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

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.

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

Examples: Several additional examples are available on request (e.g. diff and diff) but those three are very recent.
 * 1) Economic growth due to greater income equality on Progressive tax: diff, diff,  discussion permalink
 * 2) Implications of income inequality in Economy of the United States: diff, diff, discussion permalink
 * 3) Returns from education, infrastructure, and health care spending on Government spending: diff, diff, discussion permalink

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

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

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

The Misesians -- by whom I specifically refer to those associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute -- readily concede their fringe status. Indeed, they are are quite proud of it. The eminent Misesian Hans-Hermann Hoppe says they are regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all non-Misesian economists. Murray Rothbard, the central figure in the modern Misesian school, refused to publish in academic journals and (according to a colleague who calls Rothbard his mentor) met "only ostracism" from mainstream academics book (see pg 87 of [|this book]). Prominent Misesian Walter Block notes that Nobel Laureates Gary Becker and James Buchanan, both of whom are political libertarians ostensibly sympathetic to the Austrians' policy conclusions, refer to the Austrians as a "cult", a characterization endorsed by Paul Krugman (who, despite his strong ideological liberalism, acknowledges Milton Friedman as a "great economist" and has great regard for other libertarian-leaning, Chicago School economists). Block observes that the two journals of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the organization which publishes the work of the Misesians), the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and The Review of Austrian Economics, arose specifically because the Austrians could not get published in mainstream journals.

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

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

By removing positive material and adding negative, it superficially appears that I and other editors are engaged in POV-pushing on the Austrian pages. But all we're really doing is adding reliable mainstream sources (which tend to be critical) to these article, and removing WP:Fringe ones (which tend to be glowingly positive, written as they are by friends, colleagues and fellow travelers of Rothbard) in conformity with NPOV. These mainstream sources are (predictably) critical of LvMI scholars, but I have not hesitated to add positive RS to the article; it's just that they are difficult to find.

Various distortions by User:Srich32977
A few examples where he distorts my reasoning behind various edits (see his talk page for more). Numbering matches the code he used on his table.
 * B1/Hoppe Claims I am guilty of a double-standard by removing the LewRockwell.com blog from Hoppe's article but keeping it in Rothbard's. My rationale (which Rich inexcusably omits) is that the former (unlike the latter) is a living person, so a blog cannot be used for info about his views, no matter how reliable. NOTE -- The Ron Paul content in the paragraph is sourced (by Rockwell) to The Daily Dish, which is an RS. It is not established by the SPS LewRockwell blog. The Fred Reed stuff (which does appear to violate WP:SPS) was added by Carolmooredc, not by me.
 * B5/Harvard Political Review Claims my issue with this source is that it is written by an undergraduate. My issue with it is that it's entirely written and edited by undergraduates (i.e. is an undergraduate publication), and focuses on politics and economics. It is not a reliable source for a review of a book which presents itself as a serious work of philosophy and economics, because its authors lack sufficient expertise in those fields.
 * B4/Stossel. Claims I removed Stossel's praise of Block's economics book because it makes Block look good. In fact, I removed it because he is a cable news pundit akin to Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. This does not (in my view) qualify him as an RS for a book which presents itself as a a serious work of philosophy and economics. Steeletrap (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"Murray Rothbard." SPECIFICO supported the inclusion of "Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." It was sourced to an article, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid." by James Kirchick in the Daily Beast. Carole Moore wanted to add "According to James Kirchick" and set up a discussion thread, Talk:Murray Rothbard  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." 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)

"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. The discussion is on WP:RSN with a permanent link as at 22:49, 27 January 2014 here. Here are some of their comments:
 * What's the source of the Commentary? SPECIFICO 21:23, 24 January 2014
 * You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?" SPECIFICO 01:53, 26 January 2014
 * Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. Steeletrap 03:28, 26 January 2014
 * The personal correspondence is published on Mises.org, on a promotional page for the book. That is what is being cited, not the Gray book; and that is what I'm calling unreliable. Steeletrap 07:46, 27 January 2014

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

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

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

Scope and parties

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

Interaction summary

 * 1) Interactions of core content disputants are given for the article namespace.
 * 2) Added interactions of  and  for the article talk namespace due to their involvement in content discussions.
 * 3) Added interactions of  for User and Wikipedia (and corresponding talk) namespaces due to involvement in related dispute resolution efforts.

