer? It is impossible to understand what you're trying to say. I don't recall discussing the Holocaust issue. It's not something I know about. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This starred section where I reply: I was annoyed that Steeletrap replaced NPOV RS description of historical revisionism with a National Review guilt-by-association rant on Holocaust revisionism... The material The Four Deuces mentions was replaced. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. I don't understand why you refer to me. I also don't understand why National Review would not be used as a Reliable Source, but that's should not be a topic of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you betray your ignorance of the subject when you say Barnes "never explicitly denied the Holocaust." Expressing "skepticism" of the Holocaust, which Barnes repeatedly did, amounts to "Holocaust denial" as the term is defined in academic discourse. For instance, David Duke is considered a Holocaust denier even though he "takes no position" on whether the Holocaust occurred.

As to Barnes, While he was once an eminent historian, in his later years, he was ostracized by academia because of his Holocaust denial. It was in this period that he was associated with Rothbard and published in Rothbard's journals. In addition to his relationship with Barnes, Rothbard praised the "revisionist" work of James J. Martin, another denier. The criticism from the National Review RS relates to Rothbard's praise of deniers and their Holocaust-denying books and essays. True, he quite conspicuously appears to have never mentioned the Holocaust. For that reason, it would be unfair to call him (Rothbard) a denier. But Rothbard's broad praise of "World War II revisionist" work that advanced denial as a central thesis amounted to 'dog whistling' at anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. That's the (reasonable) opinion of the National Review RS. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers explicitly deny the holocaust. See for example the Supreme Court of Canada's description of Did Six Million Really Die?: "The basic gist of the piece is that the Holocaust perpetrated by the German National Socialists against the Jews of Europe during the Second World War never occurred."[4] The Holocaust Museum mentions Barnes, by saying, "1966-67: American historian Harry Elmer Barnes publishes articles in the Libertarian periodical Rampart Journal claiming that the Allies overstated the extent of Nazi atrocities in order to justify a war of aggression against the Axis powers."[5] Lipstadt and others see that as implicit denial of the holocaust, although he does not mention it in the article.

The "central thesis" of Barnes and Martin was that the U.S. should not have entered the war, and Barnes was part of the pre-war isolationist movement. James J. Martin's main work on WWII revisionism is American Liberalism and World Politics, 1931–1941 (1964) which, as the title suggests is about the U.S. decision to enter the war. Before Martin became involved in WWII history, he wrote a history of U.S. libertarianism. He only began to question the Holocaust in 1976 and joined the IHR in 1979.

It is certainly fair to question why Rothbard would associate with these people and if we had sources we could add that. But it is incorrect that the central thesis in the works he used was holocaust denial. NR contributors btw connect everyone they dislike with fascism and socialism. See for example Liberal Fascism. TFD (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Questioning why Rothbard would associate with these people" (and criticism for him praising/promoting their work) is what the National Review RS does. Nothing in the article states that Rothbard is a denier. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what he thinks. His opinions lack significance and are well outside the mainstream. One of the arguments presented in this case is that we should not use LvMI opinion pieces for articles about mainstream economics. How is Williamson any different? It is only rs for Williamson's views and they do not meet weight. TFD (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A feature opinion article from the January issue of National Review (not merely the blog) is substantially more reliable and notable than LvMI. It's not the highest quality publication, but it meets RS muster. Steeletrap (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? So articles by such people as Jonah Goldberg and Anne Coulter are reliable sources? There are a lot of tendentious editors who try to add that Obama is a socialist/marxist/fascist/Muslim/traitor/terrorist/racist born in Kenya who wants Sharia law/door to door gun confiscations/FEMA concentration camps, but they are not the first opinions one would present in a criticism section, if one could reasonably present them at all. All those claims have been made by NR contributors, and I can provide sources if required. TFD (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ann Coulter was fired by NR. What's relevant is not guilt by association arguments about what an NR blogger has said in another venue, but what NR has published in its own pages. The community has deemed it a reliable source for opinions on American conservative and libertarian thought. Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, even Stormfront is a reliable source for what David Duke thinks. The question is why one should present these opinions, since they fail weight, except in articles about the persons who wrote them. TFD (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide your source for the FEMA thing. You make a lot of errors on WP (e.g. your misunderstanding of the term "holocaust denial", which encompasses agnosticism and "skepticism" about the scope and purpose of the Holocaust), so I am doubtful. I remember an NR journalist writing a tongue-in-cheek piece ridiculing the FEMA-campers, and think you probably didn't understand that it was facetious. Steeletrap (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well certainly holocaust deniers can soft-pedal their views. But I read your comment about Duke as implying that holocaust deniers do not say the Holocaust did not occur, just say there is insufficient evidence. But it is not up to us to take a definition of holocaust denial and determine who is or is not a holocaust denier. That Barnes inspired both Rothbard and holocaust-deniers does not mean Rothbard was a holocaust denier unless rs make that connection. TFD (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How is any of the above going to help the arbitrators? Steeletrap may have posted something on the Workshop page, but if it is article-content focused then the Arbcom will ignore it. At most parties should say "Per this-or-that diff, so-and-so is seeking to argue article-content issues in the Arbcom. There are other pages for such discussions." – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Deadline now passed

