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

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Immediate IBAN for SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc
1) An immediate WP:IBAN be imposed on and . This IBAN is to apply wiki-wide, including this ArbCom. (Proposed/requested by party S. Rich.) Stricken as withdrawn by S. Rich. 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While this ArbCom is broad in that it covers Austrian economics, I think much of the smoke being generated comes from the SPECIFICO–Carolmooredc antipathy. They have presented their Evidence and have battled each other in several other discussions. I do not think either has much more to offer with regard to the other. An IBAN would help the ArbCom in focusing on broader issues. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, except for this Arbcom. But extend to Steeletrap too. I have lots of articles outside any economics area I'd like to work on but he SPECIFICO repeatedly has followed me to them, reverted me or argued with me (as some of my evidence shows and interactions suggest). Steeletrap has done it a couple times, at least once with SPECIFICO, though I have not presented such evidence; she might start up doing it more. Once I post a few more things here, I'd like to feel free to go back to my areas of interest without being hassled. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Two points: 1. There is very little evidence regarding Steeletrap's interaction with you. You mention a warning that was issued last year, and that's about it. 2. On the other hand, SPECIFICO's evidence regarding you, your evidence regarding him, and the continued bad blood on these pages support putting a temporary (if not permanent) end to the interaction throughout the project. – S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Srich, there is evidence concerning the personal attacks which Carolmooredc launched at Steeletrap only days after Steele began editing Wikipedia. Steele's arrival marked the beginning of Carol's disruption of these articles. If the Evidence period is extended, we can add more diffs, including of ANIs where Steeletrap documented Carolmoore's ongoing campaign of incivility, disparagement, and obstruction against him. For the time being, we'll need to go with the diffs already in evidence, which are quite sufficient, in my opinion.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, you said above that I have 'repeatedly followed you' to articles outside of AE. Care to offer some evidence for this? Also, please remember it is "she" rather than "he." (While with only one use of the pronoun above, it could easily be portrayed as a typographical error, you need to be particularly careful about this because of your previous transphobic comments directed at me.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmoore has been told at least half a dozen times not to refer to transgender female editor Steeletrap as "he". This is a Personal Attack and Carolmoore herself has discussed Arbcom Sanctions which relate to gender issues. Carolmoore has responded with a litany of her characteristic excuses, feigned innocence, and denials (as I discussed in my evidence on her and as other editors have noted.) Steeletrap on the other hand has not attacked or disparaged Carolmoore.  The solution is not an interaction ban, but rather a topic or site ban for Carolmoore who, after seven years on Wikipedia, is clearly unable or unwilling to follow the Pillar of respect and civility.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [At this point a comment I had made was removed from this page and posted on the Workshop talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)]
 * Srich, while a typographical error is a possibility, SPECIFICO is not wrong to think another explanation is likely. And even if it was an error, Carol has brought suspicion of bad faith, ridicule and bigotry on herself. Consider: Have I ever referred to you as "she" or Carol as "he"? Also consider the countless number of times has Carol "accidentally" used the wrong pronoun in addressing me, after my gender was repeatedly clarified to her? Finally, note that I have never to my knowledge accused anyone else on this forum of transphobia, despite my having interacted predominately with right-wing/conservative editors, many of whom have disagreed with me vociferously. Transphobia is not an accusation I make frivolously, but it's spot-on in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected to make clear I was talking about SPECIFICO. Also I see some new Steeletrap/SPECIFICO "evidence" here that is unsourced and highly exaggerated. So feel free to strike your evidence - or agree to move whole unnecessary commentary over to the talk page, per SRich's advice. However, since the accusation is made, remember Steeltrap did not explicitly label via her user page what direction her transgenderism went until October and only hinted at it before. (SPECIFICO may have hinted at the same time about himself but I go by the user box on his user page that he doesn't care what pronoun you use.) Having known many transgenders going both directions, I would not presume to know which way someone is going from their hinted or ambiguous comments.  Do I have to remind you as I've mentioned once before that I've lived with a fairly out transgender person for 18 years as of this month? Also, FYI I've gotten too lazy for "s/he"; gotten too many complaints about only using "she"; so now I just say "he" unless it's obvious what to use or I've been explicitly told what pronoun is most relevant. So let's not go there with yet another long off-topic round of accusations and denials. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)]
 * I believe that the context of the sentence in Carolmoore's post (supporting the addition of Steeletrap to an IBAN) makes clear -- where the writing has been changed to say " he SPECIFICO" -- that the original text, "he" was clearly intended to refer to female editor Steeletrap.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Now, one hour later and   after my comment about context, Carolmooredc has returned yet again to strike through the name "Steeletrap", perhaps to further obscure her original intent.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, a) Assume good faith; b) I question your time table; c) I struck Steeletrap per my edit summary that I should not make accusations for which I admit I have not submitted evidence. I'm hoping I'll get an answer on this question at talk: Where and when to respond to accusations allegedly based on evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your timetable is inaccurate, CMDC. I was clear bout my gender, and you acknowledged it on many occasions (e.g. by using the feminine pronoun). However, when you got angry with me, you repeatedly called me "he." Do you really deny this? If so, I'll be happy to provide the diffs, but you could save us all the time by copping to your past remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we hat this section. It is a non-starter and I withdraw it. Hatting will make the ArbCom's job easier. The hat title will say "Withdrawn request". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it. Some new outrage might occur in the next couple weeks it takes. So good to have the discussion there. And I am also probably going to add it as a remedy for post-Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, please leave this thread as it stands. It's an example of your well-intentioned but disruptive tendency to pursue what editors have called your "pseudo-admin behavior" in a variety of contexts. It's pointless, and it's been a significant waste of time and attention for yourself and other editors who have responded to such actions over the past 9 months.  There's no reason to hide this example of it. Let's just move on. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, looks like you are referring to 9 months of "new evidence" you never provided at Evidence. Please strike it, as I have struck things that you and Steeletrap have asked me to strike, and just comment on what he's done here that you think is problematic. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The above is another example of anti-Collaborative, tendentious interaction between the three of you. I made the proposal – as a temporary measure – so that you could focus on evidence and diffs, without the personal snipes. It was a mistake on my part because I did not realize the section is for post-Arbitration measures. Even my request for collaboration in closing this particular issue becomes the target for more tendentious commentary. Jeez! – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, this thread illustrates several characteristics of your own dysfunctional behavior on these Mises-related articles. Most strikingly we see that you made an ill-conceived proposal based on your now acknowledged mis-reading of WP policy. Once made, the proposal required the responses of the involved parties, and the process wasted valuable editor time and attention.  It's also unfortunate that you ignored your own disruptive interactions, so that your proposal deflected attention from yourself and toward other editors. In this respect it's of a piece with your inappropriate proposal elsewhere on this page to remove yourself as party to this arbitration.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SRich: I believe this section is the section for temporary injunctions during Arbitration, unless you have seen evidence elsewhere from Arbitrators. And I think your proposal was appropriate. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Parties stop editing Austrian economics during Arbitration
2) Parties cease editing articles in Austrian economics, broadly construed to include biographies of libertarians in anyway involved in, referenced to Ludwig von Mises Institute. (Proposed/requested by party Carolmooredc.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There has been continued questionable editing which I've addressed a few times through edits, though not as much as I would have if there was no Arbitration. I support an IBAN but if editing continues in this area, squabbles about how it applies probably would be an unnecessary distraction. Ending editing also negates the temptation, in the last days and hours before a final Arbitration Committee decision, to add or revert a lot of material in hopes that those changes will not be reverted by any topic-banned parties. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not clearly written. Are you proposing that we voluntarily agree not to do this, or that we are all temporarily topic banned? Does this apply to all parties, or just some of them? Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Temporary injunction obviously would mean Arbitration Committee rules to put an injunction against (forbid) certain activities, in this case "editing articles in Austrian economics". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for any such restriction. Admins are empowered to protect any article in the event of a problem. I don't understand the relevance of "temptation" to this matter. SPECIFICO  talk  12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we hat this section. It is not going to happen. Hatting will make the ArbCom's job easier. The hat title will simply say "Withdrawn request". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the proposal does remove the temptation to make a bunch of new edits. I would love to finish my partial rewrite per NPOV of Murray Rothbard which currently falsely infers hundreds of BLPs are bigots and all of modern libertarianism is a bigoted philosophy practised by cultish followers of Rothbard. I would love to throw it in at the last moment and throw up a quick RfC on the talk page once it was reverted. But this proposal keeps me from doing that. . Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Carolmooredc, I am highly concerned about your comments here. Please specify some of the "hundreds" of BLPs you mention, and show specifically how the Rothbard article "infers [them to be] bigots."
 * The only people I can imagine that referring to are Harry Barnes, James Martin and David Duke. But they are regarded as bigots for better reasons than their being praised by Rothbard. For the first two, it relates to the fact that Holocaust denial was the defining feature of the "World War II revisionism" for which they were known (and for which Rothbard broadly praised them, while coyly never mentioning the Holocaust). For Duke, it relates to his tenure as KKK Grand Wizard and his present advocacy of segregation, racialism and anti-Semitism. Steeletrap (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Category:Libertarians or the frequently mentioned in evidence "Walled Garden" listing of dozens of names by Binksternet.
 * The Rothbard article is filled with snide insinuations, misrepresentation or exaggerations of statements by Rothbard, including your guilt by association ones above. These materials from partisan anti-libertarian sources fill the article, while attempts to get statements by mainstream and even academic sources have been deleted repeatedly. The two most outrageous examples are mentioned in my "Removal of RS info" evidence section: a) Removal of 7 refs saying Rothbard is an Austrian economist and b) Removal of 10+ RS saying Rothbard is an historian. The first one was settled at the talk page and went back in. At RSN editors agreed sufficent RS proved he was an historian of note, but with all the constant new pressing problems in Austrian and libertarian BLPs, details about that still has not made it into the article.
 * This kind of defacto "attack" article obviously will leave a negative impression for those who follow the Rothbard links in the hundreds of articles, including BLPs, which a Wikipedia search show mention Rothbard. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your misrepresentation of the "seven removals" is disgraceful, and the committee will see through it. I (a noob at the time) deleted the term "economist" from the lede, per the consensus developed in the RfC. I accidentally deleted all the refs that were tied to the term. I apologized for this immediately after it was pointed it, and the refs were swiftly restored without objection. It's dishonest for you to keep citing this as indicative of my general editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
 * Steeletrap: any one can go to the link and see your reply to me which shows this is no noobie error but that you clearly state your opposition to calling him an economist at all, writing in small part  Mentioning him as an "economist" of the "Austrian school" seems superfluous and subjective. Read the links before commenting on them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, you are changing the subject. You claimed my removal of seven sources was deliberate. What does that have to do with my remark that we shouldn't mention "economist" in the lede? (Incidentally, I changed my mind when TFD and others presented more sources.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not claim in the thread it was accidental. Your comments make it clear it was quite deliberate. Did you read it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, not only are you misrepresenting (month-old newbie) Steeletrap's edit, but the entire scenario with your seven references was WP:POINTy and provocative. No wonder she got flustered on a near-daily basis at that time. If you could have found one or two high quality RS citations, why would you have needed the other five? A lot of your disruptive editing begins when you're unable to find RS references to support the text you would like to see in the articles and so you use whatever citations you can dredge up with a google search, regardless of their quality. Elsewhere on this page, Steeletrap discusses similar behavior by Binksternet.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A) Anyone can read the "Removal of 7 refs saying Rothbard is an Austrian economist" short talk page section and understand Steeletrap is defending her removal of the sources. B) Steeletrap did an AfD, what, 1/2 hour after registering? So newbie status dubious. C) As the talk page section, and contemporaneous ones indicate, you two were working to have the fact Rothbard was an economist, and especially an Austrian economist, removed from the lead and the info box. So one or two or three refs were not enough to make it perfectly clear to you that you could not do it. Another example of what we had to go through because both of you refuse to get the point. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "So newbie status dubious." -- I do not understand what you're saying. Could you restate that as a full English sentence and explain what you mean by it? Are you accusing of violating policy, and if so how? On what evidence?
 * You have once again misrepresented my statements and actions. My involvement in that discussion related to the following question: Should Rothbard be described a) first as an economist and second as a political theorist, or b) first as a political theorist and second as an economist.  Your misrepresentation of my stated view is yet another personal attack. Please strike it.   Your other misbehavior in that thread, in addition to your incivility to Steeletrap, was to attribute to your "enemies" the straw man issue of whether to call Rothbard an economist at all, and then producing seven rather weak citations which referred to him as an economist. As you were told numerous times, that was never the issue.  The issue was how best to prioritize the description of Rothbard's diverse interests and contributions.  He was much more productive and influential as a political theorist than as an economist, and you never did provide a reference which stated otherwise.  At any rate, once again you've lumped me with Steeletrap and stated that her opinions and actions were my own.  Please strike your misrepresentation, and please don't do that again.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, for the benefit of the Arbcom, please provide a Reliable Source (not written or published by one of Rothbard's employees or the Institute he co-founded} which supports your statement that Murray Rothbard "obviously has made a relatively large contribution to economics." [added]  SPECIFICO  talk  18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * re:Steeletrap newbie status: Did you admit you had edited previously and that is why you could do an AfD the first hour you edited? (I assume you said as AnonIP since there would have been a larger discussion had you admitted to having registered under a different name previously.) A newbie is someone who wouldn't even know what an AfD is in the first hour. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * re: SPECIFICO in "Removal of 7 refs saying Rothbard is an Austrian economist" note that I wrote " As the talk page section, and contemporaneous ones indicate, you two were working...." Arbitrators may or may choose to look up and down the archive page to verify.
 * re: "large contribution to economics", I don't see that quote in this section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, you are using your own false statement concerning that diff to justify your false statement about me above. I think your behavior is clear enough, so I will just ask you to re-read this thread and correct your false statements about me. Do as you choose.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * After "original research" I think we should add something highly relevant and explicit like negatively toned and unbalanced material about living or deceased individuals. (For why this is needed, see Context of biography-related violations/disputes and BLP issues.)
 * Obviously this can be tweaked, but there does need to be some reference to deceased individuals. There is a massive amount of unbalanced material on the Murray Rothbard article and attempts to make the article more NPOV have been fought tooth and nail. Rothbard played a "seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism" and helped found the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Thus discrediting him helps discredit hundreds of WP:BLPs who admire Rothbard for his great body of work and not his more obscure and obnoxious rants of the 1990s which partisan anti-libertarian sources choose to feature. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per DHeyward - yes, found a bunch of boiler plates and am going to put up my own proposals soon. So striking above to prevent time wasted reading comments. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * There are plenty of other Arbcom boilerplate "purposes" that need not be re-written. This particular case doesn't change the purpose.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Among the less overt but highly corrosive forms of incivility is for an editor to recite complaints and accusations about other editors without providing diffs or other specific refernces which could help to resolve the alleged behavior. Misrepresentation of other editors views and disparagement without evidence are forms of Personal Attack and are not acceptable. SPECIFICO  talk  01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors are individuals. A telltale sign of uncivil behavior is to lump editors into groups without differentiating their views or actions, for example to state without documentation: "SPECIFICO and Steeletrap have done X", or (unnamed) "POV editors came to this article and violated BLP.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Controversial Issues
It is both difficult and necessary to provide neutral point of view encyclopedic coverage to controversial issues. For that reason it is even more important than on less controversial issues that editors respect each other and the rules of civility and work collaboratively. This mandate especially applies to editors who have strongly held views on issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Another good sentence to add to Decorum section? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A more significant difficulty in the case of these articles is that the subjects are not broadly notable and they are known and studied by a small dedicated group of followers. There is not a large body of independent, RS reference material from which to choose and from which to form an NPOV perspective on the mainstream view of these subjects.  For this reason, some editors have been particularly prone to use references sourced to affiliated parties, including the promoters, employers or employees of the subjects.  The marginal mainstream notability of the subjects gives us few other references from which to source good article text, but some editors have concluded that this means we should use the marginal or affiliated "RS" rather than omit mention of prospective content which cannot be properly sourced.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that SPECIFICO and/or Steeletrap challenge, remove or widdle down to insignificance material and sources that show notability - including after putting on notability tags - certain contributes to the problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one of several examples in which Carolmooredc went on a WP:POINTy campaign to disrupt the articles of various mainstream economists. As part of her longstanding narrative that,  and others were campaigning to improperly delete the articles of various libertarians, Carolmooredc visited random economists articles to retaliate, for example here]. She then went on to add a link to Brunner's obituary, which clearly demonstrated that despite his stub WP article he was a notable economist, and only minutes later reinserted her specious notability tag which I had recently reverted. She apparently did no read the obituary she had just cited. Of course, this also relates to WP:CIR.  Her ignorance and error were not in themselves a problem.  Her battleground insistence and pointy acting out are indeed  a problem.  I've learned plenty from editors I disagree with.  For example I invited User:The Four Deuces to edit these articles because he has specific knowledge relating to libertarianism and published sources which I do not have.  Several time, upon reading TFD's comments, I have concluded that his knowledge and judgment in specific matters was correct.  I can't recall any instance of Carolmooredc making a constructive addition to article content or sourcing.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What SPECIFICO assumes was retaliation was in fact curiosity. Was there anyone out there who cared enough about these economists to try to beef up their articles which really gave little indication to the general public these people were notable at all? More specifically, did SPECIFICO care to beef them up? (I knew he'd follow me to them but was still annoyed he removed the notability tag which rumor has it is supposed to attract people, thus my annoyed comment at talk. Per my user box and category, I'm an inclusionist of articles, not an exclusionist.) Or was his only interest in denigrating other economists he doesn't like? SPECIFICO never did anything to improve the 4 Chicago school BLP articles I templated December 9th. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Battlegrounds and bad blood
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think the whole section should be merged into Decorum and have that or an equally neutral sounding title. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of ArbCom Proceedings
The Arbitration Committee does not, as a matter of policy and mission, decide good-faith article content disputes. However, when user conduct makes the resolution of content disputes difficult or impossible, the Arbitration Committee may impose appropriate remedies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "User conduct" is not very clear since does not specify anything about policy. During [the Arbitration request nine editors and two Arbitrators clearly expressed BLP policy concerns. It would be helpful somehow to clarify that there are policy issues regarding WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. that need addressing because they have been problematic in the past. [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] (Talkie-Talkie) 17:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck comment. Having studied other Arbitrations more, I now understand. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the principal issues relating to content is the following: The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares this greeting on its website: "You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory."  The content on the website and the publications of the Institute are presented in a manner consistent with that view.  That statement is promotional and it's demonstrably false. Most of the thinking, teaching, and publishing in all these areas is being done by a diverse group of individuals at dozens of colleges, universities, and research institutes around the world.  In the Austrian school article there's a discussion of the vMI-affiliated group's having split off from the larger Austrian economics tradition and scholarship.  In fact, the Mises Institute is highly insular and outside of its own affiliates, few economists -- mainstream or Austrian -- bother even to comment on the Mises group's activity.
 * However, the WP articles on the Mises Institute and various affiliated individuals -- articles largely started or edited by affiliated parties -- present the subjects from the POV that the vMI is indeed the world center of Austrian and Libertarian theory. The result is that, even now, instead of discussing the actual writings and teachings of various affiliated individuals on their own substance, the articles are tilted to present such views as the work of notable economists -- despite the fact that their credentials and notability per WP academic notability standards are tenuous to weak.  A good example of this was Murray Rothbard, co-founder of the Mises Institute and supervisor of its "academic" personnel and programs.  Rothbard was a highly original writer on political matters and is undoubtedly notable as a political theorist and polemicist.  He is, however, unknown to economists and we have virtually no RS references (peer-reviewed articles of or about his work, for example) of the sort which ordinarily document the contributions of economists in their WP articles.  Despite this, we have seen editors Carolmooredc, Binksternet, and Srich, tendentiously argue that, per the Mises Institute's claim, Rothbard was first and foremost an economist.  Even a casual look at Rothbard's article however shows a dozen paragraphs or more on his political theory and activism, with only a few lines that could be sourced credibly to any work on economics.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one denies there were certain problem with the articles in the past. The current problems are removal of or opposition to legitimately RS'd information, even as masses of biased information added. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Content and content disputes are not the same. Arbcom does not generally dictate content.  But they do resolve disputes in a binding fashion.  Content dispute is a type of dispute that is well within the purview of the dispute resolution process.  There is no need to distinguish unresolved disputes by type or limit or enhance authority to resolve it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Locus of Dispute
This case is about Austrian economics, which is a controversial approach to economics and has resulted in edit warring and personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree with the phrasing of the 'Locus'. The Arbitration case is not about Austrian economics. This case is concerned with the behavior of editors who are interested in the topic of Austrian economics. This case is concerned with manner in which these editors inject personal feelings about the topic and each other in their edits and commentary. I recommend re-phrasing. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First, there should be a Locus 1 that just details what happened. Locus 2 or 3 can give other analysis.
 * Anyway, the behavior on the part of all editors is a result of the policy violations, or else they are inextricably intertwined. The main behavioral issue is new editors' absolute commitment to inserting a certain POV, policies be damned. (Related to this is misuse of FRINGE/Walled Garden which might have it's own "locus" section anyway). This leads more experienced editors to react with annoyance and/or the need to instruct them in policy over and over again, and take them to noticeboards when they refuse to take us seriously. This feels like harassment to them, at which point they feel they have a right to harass right back. Editing in non-controversial areas where one is less emotionally involved is a far better way to learn to edit constructively and greatly shortens the learning curve. I hadn't mentioned that in my Locus of dispute analysis, but I think I can boil it down to a sentence or two.
 * (Edit conflict) First, there should be a Locus 1 that just details what happened. Locus 2 or 3 can give other analysis, as I've seen in other arbitrations. Behaviors often arise out of POVs or others perceived or real POVs and/or misunderstandings of policy/disagreement of policy; these things can escalate. So it's hard to make it totally clear cut. Individuals can offers such proposals with appropriate details per evidence provided. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above post by Carolmooredc demonstrates that her years-long, WP-wide, battleground attitude, detailed and documented with diffs in my evidence filing, continues to this day. Carolmoore has misbehaved this way for years and years. I see no reason to expect her behavior to change in the future. She may find other venues and other victims, but despite numerous involved and uninvolved editors pleading with her to stop, her behavior is the same every day.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [inserted later] - Note, after my 19:45 post, Carolmooredc struck through the portion of her words which my 19:45 post cited in reference to  my evidence submission and diffs. Accordingly, my post relates to her words now struck through.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the statements may be appropriate in my proposal for Locus of dispute, but obviously were too detailed for here and I was trying to replace them but there was an edit conflict. Also, do not make assertions that have not been proved by evidence about things that allegedly happened before April 2013. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue was not that Carolmooredc's comment above was "too detailed", it was that it confirmed an attitude which violates the core principles of WP. Carolmooredc's attempt at damage control and excuses once she's been taken to task for her behavior is typical of the tactic which I describe, with diffs including  comments from third parties, in my evidence. She struck the comments because Srich32977 just posted on her talk page telling her she'd shot herself in the foot.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