The dispute in content space

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

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

User space
Users, , , and are all in the top five contributors to each others' user talk pages (excluding bots).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP Issues
Self-published sources in BLPs
 * WP:BLPN: 1, 2, 3
 * WP:RSN: 1, 2, 3,  4, 5
 * Steeletrap and SPECIFICO engaged in SPS editing at Ludwig von Mises Institute (1, 2, 3, 4), but escaped MilesMoney BLP-related ban from the same article
 * Steeletrap's attempt to change SPS policy during Arbitration: 1, 2

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

Removal of RS info
 * WP:RSN complaints: 1, 2,3,  4,  5, 6,  7/Admin close
 * Talk pages: 1
 * "Walled Garden" links-related essay used as excuse to remove WP:RS from Mises Institute-related professors and writers' BLPs
 * Related issue of unsuccessful BLP-related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

WP:Fringe excuses denigrating minority viewpoints/related BLPs
 * Steeletrap on fringe: 1, 2, 3, 4
 * SPECIFICO on fringe: 1, 2
 * Note other editors vs these uses of "fringe": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Behavior issues
Edit warring
 * ANIs/EW: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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

Attacks against groups of editors
 * Steeletrap calls other editors "movement" editors(1), "supposed supporters" who are "censors"(2), a "fan-club"(3).
 * SPECIFICO charges editors "whitewash":1, 2
 * Both repeatedly have charged WP:Incompetence against editors: 1, 2, 3. See attempts to make Competence is required more stringent in editing(1, 2) and at essay talk page.

WP:Harassment of me
 * Steeletrap: 05/30/13 ANI warned, later complaint to admin 10/31/13
 * SPECIFICO: my warning 6/23/13, 6/29/13 ANI, same complaint to admin 10/31/13, 11/31/13 block for "interpersonal behavior" described as against me at  TPNO ANI,  my warning 1/14/14, later complaint to admin 1/14/14.
 * Uninvolved editor's comment regarding SPECIFICO's comment on my temporarily quitting editing the BLPs.