Nudging User:Ks0stm and User:Hahc21 as the Workshop deadline has now passed and commentary is still appearing. alanyst 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like some editor(s) may try to push the deadline to get in material (even new evidence?) that others may not have a chance to respond to. I'd rather be able to give my full attention to the Olympics closing personally. (Note here on the east coast USA it's still the 23rd.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. In my defense, I started my comment on the 23rd. Actually I wasn't aware that it was closed...my mistake. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Per Feb 14th message from Floquenbeam: ...so I wouldn't think there'd need to be a long further extension to reply, but of course people will be given a chance to read and respond." So a few hours to respond to the last few entries by different people certainly was presented as being OK. Maybe hard up on that deadline by now, however. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate end to harassment ASAP

User:Ks0stm and User:Hahc21 and Floquenbeam: I can't even ask a question at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Research_desk without Steeletrap following me an replying. And giving me an answer which I would have to wonder about, given all the times I was told "there's no such references" for some factoid, and I'd find 3 or 5 or 9. Could you guys ask her to leave me alone? Also, I assume the research link automatically sent me her reply via email and she didn't email me... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please quote the remarks I made that you found to be harassing. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How many times have I complained, including here, about SPECIFICO and to a lesser extent you, following me to pages where there is no earthly need for you to do it. It's not like people have to follow you and SPECIFICO, as they've done last few days, to deal with WP:Competence is required to make sure you don't rewrite the essay to reflect your views. Just unnecessary and harassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I was only 'following' your feed because so many of your recent posts, here and in other venues, have been attempts to vilify me. So I have to keep tabs on them. I again ask you to please quote the specific remarks that you consider to be harassment. Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between watching and responding, please read WP:Harassment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ping me so I can watch another ridiculous argument unfold, I've seen quite a few of them already. Neither one of you should be "helping" the other, because you know it won't be welcomed. But it is also hypocritical to complain you're being followed to unrelated pages while simultaneously following the other editor to unrelated pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I read we were allowed to complain about such problems, but can't find it now. If you are talking about "Competence required" where I did actually edit recently, several other parties from this arbitration already were there. I've practically ceased editing anything because I cannot go anywhere in peace. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Floquen that I shouldn't have responded to your question. I also agree with him that it's hypocritical for you to complain about my (matter-of-fact, mild-mannered) answer to your question after you followed me to the CIC page. Can we move on, now? Steeletrap (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per this diff at Wikipedia talk:Competence is required I'm annoyed at myself for not asking for an injunction against parties editing this essay during the Arbitration. Other editors also have opined we should, as here and Binksternet comment as well included in my diff above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Forbidden to take issues to noticeboards?

I see Gun control is almost a month overdue on a proposed decision and am starting to get impression this might take a while. Meanwhile some editors keep editing away and old BLP issues keep coming up and I'd like to go to the BLP noticeboard. Is that forbidden, or what? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You can feel free to post at any noticeboard you think of as appropriate about any problem you might have. Although, remember that if it discusses the same behaviour presented at this case, you might be pointed back here. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I certainly don't expect to be a month behind schedule, I am going slower than I'd planned, for which I apologize. Lots of diffs to wade through, difficulty getting WP to work at night, busier than normal IRL. I've updated the target date, which is still no guarantee, but at least it's close to what I'm hoping for. In the mean time, no one is prohibited from reporting anything at BLPN, although as Hahc21 says, that may or may not be useful. Use sound judgment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned a few weeks back I saw on an old Arbitration some process or other that was shut down because of the Arbitration and couldn't find it again. Just wanted to make sure, just in case the need arises. I do realize it's a lot of material to go through, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Of course the problem is we see "the same behaviour presented at this case" and it has gotten particularly bad on 3 articles in last few days: Robert P. Murphy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray Rothbard.

SPECIFICO/Steeletrap continue tag team reverts of almost everything other editors' put in to their preferred negative POV versions of the articles. These usually have some reference/synth/WP:Undue issue which they argue for incessantly, against other editors, reverting back to their desired versions.

SPECIFICO has twice asserted racism/antisemitism[6]/[7] for my merely noting that Jewish Rothbard mentions that growing up in NYC most of his family's associates and most of his classmates were Jewish, which was a counter to their inference he was some sort of elitist with no such community ties.

Meanwhile, he and Steeletrap keep trying to load down the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article with false inferences Hoppe was in love with/living with/lovers with Rothbard. They already have centered Hoppe's article around a few comments he's made showing he has negative views of homosexuality. Inferring he's homosexual would be the final coup de grace. This is the kind of ridiculous synth that's supposed to be shut down in a second, not argued over for weeks! (Murphy gets off easy; they only insist the article infer he's mentioned by name in a NY Times column where he is not mentioned by name.)

This kind of behavior is the reason I asked for an injunction on anyone editing these articles at all and I think it would be nice to get one now, better late than never. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Please see the Hoppe page. Rothbard loved him as a father and Hoppe loved him as a son. Hoppe is quoted as saying that he "lived side-by-side" with Rothbard in "constant" personal contact. To Hoppe, his relationship with Rothbard was the most rewarding of his life.