[added later]: I have posted my own proposed re-wording for "Locus" into a section for my own proposals, below. (Perhaps Specifico would like to move his comment to that section.) – S. Rich (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really centered on Austrian Economics, but rather on the Mises Institute and its affiliates. Although the Mises Institute Website states that the Mises Institute is the "world center of the Austrian School and libertarian political and social theory." I've never seen anybody who is not affiliated with the Institute make so grand a statement. On WP we have many articles about Austrian economics and Austrian economists with little or no connection to the Mises Institute. Regardless of whether we refer to the Austrian School, we should certainly, in my opinion, make clear that we are referring to the libertarian economic and social theories associated with the Mises Institute and its affiliates. SPECIFICO talk  01:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The dispute is focused on any Austrian economist or libertarian (or "anarchist") who has free market and anti-government views that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO choose to target; as evidenced, they add lots of negative information and removing neutral and positive information that confirms notability or credibility. Similarly, their repeated threats and often failed attempts to AfD biographies (through initiation or support), usually after some insulting commentary or other. Similarly, in articles on issues, their removing information that other editors think is RS that happens to come from Austrian economists, using the same old "fringe" excuse, ignoring even obvious cases where the minority view is of interest. Similarly their claiming that editors who disagree with them are just themselves fan-club/cultish individuals whose arguments should be ignored. All, as several of us have exampled with multiple diffs and explanations. Finally, obviously, concerns they will continue this behavior through a broad swath of articles on Austrian economics and libertarian topics/bios. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never originated an AfD thread on any WP biography. Please strike your misrepresentation. Please be sure that you are posting truthfully here and cite evidence for your facts. This will save all of us the time and attention of fact-checking your contributions here. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you originated any, but have now clarified my meaning by adding "(through initiation or support)". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, what you've done is yet another example of your tactic, documented in Evidence, of denial and excuses when you're confronted about one of your incessant stream of disparaging speculations and misrepresentations. The meaning of your initial words was clear and false. SPECIFICO  talk  17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, like thousands of WP editors, I have contributed on both sides of various AfDs. AfDs are decided by consensus. Are you claiming that my good faith participation in AfDs violates WP policy?  If so, please cite diffs from Evidence of such participation and which policy you believe I violated.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Threatening to do AfDs, initiating or supporting AfDs working with like-minded editors can be and has been perceived as battleground behavior. Also, AfDs are not entirely decided by consensus; if an admin believes that many "deletes" are poorly supported, or a result of battleground behavior, canvassing or other questionable behaviors, they may keep the article. See Articles for Deletion/Wikietiquette for more examples of problematic behavior. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc is once again failing to respond to straightforward questions concerning her comment. Instead she is stating her accusations as fact instead of documenting them with diffs from Evidence. This is the kind of disruptive behavior which has led to the current arbitration.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see BLP Issues, Removal of RS info, Related issue of unsuccessful BLP-related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no diffs which support your accusations. You are again demonstrating that you're unable to follow the instructions and guidelines set forth by Arbcom and that you are not able or willing to engage in clear substantive dialogue on WP. SPECIFICO  talk  21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
Articles about Austrian economics and persons and organizations advocating Austrian economics, broadly defined, are placed under standard Discretionary sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Community Sanctions were enacted but for whatever reason Admins appear not to be enforcing them. SPECIFICO  talk  01:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have Boldly added the shortcut to AC/DS link. – S. Rich (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I endorse this proposal. Enforcement is done via a different process (WP:AE) which I would hope 'breaks the back' of the disruptive editor behavior we have seen in these articles. – S. Rich (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * There doesn't seem to be any lesser way to deal with this situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that they were already under sanctions? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney
The community ban of User:MilesMoney is reversed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with first comment by others below: The community topic ban of User:MilesMoney from the area of Austrian economics is affirmed and is indefinite. etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * was community banned and this is not fora for reversing or limiting that ban. It's unrelated to the ArbCom proceeding and the community has not specified it to be narrow.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The community topic ban of User:MilesMoney from the area of Austrian economics is affirmed and is indefinite. MilesMoney may appeal this topic ban every six months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per his comments below, I think TParis original close was well within consensus, especially given the community's inability to clarify the issue of involved/uninvolved editors in WP:CBAN. I tried later to get clarification written into policy at this WP:CBAN talk page discussion of the WP:CBAN policy but the response was mixed and I haven't been able to form a clear proposal. I guess it needs to go to Village_pump_(policy)? Clearer language on this might help admins comment on other obvious problematic issues in closure they now are reluctant to raise. [Later note: since it looks like MilesMoney either did not appeal or his appeal was turned town, this issue seems irrelevant now.] Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this and the above remedy should focus on the close and not the topic ban itself. Was the close made by me appropriate, within discretion, and consensus?  If so, it is affirmed.  If not, it is reversed.  Or rather, a finding of fact should first be made about the appropriateness of the close, and then a proposed remedy should determine whether to reverse it or affirm it.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * is closing a community ban of a longstanding productive editor more appropriate at hours to days or days to weeks? If the former, does that allow for editors whose work limits their ability to read WP:ANI twice a day to have any say on whether the editing community is comprised of people who are better at summarizing reliable sources than ganging up on opponents? EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, I showed you where to ask this question, you asked it, and the community answered. If you cannot accept the community's answer, which was yes 48 hours is appropriate, then I suggest you try to change that norm or you learn to respect it.  MilesMoney is neither the first nor last to be community banned in 48 hours, and Arbcom has already reviewed it and determined it is appropriate.  At this point, your question is verging on WP:IDHT.  Time to move on.  After this case is through, I will not be responding to you with respect to MilesMoney's community ban anymore.  I've fulfilled the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT by anyone's standard.--v/r - TP 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear that you think 48 hours is better than two weeks. Do you think I agree with it? EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you seen any ANI thread be constructive for 2 weeks, EllenCT? You failed to gain (any) support for your 2 week requirement.  Your the only person here who has such an unrealistic picture of Wikipedia that you think 2 weeks would lead to anything productive.  But, EllenCT, I'm beginning to suspect that's the point.  You think 2 weeks would've given MilesMoney's proponents enough time to fill that thread with enough text that it would've been neigh on impossible for any closing administrator to sort through the mess and actually close a thread; let alone close it in a community ban.  You can keep trying to convince the community, EllenCT, but until you do, they support my view and not yours that that's what I agree with.--v/r - TP 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, two weeks would have changed the outcome. EllenCT (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him. This isn't a court of law, it's an encyclopedia project.  Every avenue for you to raise your point has rejected it.  Now it's time for you to put it to rest.--v/r - TP 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I should think a 48 hour community ban is hunky dory even though most of the intelligent editors are able to have jobs keeping them from checking WP:ANI twice a day? EllenCT (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Everyone has political views. If your political views agree with those of the most reliable sources, which in the field of economics comprise the peer reviewed academic literature reviews, then it is acceptable to include them as fact or indicate that dissenting views differ from them. If your views are opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews, then you should not attempt to obscure, whitewash, or purge Wikipedia of the more reliable sources' views, and you should only include your views with some indication that they are opposed to the more reliable sources, and then only if they are mainstream enough to be shared with a noteworthy proportion of economists. You should not in any circumstances try to gang up on editors who are conforming to these policies in order to remove or inhibit their work or exclude them from editing. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Even "peer reviewed literature" sources may disagree with each other and provide a "minority viewpoint". And even articles strictly about economic topics use articles from high quality news sources, business publications, books by experts who may not be academics. Please see: Identifying reliable sources guideline and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between peer reviewed literature and peer reviewed literature reviews? I'm not sure most editors do. EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to explain your view. However, they still are in the same category of academic-related literature, so it really doesn't matter. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS isn't just my view, it's also a policy pertaining to improving the encyclopedia, and those are the most important of all the policies. EllenCT (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that some editors who claim to support Austrian economics have been disruptive in economics articles. An obvious example is Karmaisking who has been banned. However, none of the involved editors have been accused of that, no evidence has been presented. The subject matter here is articles about LvMI related writers and the disputes have involved their political rather than economic views, for example their relationship with holocaust denial and white supremacy. TFD (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Karmaisking, from Australia, was banned in early 2008. Another one from Virginia, who had multiple disruptive socks, mostly in libertarianism but also in various economics articles promoting anarco-capitalism, was User:Sarsaparilla, also banned in early 2008. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We've recently had Carolmooredc's BLP violations (documented in my evidence) at Paul Krugman and there have been persistent intrusions and insertions of primary sourced Rothbard statements in articles relating to Monetary Theory, Fractional Reserve Banking, and elsewhere. There have also been recent attempts to insert Rothbard and Austrian School unduly into the biography of Milton Friedman by Carolmooredc and Srich32977. SPECIFICO  talk  19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've provided in evidence the whole thread on your one piece of evidence of my alleged BLP violations, Talk:Paul_Krugman. Reading it shows you peremptorily removed an editor's question about the Enron connection without explaining that the second sentence (not the whole section itself which you removed) was rather snotty and perhaps a BLP violation. When I provided just a few of the many WP:RS links to an issue I was not familiar with, but has lots of WP:RS, other editors objected it didn't belong in the article. It seems to me it should be there because there are so many false rumors about his connection even in RS. But I didn't argue the point ad nauseam. Nevertheless, I had a lot of accusations thrown at me.
 * As for all your other assertions, you have not provided in evidence that I, or the other editors who worked on those articles far more than me, did what you said. It's too late for such new evidence. Please strike it, as I have done the couple times I erred in making some statement not in evidence, before and after I was reminded of Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration, which you also should review. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Competence is required
2) Competence is required to edit. If you are unable or unwilling to search the peer reviewed economics literature reviews, or you find yourself so opposed to their findings that you are unable to abide by their status as the most reliable sources upon which the encyclopedia is based, then you should refrain from making substantial content contributions to articles about economics or economists. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Competence obviously is required, per the essay of that name and higher levels of expertise in articles that are about the most technical subjects in mathematics, science, technology, engineering, and even some topics in economics. But one must be careful not to claim other editors are incompetent regarding issues that don't need economic expertise, for example, most factoids in WP:BLPs.
 * Moreover, the encyclopedia is written for the general public. See Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Peer reviewed academic papers/review are not the only sources allowed. Articles about economic topics that are widely covered in mainstream non-academic WP:RS (Barrons, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, etc), WP:RS popular and academic economics books, etc. are comprehensible to the average intelligent editor. And we can use such sources, including even to balance or refute academic articles.  Academia is not the only source of reliable knowledge on the planet. Sometimes it's even wrong. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc is making a straw man argument. I am not aware of any editor opposing use of a WP:RS reference, subject to other content policies, due to its not being an academic source. SPECIFICO  talk  17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, she didn't say "only" allowed, she said best. After so many months and so many removals of RS info because not academic journals (per my evidence), it just feels like "only." So let me clarify to say academic sources are not always even the best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in your evidence do you demonstrate that text was removed from any article due to the text having been sourced to a source that was not an academic journal? I see no such evidence. Please cite the diffs. SPECIFICO  talk  01:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Reliance on secondary and tertiary sources is paramount. Whether that requires "competence" is somewhat vague.  If competence were required, I'd suspect that all commentators on finance be billionaires.  Yet that is not the case.  Well compensated journalists make quite a good living on their opinion rather than their acumen of economics and market success.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Competence is definitely in the eye of the beholder. EllenCT has used WP:Competence as a reason to dismiss reasonable requests for reliable sources for her questionable content insertions. Here's an example .Mattnad (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes between those agreeing with and opposed to reliable sources are behavioral issues
3) The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. When a content dispute is comprised of one set of editors who are adhering to the reliable source criteria, and another opposed to identifying the most reliable sources as such, then it is also an editing behavior dispute properly within the purview of the Committee. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This sounds like "If you disagree with me, it's a behavioral issue" and "I don't have to discuss anything about policy or content with that person because their disagreement with me is a behavioral issue." Not a reflection of Wikipedia policies. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

48 hours is insufficient for closure of a non-WP:SNOW community ban
4) When productive editors see that they need to follow WP:AN and WP:ANI closely daily in order to effectively oppose community bans of other editors frustrated to the point of exasperation by those who do not follow the reliable source criteria, they will become discouraged and less interested in contributing to the encyclopedia. Why should anyone want to contribute to an encyclopedia written by those who try to game the system to advance their political viewpoint, especially when those viewpoints are substantially detrimental to society at large? Who would want to be associated with a reference work authored by political ideologues who act in concert to exclude those who are skilled at summarizing the reliable sources in order to achieve their ends? The idea that 48 hours is sufficient to close a non-WP:SNOW community ban is extremely harmful to the retention of productive editors. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Please drop the stick and back away from the horse. Arbcom has resolved your Miles Money issue, albeit not to your liking, and this is clearly not the venue for a rehashing. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is community banned. This is not the forum to unban.  There are other fora.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy
1) Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have substantially harmed the accuracy of the encyclopedia, including the named parties in favor of Austrian school economics or Austrian school economists, and the parties who claimed to have been implicated by the evidence I submitted. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * What do you mean by "in agreement with Austrian economics"? The problem here is not people being in agreement or in disagreement with Austrian economics, it is that Austrian-leaning editors have been fighting each other across a schism in Austrian economics, the schism being the Rothbard / LvMI crew on one side, and everybody else on the other. The thing that has "substantially harmed" the encyclopedia is the battle between these two factions of Austrian economics. (Note that I have no affiliation with the Austrian school, as I am generally in favor of big government intervention in economics.) Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the evidence I submitted? I am familiar with the dispute within the Austrian school, but if you are seriously claiming that the harm they have had on articles on and editors of mainstream economics is less than that of their own editors and articles, then you have a very long way to go to convince me. I have been living a constant nightmare of finding neo-libertarian whitewashing almost every time I look at my watchlist, so much that I have found myself to be very adverse to even looking at it over the past several months. Do you have any support for the idea that the intra-Austrian faction dispute has been anywhere near as much trouble for editors, accuracy, NPOV, and NOR than the drive-by whitewashing of confirmed New Keynesian principles in mainstream popular articles? EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again there actually are two disputes here. One EllenCT vs anyone she thinks is free market. (Do any of her opponents called themselves "Austrians"?) And she thinks anyone upholding policy is an Austrian whitewasher.
 * The other is SPECIFICO vs. the Rothbard/LVMI faction and those libertarians he doesn't like and Steeltrap vs. that faction and libertarians in general. And they both think anyone opposing their edits is a white washer, a fan-club member, a fanatical libertarian, etc., even if they are supporter of big govt economics who is upholding policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Battleground
2) Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have shown that they are deeply committed to a battleground mentality towards collaboration. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, I get the impression EllenCT thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is part of some single minded faction she calls "Austrian economics" even though they may a) merely by upholding some Wikipedia policy and have no particular economic view; b) actually may be just a tiddly-tad more free market on some single issue than she is; c) or have some other free market views, including of the relatively mainstream Chicago school (economics). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had to rate their agreement with the peer reviewed literature reviews, I would give Mises 10%, Hayek 80%, today's GOP 3%, today's U.S. Democratic Party 45%, the Chicago school 25%, Keynesians 85%, Neo-Keynesians 30%, and New Keynesians about 93%. I want Wikipedia to be 100%. EllenCT (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, are your calculations an example of something that we need to look-up in your "peer reviewed" sources? Or perhaps these are an example of WP:CK and we just need to do the math (as you've put it in the past).Mattnad (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, the bit about "in agreement with Austrian economics" misses the locus of the problem, which is a schism within the Austrian school. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied above. EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editor retention
3) Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have substantially harmed the ability of the encyclopedia to attract and retain the most productive editors in agreement with the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, the bit about "in agreement with Austrian economics" misses the locus of the problem, which is a schism within the Austrian school. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied above. EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Political advocacy opposed to reliable sources
4) Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have violated the NPOV policy because they sought to achieve political gains without support in the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, the bit about "in agreement with Austrian economics" misses the locus of the problem, which is a schism within the Austrian school. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied above. EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