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

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

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

Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence
In her "shock value", biased and perhaps defamatory editing style, in her Arbitration Evidence above. At these links: Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoppe is misrepresented as defining science views of all "Miseans".
 * Block actually rejects "cult" description and does not think "cult" status leads to rejection by publishers.
 * Rothbard article "Right wing populism" comments on David Duke's 1991 Governors race platform not his "white nationalist” and “KKK” platform; also Rothbard says "paleo-libertarians" not libertarians.
 * Rothbard article Steeletrap misrepresents her opinion as fact.
 * Steeletrap writes about "connection of numerous Mises Institute scholars to the League of the South..." but only presents RS evidence that two professors have minor associations which she inserted in WP:Undue sections here and here.
 * Blog entry "evidence" is to broken links.
 * Steeletrap, like the New York Times 1/25/14 article that knocks Mises Institute in article on Rand Paul, misrepresents Woods quote (see actual one).
 * Corrected 2/5/14 per talk: NY Times' 1/25/14 slavery quote actually is attributed to Block and it notes he faults slavery as involuntary. These Steeletrap' factual omissions misrepresent the context. (FYI, Block's true views here and here).
 * Re: LewRockwell.com articles, see their “About” page'd no endorsement policy statement. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap’s “B1" reply illustrates her inserting negative inferences with poor sourcing(1). I removed material; she reverted it (2)). Two of my Rothbard talk page explanations(3, 4). I was too busy/frustrated to take to noticeboard; rather than edit war with Steeletrap/MilesMoney, 11/3/13 I added also inferential links from her existing source. Only on 2/5/14 did Steeletrap revert it(5). She complained in Evidence it was "SPS" just 1 minute later. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to SPECIFICO
SPECIFICO's last minute flood of evidence blames everything on me, using stale (see end) and misrepresented/exaggerated allegations of the type that led to his December 2013 block. Pre-2013 stale evidence/issues dealt with:
 * Re: “Gender articles”: no evidence provided of my relevant few edits, or those on feminism, being contentiousness.
 * Diff from short-lived Adjwilley Mediation. Steeletrap/SPECIFICO take criticisms of their editing as personal attacks, rather than as evidence they need to learn policy.
 * re: my commenting on "destructive new editors", I don’t mention “new editors”, just POV ones.
 * I'm unable to "discuss content not contributors". Can't find alleged personal attack; it might be this.
 * My joke (see smiley face) about being a Wikilawyer.
 * “feign ignorance, error, or remorse” diffs. Please see WP:Assume good faith.
 * "She believes she's persecuted by editors who are her political opponents". Actually my complaint is about frustration with long-term BLP and NPOV violations on various articles; one of two times I temporarily quit.
 * Krugman BLP. See whole Relevant talk page section. My relevant comment on SPECIFICO's poorly worded reversion.
 * Walled Garden. Sounds like good analysis of misuse of the essay.
 * Failure to answer question: In this humongous BLPN discussion 08/13, it’s not surprising I missed one.
 * Regarding User:Stalwart : My explanation to him of how I erroneously had conflated his views with Steeletrap/SPECIFICO.
 * SPECIFICO complaint re: my lack of evidence in that humongous BLPN discussion full of it.
 * Re: Canvassing Aug 2013. First time in 7 years I dealt with up-front canvassing-like behavior, so I needed to ask for guidance, including at WP:Canvass. The ANI closer wrote that SPECIFICO's ten Wikiproject listings were “a bit much.”
 * Alleged attacks on Specifico/Steeletrap: They aren't mentioned by name and I do think "when a series of articles on any topic are under systematic attack" it is a concern of the relevant wikiproject.
 * July complaint CM makes too many noticeboard complaints.
 * Ill-formed noticeboard complaint: Yes, the 08/13 admitedly humongous one
 * User:Lawrencekhoo's comment was on my 3rr complaint about SPECIFICO that lead to protection of the article.
 * Alleged Forum shopping: My first canvass issue again. Following are only allegations, not evidence: ;
 * My complaint to TParis : I said at Arbitration that my complaint was about wikihounding and it led to another editor starting this Arbitration. I never said the admin agreed.
 * 13 allegations (diffs removed) of alleged “disparaging remarks” are from May-June 2013 when a) I still thought NPOV/Dealing with biased contributors allowed such open discussion of biases on talk pages, etc. and b) I was really frustrated with the situation. I chilled considerably after advice from an Admin at this July ANI vs. me by Steeletrap, where Admin also wrote: "To the anti-Carols: the vast majority of your diffs do not support your claims, or at least do not rise to the level you are asserting." The one October diff shows I still had some uncertainty on where best to discuss bias.
 * “Harassed other editors” is a 2013 ANI comment by Complainant DrSmoo regarding circa 2009 and 2011 discussions which was in this July 2013 ANI. User talk:Drsmoo (Block log, also logged at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles) had been consistent BLP violator in Gilad Atzmon as illustrated by following: a) in 2009 Admin User talk:JzG   removed WP:Undue info, immediately reverted by 3 editors; article was protected here for six months; 11 days after unprotection, Drsmoo puts it all back again! A week later SlimVirgin removes more problematic material, and Drsmoo reverts in part writing in edit summary: Restored Hipocrite/SlimVirgin reference ...; b) this 2010 ANI referring to the above where an admin labeled Drsmoo a WP:Single purpose account; c) this 2011 WP:BLPN discussion. (More than a dozen BLPNs and a number of ANIs were launched regarding Atzmon's biography, quite a few mentioning Drsmoo.) I long since quit the article in disgust as one more example of poor enforcement of BLP policy.
 * “Continues disparaging remarks": 2/8/14 article talk page note to an AnonIP making edit summary accusations of bigotry. There was massive AnonIP vandalism of articles into the related category in 2013 by JarlaxleArtemis doing the same. That’s why I was granted rollback rights, though I did not use them here.
 * Re: This 11/13 ANI vs me. Initiator admitted he was mad at me for not filing an ANI about my complaints, plus  equally mad at SPECIFICO/Steeltrap/MilesMoney.  Steeletrap/SPECIFICO/MilesMoney threw unsupported allegations against me, leading to the block against SPECIFICO.
 * (False) allegation of slur: SPECIFICO’s allegation is about this linked diff where I allude to "dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel" as examples of attacked BLPs. I don't think Steeletrap had shared her ethnicity with us at that point.
 * "Biting newbie": My frustrated April 2013 comment re: Steeletrap using a self-published screed to support her own screed in Rothbard article. Steeletrap responds to another editor's accusation she engaged in personal attacks on me by linking to three alleged attacks by me.
 * “Jewish/Israel related rants harassing Steeletrap”: August 2013, annoyed that Steeletrap replaced NPOV RS description of historical revisionism with a National Review guilt-by-association rant on Holocaust revisionism, I ranted a bit and mentioned "Haavara Agreement" as something you won't see in National Review. But Steeletrap/SPECIFICO take everything personally. Am I constantly yelling sexism? (Should I?) (Note: thread continues as Steeltrap added National Review quote "Rothbard found himself making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich, discussed in same thread .)
 * New editing and my former activism: a) Editing under real name: when registered in 2006 I didn’t know better; b)here as FYI I noted I was quoted in an article relevant to talk page discussion; c) User Page edit, was my 14th on Wikipedia; d) note probably 100,000 other editors have some past or current activism history; restraining POV is what counts; e) edited article about self because didn't understand policy fully. My comments at AfDs: 1,  2
 * "believes she is personally under siege": my comment after another user notes attack on me in this Jehochman December 2010 WP:ANI against me.
 * Re: Jehochman ANI vs me, ANI's closing admin writes: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV".
 * Re: “Carolmooredc has a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli POV-pushing... etc." Note that during the ANI above I warned SPECIFICO here that Palestine-Israel arbitration could lead to sanctions for accusations of antisemitism.
 * Re User:Jehochman material: a) My 2011 comment refers to a 2003 off-wiki email discussed/explained ad nauseam already, which was still used against me; later SPECIFICO used it, leading to his block; b) 2010 Jehochman COIN vs me should be read in full, not selected diffs. (I see on 2/5/14 Jehochman removed here some self-promotional links from his user page, similar to ones I mentioned at WP:COIN.)
 * "been blocked for serious harassment". See whole WP:ANI here and community support regarding harassment of me.

