Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Rockfang ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Floquenbeam ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The evidence period has closed. Anny further evidence without prior approval will be removed. |
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.
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:
Several additional examples are available on request (e.g. diff and diff) but those three are very recent.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
TFD ( talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 |
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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | article | Notability tag. | Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO |
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] |
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)
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 |
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 SPECIFICO 1 and Steeletrap 2 each have been blocked for behavior issues. A Quest for Knowledge initiated the Arbitration January 15 because of this discussion on a behavior issue.
Self-published sources in BLPs
Biased/WP:Undue additions
Removal of RS info
WP:Fringe excuses denigrating minority viewpoints/related BLPs
Edit warring
Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry
Attacks against groups of editors
WP:Harassment of me
Mocking Wikipedia administration of policy
Motivating biases
Unsigned/Original entry Carolmooredc 15:02-1/28/14
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)
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:
Placeholder:
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Posting:
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have never edited the Austrian economics article, but the sophistry on this page is disappointing. The actual WP:FRINGE guideline is this:
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. (: 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)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
# | 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. |
# | 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. |
# | 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.) |
# | 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? |
# | 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. |
In the section Steeletrap's Evidence, above, there are comments about 3 items in my listing.
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.
Notes, paragraph-by-paragraph, with my response in italics.
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!
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."
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)
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)
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]
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
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.
Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Rockfang ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & Floquenbeam ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The evidence period has closed. Anny further evidence without prior approval will be removed. |
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.
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:
Several additional examples are available on request (e.g. diff and diff) but those three are very recent.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
TFD ( talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 |
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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | 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 ( | 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) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | article | Notability tag. | Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO |
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] |
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)
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 |
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 SPECIFICO 1 and Steeletrap 2 each have been blocked for behavior issues. A Quest for Knowledge initiated the Arbitration January 15 because of this discussion on a behavior issue.
Self-published sources in BLPs
Biased/WP:Undue additions
Removal of RS info
WP:Fringe excuses denigrating minority viewpoints/related BLPs
Edit warring
Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry
Attacks against groups of editors
WP:Harassment of me
Mocking Wikipedia administration of policy
Motivating biases
Unsigned/Original entry Carolmooredc 15:02-1/28/14
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)
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:
Placeholder:
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Posting:
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have never edited the Austrian economics article, but the sophistry on this page is disappointing. The actual WP:FRINGE guideline is this:
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. (: 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)
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
# | 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. |
# | 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. |
# | 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.) |
# | 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? |
# | 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. |
In the section Steeletrap's Evidence, above, there are comments about 3 items in my listing.
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.
Notes, paragraph-by-paragraph, with my response in italics.
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!
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."
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)
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)
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]
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
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.