External harm
5) Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have made edits which a reasonable person would likely believe could cause substantial harm because of their inaccuracy and political advocacy on topics of great reader interest and importance regarding individual opportunity and societal well-being. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, the bit about "in agreement with Austrian economics" misses the locus of the problem, which is a schism within the Austrian school. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied above. EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I had a problem understanding the meaning of the last part of the sentence. Should it read "importance regarding individual opportunity..." ? Iselilja (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I changed it to reflect your suggestion. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic bans
1) I support requiring those in favor of Austrian school economics named in this case, and those claiming to be implicated by the evidence I submitted, and those who have recently acted in cooperation with them (TODO: need diffs here) to seek permission from the Committee before further editing of mainstream economics and economist articles. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposal has a fatally flawed mechanism to identify which editors Ellen is talking about. Ellen should simply list those who should be topic banned. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * EllenCT wants carte blanche to have any editor she doesn't agree with subject to a topic ban. She's got a little list, and without any evidence, have the committee prevent those names from editing. Putting aside she has distorted this arbitration to be about her enemies list (and anyone who agrees with those enemies), I would propose instead the arbitrators examine the ample evidence provided by others about her conduct, and consider a topic ban against her.Mattnad (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't studied her edits/talk page discussions enough to say for sure, but her misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy as displayed in her proposals are certainly problematic and her arguing to support them in articles could be quite disruptive. (Funny link, also.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The false claims, incompetence, and generally disruptive behavior exhibited by EllenCT in this arbitration process should be enough to convince any reasonable observers that her presence is detrimental to Wikipedia and she should be banned, at least from economics topics and possibly from editing period. For further evidence I'll note again that, as shown lower on this page, she blatantly misrepresented a source, and simply fled the exchange rather than producing a quote or retracting her claim. Ellen does this routinely, but I provided that clear cut example because it's easy for anyone to click on and see via F3 search (or reading the intro, conclusion, or the whole article if one wants) that the piece doesn't even mention the word "consumers" she claimed it featured. It's not about what she said it was and doesn't remotely support the claim she called it the "best" source for. It's impossible to maintain good faith assumptions or collaborate rationally with someone exhibiting that pattern of behavior. VictorD7 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Lengthen questionable community ban period
2) The Arbitration Committee or any of its members acting individually should seek to insure that community bans not applicable to WP:SNOW are closed with sufficient time to allow the most competent editors to express their views on the question. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is not the Rally to Save MilesMoney—he was community banned. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Wrong venue. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And who would be "the most competent editors"? Would we (you) administer a special "most competent editor" test? Do we (you) have a list of editors the community must wait upon to comment on proposals? This clearly suggests that the dozens of editors and admins who weighed in on Miles Money in aren't competent. This view has been heavily discussed, weighed, and rejected. I'd suggest, again, moving on. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unban MilesMoney
3) MilesMoney should be unbanned on the strong principles of this case. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wrong venue. MilesMoney was community banned. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Collaboration First
1) WP:COLLABORATION is more important than Competence. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Editors who assert that only they are competent or that their version of content is the only acceptable version violateThe No Asshole Rule do not encourage collaboration. They do so when their personal opinions are so strong that they cannot edit neutrally and collaboratively with other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * You are naughty! But definitely something about consensus building/collaboration needs to be reaffirmed as a principle. It's so much more fun that way!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, If you have posted evidence of "editors who assert that they are competent behavior", please supply the diffs. Sounds like a straw man. Thanks.
 * Collaboration is an key type of competence per the CIR essay. Some editors lack the social skills, personality, or communication skills to collaborate on WP. Some editors lack more than one of these, for example banned user MilesMoney, who was unable to disengage from intractable conflicts and who appeared to seek out articles in which he could engage in hostile personal confrontations.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop comes to mind. (But Steeletrap's various remarks do nothing to help resolve the case. Steeletrap merely argues about mainstream and fringe and WP:FRINGE. (And implies that editors who do not agree are not competent.) But I don't think the ArbCom will issue any rulings related to article content.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the diffs I requested? SPECIFICO  talk  02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The value of this proposed principle really does not need diffs. I simply point out that collaboration "comes first". Steeletrap, I submit, asserts that "competence" in the subject area comes first. E.g., she's an expert as to whether Mises.org is a fringe group. (And she has no RS to back up the assertions about fringe.) But, as you say, competence also refers to how editors collaborate within WP to improve the project. In this regard Steeletrap has displayed a lack of competence. One, her submissions to the ArbCom deal with article content only (despite being advised to provide editor behavior diffs). Two, she has displayed a lack of competence in her analysis of how FRINGE and RS is evaluated in WP. Three, her WP:CIR attitude is apparent through out this ArbCom process. The evidence I submitted addresses that lack of competence, but comments in that regard are best presented in the analysis of evidence section of this Workshop. Perhaps I will revise my analysis with your concerns in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I am asking you for the diffs which, let's be clear, lead you to call Steeletrap an asshole. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have NEVER called Steeletrap, Carolmooredc, or you an asshole. (I don't think I've called any editor an asshole.) And I resent your implication in that regard. Please strike. My apologies to Steeletrap. I do NOT intend to call you an asshole. I thought I was being clever in posting the link, but this was a mistake, indeed wrong, on my part. I ask for your forgiveness, and I thank Specifico for pointing it out to me.– S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Srich, thank you for doing the right thing. As I've remarked to you many many times, it would have been so much better if you hadn't turned this small point into yet another skirmish. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  03:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Many many times"? You pointed out 'asshole' once and it got my attention. The skirmish is over when one party runs up a white flag so they can recover their dead. What is the small point you are referring to? Do you mean the fact that Steeletrap is focusing on competence or on the Misesans as fringe or what? Maybe these are areas of skirmishing that need fleshing out, or white flags. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * White flag?? Recover their dead??? This is not a battleground.  SPECIFICO  talk  05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NOT a battleground, but, as you say, skirmishes occur. The dead I was recovering was my foot. I had shot it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * May I hat this section? Starting with your 03:15 comment. As stated, I don't think diffs apply to this proposal, and hatting the commentary will make it easier for our drafting Arbitrator. I would title the hat as "Side comments." Nothing more. The stricken material in the first paragraph can certainly stay. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ten days later, I've returned to review theses comments and I see that Srich32977 has still not responded to the comments on his proposal. It's a good example of how he derails collaboration by letting his feelings get in the way when he unpredictably and unnecessarily feels personally challenged. SPECIFICO talk :Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) This dispute involves the interaction of editors who have worked on Austrian economics-related articles, particularly those articles associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to the institute. The interaction has included content disputes and personal interaction. (Submitted 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC); tweaked 01:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC); revised slightly on 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC))


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I suggest removing the reference to Austrian economics, where there have been no such problems and simply state, "articles which relate to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and its affiliates." SPECIFICO  talk  12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mention of AE is needed because the ArbCom case title uses the term Austrian economics. It may turn out that the ArbCom issues topic bans to cover all topics in the category of Austrian economics. The proposed Locus is specific by saying the case is about the behavior of editors who have worked on LvMI related articles. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The locus is the schism within the Austrian school, with the Rothbard / LvMI people on one side, and all the other Austrians on the other. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed "Locus" simply points out that the dispute involves editor interaction. The schism as to the Austrian school is an article-content matter and not within the purview of the Arbcom. (Slight revision added to the proposal with this edit.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of Evidence Considered
2) Parties and others submitted evidence that pertains to the editing and editor conduct of, , and . Editing and editor conduct evidence considered is not limited to Austrian economics articles or any time-frame. Submissions regarding article content (and the banning/indeffing of ) were provided, but such submissions are not within the purview of this Arbitration. The committee also considered the behaviors of parties in this Arbitration process. (Submitted for consideration by. ''Added sentence at end on 17:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC). Section title changed and second sentence added on 19:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC). Further copy-editing done on 06:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC).'')


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In reviewing the Evidence submitted, I do not see material related to editor conduct of myself, A Quest For Knowledge, Binksternet, or The Four Deuces. With this in mind, I think limiting the scope of the arbitration to the conduct of Carolmooredc, Specifico, and Steeletrap would be helpful in achieving a resolution. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Remarks about purported distortion of evidence submitted by me were made, but these comments pertain to the evidence I submitted and do not constitute evidence about any particular editor. I believe I properly refuted the remarks and do not constitute "Evidence".  – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Evidence section is full of evidence concerning Srich32977, Binksternet and to a lesser extent The Four Deuces and A Quest For Knowledge. It's clearly inappropriate for Srich32977 to propose severing himself and others from the case. It's particularly inappropriate to do so after the evidence has been posted. He could have done so at the earliest stage of this proceeding. I suggest this proposal be withdrawn. SPECIFICO  talk  13:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When the ArbCom considers the Evidence, they will look at the Diffs provided, not vague allegations. Just because evidence "concerns" a party does not mean the evidence is against a party. (The victim of a crime might present evidence at trial which concerns the victim him/herself. ("X used a gun to rob me.")) So, in looking at Evidence of editor misbehavior or editor misconduct, I see two Diffs by Binksternet. One is his comment at the BLPN and the other is his comment at the RSN. (Both Diffs were provided by Specifico. I do not see any specific misbehavior in the Diffs). has said that TFD and AQfD are "are only peripherally involved...". Regarding me, the Evidence mentions alleged "distortions" which I addressed and rebutted.  The question of EllenCT is more difficult. Yes, she injected herself into the process, but she is not a party. I tried to address her contributions by mentioning MilesMoney by clarifying that MilesMoney issues are not part of this ArbCom.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On several occasions in this Arbitration, you take it upon yourself to speak for Arbcom -- for example your statement on Evidence(talk) to justify your posting of nearly 1000 excess words of evidence after the period was closed, where you claimed that the Feb 8 closing date was "a target, not a limit." Now, you claim to state what Arbcom will or should do in considering the evidence.
 * There are dozens of items in the Evidence section which relate to your behaviors. Just to cite one: You yourself present a link to a thread on your talk page in which you WP:BITE Steeletrap, who at the time was less than a month on WP, nervous and trying hard to contribute in the face of Personal Attacks, documented in Evidence. SPECIFICO  talk  16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As to Binksternet, he posts an extended section of text on his oft-repeated and oft-refuted ideas about "fringe" and "walled-garden" He also provides links in his evidence to various editors refuting his statements (which to this day he repeats in various venues.) My evidence provides discussion and diffs relating to Binksternet's tendentious repetition of his opinions. SPECIFICO  talk  17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my request above, I hope you'll withdraw this proposal. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll withdraw this particular proposed item. In fact, I have added a sentence at the end. Why? The committee is fully capable of acting on its own. They may and may not adopt my Proposals. My comments, at any point, do not and cannot "speak for Arbcom". I simply say I think the Arbcom should do such-and-such. You are free to do the same in your Proposals. As for the "target" question, there was a pending request to extend the 8 Feb date, Hahc21 advised you to "Don't worry and don't panic." and you, yourself, asked if you could correct pings & links in their proper places. (So what?) Please, Specifico, post the diffs to the "dozens of items" which relate to my (and Binksternet's) behaviors. Please demonstrate to the ArbCom how those items are disruptive. This Workshop page is the place for you to do so. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, SRich, an Arbitrator has stated on evidence page: that at this point all we can do is "cleanup, rather than the addition of substantial new evidence.." FYI, since I wrote that he tweaked it to say "So I don't mind people adding reasonable amounts of evidence to rebut other evidence added relatively late in the game, or adding small clarifications/fixes, or adding one or two more links". So editors might keep their eyes open. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My original Proposal has been modified in three respects. (Time stamps have been provided.) One, the added sentence on the end serves to have the ArbCom consider editor behavior in the arbitration process. Two, the added second sentence serves to have the ArbCom consider Evidence that is not related to Austrian economics articles or any particular time-frame. Three, the change in title expands the Scope so that arbitration-related editor conduct can be considered. – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * There is also evidence presented against User:EllenCT. She has not been involved in the core Austrian Economics dispute but has chosen to insert herself in this case with various allegations against users she has interacted with in other economics articles, naming those users "Austrian proponents" and obviously seeing those users as part of the Austrian economics issue (even if hardly any other users seem to share her perception on this). It may be appropriate to add Ellen as party of the case; I am intending proposing findings/bans regarding her. Iselilja (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Carolmooredc
3) Per the evidence introduced here (by SPECIFICO) User:Carolmooredc is found to be a disruptive editor in Austrian economics articles. This is especially true in her interactions with User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap.


 * Comment by parties:
 * I doubtless did disrupt SPECIFICO and Steeletrap’s extremely POV editing in violation of biographies of living persons and other Wikipedia policies, but I'm pretty sure for the most part I did so through "legal" Wikipedia procedures (if you don't count a lot of whining). Srich32977 listed in his evidence diffs at least 13 Steeletrap/SPECIFICO complaints against himself which some might characterize as disruptive editing, others as following procedures. (See A/1, A/3, A/6, A/7, A/9, C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4, C/5, C/7, C/8, C/9.)
 * However, FYI, since the late July Steeletrap ANI against me where an Administrator advised me to chill, while criticizing the quality of Steeletrap’s evidence, I see SPECIFICO has listed only six (6) incidents (with many more cherry-picked diffs) which I think prove very little: 1.) the August "Walled Garden" essay RSN; 2.) the “humongous” August BLPN involving a number of BLPs; 3.) the November 2013 ANI where the originator admitted he was mad I whined and complained on talk pages instead of just doing (yet another) an ANI vs. Steeltrap and SPECIFICO; 4.)the December short-lived Adjwilley informal mediation where I described in detail the issues as I saw them; 5.) the mid-January Krugman BLP talk page discussion where I listed WP:RS on the Enron/Krugman connection after SPECIFICO seemingly had declared discussion of the very topic on the talk page to be against BLP; 6.) and an article talk page note on Israel-Palestine Arbitration sanctions to an Anon IP who had used hostile language in his edit summaries and might be a long-term sockpuppet. (Reviewing SPECIFICO’s evidence again, by the way, I see around 5 or 6 more 2010-2011 diffs I failed to move into the “stale evidence” section.) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The total number and character of the diffs supplied by Specifico (and cited as support for this finding of fact) is not a deal-maker or deal-breaker. The fact that disruption to Wikipedia is occurring is the problem, and Specifico's diffs serve to show this. Also, one does not disrupt another's POV editing – disruptive editing disrupts the Project. Also, this (disruption) can occur in the "legal" procedures. Every comment that whines or complains, even when the comment is basically about article content or policy, is disruptive. (Comments that stray from article improvement topics are less than helpful as well.)
 * The finding that I propose does not have anything to do with the evidence or disruptive editing by Steeletrap or Specifico, or "stale" evidence, or possible socks. (Nor do I seek to haggle over who was right and who was wrong in the supporting evidence.) In all, if there are 6 diffs, or 13 diffs or 1,000 diffs, the fact remains – Carolmooredc, herself, has been disruptive in these AE articles. (Other evidence shows she has been disruptive in non-AE topic areas.) This is not to say that she bears the sole or major responsibility. As stated elsewhere, Steeletrap and Specifico also bear a certain amount of responsibility. (And I bear responsibility too – I've made mistakes and stupid comments and been impolite.) But the findings of fact as to Specifico and Steeletrap are separate issues. – S. Rich (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've read last couple weeks in old Arbitrations, even people who have no complaints against them may be sanctioned, so Arbitrators will draw their evidence from where ever they want to and do with it as they please. Similarly with fresh vs. stale evidence from long resolved issues. Since you say you also bear responsibility,  I'll move your diffs to your own section and then no one can say we are tag-team meatpuppets.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by moving "your diffs". If you are referring to material I posted, I expect it to stay where I put it. As no evidence has been posted about my editing (other than complaints of "misrepresentations" by me in the evidence), I don't think there are diffs to move. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