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

WP:FRINGE is a general guideline irrelevant to the Austrian economics dispute
I have never edited the Austrian economics article, but the sophistry on this page is disappointing. The actual WP:FRINGE guideline is this:
 * When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

So?

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

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

Evidence presented by Adjwilley
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

A couple comments

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

Edits related to Steeletrap

 * User_talk:Srich32977


 * Article edits


 * The particular lewrockwell.com blog was first added by Steeletrap on August 11, 2013. The lewrockwell.com blog mentions the then deceased (non-BLP) Murray Rothbard, but was about the living (BLP) Ron Paul, Fred Reed, and Andrew Sullivan. Also, this particular bit of editing was the subject of some discussion. (Per the diffs in the discussion, CarolMooreDC was removing the item, while Steeletrap and MilesMoney were arguing to keep the item. Specifico also restored it following a later removal.)
 * As the ArbCom is progressing, Steeletrap has added the WSJ piece [in this edit] to the LvMI article page. However, Steeletrap commented on my talk page contenting the WSJ piece was "OR". See my Workspace commentary for analysis of this comment. In any event, thank you, Steeletrap, for restoring the RS.

Edits related to SPECIFICO

 * User_talk:Srich32977 edits


 * Article edits related


 * User talk page edits


 * Specifico has recently commented on my talk page. I believe he objects to this item because he had banned me from commenting on his talk page.


 * SPECIFICO has commented 25 times (in 31 edits) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. The  latest post being one to say he has not had time to look at the CarolMoore's evidence. I submit this pattern of editing by SPECIFICO as Evidence. Since posting this item Specifico has added Evidence.