We repeat these statements in the article. It is encyclopedic to talk about the most important intellectual/personal relationship of an individual's life. But they do not imply a sexual relationship. Steeletrap (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if one was innocent, how readers react still is relevant, even if the originators can't see it. But with two editors' long history of ridiculing the subjects of these biographies, it's hard not to read that inference into it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a clear implication of a homosexual relationship, or at least a latent homosexual friendship, and is reminiscent of smear campaigns, where a person would be attacked but the wording would be phrased in such a way that the accuser could defend himself from charges of lying or defamation. The technique is effective because words can have different meanings, and the phrasing points the reader to the most scandalous one. But it is not a good idea to use in Wikipedia, because the purpose of article is to convey information, not misinformation. TFD (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi TFD. Can you please provide some evidence of words from the article suggesting that Rothbard and Hoppe were involved in a sexual relationship, latent or otherwise? We have RS stating the two men loved each other and were incredibly close ("living side by side" as Hoppe puts it. This does not imply they were lovers. Many people live together and love each other who are not lovers. You cite smear campaigns but yourself make charges without evidence. Steeletrap (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I love my Rotweiler. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Mocking of biography subjects by User:Steeletrap

• I will elaborate on what CarolMooreDC wrote above about the Hans-Hermann Hoppe edits that has happened after the case was opened because it closely relates to my evidence on mocking of biography subjects; in particular the Rothbard photos mocking which Steeletrap has acknowledged was unacceptable.
• On 28 February 2014, Steeletrap inserted a new section in the Hoppe arcticle called «Relationship to Murray Rothbard». The problem with Steeletrap’s presentation of this relationship should be pretty clear already by reading their edit summaries:

• adding sub-section on M.R. Hoppe was mesmerized by Rothbard and his life revolved around him. They appear to have been two peas in a pod: lived together, for instance (diff)
• adding Rothbard pic -- most important relationship of Hoppe's life, both intellectually and personally (MR was a father figure to Hoppe, and the pair appear to have been de facto 'roomies' for a decade (diff)
• let's not understate their relationship. This is a loving Platonic friendship. (diff)

• The section after Steeletraps’s original editing looked like this. They inserted the outdated black/white photo of Rothbard which is the same photo they insisted on using when they were mocking Rothbard in the photo RfC. The weird, ûber-sentimental photo caption reads «Rothbard lived "side-by-side" with Hoppe, and loved him as a son". In the text, Steeletraps assures us that "Hoppe loved Rotbard deeply" - a language more suitable for romance short stories than an encyclopedia. In between these sentimental writings, Steeletrap still finds place to install an underhand jab at Rothbard, writing that Hoppe "followed a 60-year old Rothbard to the latter's first full-time academic position". This is exactly the same kind of mocking that went on in the Photo RfC mocking where Steeletrap sarcastically wrote "Although it was taken when he was just in his late 20s (about a decade before he took his first job)"
• It doesn't seem Steeletrap has learned anything from their former admitted mock job, and I believe they simply aren't mature enough to edit articles related to Murray/Hoppe and maybe others.
• Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. There was mockery in my tone, but it was directed at those who found something scandalous about two men loving each other and living together. Hoppe said he loved Rothbard as a father and effectively lived with him. This deep affection should be conveyed in the article's discussion of their relationship. Steeletrap (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed principles posted to Workshop

Pinging the clerks and all of the parties: @A Quest For Knowledge:, filing party @Carolmooredc: @SPECIFICO: @Steeletrap: @Srich32977: @Binksternet: @The Four Deuces: @Ks0stm: @Hahc21:

I'm posting a draft of the proposed principles on the workshop page while I continue to work on the proposed findings of fact and remedies off-wiki. I've unprotected the workshop so comments can be left on the workshop page itself, rather than here. Comments are invited from everyone. I'll take comments here into account when I post the final version to the Proposed Decision page, but obviously I reserve the right not to modify something if I disagree. 'However', WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TE will be enforced very strictly, and I will instruct the clerks to warn an editor once and then block until the conclusion of the case if anyone is not following these rules. If you are not sure if what you are about to post violates CIVIL or NPA or TE, it does and you shouldn't post it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything you have there is fine. However, I know that I changed from being against Arbitration to being for it because I thought Arbitrators were interested in the constant WP:Biographies of Living People issues that kept arising (especially sourcing), which was the heart of probably most disputes in "Austrian economics" area. Of course, if other issues transcend that, then I guess this Arbitration can't be the one that finally gets BLP issues taken more seriously. I just have discovered finally Wikipedia:WikiProject Living people and maybe something can be organized through that to deal with constant failures to take past Arbitrations regarding WP:BLP seriously. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision imminent

I will be posting the proposed decision within the next 48 hours. Further posts to the workshop or other case pages are not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed decision is now posted. Any comments from non-arbitrators from this point on should be posted to the proposed decision talkpage. If posted here or on other pages, they may risk being overlooked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)