POV Editing by Steeletrap
4) Per the evidence introduced and per her own comments in these ArbCom discussions, User:Steeletrap is determined to be a POV-focused editor. This admitted POV has disrupted the collaborative editing process normally followed in Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive Editing by Steeletrap
5) Per the evidence introduced by S. Rich, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, and others, User:Steeletrap is determined to be a disruptive editor. This disruption is in the areas of POV-focused editing and mis-application of WP policies. The mis-application of policy includes, but is not limited to her analysis of WP:FRINGE and reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive Editing by SPECIFICO
6) Per the evidence introduced by S. Rich, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, and others, and by his own commentary in these ArbCom discussions, User:SPECIFIO is determined to be a disruptive editor. This disruption is in the areas of POV-focused editing, the mis-application of WP policies, and by non-Collaborative interaction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. It should not be used for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, academic or intellectual one-upmanship, etc.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my comments below about an editor who comes out of a 25 month retirement to post stale and new evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per below, did discover SPECIFICO did link to a diff of a 2013 ANI which contained a stale Drsmoo diff of a 2011 ANI where Goodwinsands mentioned. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The hypocrisy of this comment from Carol Moore beggars belief. See my comment below regarding her tag-team harassment of me. (Her tag-team partner, Off2Riorob, burnt out, fresh-started under the name YouReallyCan, and is now permanently banned from WP.) A hard look at Carol's long-standing WP behavioral issues - WP:BATTLE, WP:OWN, WP:HARASS, WP:CPUSH and more - is long overdue and I am glad to see it is finally getting some attention. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Carolmooredc is simply wrong about this being "new evidence", as you can confirm by looking at the last of the diffs in SPECIFICO's evidence, which points to what I pointed to. As such, noting the rather spectacular gap between Carolmooredc's fine words and her somewhat less fine behavior is relevant, on point, and something I encourage the arbitrators to consider. Is it a pattern? If so, what can arbitrators do about the pattern? Goodwinsands (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for majority and minority views and not present undue weight on either. Also, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole, including through “Cherry picking” of sources. The Fringe theories content guideline should not be used as an excuse to exclude entirely minority viewpoints from social science-related articles. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of primary-source material.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's very telling that Carolmooredc omitted the key language from WP:WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Her formulation above has no concept of reliable source referencing. Instead she speaks of "importance and relevance", which are weasel words unless the standard of judgment (RS) is specified.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I merged a couple other boiler plate statements from other closed Abitrations. I'm sure the Arbitrators can decide what parts of policy they might might want to add. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, you alone are responsible for what you post here.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Sourcing
3) We must adhere to verifiability policy in our evaluation of reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Neither the Fringe theories content guideline or the WP:Walled Garden essay should be used as the only reason to exclude reliably sourced material. Wikipedia self-published sources policy reads: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The word "carefully" is too vague with regard to using primary sources. LvMI scholars writing about other LvMI scholars should be allowed as filler in otherwise well-sourced LvMI biographies so that the reader can understand the subject's views. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Biographies of living people
4) Per Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons policy: Neither WP:Fringe theories content guideline or Walled Garden essay should be used as an excuse to create biographies of living people weighed down with undue negative information. It is especially important that editors working on biographies of living persons adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims. Though harsh and negative (but reasonable) arguments may be made about a topic, harsh comments should not inappropriately be put into a biography of a living person who has some relation to the topic, and it should not be claimed that the subject only is notable because of these harsh comments.
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. This mandate especially applies to editors who have strongly held views on issues. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, gaming the system and Wikipedia harassment is prohibited. Referring to relevant Wikipedia policy, including to support statements of evidence that an editor is not following policy, if stated in a civil manner, is not a personal attack.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Harassment
6) Wikipedia harassment policy is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Thus editors should not follow editors to articles totally unrelated to common topics of interest to revert their edits or argue with them; place numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page; post off-wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature; repeatedly bring up old issues, resolved long ago, in current discussions; repeatedly attribute bigoted personal motives to individuals unless presenting actual and credible evidence at Administrators noticeboards; repeatedly and indiscriminately refer to any legitimate criticism and evidence regarding edits, biases and policy interpretations as “personal attacks.” Editors, alone or especially with one or more fellow editors, should not habitually follow editors who disagree with them in various forums to their user talk pages to argue or harangue them there.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * you ought to request approval to post your link in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it an interesting coincidence that Goodwinsands comes out of a 25 month retirement at this moment to comment on my complaints he was a sockpuppet of an individual who was twice driven off a Biography of a living person for adding poorly sourced negative material and insulting other editors. Why didn't he bring me to ANI or WP:ARBPIA at the time? This is stale, just like much of SPECIFICOs evidence. I have to wonder why he suddenly came out of retirement. Should he be allowed to post evidence? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A request to post the old diff as Evidence has been posted by me. There is a strong indication that the particular diff will not be admitted into Evidence. I am striking my suggestion that Goodwinsands request approval to post the link. – S. Rich (talk)
 * I would request Arbitrators stike Goodwinsands' comments entirely as irrelevant and even trolling; in such case, feel free to strike mine as well. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hatting Goodwinsands comment and these party comments may be a better course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . Specifico's diffs (in the Evidence) have numbers. I looked at the last one (#87). It goes to a July 2013 ANI regarding Carolmooredc. The diff you posted is part of that ANI. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits or relevant of ' comment, it is a Personal Attack for you to call it "trolling". Goodwinsands is not a party to this arbitration. SPECIFICO  talk  17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did just realize that the diff in question was a 2013 ANI and not a much older ANI, so I struck my comment above. So I moved it up to the proper place in my evidence with the full current ANI link. The linked evidence does mention both Drsmoo and Goodwinsands so I put in the correct link to the BLPN which I mentioned but failed to link to. And mentioned both were BLP violators in my opinion. I'm striking my whole request above since it actually referred to something in evidence, even if it's stale and irrelevant evidence and a comment on it that does not belong in new evidence, per the Arbitrators ruling. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I see Goodwinsands goes on some more below. Actually, at User_talk:Goodwinsands (where you renamed all the threads of those who had concerns you were a sockpuppet) and which was presented in evidence, you link to my SPI against you. I think I did a well documented WP:SPI against you way back in Nov 2011, one supported by User:RolandR who long has been active in the area, and RobRio  User:Off2riorob who I remember chiefly from his also accusing you of being a sock. (I do see he was banned two years later.) The check user's dismissing these clear patterns with such a negative comment was a disappointment, yet I notice that just like the other two editors you were accused of being, you did retire from editing that account soon after you were confronted with doubts from several editors. [Later note: Reading Goodwinsands "contributions" does tend to fry my brain. And you can tell I haven't worked on the Atzmon article in a while since seeing RolandR's name I assumed he agreed. We got along better after I stopped editing the article and I forgot how much we fought on that one. Also per the The RolandR SPI] I never wrote or thought anything that silly. Where's the diff.] [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously I haven't been paying much attention to Goodwinsands comments, or reading carefully his 2.5 year old user pages with all his rewritten section titles. I see now that Off2RioRob asked Goodwinsands once if he had an account connection to RolandR and repeatedly if Goodwinsands had a previous account. Goodwinsands didn't answer and did an SPI on RolandR being himself! A good way to deflect attention from questions about being a sock and under cut any legitimate SPI. My apologies for ever having responded to Goodwinsands at all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * An extraordinary exercise in do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do from Carol Moore. [Carolmooredc tag-team harassing me] Goodwinsands (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Srich: As I note above, this link is already part of the evidence page, as the last diff in SPECIFICO's section, and is therefore perfectly relevant for informing the arbitrators' decisions if they want a background in patterns of behavior. I just didn't want it to get lost in the forest of diffs because it says so much about Carol Moore's WP behavior. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carolmooredc: I will leave it to the arbitrators to decide whether your particular opinions on your take on WP:BLP are sufficient justification for the virulence of the documented campaign you and your now-permabanned tag-team partner unleashed against me, and whether this constitutes yet another example of a distressing pattern of WP:BATTLE behavior that is entirely right for them to consider as part of their decision. You have left a trail. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I did get flustered by these attacks and add a bit more info/links to evidence regarding the 2013 ANI where Drsmoo brought up old issues I ignored at the time. This link (starting with "Harassed...") to show that Drsmoo was clearly an extremely disruptive editor. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators should note there is not the slightest twinge of remorse from Carol Moore over her tag-team harassment campaign.
 * Instead she did the Carol Moore two-step: insisting on her own perfectly unbesmirched innocence at all times, and changing the subject by trying to push the blame for her own egregious behavior onto someone else, in this case Drsmoo, who isn't even here to defend himself, and who is at best only marginally related to the issue of her tag-team harassment campaign against me.
 * In what world is unilaterally attacking B sufficient grounds to justify a documented campaign of harassment against A? In Carol's world, apparently, because that is the argument she is making here. And I know because I'm the A she harassed.
 * The two-step (self-absolve, then deflect the blame onto anyone nearby) is an axiomatic part of her approach. When others violate Wikipedia policy, she takes it as a given that they did so because they are wicked partisans trying to (and, she never fails to hint, likely paid to) ruin the site through NPOV. When Carol does the exact same thing, however, why, it's because her saintly patience has been exhausted by all those wicked people out there ruining Wikipedia, and she doesn't even need to say oops because her misdeeds are really always solely reactions against the egregious faults of others, the poor little lamb. It is always the other guy's fault, it is always the other guy who turned it into an edit war, it is always the other guy pushing a POV, it is always the other guy who ratcheted up the WP:DRAMA. It is never Carol Moore accepting full responsibility for her violations of WP policy; it's always the self-absolving formula "I was as little bad but SOME REALLY BAD GUY MADE ME DO IT so really I wasn't THAT bad, at least in my own eyes."
 * Arbitrators reading these pages should watch for that pattern of behavioral dysfunction from her, and the part it plays in her more general WP:BATTLE behavior which is on such prodigious display in this dispute. They will see plenty of examples on this very page. They should consider the role that dysfunction plays in the dispute, and what they can do to address the dysfunction in a way that Carol has clearly been unable to do on her own, without sanctions.
 * Pattern, pattern, pattern. Look at the pattern. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Thus editors should not [...] post off-wikipedia information or comments about them, especially those of an intimidating and threatening nature" This is extremely important. We need to feel safe at Wikipedia. I addressed one very severe violation in my evidence section. This is something ArbCom should be very clear about and the link to the vile blogpost should be oversighted. Women are particularly vulnerable for such things; there has been a focus on this in Scandinavia with TV-programs like "Men who net-hate Women" (Sweden) and "Woman, I hate you" (TV2, Norway) Iselilja (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "one supported by User:RolandR who long has been active in the area" - sorry, I can't let that one pass. You, in your mad tag-team WP:HARASSment flailing for anything that might stick against me, had accused me of being RolandR's sock puppet. Of *course* RolandR would support that SPI - he was pretty amused, because he knew damn well it wasn't true, just as I knew damn well it wasn't true, and we had both grown so tired of your dredge-every-body-of-water fishing expedition against me that *I* ended up requesting the SPI just to call your inane bluff. What brass it takes to present your specially edited version of reality, certain key facts oddly enough intentionally omitted!
 * Arbs, pattern, pattern, pattern. If Carolmooredc can twist so blatantly so simple a thing as this, really pretty frankly a direct lie, ask yourself: what else has she carefully, calculatedly half-revealed to you? Is there a single word of hers you can actually take at face value?
 * Pattern, pattern, pattern. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, a simple, unqualified apology would do you a world of good here: "I'm sorry that Off2riorob and I tag-team harassed you. It was wrong of us. I'm sorry about the entire campaign of baseless accusations and bogus WP:SPIs against you that always left me empty handed. I'm sorry that when I finally accepted that I couldn't land any punches, I then turned to vague hand-waving insinuations and well-poisoning. That was wrong of me. Please accept my apology." But instead I have a feeling we'll only get more "I am a perfectly, perfectly innocent lamb, did not intentionally lie about it all just now, and - er - SOMEONE ELSE MADE ME DO IT ANYWAY."
 * Pattern, pattern, pattern, arbs. Look for a pattern of inability to take personal responsibility for her own actions. Okay, stepping away until the next bit of too-ridiculous-to-let-pass from The Innocent Lamb Herself. Goodwinsands (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Her response, above: "My apologies for ever having responded to Goodwinsands at all."
 * Pattern, pattern, pattern. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building
7) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion, involving the wider community, if necessary. Wikipedia dispute resolution processes includes visits to noticeboards, seeking third opinions, requests for comment, Dispute resolution noticeboard, informal and formal Mediation. Edit warring among competing versions is not the way to build consensus. Editors should not claim that policy disputes are overwhelmingly personal disputes in order to avoid dispute resolution. Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Use of Talk pages
8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this workshop and all the talk pages show what a big problem this has been. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts
9) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tag-team editing
10) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view, through supporting each others edits and reverts and flooding talk page discussions with mutually supporting arguments, drowning out and/or exhausting other voices. Tag-team editing - to thwart core policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research, to evade restrictions regarding edit warring, to attempt to exert ownership over articles, or otherwise to prevent consensus from prevailing – is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute 1
1) This case addresses concerns related to the editing of articles regarding the Austrian school of economics and especially biographies of living persons who are associated with the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute (“LVMI”). LVMI is associated with libertarian former U.S. representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul whose son Rand Paul is considered a contender for the 2014 presidential nomination. These topics attract polarising views.  Many of the relevant articles originally were unsourced, sourced with primary sources or overwhelmingly sourced to other Austrian school individuals. Three new editors proceeded to add certain more critical new material and remove other existing and/or new material. This lead to concerns the editors have a strong and persistent tendency to depict LVMI, individuals even loosely associated with LVMI, and even libertarians in general, in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. Since April of 2013 there have been complaints about violations of biographies of living persons policy, as well as of neutral point of view and reliable sources violations in biographies of deceased persons related to the Austrian school. There also have been behavior complaints. These have been brought to various noticeboards, including repeatedly the Administrators' incidents noticeboard. In October 2013 Austrian economics/General sanctions were imposed. One involved editor, MilesMoney, was article banned and then community banned. When informal mediation failed, two editors “disagreed” about signing on to a formal mediation request to which all other involved editors had agreed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note: while most “Misean” Austrian economists are libertarian, few libertarians call themselves “Austrian” on economics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute 2
2) A major issues under dispute throughout the articles is the application of Wikipedia Fringe theories content guideline and the Walled Garden essay. While both the guideline and the essay have legitimate uses, parties to the dispute have alleged they are used as an excuse to violate important policies in editing of Austrian school related biographies or other articles. Parties also object to the suggestion that certain negative incidents can be detailed because only they confirm notability, while evidence of academic and other achievement does not make them notable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute 3
3) There has been conflict between new editors with strong points of view who started their editing in controversial areas in which they are highly emotionally involved. Thus they felt free to state their opinions and biases regarding the subjects of the articles, as well as their skepticism of policy issues brought up by long-time editors, and even their assumptions these other editors had equally strong biases. Long-time editors have not always been as patient with new editors as they should be, some losing their tempers and/or instructing them and warning them about policy violations repeatedly, which new editors may have experienced as harassment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note: while most “Misean” Austrian economists are libertarian, few libertarians call themselves “Austrian” on economics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Inadequacies of current community sanctions
4) Austrian economics/General sanctions only “placed Austrian economics-related pages under general sanctions indefinitely...” However, it also should specify that biographies of living persons, as well as of deceased persons, has been the locus of most of the disputes and remind administrators to take seriously evidence of violations of biographies of living persons policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

SPECIFICO
5) (Per evidence provided by The Four Deuces, Carolmooredc, Srich32977, Iselilja and Binksternet, as well as evidence which appears in other diffs and general discussion on these pages): User:SPECIFICO, who registered in September of 2012, has edited almost exclusively on economics articles, especially on articles related to the Austrian school of economics and biographies of individuals associated with the LVMI. During 2013 SPECIFICO worked in close collaboration with newer editors Steeletrap and MilesMoney, backing up a majority of their edits and reverts and helping to flood talk pages with their arguments. When MilesMoney was site banned, SPECIFICO staunchly objected to "involved" editors supporting his banning and challenged the Administrators methodology on the deciding to ban him. Thus concerns about tag-team editing have been raised. SPECIFICO has focused on removing even reliably sourced information from articles, much of it contested at article talk pages, some of it contested at reliable sources noticeboard. He has excused this editing with references to fringe theories content guideline and the Walled Garden essay. He has mocked Austrian economics community sanctions on a user talk page. He has engaged in Harassment through questionable official warnings on user talk pages, as well as questionable “interpersonal behavior” leading to a block. [Added later: SPECIFICO has proved to be hostile towards some libertarians not identified as "Austrian", like Joseph R. Stromberg (AfD'd) and Sharon Presley.]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note: while most “Misean” Austrian economists are libertarian, few libertarians call themselves “Austrian” on economics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, not only is it false that I objected to MilesMoney being site-banned, but I did not even state a view in his favor in the ANI poll which resulted in that ban. Please strike your misrepresentation, which I regard as a personal attack. Your other misrepresentations relating to that ANI (including the thread of misrepresentation  which led to AQFK filing this Arbitration) have already been noted in my Evidence.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, would you please supply the Diffs from the Evidence which support your proposed findings. (For example, you say "He has mocked Austrian economics community sanctions on a user talk page." What particular bit of Evidence supports this?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ":I changed description of SPECIFICOs actions re: MilesMoney per these links provided in evidence1 2. Admins can decide what they don't want to say according to the variety of evidence they see, so I will not provide a diff for every general statement . But it's easy to find I did provide one in evidence re: mocking sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)
 * You should read and follow ARBGUIDE. In the Workshop section it says "Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful." – S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert: Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration First mentions evidence should prove the point. I guess I missed adding some diffs to workshop, when read way back when. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have responded to my denial of your misrepresentions of me by deleting and replacing your accusations. This is unacceptable and renders my subsequent response unintelligible.  Please go back and reinsert your original text, with strikethrough.  I asked you to strike it and I am shocked to see that you have instead deleted it. Please reinsert and strike the original false allegation so that the record is clear.  Thank you.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a proposal, based on copious evidence from all parties, and not taken as "evidence" but as suggestions. It doesn't need striking etc. In fact, I don't think anything in Arbitration does since we're trying to get the wording right. Ask a Clerk if you need to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will act at a time and in a manner of my own choosing without further notice to you. I had hoped you would comply with my reasonable request, per common WP practice that we do not delete comments after others have posted responses.  You may still do so.
 * I have read the text of your revised version, and you still present false statements about me. Per my earlier request, I ask you for the last time either to strike and correct your remaining misstatements or supply diffs which you believe support them. Thank you.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I supplied links which I think support those statements. If you think the statements need tweaking, give me a hint of what is wrong. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no diffs in "5) SPECIFICO" above. Linking to RSN, FRINGE, HARASS does not help the drafting arbitrator. You need to connect the dots between your arguments and the Evidence. – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As said elsewhere, this is not evidence or analysis of evidence; at this point the Arbitrators have sifted through the evidence so diffs only needed if subject who has actually read the evidence strongly argues there is no evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement, "SPECIFICO worked in close collaboration with newer editors Steeletrap and MilesMoney, backing up a majority of their edits and reverts and helping to flood talk pages with their arguments. When MilesMoney was site banned, SPECIFICO staunchly objected to "involved" editors supporting his banning and challenged the Administrators methodology on the deciding to ban him." is false. I've asked you to strike it. The closing Admin on MilesMoney's ban told elsewhere in this Arbitration that you your statements about the interaction between him and me are false. You've provided no diffs which would even suggest that you have any good faith reason for your false statements. I'm asking you again to strike your words. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since SPECIFICO is not asking for every point of evidence, and per Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration, I'll quote it:
 * Under "Behavior issues/Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry":  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.
 * Yes, it may mean Arbitrators have to read a whole ANI/talk page section, but I'm pretty fed up with "evidence" out of context in articles, so was reluctant to supply much of such through diffs in My evidence. Also, obviously if I'd reread Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration I would have noted that some repeat of evidence in workshop may be warranted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What is your evidence that "SPECIFICO has proved to be hostile towards some libertarians not identified as "Austrian", like Joseph R. Stromberg." It appears that all of your "findings of fact" here are either baseless personal speculations or outright misrepresentations. SPECIFICO talk  19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See end comments in Srich evidence, including [this diff. [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] (Talkie-Talkie) 19:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked you to cite your evidence for the statement you made concerning Stromberg. Your reply is yet another example of your habitual tactic of deflection.  As to the diff from Presley's article: If you'll read the cited source you'll see that the text I researched and added is an accurate representation of the source. Despite a constructive tweak by a later edit, the content remains in the article.  Please cite the evidence for your assertion concerning Stromberg.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is really weird. I'm relying on the accuracy of User:Srich's evidence, and yet you keep me bugging me to prove his evidence? Why not ask him?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Steeletrap
6) (Per evidence provided by The Four Deuces, Adjwilley, Carolmooredc, Shii, Srich32977, Iselilja and Binksternet, as well as evidence which appears in other diffs and general discussion on these pages): User:Steeletrap largely has been a single purpose account working since April of 2013 mostly on biographies of living people associated with LVMI. In 2013 Steeletrap worked in close collaboration with SPECIFICO and MilesMoney, backing up their edits and reverts and helping to flood talk pages with their arguments. When MilesMoney was site banned, Steeletrap staunchly objected. Concerns about tag-team editing have been raised. Steeletrap has written she had worked on a Masters thesis where she did a great deal of research on LVMI-related individuals as fringe political characters and expressed similar opinions repeatedly. She has claimed that editors who disagree with her are pro-LVMI. She has used fringe theories content guideline and the Walled Garden essay as an excuse for adding to biographies of living persons large amounts of negative, sometimes poorly sourced material and removing reliably sourced material that might put subjects in a positive light. She has rejected policy on “minority views”. Despite repeated visits to the reliable sources noticeboard, she has continued using material from self-published blog entries in biographies of living persons. She has mocked administrative policy [Added later:See my evidence/Behavior Issues/], including the Austrian economics/General sanctions and Wikipedia blocking policy after she was blocked. [Added later: See my evidence/Behavior Issues/Motivating biases], Steeletrap has a strong an animus towards libertarians. She also mocked the subjects of biographies of libertarians who are not identified as "Austrian", like Joseph R. Stromberg (AfD'd) and Sharon Presley [(See Srich evidence, closing comments).]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Carolmooredc, would you please supply the Diffs from the Evidence which support your proposed findings. (For example, you say "She has mocked administrative policy." What particular bit of Evidence supports this?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I already said see my evidence where this point clearly sectioned. Added a couple clearer directions to where evidence is. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Srich32977
7) Per evidence provided by Srich32977 himself (See A/1, A/3, A/6, A/7, A/9, C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4, C/5, C/7, C/8, C/9), as well as evidence which appears in other diffs and general discussion on these pages: User:Srich32977 is found to be a disruptive editor in Austrian economics articles. This is especially true in his interactions with User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap, including in long user talk page arguments among them, like those evidenced, where profanity sometimes is used, as it was used in this Arbitration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since Srich32977 diffs already were readily available and are not clearly labeled as evidence against him, since Arbitrators do tend to look at all diffs for evidence of bad behavior on the part of all involved parties, and since Srich32977 has requested diffs in these "fact" sections, even when they may not be necessary, I have included the diffs above. Srich has provided evidence of voluminous user talk page arguing which tends to carry over into and adversely effect editing. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Carolmooredc
8) Per evidence provided by SPECIFICO, as well as evidence which appears in other diffs and general discussion on these pages: User:Carolmooredc has lost patience with new editors, written aggressive postings, brought up point of view issues too frequently on article talk pages, and written some ineffective noticeboard warnings, necessitating more trips to noticeboards to try to get biographies of living persons-related issues addressed. In trying to comply with policy, she seems to need more explicit guidance from policy pages, admins, etc. than perhaps necessary. She has some personal interest in not seeing “libertarians” - including some from the Austrian school of economics - depicted in an excessively undue negative light in biographies. She sometimes misreads some postings, thus needing to rephrase her own comments or edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes, I am some sort of libertarian of my own stripe, like so many libertarians. I don't consider myself a "Misean" or a "Hayekian" but do support free market principles and agree with insights from both Austrian schools, while disagreeing with others. Yes, I knew Rothbard and Rockwell but my last affiliations with them was when I was one of their biggest critics when they started their appeal to extreme right wingers in 1986-87 and they roundly denounced me in a few publications; but I don't hold a grudge. I am sensitive to obvious and excessive BLP violations in lots of Bios of people whose views I find of interest. The stressful editing environment of seeing BLPs constantly under attack, and being accused of "white washing" etc. for trying to deal with those issues, and being unduly harassed in a way that feels sexist, may have lead me to be stubborn or bad tempered sometimes. Perhaps the fact I am a sexagenarian dealing with some highly motivated and energetic younger people may contribute to my misreading some postings and needing to rephrase my own comments or edits. But I don't think Wikipedia has a mandatory retirement age. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
1) Pages related to the Austrian school of economics, including biographies of living people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators’ action
2) Administrators are asked to be particularly concerned about and willing to take action upon complaints of violations of policy regarding biographies of living persons made in any Wikipedia pages as well as neutral point of view issues regarding deceased persons. They should note that Austrian school biographies, broadly construed to include libertarian biographies, and some issue articles, may continue to be edited in a partisan manner that violates biographies of living persons by parties not named here during contentious congressional and presidential elections from 2014 to 2016.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I only hope this somehow can lead to administrators taking violations of BLP policy in this area - and even others? - more seriously when they are taken to the BLP or RSN noticeboards, or really any Wikipedia page. Note that a lot of people do not want to take BLP issues to WP:ANI. I should have done so repeatedly the first couple months and the issues would have been solved long ago. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editors encouraged
3) All involved editors in the Austrian school of economics topic area are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