Argument/analysis

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

Rebuttal to "Various distortions by User:Srich32977"
In the section Steeletrap's Evidence, above, there are comments about 3 items in my listing. 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.
 * Regarding B/1, the source, which Steeletrap first added, is improper because it does not directly support material about Rothbard. It has a tangential remark, saying that Rothbard was not a Darwinist. But, in the edit, it becomes Rothbard's skepticism of evolution. If Lew Rockwell's remark or skepticism was supported by other RS, such as Rothbard's own writings, it might be helpful. (Even so, Rothbard was not an expert on evolution or a figure in the anti-evolution/Creationist movements.) My concern is with the edit summary. Just because a source is found RS in one edit does not make RS in all circumstances. But I think Steeletrap is doing selective analyses when she likes one blog comment, but dislikes others. The particular blog comment was actually about Ron Paul and should not have been used from the get-go.
 * Regarding B/5, Steeletrap misses the point. The HPR article is a review of a book which is not a scholarly book, but does have popular appeal. It is proper to mention that Harvard undergrads, writing under the supervision of the HIP, have read it and commented on it. That fact serves to show the book is of interest and importance beyond scholarly circles.
 * Regarding B/4, again, the fact that Stossel likes the book is important and should be presented. It serves to show that an Austrian Economist/Ludwig von Mises Institute affiliated scholar is having impact outside of academic circles. Stossel, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck, et al. may be pundits, but they do have audiences, and their thoughts are often worthwhile.


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

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

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

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

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

 * Specifico and Steeletrap mocking Rothbard photos in RfC
 * Specifico: "the current infobox photo of Rothbard, near death, does him a disservice. In his prime, Rothbard was clearly a man of some vigor and accomplishment. Seeing his image featured up top wall-eyed and breathing through his mouth does not convey the sense of his youthful accomplishments" "Rothbard was just a few years older than Elvis Presley and one recognizes the stark elegance of that era. I've added the photo of the younger more vital-looking Rothbard." I suspect the latter is mockery too, as in the photo, since his look is very contrary to Elvis/rock culture and Rothbard honestly looks more dreamy than vital in the photo.
 * Steeletrap "panting like a dog who sees a treat, and squinting so much that his right eye looks like a sliver. His facial expression is even worse; his eyes are glazed over and he is clearly disheveled, yet he is smiling broadly in spite of this, like a senile man. This evokes the idea of a weak man suffering from severe obesity and beginning to fall prey to a creeping dementia". Steeletrap prefers the young photo, makes another jab at Rothbard: «taken when he was just in his late 20s (about a decade before he took his first job)»
 * Based on Steeletrap’s generally demonizing view of Rothbard, I don’t think his stated concern that the picture of the elderly Rotbard did him a disservice is sincere. Allthough this was a talk discussion, an RfC has very direct influence on article content; it was a close RfC and the mockery indicates that Steeletrap and Specifico did not vote in good faith.


 * Mocking of BLP at Talk:Joseph_R._Stromberg (now deleted; I cannot access it, but admins can). (As I remember it, Specifico, Steeletrap and MM were involved)
 * Specifico makes sexualized mockery of BLP. Replaces "Presley was a-political until she read Ayn Rand at the age of nineteen" with "Presley was aroused by reading Ayn Rand at age nineteen. She said, "It was like, 'Oh my God, what a revelation!". In the ADF of Presley, Steeletrap wondered "This is a shot in the dark, but is she related to Elvis?[...] If she's his cousin or something, even his second cousin, that may be her best claim to notability."

Personal attack, linking to vile blogpost

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

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

The problem we have been having is that mostly Steeletrap and sometimes Specifico have argued against Austrian sources because they are "fringe":
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_35
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive182
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816
 * Articles for deletion/Sharon Presley
 * Steeletrap: "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stalwart111&diff=prev&oldid=551139581 Stalwart, my independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements) has led me to be highly concerned with the NPOV and (in some cases) notability of many (probably most) of the Wikipedia articles of Ludwig von Mises Institute scholars.]"
 * Articles for deletion/Mark Thornton
 * Specifico, regarding Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek: "By the 1970's, this once-earnest economist was pandering to a depleted constituency of ideologues and fringe theorists for whom he played a central role."
 * Specifico, regarding Murray Rothbard: "Delete undue fringe view from affiliated source of writer" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milton_Friedman&diff=prev&oldid=586589912]
 * Specifico, regarding Murray Rothbard: "Remove undue discussion of fringe opinion" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional_reserve_banking&diff=prev&oldid=580846712]
 * Specifico, regarding Murray Rothbard: "Remove undue fringe statement" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full-reserve_banking&diff=prev&oldid=572647837]
 * Specifico, regarding the Austrian school's position on econometrics: "Remove undue text concerning Misean fringe view and leave the secondary-sourced statement of the position."[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_econometrics&diff=prev&oldid=559071871]
 * Steeletrap started the discussion Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_3.