SPECIFICO topic-banned
4) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, and to the related area of Libertarianism, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than one year has passed from the closing of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SPECIFICO may well move to articles about libertarians who are not explicitly "Austrian" if he is prohibited from editing Austrian economics articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, SPECIFICO is a libertarian. Economically he is certainly to the left of the tea party types, but he strongly opposes the sort of activist government propounded by (for example) the Democratic Party. One of our maybe two email exchanges revolved around jokes about your accusations that we are somehow "partisan" co-ideologues when in fact we are ideological opponents. He has a PhD in economics and is irritated by anarcho-libertarian editors who claim Misesian economics sources that don't use data in their "studies", and are not published in mainstream journals, are econ RS. The only things we have in common are 1) the view, held by all mainstream social scientists, that social science requires, uh, science (testing, data, empiricism, etc) and 2) a general commitment to WP policy over the advancement of fringe ideologies. Steeletrap (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like more "new evidence". Arbitrators aren't going to try to describe which group of libertarians he will violate BLP regarding, including mocking them in edit summaries and on talk pages. Evidence has been shown of his engaging in policy violations towards quite a few already. Also note that per first line of Tendentious_editing: Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Steeletrap topic-banned
5)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics and to the related area of Libertarianism, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than one year has passed from the closing of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Steeletrap may well move to articles about libertarians who are not explicitly "Austrian" if she is prohibited from editing Austrian economics articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what evidence do you have for this? I dislike libertarianism, but acknowledge the contribution of Milton Friedman, Gary Becker and other great libertarian scholars to social science. All I care about is upholding policy regarding WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, and WP:Fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My evidence/Behavior issues/Motivating biases has a number of your relevant quotes about Mises libertarians and one on libertarians. There are various evidences from various editors, and in your own evidence, making clear your biased edits in Murray Rothbard, who is considered to be so influential in US libertarianism. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Carolmooredc topic-banned
6) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I really don’t care if I am banned from this area permanently. I’m really more interested in articles in political theory and war/peace issues and have been sidetracked for years from editing many articles of interest because I get bogged down in biographies of living persons articles under assault by partisans who administrators just will not deal with. However, I will feel bad if some of those biographies, especially Rothbard’s, aren’t made NPOV, leaving a nasty impression of how Wikipedia treats libertarians. On the other hand, since probably no one will clean up these articles, I think it would be good that I have a shorter ban so I can do so if no one else does. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Srich32977 topic-banned
7) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after three months from the date this case is closed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Srich32977 has been bit of pain in the neck sometimes, especially on user talk pages, so let's give him a little slap too. On the other hand, he also would be likely to deal with the most WP:Undue, poorly referenced material to make BLPs more NPOV, so not too big a slap. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with sanctioning Rich, but your rationale for doing so is troubling. You don't appear to believe he is guilty of any misconduct. You merely want to give him a "little slap" for being a "bit of pain in the neck sometimes, especially on user talk pages." To advocate a sanction on such a basis is petty and contrary to policy. Steeletrap (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was any evidence that showed (or even suggested) that I was POV-pushing in these articles, then a sanction would be appropriate. So I thank Steeletrap for her support in this regard. But, as Steeletrap says, where is the evidence? (In any event, I'm going to steer clear of these Austrian articles for a while. I've got other fish to fry; and, I would not want a sanction to impinge on the everlasting glory and sanctification that I hope to achieve by gaining admin status.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Srich32977, in my evidence I was focusing on those initiated the problems, not those who did not respond perfectly in trying to uphold policy. But it looked like you were joining SPECIFICO and blaming everything on me. So I was just pointing out through your own diffs - (See A/1, A/3, A/6, A/7, A/9, C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4, C/5, C/7, C/8, C/9) - that SPECIFICO and Steeletrap also accused you of being disruptive (if not using that exact phrase every time). There is a whole dynamic at work, rather like that in Dysfunctional_families. The new editors were the opportunists/mastermind; I was/am the Problem Child/Rebel/Scapegoat; you were/are the "The Caretaker: the one who takes responsibility for the emotional well-being of the family" - in an intrusive way that can get annoying to the point of being disruptive, per diff complaints above. So I did have a good laugh the first time you yelled B.S. at them. Obviously, I'd prefer neither of us to be topic banned, but since it might happen anyway... whatever... Meanwhile, I'm seeing here the nexus of a wonderful Wikipedia:Essay on "Dysfunctional editing groups". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Interaction ban for Steeltrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney
8) WP:Meatpuppetry says: A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established that "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." with a note leading to this Arbitration regarding Sockpuppets. Should any two or all three of them edit together on or regarding pages relating to the Austrian school of economics and to Libertarianism, broadly construed, administrators may either limit them to 1RR or article or page ban them or topic-ban the editors once again, as seems appropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Even in the Israel-Palestine area I never saw tag-teaming and possible meatpuppetry being this consistently disruptive over so many articles. At least if I see this sort of thing else wheres again, I now know to go to WP:ANI ASAP with evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Interaction ban Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO
9) Problems with interactions between Carolmooredc and SPECIFCO, even in articles unrelated to the Austrian school of economics, suggest that an interaction ban of one year, to be extended if necessary, will limit the possibility of such future occurrences.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The last few months especially I have barely edited outside of the Austrian economics area in part because of SPECIFICO has followed me to other articles outside the area, with no real excuse other than harassment. And administrators have refused to pay attention to my complaints. He has reverted me and argued with me; he also has left a number of unsupported warnings on my talk page, per my evidence. He even linked to a notorious smear-monger's website which contained a wish that my family and I be gassed. How many times does one have to go to ANI or admins who have warned them or even put on community sanctions and ask for help from Admins to stop the harassment? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:Competence
1) While Wikipedia prides itself on rejecting credentialism, this does not mean we should celebrate ignorance. While lacking a credential doesn't make one unfit to contribute to a subject, lacking knowledge most certainly does. One 'side' of the Mises dispute generally admits to being ignorant of economics but nonetheless feels confident in declaring the Mises Institute scholarship to be mainstream (non-fringe) dissent from prevailing views. In contrast, any user with competence in the subject matter knows that the Misesian rejection of the scientific method and empirical evidence, in favor of pure armchair theorizing, is a fringe approach to social science. The view that they are mainstream/non-fringe for economics compels incompetent users to consider Misesians RS, fit for use in various WP economics articles. This position implies that the Misesians' glowing praise of fellow Misesians and scathing criticism of mainstream economists should be littered throughout WP articles on mainstream economics subjects.

An example of incompetent reasoning is the view that Misesians are mainstream because they are sometimes mentioned in RS. So too are evolution deniers and AIDS skeptics. All of these groups are mentioned because they are politically salient (in the Misesians' case, due to the Ayn Rand/Rand&Ron Paul connection), not because they are taken seriously by mainstream academics. Steeletrap (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Looking at evidence present by Steeletrap and SPECIFICO on the Evidence page I see no evidence presented that "One 'side' of the Mises dispute generally admits to being ignorant of economics". Your argument is basically "my side is right and everyone else is just ignorant." The most you can do in the principles section is quote the essay general policy Competence is required. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review the evidence submitted by Binksternet, Srich32977, and SPECIFICO. I believe you are mistaken.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How ironic. Carolmooredc's first sentence is an ungrammatical hodgepodge. Then she cites Competence as a policy, but it's an essay. And Specifico just says look at the Evidence page, without specifying any particular evidence or diffs.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, Srich. Were you referring to me or Carol above? You say "Carol" but contextually that makes little sense, since I'm the one who proposed that competence should be a governing principle of this dispute's resolution. Please clarify. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, I was referring to Carol's input. Lousy syntax! It should say "The evidence presented by S & S does not say "One 'side'...." And essays are not policy (or "general policy"). Does this help clarify? – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap misrepresents her opposition as trying to show the LvMI people to be "mainstream" or "mainstream dissent", not fringe. None here are trying to do that; they are trying to show that the LvMI group holds a significant minor viewpoint, not fringe. Steeletrap puts too much confidence in her dismissal of the LvMI "rejection of the scientific method and empirical evidence", as if mainstream economics is hard science (it is not). Here are some relevant observations on that matter:
 * Jared Bernstein says that "the most fundamental building blocks of economics are social, not physical constructs," and he acknowledges that the field of economics has failed to show increasing accuracy in prediction, which would be expected of hard science.
 * The Greenwood student textbook Basic Economic Principles: A Guide for Students says "Economics is considered a social science... The social sciences are not exact sciences."
 * Norwegian economics professor Bernt P. Stigum wrote a book published by MIT Press in 1990 titled Toward a Formal Science of Economics which argued for a more scientific approach to economics. He described how the scientific method was not so widely used in economics. He divided economists into "four almost separate groups." He said the groups were 1) the pure theorists and mathematical economists, 2) the pure econometricians and statisticians, 3) applied economists and applied statisticians, and 4) the consultants, policy makers, employees of financial companies, "all the others". In chapter 16 he covers the work of Hayek and Mises, of chance, random events and probability, to arrive at an empirical method.
 * Indian economics professor Sampat Mukherjee writes in Modern Economic Theory that economics is a science only to the extent that economists use the scientific method. He continues, "However, the subject-matter of economics is human behaviour and this is much more difficult to predict than the reactions of inanimate matter. Economists, like other social scientists cannot achieve the precision of natural scientists and they cannot use many of their techniques."
 * Alain Anderton writes in the Pearson student textbook Economics that economics is not one of the so-called 'hard sciences', that it is a social science akin to sociology, politics, and anthropology. Regarding the scientific method in economics, he writes, "it is usually not possible to set up experiments to test hypotheses. It is not possible to establish control groups or to conduct experiments in environments which enable one factor to be varied whilst other factors are kept constant. The economist has to gather data in the ordinary everyday world where many variables are changing over any given time period. It then becomes difficult to decide whether the evidence supports or refutes particular hypotheses. Economists sometimes come to very different conclusions when considering a particular set of data..."
 * Japanese economics scholars Yagi Kiichiro and ‎Yukihiro Ikeda devote a chapter to to the Mises Institute style of economics in their book Subjectivism and Objectivism in the History of Economic Thought. They discuss the subjectivism of Mises, calling it the "hallmark" of that tradition. The Japanese scholars say that the subjectivism of Mises was pure, logical, consistent, thorough and coherent. This type of subjectivism in economics is presented as a valid school of thought despite its lack of scientific method.
 * The book Subjectivism and Economic Analysis was written by Roger Koppl, a professor of economics and forensics, and Gary Mongiovi, a professor of economics and finance. They describe how the scientific method is too difficult to implement in economics. They talk about how Mises denied the scientific method, how complex phenomena are "open to various interpretations." They treat Mises as a major force in economic analysis, not a minor or fringe viewpoint. Routledge, 2012, ISBN 9781134835836
 * Brian Doherty, an economist with the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, writes about the Mises Institute's non-scientific, subjectivist approach to economics. The a priori style was Mises economics method which Doherty says was "requiring nothing in the way of empirical observation or verification." Doherty says this concept of Mises was "heavily derided by his critics", but it was nevertheless one of the methods applied to economics, a method worthy of study. He says Hayek eventually dropped the dependence on a priori methods to develop a Popper-style system, one which might offer "pattern prediction"; this was seen as a "betrayal" by Mises Institute people such as Rothbard and Hoppe.
 * Thus we can see that economics does not depend on the rigorous application of the scientific method, and we see that the Mises approach is not treated as nutcase fringe by mainstream observers. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bink, you are again showcasing your tendentiousness. This "evidence" is copy-and-pasted whlesale from a thread several months ago. I corrected your embarrassing misrepresentations there; you thanked me and conceded error. Yet (after conceding them) you have now repeated them all, showing an unwillingness to devote even a minute to reading and learning from the opinions of others. My below corrections are largely copy and pasted from that discussion.
 * The "Brian Doherty" book you are quoting is Radicals for Capitalism,. Its author is s a libertarian anarchist with a degree in journalism from University of Florida. In your frantic, sloppy attempt to vindicate your pre-determined conclusion, you confused him for another Brian Doherty.
 * You also are guilty of various omissions and distortions of the textbooks you cite. Nowhere d you state for instance that the Koppl book is written by Misesians (whose work was given a glowing review by the Mises Institute.) The book by Japanese scholars is a history of economic thought, not an economic textbook. Any history of economic thought should include disussion of the "Misesian method" since it was mainstream a century or so ago. Citing that book as a basis for their being mainstream now is like citing a history of philosophy book in justification of the claim that vitalism (which played a huge role in the history of science/philosophy and would certainly be mentioned for that reason) is mainstream science.
 * Also, please don't label adherents to fringe theories "nutcases." For WP purposes, to be fringe is not to be a nutcase, but to "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in [one's]  particular field." The Misesian rejection of the scientific method is clearly a substantial departure from mainstream economics; anyone who has studied the subject even casually (including all the Misesians) recognize this. Hence they are (in the words of leading Misesian Hoppe) regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by the mainstream. Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO, these statements are simply repeats of the various contentions that Misesian theories and thoughts are/are not mainstream/heterodox/fringe. These statements simply involve disagreement as to what should be in articles (article content) and do not address editor behavior. Repeating COMPETENCE as a proposal does not assist. Article content disputes are best handled in Noticeboards devoted to such issues. (NPOV, FTNB, RSN, etc.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus. Whatever ought to be the case, it's pretty clear that the content disputes concerning these articles were not well handled on the Noticeboards or talk pages. That is where you, Carolmoore, and Binksternet engaged in your disruptive and obstinate refusal to address these issues.  "Competence" in itself is not the critical issue, but battleground and IDHT behavior by editors with weak technical understanding is indeed one of the issues here.  Binksternet has made these same statements of his straw man "walled garden" story and his amazing denial that economics, a social science not a physical science, is nonetheless based (in subject-appropriate ways) on the scientific method. He's been corrected on several occasions by various editors, but he repeats the same mistaken assertions -- even verbatim via cut and paste -- over and over. Even here.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my evidence, My evidence/BLP issues/Removal of RS, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO find an excuse for removing nearly every reference that in the least makes the subject of the BLP or Rothbard look good. And far too many require a trip to the WP:RSN where they still argue their point ad naseam when uninvolved editors disagree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:Undue
2) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Adding connected, WP:Fringe sources that present heterodox theorists and theories as mainstream and academic is WP:Undue and therefore violates WP:NPOV. It is a wrongheaded and unsophisticated conception of NPOV that preaches 'equal time' for mainstream views and those unsupported by any evidence or scholarship. Steeletrap (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * That's a truncated version of both policies ignoring that "heterodox theorists and theories" often have or are minority viewpoints that, when they come from sufficiently high quality reliable sources, are acceptable for use in some form in many articles. This is especially true in biographies where individuals' views should be made clear and not hidden and/or misinterpreted by massively WP:Undue emphasis on criticism from non-academic partisan websites and newsfeeds, especially those promoting sensationalist attacks on individuals with whom they disagree ideologically. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Carol. Can you please provide some examples of what you regard to be "non-academic partisan websites and newsfeeds" currently in AE articles. I know you don't like the New York Times, but a feature from the front page of the Sunday edition is an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for us to provide new evidence that various Austrian or "Misean" professors and writers use in any articles are WP:RS; and I wasn't focusing on proving that in my evidence since WP:Biographies of Living Persons and behavior violations were my focus. If you can find in someone's current evidence, actual evidence that parties to this Arbitration heavily promoted some non-WP:RS sources, do tell, and we can discuss. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This proposal suffers from the same problems I pointed out on the evidence page, that Steeletrap uses the "fringe" concept to try and dismiss viewpoints that come from a significant minority who are not fringe. Steeletrap puts forward a naked polarity which is "mainstream" on the one hand and "fringe" on the other, but this presentation ignores the fact of a wide continuum of opinions and viewpoints, including those holding a significant minor stance. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're just wrong. Wikipedia says that views which "depart significantly" from the mainstream are fringe. That includes the Misesian economists. You also seem to misunderstand the definition of "mainstream." There is such a thing as "mainstream dissent", but rejection of the scientific method and statistics in economics isn't that. Please read the relevant WP:Fringe policy before advancing an interpretation of it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap and SPECIFICO want to remove most RS from WP:BLPs that show individuals in a good light, whether from LVMI people or others; similarly for other non-biography articles, though I don't think much evidence of that was presented here. But if they can use a criticism from an LVMI person, or praise that they feel damns the person (Like the disreputable Hoppe being used to praise/comment on Rothbard 3 times in that article), they don't bring up those sources as being vs. RS. They put it right in there. Several good examples are in the oft discussed Rothbard article and sections presented in My evidence/BLP Issues/Biased/WP:Undue additions . Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Prioritize WP:Policy over one's politics
3) There are many WP editors who subscribe to heterodox ideologies, for instance, creationists and 9/11 truthers. Many of them contribute immensely to the project, and deserve our respect and admiration. The key is that they prioritize WP:NPOV policy, which is explicitly and deeply prejudiced in favor of mainstream and against fringe views, over their personal (fringe) politics. The problem comes when an editor is so committed to her/his ideology that s/he is unwilling or unable to to adhere to WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies. Such a editor seeks to promote or give 'equal time' to fringe ideas that are congenial to her/his politics, irrespective of their support in RS. This tendentious conduct is detrimental to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, Steeletrap lumps those holding a significant minor viewpoint in with those who are on the fringe. This is a continuation of a problem I proved on the Evidence page. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my my evidence/Behavior Issues/Motivating Biases Steeletrap, and to a somewhat lesser extent SPECIFICO, have blared their political and/or economic views all over Wikipedia, screaming their heads off when someone complains about it. But they had to do a lot of digging into 4 or 7 year old archives and off-wiki to find evidence that others had even a hit of a political view. So I think the title of this section applies nicely to them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:

No Personal Attacks
4) In spite of years of warnings from peers of all ideologies, some editors display a chronic inability to refrain from PAs. They cannot help but denigrate those with whom they disagree. A user who makes PAs creates and exacerbates tension and conflict in the community. Steeletrap (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SPECIFICO's evidence shows that CarolMooreDc is a habitual violator of this principle. Even on this page, where we are presumably on our 'best' behavior, Carol Moore has repeatedly denounced editors she disagrees with on both AE and her anti-Israel position as "partisans." She just can't help it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO's evidence scapegoats me instead of making even a tiny attempt to see the dynamics of the whole situation in a realistic fashion. Tendentious_editing's first line reads: Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. Editorial bias is a serious problem and calling people out on it happens a lot, and not always perfectly. I admit I lost my temper; I admit I whined that editors who freely admitted their biases edited in a biased manner. What do you admit? See My evidence/Behavior issues sections on attacking editors, harassing me, mocking administrators administrating policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap herself is guilty of making denigrating remarks about "those with whom they disagree", as seen in diffs supplied by Carolmooredc on the Evidence page. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:

Locus of Dispute
1) This case is about the insistence of some editors, especially User:Carolmooredc, User:Srich32977 and User:Binksternet, that the Misesian/Rothbardian wing of Austrian economics is RS for economics. Other editors disagree and seek to replace the Misesian sources with mainstream RS that are typically indifferent to or highly critical of the Misesian approach. These two groups of editors are regularly engaged in content disputes on pages involving Misesian theories or theorists. One user in particular, CarolMooreDC, polarizes things by continually personally attacking those with whom she disagrees. Steeletrap (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposal ignores the fact that Steeletrap and Specifico came to the LvMI articles purposely to reduce anything that treated the subject positively, and purposely to add negative treatment such that the negative overshadows the positive. The involvement of Carolmooredc Srich32977 and Binksternet was a response to this non-neutral initiative. This proposal also paints with too broad a brush. The three named editors are not trying to make all LvMI sources be considered reliable for all cases. Rather, the named editors are trying to use some of the LvMI sources to augment biographies that are already well-sourced and notable. The augmentation would flesh out the viewpoints and uncontroversial details. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a personal attack on me, and I request you strike your conclusory misrepresentation of my motives. Please discuss anything I have said with documentation and do not disparage my motivations. My evidence already documents you having done that to me and others in the course of these disputes, and it's not helpful, to say the least. Thank you.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a personal attack, it is my conclusion made after my analysis of your editing pattern at LvMI articles, such as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murray_Rothbard&diff=529219639&oldid=528724697 your third edit] to the Rothbard biography in which you reduced his importance and removed him from the Austrian school, and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute&diff=526809382&oldid=524490328 this series of five edits], your first involvement at the LvMI article, where you removed any semblance of academic scholarship, you delinked Rothbard and Hayek, and removed the Gold standard from the lead section. That's just the start. My conclusion is based on many months of such diffs. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I ask the Arbitrators to excuse Bink's insertion of new evidence here in the Workshop and to read the diffs he's just provided. These diffs, of my well-reasoned and constructive edits, confirm that Binksternet's disparagement of me is baseless. His misrepresentation and personal attack provide yet further evidence of his disruptive, battleground interactions on WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, The Four Deuces, Binksternet, Iselilja and Srich also provided similar and/or overlapping evidence and analysis. Arbitrators look at the body of evidence. I'll be interest to see Alanyst's analysis. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With the workshop deadline having passed,I will not be providing analysis of my own. I have suggested some questions to help frame the proposed decision over at the PD's talk page, but I will be keeping my conclusions to myself until after the case is over, so as not to further burden the arbitrators with more reading material or sway their deliberations. alanyst 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of dispute includes WP:Fringe
2) This dispute is centered around user misconduct. Whether and to what extent misconduct is actually occurring cannot be determined without an evaluation of whether WP:Fringe applies to Misesian economists and publications. For example, editor SPECIFICO has removed Misesian sources from mainstream economics articles. He has been accused of misconduct for this. If Misesians are mainstream reliable sources for economics, he is guilty of misconduct. If they are not reliable sources, he is not acting disruptively, and those trying to re-insert the non-RS material into the article are. Consequently, in evaluating these accusations, Arbcom has to assess whether Misesian economics/economists are mainstream RS or fringe. On Wikipedia, the the term "fringe" is defined "in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, this proposal jumps directly from "fringe" to "mainstream" without acknowledging the status of LvMI sources as a significant minor viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear Bink, are you saying you believe the Misesians such as Rothbard do not "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" in economics? What is your basis for this claim? And how do you reconcile it with my evidence that Rothbard was ostracized by the mainstream/did not publish in the journals? How d you reconcile it with the observation of leading Misesian Hoppe that Misesians are regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all other economists? Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course a minor viewpoint will "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". The problem is that you continue to dismiss LvMI as fringe when instead the Institute's views are minor but significant. You can see my proof at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP Fringe theory policy states: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." If you agree that LvMI departs significantly from the mainstream, you must agree it is fringe. That's just a matter of logic. Also: you seem to conflate "minority view" and "non-mainstream." Many minority views are firmly in the mainstream of economics. Again, your POV-pushing on this subject, paired with your ignorance of economics, are highly disruptive. Steeletrap (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Misesian economics is fringe
3) My evidence submission establishes this. As I detail there, The Misesians reject the use of data and the scientific method in econ. They are not published in academic journals unless they eschew their "a priori" methodology (i.e. cease to be Misesians and, e.g., use data in their papers for purposes of getting published). They proudly admit to being out of the mainstream. They clearly fit WP's definition of fringe, which is used "to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As I showed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop, the LvMI rejection of the scientific method does not reduce this approach to a fringe position. Rather, it is accepted as a legitimate minor method, not fringe; one worthy of discussion by mainstream economists. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This proposal is not within the purview of the Arbcom. It simply deals with article content. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong, Srich. The dispute is about user misconduct. We cannot evaluate whether many of the charges of misconduct are true without determining whether LvMI is fringe. For instance, you charge that I "mis-use" WP:Fringe policy by applying it to LvMI. Carol claims I am removing "RS" by removing Mises sources from articles on mainstream economic subject. We can't know if these charges are true without knowing whether LvMI is fringe. Your concern about this subject being debated is however noted. Steeletrap (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