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

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is larger than the WP:Walled garden essay
Many complaints were put forward last April about how the LvMI is a walled gardeng. Discussions can be seen at the following places: As I argued at RSN, "A relatively large number of articles on Wikipedia are connected by close association with the Mises Institute."
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics/Archive_8
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive182
 * User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_19
 * User_talk:Stalwart111/Archive_4


 * Robert P. Murphy
 * Murray Rothbard
 * Jesús Huerta de Soto
 * Gary North (economist)
 * Ralph Raico
 * Hans-Hermann Hoppe
 * Peter G. Klein
 * Richard Ebeling
 * Walter Block
 * Henry Hazlitt
 * Thomas DiLorenzo
 * Thomas Woods
 * Lew Rockwell
 * Friedrich Hayek
 * Joseph Salerno
 * Lawrence Fertig
 * David Gordon (philosopher)
 * Gene Callahan (economist)
 * Roger Garrison
 * Mark Thornton
 * Bruce L. Benson
 * Robert Ekelund
 * Steve Hanke
 * Randall G. Holcombe
 * Jörg Guido Hülsmann
 * Ernest C. Pasour
 * Morgan Reynolds
 * Pascal Salin
 * Larry J. Sechrest
 * Hans Sennholz
 * Barry Smith (academic and ontologist)
 * Richard Vedder
 * Leland B. Yeager
 * Yuri Maltsev
 * Roderick Long
 * Lawrence H. White
 * Lawrence Reed
 * Robert Higgs
 * Israel Kirzner
 * Stephan Kinsella
 * Wendy McElroy
 * Jeffrey Tucker
 * William H. Peterson
 * Bruce Ramsey
 * Paul Cantor
 * Percy L. Greaves, Jr.
 * George H. Smith
 * Joseph Sobran
 * Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
 * Clyde N. Wilson
 * Tibor R. Machan
 * Paul Gottfried
 * Sudha Shenoy
 * John Sophocleus

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)

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

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

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

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

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

The root cause of the dysfunctional environment is the participation of Carolmooredc. She is a battleground user who edits almost exclusively in three areas so hostile that each has come before Arbcom: Israeli-Palestinian, Gender Issues, and now Austrian Economics. She edits WP under her real name and has freely shared her strident real-life activism, her involvement with subjects of some WP articles she edits, and a link to her "biography page" on her personal website detailing her activism. 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:

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. . 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". She believes she is personally under siege at Wikipedia and that this justifies her Wikilawyering tactics" . .  A recurring tactic is to feign ignorance, error, or remorse when her behavior is challenged. Here, this tactic was exposed at ANI: She believes that she is persecuted by editors who are her political opponents: She has previously been blocked for serious harassment: 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:

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: In discussion, Carolmoore failed to respond to direct questions, as noted by an uninvolved editor:. 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: User:Stalwart111 then set the record straight by documenting Carolmooredc's repeated policy violations. [], as did I. Binksternet then started a parallel thread full of straw men, personal disparagement and misrepresentation, on RSN:. Again, User:Stalwart111 responded and documented Carolmooredc's WP:TE, WP:PA and other violations:

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:. Forumshopping, she opened a thread on DR but was not satisfied with the response. She then opened an ANI against me for canvassing: despite being advised to desist by Srich32977. She began using various tactics to disrupt and invalidate the RfC, including tagging some users’ votes:. Meanwhile she went to the Libertarian Project page to disparage SPECIFICO and Steeletrap. She has launched at least a dozen unsuccessful Noticeboard complaints against editors with whom she disagrees. . 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.  She's been told not to forumshop, but she denies the problem.   

Carolmooredc repeatedly claimed, as fact, that SPECIFICO was “wikihounding”. 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: Carolmooredc has repeatedly been told to stop disparaging other editors, for example here: But she does so nearly every day:   She continues this behavior, despite the fact that she knows this violates policy: This ANI has many links which document her tendentious editing and incessant undercurrent of WP:PA    Carolmooredc has a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli POV-pushing and harassment of other editors.  This was documented by Admin   Carolmooredc responds with a personal attack and baseless accusations that Admin Jehochman is using WP for financial gain: 

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

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

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

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