CarolMooreDC is a disruptive editor
4) The evidence presented by SPECIFICO is overwhelming. Carol vilifies editors who disagree with her. As Sitush notes, she is a diehard libertarian political activist who prioritizes the advancement of her ideology over WP policy regarding RS -- e.g. her insistence that the Misesian economists should be considered "high quality" RS for economics. She also consistently says things about other users that aren't true. In addition to the ample examples of this from SPECIFICO's evidence, consider the dozen or so comments she has had to strike from the various Arbcom pages when called out by other users. Continually spreading false information, especially of a personal sort, is highly disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Excessive exaggeration. And I did strike erroneously entered inaccuracies and new evidence when asked. Have you? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Binksternet is a disruptive editor
5) The diffs provided by alaynyst establish this. Bink's tendentious insistence that Misesian sources, especially Murray Rothbard, should be used as RS in economics articles render him disruptive. Despite his (admitted) total absence of knowledge in economics, he refuses to listen to the views of other editors. He regularly edit-wars and questions the good faith of those who question his (again, admittedly) uninformed views. His combination of ignorance and arrogance, along with his failure to WP:AGF, make him a disruptive presence on the AE pages. (In response to requests for links, see User:Binksternet's tendentious insistence that Rothbard is a "giant" in economics(he cites only Misesians to support this claim) and his denigration of those who disagree with his false view. This talk page was added into evidence by alanyst.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Steeletrap says that "diffs provided by alanyst" establish me as a disruptive editor. Alanyst does not provide any such diffs, so the proposal has no foundation. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * alaynyst provided diffs from virtually every dispute we've been involved in. Your edit-warring and POV-pushing in spite of your lack of knowledge in economics, are admissable evidence. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Alanyst supplied links to discussions, and a bunch of interaction tool reports and timelines. Alanyst supplied a few diffs but none of them show me being disruptive. You will have to link to such diffs to prove your point. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alanyst provided lots of diffs in the evidence section, but where is there analysis that shows disruptive activity by Binksternet? – S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question, User:Binksternet: Do you still think Rothbard is a "giant" in economics, as you said in the link referenced above? In response to the evidence I presented, you seem to have pretty radically shifted on this. You've gone from claiming he's a "giant" in econ to now claiming he represents a "minor" (but not fringe) position. Since you got it so crashingly wrong then, and profess to knowing nothing about economics, do you understand why your credibility is so small? Steeletrap (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see these as mutually exclusive since someone who does so much to originate/build upon/promote a practically non-existent view (anarcho-capitalism) into something so serious that "economists" Steeletrap and SPECIFICO spend 3-6 hours a day contesting it, obviously has made a relatively large contribution to economics or at least economic discourse. Of course, it's still a minority position, but it's now on the radar as a minority position. Also, in the article there already are non-Misean mainstream sources making similar points, including in the lead and here, which have not been fully used for other points in the article. And there are more that never made it to the article since there was a constant fight to keep existing ones in, and deal with the WP:Undue/POV poorly sourced material Steeletrap especially constantly inserted in this bio and so many BLPs in the area. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ubikwit: Given the constant brouhahas over factoids, I really didn't get far enough into research about what some more mainstream sources have said about his contributions to broader economics. (And research on sources, not editor's opinions is what counts on Wikipedia.) All I know is Miseans/Rothbard's popularity among many individuals does raise hackles with both "mainstream" pro-government and some libertarian anti-government economists. In any case, I think I will list all the good sources on Rothbard on his talk page before the whip comes down: both connected and non-connected ones, already used ones likely to get deleted and those unknown number sitting on my harddrive. Hopefully someone will come along and do the article justice, Rothbard warts and all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have again changed the meaning of your writing after another editor has replied to it, violating good talk page practice. Please cite a Reliable Source not connected to Rothbard which asserts that he "obviously has made a relatively large contribution to economics or at least to economic discourse as you have written above. Relative to what? and how does this relate to the discussions here? Please cite the source to support your assertion and explain your use of the word "relatively" which, unless you specify the context and standard of comparison, is a weasel-word statement. We know for example that Rothbard contributed to discussions within the Mises Institute or his larger circle, but the same could be said of millions of people (that they had discussions with friends and associates) without giving us any useful guidance as to the significance of that fact in writing an objective public encyclopedia article. I hope this is clear.  Your assertion appears to be using your personal opinion as a basis for editing the article about your former associate, Rothbard. Please respond.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [insert: I merely added a clarification for you per the edit summary so you wouldn't have to ask more questions; a fool's errand, obviously. Otherwise, I don't really think all your nitpicking and opining and my opining and explaining back are the subject of this Arbitration; it's a problem which this Arbitration is supposed to solve. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap's proposal falls down on a number of points:
 * No diffs by Alanyst have been linked to show my notional disruptive behavior. No linked talk page posts by me show any disruptive behavior.
 * I do not "insist" that Rothbard and LvMI sources be considered "reliable sources" for the wide field of "economics", I just argue that they be allowed as filler sources for articles about LvMI topics, per WP:PRIMARY. Such argument is not disruptive; it is normal talk page activity.
 * No diffs can be brought forward to show I "refuse to listen to the views of other editors". Rather, I listen to the views of others, then I gauge them against Wikipedia policy and the reliable sources I have been looking at.
 * Certainly diffs can be found that show me reverting the additions of others, but the alleged pattern of "edit-warring" has not been shown. I have not been blocked for edit warring on this topic, and not for more than two years on any topic.
 * I have not violated the behavioral guideline WP:AGF, instead I have examined the words and actions of others and come to considered conclusions about them. I understand that editors who I disagree with may in fact think they are helping Wikipedia to improve. In that regard, we all have the same goal.
 * The link to the Rothbard talk page archive #3 shows me on my second day of involvement at that article quoting Edward Elgar Publishing: "Murray N. Rothbard was the leading voice of the Austrian School of Economics during its post-war American revival... The book confirms Rothbard as an intellectual giant, and presents his many contributions to the Austrian School..." The context was whether to use the economist infobox for Rothbard's biography. When I said Rothbard was considered a giant, I was referring to the publisher's quote. In no way is Edward Elgar Publishing ideologically associated with the Austrian school; they just do business with some LvMI scholars as publisher/client. Since that day in late July 2013, I have reduced my impression of Rothbard somewhat: I see him as a giant among the members of his schism within the Austrian school, and a giant thorn in the side of mainstream economists such as Milton Friedman. Note that my successful argument in late July 2013 helped establish a consensus to use the economist infobox which is still there today.
 * No diff has been brought forward showing me "denigrating" those with whom I disagree. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bink, you have written quite a bit but have failed to address the question. Do you still believe Rothbard is a "giant in economics"? I ask because you appear to have repudiate that view, and are now defending Rothbard as a "minor" voice within mainstream economics. (if he's not within mainstream dissent, he's fringe, according to the Wiki definition of that term.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if it was just the "publisher's quote" you were referring you, you should have used quotation marks. The way you presented it clearly implies that you endorsed that view. I am happy you have come to terms with the fact that you were wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bink, you are misrepresenting your contributions to these pages. You POV-pushed for a sub-section devoted to Murray Rothbard's polemic castigating the character of Milton Friedman on the latter's wiki entry (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milton_Friedman). That is not using Misesians as a "primary source," but rather as secondary RS to evaluate the views of an eminent mainstream figure. On that page, you disparaged the motives of those who disagreed with your view that Rothbard's polemic should be given a sub-section of its own. In fact, it was you who was engaged in tendentious editing and POV-pushing on behalf of a fringe perspective. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I joined a discussion wherein a number of editors argued that Friedman mentioning Rothbard in 1995 was a door opened to allow Rothbard's specific views about Friedman, along with Friedman's response. The wording of the paragraph was under discussion. There was no "tendentious editing"—I didn't touch the article. There was no "POV-pushing on behalf of a fringe perspective"—I was simply noting that Friedman mentioned Rothbard, so Rothbard was worthy of another sentence, to help the reader with context. Specifico insulted me directly following my suggestion: "I'm sure Friedman also replied when the waitress asked him 'one lump or two?'" Then you insulted my reasoning ability.
 * At that discussion, I explained to EllenCT that you and Specifico "despise Rothbard and his followers" and that you were both working to diminish Rothbard on Wikipedia. This is not disparaging your motives, it is my honest view of what is going on here, and I thought it was relevant for EllenCT to understand. However, in the same discussion, you said my "reasoning is ridiculous to the point of being mildly offensive," which is insulting. You later changed this to say my "reasoning is so goofy that it is almost surreal to read." Who is doing the disparaging here?
 * That discussion concluded with S.Rich, EllenCT, Carolmooredc, me, Yopienso and Bonewah expressing acceptance of some text involving Rothbard. Only Steeletrap and Specifico were against it, with MilesMoney tossing barbs but not stating his position. The Friedman biography may yet be expanded to include this material. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Woah, let's tone this down a bit. It doesn't really matter (in my opinion) whether Binksternet thinks or thought that Rothbard was a "giant" or not...he was trying to present the view he found in the sources, which is something that everyone should be doing. Likewise, the statement "I am happy you have come to terms with the fact that you were wrong" is completely unnecessary. This isn't US politics. People can change their views based on evidence, and that is a good thing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, I'm surprised and disappointed at your narrow, context-free interpretation of the situation. I am not saying Binksternet should be criticized because he believed that a promotional blurb by Rothbard's publisher, and praise from his non-economist employees, are ECON RS. I am saying he should be criticized for continually (tendentiously) disparaging the motives of those who disagree with his (frankly, pretty shoddy) arguments in favor of the Misesians. He also should be criticized for repeating (via copy-and-paste) false arguments months after conceding their falsity (e.g. his use of "Brian Doherty" on this very workshop). It is Bink's stridence, POV-pushing, and PAs which I object to more than his mistakes, although the frequency of those mistakes is disruptive and objectionable in its own rights. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, unless you are claiming that you somehow have direct access to other people's mental states, your remark was a personal attack and a disparagement. It is speculative to suggest that my editing is motivating by my "despising" Rothbard. Moreover, TE can apply to talk page editing/advocacy as well as direct edits to articles. The Friedman page, in which you argue for an inclusion of an entire sub-section devoted to Rothbard's polemic castigating Friedman (based on the fact that Friedman mentioned Rothbard in a 1995 interview (calling him a "cult builder [and a] dogmatist") was an example of your tendentious, heavy-handed, PA-laden attempt to impose a misunderstanding of policy. You need to read more and edit less on the subject of economics, on which you are completely (and openly) ignorant. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, are you stating that the promotional blurb from publisher Elgar's website is RS as to economics?  SPECIFICO  talk  00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bink wrote, "I explained to EllenCT that you and Specifico "despise Rothbard and his followers" and that you were both working to diminish Rothbard on Wikipedia." I really don't think it's OK to state, matter of factly, an irrelevant ad hominem as if it were fact.  If indeed there were evil no-good-faith editors on these articles, then their work could be correct by applying WP policy and expunging their violations.  The reason Binksternet's opinion of Rothbard-as-giant-economist is relevant is simple:  That view is not supported by independent RS references. Those who are in fact "giants" have hundreds of RS references and citations from mainstream journals, independent journalists, and other such sources. These Giants are cited by their peers and their contributions are described in textbooks and other independent RS.  Binksternet found obstinately refused to consider this fact when challenged/corrected not only by Steeletrap but, per Evidence, by others who are not parties to this arbitration.  For example, the bulk of his Evidence page submission is a cut and paste of his 2013 Noticeboard posting which was definitively rebutted there.  Continuing to present his opinion that Rothbard was a giant economist could be viewed as disruptive per policy and I fail to see why Steeletrap's objection is not germane.  The whole point is that Binksternet does not change his opinion according to evidence.  And his personal attacks are certainly unacceptable.  He has a long history of battleground behavior, on these and other articles.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to defend Binksternet here, but his posting above seems to directly refute what you say about him not changing his opinion despite evidence. In his words, "I have reduced my impression of Rothbard somewhat: I see him as a giant among the members of his schism within the Austrian school, and a giant thorn in the side of mainstream economists such as Milton Friedman." Isn't that roughly your position...that Rothbard is revered by his followers but scorned by mainstream economists? Anyway, I'm not trying to excuse him for his comments to EllenCT, just reign in some specific heated rhetoric that I didn't think was helpful. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Also, to address your other concern, I do think the sword cuts both ways, and it shouldn't matter what you and Steeletrap think about Rothbard as long as you're trying to represent the sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To continue Adjwilley's thought: "as long as you're trying to represent the sources accurately, not promote low quality partisan sources over higher quality neutral sources which you often remove, and as long as you don't add masses of WP:Undue negative material in an attempt to denigrate individuals in their biographies." These are the issues that annoyed Binksternet and my and other long term editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, Binksternet said 'Rothbard is a giant of economics', and said those who disagreed with him 'must' be doing so out of bias. He now admits he was misinformed. However, he says that 'Rothbard is not fringe', and says that those who disagree with him 'must' be doing so out of bias. He basically has moved 90% of the way toward our position, but still insists that our position must be borne of bias. See the pattern, and why this old stuff is relevant? Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm particularly pleased that you affirm what many editors have stated to Binksternet and Carolmooredc, over the past many months trying to put a stop to the stream of ad hominem disparagement of SPECIFICO, Steeletrap,, and others. With respect to Rothbard, it's not that he was a giant in any sense, positive or negative, in the world of economics.  Friedman responded to a direct personal smear from Rothbard. Few mainstream economists responded to Rothbard's economic writings in any way or at any time.  Those few who did pointed out Rothbard's logical inconsistencies and his faulty understanding of basic economic concepts.
 * What really matters with respect to these articles is this: By far the majority of my edits have stood the test of time and are stable parts of many of these articles. I suspect that the same is true of 's work as well, certainly after her first month or two of adjustment to some of our content and sourcing policies here on WP.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Going through Rothbard article more carefully for the first time in months, there's no doubt that what is in there is largely due to SPECIFICO and Steeletrap, including the three (3) mentions of historical revisionism in the lead. Other editors just gave up on it for reasons previous explained ad nauseam. Some of the new references do show promise for exploration for neutral and positive info not currently used. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put in a lot of hard work on these articles, finding RS references and actually reading the cited sources to understand what they say and to conform the article text to the cited source in countless instances. Carolmooredc, on the other hand, for all her stated concerns, has added conspicuously  little content to these articles, and nothing has prevented her from doing so.  Per my Evidence, several editors have quit these articles after having become  disgusted with Carolmooredc's behavior on various talk pages and noticeboards.  SPECIFICO  talk  05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For Rothbard, the term "revisionist historian" was not only a self-identification but a mantle of honor(see here, e.g.). His historical work, such as his declaring World War II a war of aggression by the U.S., but the Confederate cause in the Civil War heroic, was also substantively "revisionist." Rothbard was proudly out of the mainstream, and I wish more of his supporters were as bold and forthright as he was. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit wrote below:  my limited knowledge gained through statements and refs provided in the related Wikipedia articles. And the Rothbard article and related ones have been edited heavily by three POV warriors (one already banned) as most of us have complained here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * It seems to me that Rothbard was only on the radar of academia because he promulgated a potentially dangerous ideology based on premises that, while readily cognizable to the uninformed, are in fact unsubstantiated and have basically been proven to be unsubstantiated (and therefore false), which is why he was ostracized from academia.
 * In short, it doesn't matter to bona fide (academic) economists whether or not Rothbard is able to rally the (plebeian) libertarian masses under his "anarcho-capitalism" banner; that is to say, his erroneous pronouncements aren't thereby legitimized. In that sense, it could be said that his efforts were more political than scholarly, and Mises Institute is simply a vehicle to carry on his program. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't deny that Rothbard is notable, it's more a question of context, I suppose. He is certainly usable per WP:PRIMARY, and in contexts where his statements are addressed by other (more) notable mainstream economists. The fact remains, however, that he was ostracized by academia for his refusal to engage academia on academia's terms, and that would seem to be a decisive factor in evaluating the status of his statements on a given topic, because economists would not respond to him unless he made an outlandish statement, basically. I've said as much as possible based on my limited knowledge gained through statements and refs provided in the related Wikipedia articles.
 * I haven't read any of the discussions (or even every statement in this long thread), and was just posting a point of more general consideration in relation to evaluating statements about Rothbard. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 is a disruptive editor
6) Like Binksternet, his belief that the publications of the Misesians should be used as RS makes him disruptive. He also share's Binksternet's willingness to recourse to edit warring, and disparages the motives of users who believe the Misesians are fringe. His ignorance of RS and WP:Fringe policy leads him to make erroneous accusations. A revealing example (cited by Rich the evidence page): I removed from the article of Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate UChicago economist (and libertarian), a polemic written by Murray Rothbard castigating Friedman's personal character. This polemic, written by a then-instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute (who refused to publish in academic journals), had been used by Misesian editors to create an entire sub-section in the article the most important academic economist since Keynes. I deleted it per WP:Undue. On the evidence page, Rich cites this deletion as an egregious case of bias. His attempt to impose erroneous understandings of policy on the community is disruptive. Steeletrap (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely no diffs have been provided to show any attempt to impose, or even assert, erroneous understanding of policy by me. Moreover, I do not have a "belief" that Misesian publications are RS. Evaluating RS involves analysis of the material, the author, and the publisher. I have repeatedly stressed that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Srich32977 has been very good on WP:RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Carolmooredc site-banned
1) is indefinitely site banned. This restriction should not be extended to her talk page, to which she should have full access. It may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than one year has passed from the closing of this case. Steeletrap (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Given Carol's seven years of active editing on WP, and her inability to change her editing style through all of that time (despite various admin admonitions and sanctions), the committee should ask itself "Is Carol's presence a net positive to Wikipedia"? Steeletrap (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sanctions plural? Did I miss more than the one block? Or a ban? Or something else? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "sanction" needn't only refer to blocks. Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you tell us what diffs in evidence show I have been sanctioned, besides the 2011 block which I described in detail. I hope you don't think Austrian economics/general sanctions was directed solely at me? Or the mild warnings we've both gotten from admins were sanctions? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Steeletrap topic-banned
2) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after one year from the date this case is closed. Steeletrap (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't mind being banned, even indefinitely. The vast majority of my contributions are stable and in conformity with policy -- they will outlive me on WP. Moreover, I have crossed the line a couple times (mocking Rothbard's picture was completely unacceptable), and let myself be provoked. If I could have some assurance that Bink, Rich and especially Carol would also be TBd, I would happily endure the same fate. We need some fresh blood on these pages -- unconnected contributions who know about the subject and haven't been involved in past disputes. Steeletrap (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree heartily. And [ban] SPECIFICO too, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not agree heartily. Please don't speak for me. SPECIFICO  talk  22:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added [ban] so there is not ambiguity to someone not familiar with the parties. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per talk page practice, the later addition should be indicated at the place of its insertion. SPECIFICO  talk  00:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Srich32977 is topic-banned
3) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after one month from the date this case is closed. Steeletrap (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Only one month? But Binksternet gets a whole year? (Perhaps a typo.) In any event, a TBAN for either of us is not supported by diffs. (Also, I might take a wikibreak from these topics because I have smaller fish to fry.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a typo. I believe that after being TBd, you will adjust your behavior accordingly. This is in large part due to your fixation on becoming an admin and currying favor from the 'higher-ups' in the community. Bink on the other hand has a long track record of blocks and edit-warring. He does not seem to respond to sanctions unless they are very draconian. Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Binksternet is topic-banned
4) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after one year from the date this case is closed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Nobody here has shown that I have an editing problem centered on the Austrian school of economics, so this proposal has no foundation. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No diffs support this proposal. – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt he'll be around anyway if there aren't flagrant violations of policy to deal with, as there have been. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

False allegations are disruptive
1) False allegations are disruptive and are especially serious when repeated. Such allegations may be connected to lack of competence or trolling.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is an important principle and a sentence at least could be added to a "Decorum" section. Yes, people can misstate things but if they are willing to correct themselves, fine. However, there have been multiple instances of this issue throughout editing of these articles. I think we've had enough back and forth on various specifics and Arbitrators will see the various issues. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:EllenCT has made baseless allegations that are disruptive
1)
 * EllenCT says in her evidence that "Austrian economics proponents tend to remove, whitewash, and obscure the position of the peer reviewed secondary economics literature". The diffs in her evidence refers to edititing of User:VictorD7, User:Mattnad, User:Capitalismojo and User:Morphh in standard economics articles (Progressive tax, Economy of the United States, Government spending). The diffs do not in any way prove evidence that the editors Ellen have been in dispute with are "Austrian economics proponents" that have worked towards making those standard economics articles biased towards the Austrian Economics viewpoint.
 * On the evidence talk page, Ellen says "The editors with the behavior problems on the subject of the case edit from the premise that taxation is theft by force instead of a means of maintaining and supporting commerce", but provides no diffs for her assertion.
 * On the workshop page, Ellen repeats her allegation "Editors in agreement with Austrian economics have substantially harmed the accuracy of the encyclopedia, including [...] the parties who claimed to have been implicated by the evidence I submitted". Yet again, there is no evidence that the four implied in her evidence regarding standard economics articles have unduly promoted Austrian economics in those articles.
 * And further I have been living a constant nightmare of finding neo-libertarian whitewashing almost every time I look at my watchlist
 * In the evalutation of evidence section, she says "If someone edits general or biographical articles in support of Austrian School principles in fiscal or monetary policy topics, for example by tending to suggest that Austrian School views are reputable, mainstream, or supported by reliable sources, or if they edit in opposition to the views represented most favorably in the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature by favoring Austrian School positions, then they are an Austrian School proponent whether they call themselves that or not, even if they claim not to know what Austrian economics is. Actions speak louder than words". In an ArbCom case, we could paraphrase the last sentence to state that diffs speak louder than words. And diffs for anybody unduly inserting views of the Austrian school in ordinary economics articles are notable absent.
 * Basically, EllenCT is fighting against Austrian proponents that simply aren't there.
 * She has disrupted the ArbCom case, disrupted the four accused editors by her baseless accusations and have shown a disruptive pattern of editing in articles she has been involved in (see comments from VictorD7, Mattnad, Capitalismojo and Morphh)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

EllenCT admonished
1) ElleCT is admonished for claiming that Victor7,Mattnad, Capitalismojo and Morphh have unduly promoted Austrian economics in their editing without any credible evidence at all to back up the allegation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * She should be encouraged to edit in an area where she is not so emotionally involved and reactive so that she can learn policy in a less stressful environment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This, or a short topic ban, might be helpful to help EllenCT understand that her approach is disruptive. See my comments on a one way interaction ban below.  I think at least on talk pages, we can engage or ignore her.Mattnad (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

One-way interaction ban for EllenCT
2) One-way interaction ban for EllenCT in relation to Victor7, Mattnad, Capitalismojo and Morphh. She can seek to have the interaction ban lifted 6 months after the case has ended.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I strongly support the above proposals. EllenCT has been enormously disruptive on various articles. This goes way beyond content or ideology, as she's alienated good faith editors from across the political spectrum, and is about her persistent misrepresentation and energetic irrationality that have been on full display in this very arbitration process for all to see. Perhaps some kind of extended cooling off period would cause her to alter her behavior and return as a useful editor, but regardless it would certainly be healthier for Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, my interactions with EllenCT have been polite albeit maddening. The problem as I see it is her edits to article which are tendentious.  While an interaction ban would limit her somewhat, a more useful tool would be either admonishment (so she gets an official message) or short topic ban and see how that goes.Mattnad (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably should have asked you whether you thought such a ban was needed. Otherwise; an issue here is that the case is about Austrian economics and the articles and disputes where EllenCT has been disruptive do not involve Austrian economics (afaik), so I don't think the arbitrators will look into her overall behaviour. The only thing I can see that links EllenCT to Austrian Economics is the way she has inserted herself in this case with false accusations that other editors (via diffs identified to the four of you) are promoting Austrian economis in general economics articles. Since EllenCT is not a party in the case (as of yet), the arbitratrors probably won't do anything regarding her, but I think they should make clear that it's not acceptable to make disruption in an ArbCom case the way Ellen has done. This can be limited to an admonishment of course. Iselilja (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by Floquenbeam
Draft of principles for proposed decision...posted here for comment prior to posting on PD page. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I know this is a principle of Arbcom and that you did not choose to adopt it. But this principle is illogical and it's time to nix it. I hope you'll consider doing so right now, Floquen (your colleague, Salvio, expressed sympathy for my critique of it on the general Arbitration page). You just can't decouple content disputes from behavioral allegations. For example, one of your chosen principles says that you can't use articles for propaganda purposes; another says no OR. It's impossible to evaluate whether and to what extent those principles are being violated without rendering judgment on content users are adding to articles. Steeletrap (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that Principles (1) and (2) are mutually interdependent, with no bright line distinction between them. Separating "other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts...even when these actions are undertaken in good faith" from "good-faith content disputes" often requires judgment based on knowledge of the topics and references. SPECIFICO  talk  02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project. If an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, they must attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to the conduct described above.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't know whether the following is within the purview of Arbcom or within the scope of this case. However, a factor which significantly contributed to and exacerbated the dysfunctional behavior in these articles was the failure of Admins, before and even after lengthy discussion which led to adoption of Community Sanctions, to enforce WP policy with respect to such behavior.  I recall having accused of tendentious argument when I questioned the wisdom of relying on Admins to enforce such authority if the Community were to delegate it to them.  Since that time, however, for whatever their reasons no Admin chose to apply these sanctions in an effective manner.  The hectoring and incivility in this matter could have been mitigated or ended by experienced editors or Admins demonstrating to the Community that such behavior will not be tolerated on WP.  The failure of established processes and remedies such as ANI or Admin intervention was surprising and disappointing to me.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Casting of aspersions
4) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be made in the appropriate forum to report or discuss such conduct, and should not be spread across every available area. Claims of misconduct should be made with a view of resolving the problem, not with an intent toward impugning the reputation of the accused editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that it's particularly important that experienced editors with many years and tens of thousands of edits on WP not attack and pile on editors with far less experience in editing and the ins-and-outs of the WP community. This includes mis-use of noticeboards, wikilawyering, and inciting ANI actions and threats based on incomplete, undocumented, or misleading statements and complaints.   The effect of such behavior is to make less experienced editors confused and defensive about WP process and instead of demonstrating clear application of stated policies and norms.  Over time, WP suffers relatively high attrition of valuable new or less active editors while enabling unconstructive behavior among some long-time editors.  This tendency works against the fundamental principle of openness which is critical to the Project's success.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement assumes that new users and less active users are valuable. Such value should be demonstrated, not assumed. If a relatively inexperienced user creates problems and needs to be discussed at noticeboards, so be it. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if an editor registered for 4-6-8 months still has to be taken to noticeboards repeatedly by different editors after lengthy talk page explanations on the same issues (like not using SPS in BLPs), how can one really fault more experienced editors? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against the article subject, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Battleground conduct
6) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Seeking community input
7) Should a discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since Alanyst brought it up, there's also the issue of editors whose versions were rejected by the community not just waiting a couple weeks and reverting back to the same old material with maybe one minor/low quality new ref and some minor variation in language and in talk page arguments. I guess that's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Might be good to add something about how such feedback ought (not) to be received. Treating an outside commenter's feedback with disregard or contempt, or debating it tendentiously, or attempting to get them to take sides in interpersonal conflicts, serves mainly to discourage that editor from attempting to help in future disputes. It is essentially an abuse of the collaborative mechanism that drives Wikipedia. alanyst 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Patterns of behavior
8) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Conduct during arbitration cases
9) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case will be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing to say about this point in particular, but I am concerned that no principle related to BLP violations has been posted. Iselilja (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Attn:Iselilja) I intend to include one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

EllenCT's submission

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Much of what EllenCT has written relates to pro-Austrian (or what she sees as pro-Austrian) editors working on economics articles, while this case is about editing of articles about Austrians. Most of the disputes do not even involve economics.  I auggest that this evidence be struck out as irrelevant.  TFD (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, I haven't been involved in any articles that I remember with EllenCT. I don't know if any of the editors EllenCT cites identify as being "Austrian", as opposed to generally free market or pro-capitalist. And she doesn't link to any of the biographical articles of Austrians that have been the major areas of dispute. So her evidence does look irrelevant to me as well. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT appears to misapprehend the point of this Arbitration proceeding. It was started because of internecine squabbling among Austrian school editors who were or were not friendly to the Rothbard/Misesian/LvMI faction. Instead, EllenCT thinks this is about Austrian topics spilling over into mainstream economics topics. Ellen's contribution is thus fatally flawed. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I comment here because I was apparently mentioned in EllenCT's evidence submission. I find this odd because I don't believe I have ever edited Austrian economics (or related biography or organization articles). I have interacted with EllenCT only on other articles in trying to remove edits (usually graphs) that were classic examples of WP:SYNTHESIS that the editor had dropped into a large variety of other articles, ordinarily without consensus, and frequently unrelated to those articles. Not having edited the relevant (Austrian economics) article I don't have further comment on her evidence, except to say I obviously am not part of a "POV railroad cabal" or "whitewashing" "tag-team" on any article (much less ones I've not edited or watchlisted). Capitalismojo (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I'd like to also say that this editor has had, in my opinion, real difficulty listening or perhaps understanding questions of synthesis. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's submission

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I am commenting here because I was also mentioned by EllenCT here and here  as evidence of my connection to a group of editors guilty of promulgating Austrian economics in an abusive way.  I have never participated in the Austrian economics discussion and I have no understanding of what Austrian economics are.  EllenCT's most recent accusations are a form of administrative coatrack that perfectly represent her strategy on other economics oriented articles. However, the fact that EllenCT has felt it appropriate to include me in this arbitration is emblematic of her misunderstanding or misuse of Wikipedia.


 * For instance:
 * one of her diffs cited in her evidence of my joining this group of Austrian economics oriented editors is my objection to her adding a graph showing the net tax returns by tax payer education, in the Government spending article with the caption, "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.".  Without a reliable source, I felt the graphs were inappropriate and misleading.  I attempted to address this concern with EllenCT on her talk page here User_talk:EllenCT.  The dialog speaks for itself, but I'll add that when asked a direct question, EllenCT is evasive and resorts to name calling and arguing I lacked competence.
 * In this RFC Talk:Progressive_tax, EllenCT was pushing for a graph that was not supported by reliable sources. After the RFC concluded against her position, she once again inserted the graph on another article  about a month later, ignoring the RFC.


 * The pattern as I see it that EllenCT draws a conclusion, puts it into an article which is sometimes only tangentially relevant, and when challenged, resorts to name calling or trotting out a list of sources that do not support what she has written.


 * I have considered bringing her misconduct with the multiple diff to an appropriate forum, but I'm hopeful that she will eventually get the message here without that step.Mattnad (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's submission

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm also commenting because I was mentioned in EllenCT's evidence submission along with the discussions for two of the articles referenced. While I'm familiar and have studied the differing schools of economic thought, I haven't participated in the articles or disputes which are the subject of this Austrian economics case, nor do I have them on my watchlist.  With regard to the evidence presented by EllenCT, I recommend reviewing the full discussion on the topics: Progressive tax (RFC discussion, Graph discussion), Government spending (full discussion).  These are just two articles among many which include the same type of discussion, but you'll see that my disputes with Ellen have primarily been with what I perceive as her soapboxing economic inequality topics into various articles using tendentious editing and repeated insertions of synthesis.  I don't say that as a personal attack, but as a description of her behavior, which has been observed by numerous editors.  She uses primary sources and then applies her own interpretation to the text.  If we disagree with the verifiability or off-topic coatrack, we're personally attacked as incompetent for not seeing the obvious common knowledge or labeled whitewashing libertarian "Randroids".  In one example, even after an RFC and consensus determines a graph's causality is not supported by sources, she persists (WP:IDHT) in including it in other articles and disregards opposition as systemic bias. In another case of SYN, we should just trust her mathematical reasoning.  She repeatedly misrepresents the views and statements of sources, as well as wikipedia editors, for example some false statements concerning me .  The lack of editorial trust for Ellen has us verifying anything pertinent she writes.  Many editors are at their end with her behavior and it's my hope that, while I expect not pertinent to this case, reviewing admins will help address the problem.


 * I'd also ask you to take look at her intro paragraph and see if that lines up with what you know to be policy. For one, most academic literature is primary, not secondary as she states.  Our policy reminds us to be careful with primary sources "because it is easy to misuse them", and that she does by adding interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about the material, exactly what WP:RS warns.  Also note the extreme interpretation of WP:DUE, which again focuses on her primary sources and her discretion as to what is notable based on population.  And then, if included, other views are to be described as diverging from the most accurate and reliable sources (not prominence among RS) - I note the subjectivity of what is most accurate and reliable because she's argued that her view is the most recent and reliable based on a new research publication, even though research released at the same time disagreed and the scholarly consensus and institutional use was clearly not there.  The viewpoint was still fringe (tiny minority view), but in her view, it deserved all the weight and wanted to exclude the widely held methodologies used by the government and industry.  I just wanted to point this out, as it's an example of what we're having to debate and the amount of time wasted on an editor that seems WP:NOTHERE.   Morphh   (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's submission

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I hope that this is the proper way to use this template--just following suit as per the above postings.
 * At any rate, I'm here because I'm interested in seeing how the sourcing issues play out.
 * Regarding EllenCT's evidence posting, there are some involved sources she posted, and I am not going to look through all those due to a lack of time as well as the fact that I am not an economist. However, there is an ideological overlap between the topics to which she refers and the Austerians Austrians and Libertarians, so I don't think that the matters she has pointed out are unrelated to the topic.
 * However, in light of the complexity of some of the sources, it would behoove her to be more proactive in demonstrating how they support the assertions she wants to make.
 * I basically agree with her position on social infrastructure, and have edited the Government spending article to introduce the concept where it was implied but missing and basically obscured in a somewhat jumbled and unwieldy paragraph.
 * I addressed one of the sources in the thread on her talk page referred to by Mattnad above, and also pointed out that a link to another didn't work. It seems that the source I mentioned on her talk page may offer weak support for some of what she wants to use that graph to say, but it is somewhat unclear, as indicated by Mattnad as well. The statement appended to the graph stated "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.". It seems that it may be a valid statement, but the support for it in the RS has not been adequately elucidated. If Ellen has the expertise to demonstrate RS support for that statement or something proximal thereto, she should take the time to make the case, and I hope that she intends to do so here. Not being an expert myself, maybe to an expert WP:Common knowledge applies to some extent, maybe she is trying to combine too many sources in a way that straddles WP:SYNTH.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Submissions by Steeletrap and Shii vis-a-vis WP:FRINGE

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I see that User:Ubikwit (who started this thread) has become quite active in Austrian economics-related articles, RSNs, and related policy discussions the last few weeks; not quite enough to be called a "party" at this point. His postings usually do look at both sides of an issue, though it would help if he gave sources for his quoted statements below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * While it appears obvious that some of the statements Steeletrap has referenced would automatically be considered fringe, there would also appear to be more complex issues related to the characterization “heterodox”, and the relationship of the Mises Institute to the Austrian School.


 * The use of the term “heterodox” appears to have fallen out of favor since the 1990, with the increasing use of “pluralism” being used in its stead to characterize schools of economic thought and combinations thereof outside of the mainstream. The Heterodox economics article contains numerous relevant passages."Heterodox schools of economics are also usually dismissed as 'fringe' and 'irrelevant' by serious and prominent mainstream economists.""”…the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE) does not define 'heterodox economics' and has avoided defining its scope. ICAPE defines its mission as 'promoting pluralism in economics.'"


 * Examining the original meaning of the word heterodox is useful in demonstrating why it has fallen out of favor in economics. The best example I can think of is the case of Isaac Newton's religious views. Newton was an adherent to Arianism, which was considered a heterodox doctrine. The point is that Arianism represents a coherent doctrine that is a paradigm unto itself and capable of being both understood and rationally engaged/refuted by adherents of the orthodox doctrine.


 * Looking at the Austrian School article, it is readily apparent that before they started being characterized as heterodox their members comprised academics that published widely, developed actual theories and engaged the mainstream theories. In fact, the split is characterized in terms of those associated with Hayek, and those not. Hayek published Individualism and Economic Order. Here, another passage from the Heterodox economics article states"…mainstream economics deals with the 'rationality-individualism-equilibrium nexus' and heterodox economics is more 'radical' in dealing with the 'institutions-history-social structure nexus'."and that statement would seem to indicate that Hayek's work addressed concerns associated with issues in the mainstream.


 * In light of the recent exchanges between Krugman/DeLong and Murphy, and the breakaway group of Austrians known as the Miseians that have basically been ostracized by academia as well as criticized in the following terms (from Austrian_School)"Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory. Caplan says that Rothbard did not understand the position he was attacking, because microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility."it would appear that there may be an endemic problem with the topic that straddles the fringe issue insofar as there are two distinct and disparate factions associated with the Austrian School. And that would seem to call for some clarification in relation to WP:FRINGE.


 * In short, is economics considered a social science, and therefore subject to Pseudoscience and other fringe theories"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."


 * If so, is it WP:OR to characterize as pseudoscience the statements made by the above-described individuals associated with the Mises Institute that have been criticized by several prominent economists as being irrational in one form or another?


 * Meanwhile, other statements referred to by Steeletrap would appear to obviously be fringe (e.g., Criticisms), whereas the economists that are associated with Hayek are either mainstream or academics actively engaging mainstream theories, etc.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to analyses of evidence by EllenCT
If someone edits general or biographical articles in support of Austrian School principles in fiscal or monetary policy topics, for example by tending to suggest that Austrian School views are reputable, mainstream, or supported by reliable sources, or if they edit in opposition to the views represented most favorably in the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature by favoring Austrian School positions, then they are an Austrian School proponent whether they call themselves that or not, even if they claim not to know what Austrian economics is. Actions speak louder than words. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * EllenCT linked to no biographical articles in her evidence section, and none of the discussions she did link to outside of the MilesMoney paragraph were about Austrian economics. They mostly involved editors (including me) taking issue with her POV coatracking, and the opposition was ideologically diverse, as my evidence page rebuttal shows. I'm very familiar with Austrian economics, but it's unclear that EllenCT is. Her evidence talk page post associates it with "the Bible" (diff) and "advocates for the rich". Just because someone's views overlap with Austrians' on particular issues, both economic (like broadly supporting the free market) and non-economic, doesn't make him an Austrian per se. The views in question (real and imagined by EllenCT) are hardly exclusive to Austrian proponents, and she's the one who's been rejecting mainstream sources in favor of obscure ones that share her ideology. Also, lest anyone believe that Ellen is competent to report on "peer reviewed literature", she has repeatedly cited (links in my evidence section) this article as proof that there's a scholarly consensus that consumers bear at least half the corporate tax burden. She even called it the "best" source. The paper is clearly about the labor burden, not consumers.  Indeed my searching yielded 0 mentions of the word "consumers" in any form. Feel free to check yourself. So far Ellen has ignored all requests to support her claims with a sourced quote or retract them. I post this not to have a content dispute here, but to highlight her behavior. VictorD7 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Consumers, currently about 70% of the U.S. economy, overlap so substantially with labor, currently about 58% of the U.S. economy, that VictorD7's repeated claim that corporations pass their taxes on to labor but not consumers is completely absurd. EllenCT (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Consumers "overlap" entirely with workers and investors since they all consume. But they're different activities, and the article is about how much corporate incidence falls on employee wages (at an industry specific level to boot; not wherever people shop) versus people's capital income. It's not about consumption at all. If I'm wrong, please provide a single quote supporting your claim. Just one. This isn't about my views, but an accurate representation of sources. I'll also note that you failed to rebut the observations that your links weren't to biography articles or to discussions about Austrian economics. At issue here is whether you're capable of exhibiting the basic good faith rationality required for collaborative discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you using Marxist terms instead of Adam Smith's terms? What is your motivation for all this? EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that EllenCT failed to supply a single quote supporting her claim, or to retract the claim. Her last reply wasn't even a rational response. This highlights the persistently disruptive behavior from her that so many editors are complaining about. VictorD7 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * EllenCT's comment above demonstrates her disregard and disdain for any editor that does not agree with her - all are Austrian economists by her yard stick. I have to ask... is this an editor who can work in a collaborative environment?  Is a topic ban in order here? Mattnad (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My concern is whether editors agree with the reliable source criteria, not whether they agree with me. The suggestion that I think "all are Austrian economists" when I specifically and prominently referred to the success of the New Keynesians in the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature reviews, in turn because of their success with the prediction of historical outcomes from prior data, suggests to me that topic bans of those who agree with the Austrian School are most certainly in order because of the behavior patterns they continue to demonstrate. EllenCT (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we presume you are sincere, then you fundamentally do not understand WP:RS and WP:OR, as well as WP:Coatrack (and the coatrack applies to your general editing choices, as well as your inclusion of articles and editors unrelated to the Austrian Economics arbitration)Mattnad (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No reasonable editor could possibly think there is a reasonable reply to such a statement. EllenCT (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah... but you are not a reasonable editor, so your statement is not applicable. Here is an RFC that indicate you have recently engaged in WP:OR: 1, and two indicating WP:Coatrack: 2, 3. The are many, many discussions where these themes are repeated.  Are you saying that all of the editors who commented on the RFCs against your approach are part of an Austrian Economics "cabal"?Mattnad (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Analyses of evidence by Steeletrap

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per Adjwilley's comment below, and discussion of unclear guidelines at this talk page and the Evidence talk page, I have  moved my January 30 posting to those pages. Others who posted new evidence here can see both talk pages to decide for themselves what to do. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (updated 2/3/14


 * Just to clarify: I disagree with User:Adjwilley's insinuation that I misrepresented Rothbard. He clearly does not believe that torture of criminals suspects should be criminalized per se. I crossed the torture/child starving stuff because there were more illustrative examples of his fringiness available -- e.g. on real-wrold politics. rather than speculative utopian philosophy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I hope the fact that Carol's inability to read and follow policy -- i.e. posting this to the wrong forum --, even when reporting alleged violations of policy, is noted. (Please copy and past my and TP's comments when you do move these to the evidence page, Carol.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving my January 30 "evidence analysis" to the Evidence talk page may or may not have been the right thing for me to do. After all it really was predominantly a point-by-point fleshing out of my comments about her evidence which I presented on the evidence page. In any case, it was more than adequately discussed by various parties there, if Arbitrators want to look at it. But just to make a couple of "analysis" points more like others presented here, and which I may not have written there:
 * The "shock value" examples of "fringe" Steeletrap shares in her evidence are like a large percentage of the material she adds, the WP:Undue weight she gives to it and the arguments she uses to support her additions. Much of it violates WP:BLP's instruction: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Many of Steeletrap's edits are obvious soapbox and advocacy edits that make a mockery of WP:NPOV principles.
 * Steeletrap's edits often focus on just such "evidence of fringe" and ignore what people are most notable for and/or focus only on criticisms. These criticisms often come from partisan sources, low quality sources and even self-published blogs. The claim, as evidenced, that only these negative comments make the person notable at all is a poor excuse for this kind of editing. This is especially true when Steeletrap removes (or supports the removal of) multiple forms of evidence of notability from mainstream sources. This has necessitated multipe trips to WP:RSN where other editors have been surprised to see such obviously unsupportable removals. (Per WP:RSN links provided.)
 * Several long-time editors repeatedly have pointed these problems with Steeletrap's editing since April, but she thinks we are all POV warriors out to whitewash the truth. Maybe she'll finally listen to Arbitrators about these editing practices. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc, you are assuming that which you are attempting to demonstrate. For example, which item of evidence shows Steeletrap adding "titilating claims about people's lives" to WP?  What claim are you making about the RSN threads? Which editors, which threads? You need to cite from the case Evidence.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not write the policy. I was referring to the "sensationalist" additions of "shock value" evidence which I have documented in both my Evidence on the evidence talk page and my fleshing it out of the evidence talk page. There may be some who find WP:Undue amounts of accusatory material in the Rothbard/Block/etc. articles titilating, perhaps like the NY Times writers who wrote the January article on Rand Paul. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, weasel-word reply about "some who..." is not helpful. Please reply to my questions. Which threads, which editors, which "titilating claims"? If they're in your evidence, cite the diffs. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck joke about NY times writers since this really is an either or situation and Shock value, which is an example of Wikipedia policy "sensationalist", is the issue. Examples exist in my detailed point by point Analysis of Steeletrap's evidence, my evidence under BLP issues, and in evidence presented by The Four Deuces, SRich, Iselilja (showing animus motivating editing), Binksternet. Please read the evidence. We aren't supposed to fill up the pages with lots of diffs and discussion already there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This belongs on the evidence page.--v/r - TP 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces submission

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * re: Steeletrap/SPECIFICO: The Four Deuces in his Evidence presentation does an excellent job of detailing just two of the dozens of incidents of Steeletrap and SPECIFICO's Failure or refusal to get the point, especially if the point interferes with pushing their POV. In my evidence I present numerous bulleted examples of this behavior which complements his. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Regarding evidence submitted by SRich32977

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Posted by SRich32977 – Austrian economics (AE), in each of its manifestations, is not mainstream, but that does not make it WP:FRINGE. AE is heterodox, that does not make it FRINGE. AE thought is discussed in a WP:Walled Garden, but that does not make it FRINGE. AE is/can be described as fringe (when compared to mainstream thought), that does not make it FRINGE. AE is a school of thought that does not rely on mathematics, statistics, scientific method, etc., but that does not mean it is scientific or non-scientific. It is more philosophical than scientific, so it is improper to describe it as fringe-science or pseudo-science or FRINGE. In Wikipedia, the proper place to argue FRINGE is on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard – but the FT/N has a single focused thread on AE posted here in 2008.
 * This is important because in the evidence I've provided – A/2, A/4, A/5, A/8, A/9, B/8, B/9 and by her own admission – we see that Steeletrap misconstrues FRINGE and thereby seeks to justify POV edits. Specifico justifies removal as fringe at D/5.
 * Ah, yes, AE is not mainstream – e.g., we do not see AE discussed in mainstream economics journals. (Except we see that Paul Krugman makes derogatory comments in the NYT.) But AE is having an impact in non-economic-journal areas. E.g., we have Ron Paul and John Stossel admitting their preference for AE, if not for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Yet we see Steeletrap removing RS about this influence/impact sourced by "mainstream" media such as Stossel (B/4), the HPR (B/5), and WSJ (B/13). Positive remarks by Hayek are removed at B/10. (Removing positive commentary, based upon flimsy, invented rationales, serves to reinforce arguments that AE is not mainstream/FRINGE.) Sadly, Steeletrap goes a step further and seeks to find (and construe) negative information about AE/Mises.org/Mises.org-affiliated persons. A/7 (with B/12) is one example. The edits surrounding B/1 is another – Steeletrap want to add a side-remark in a blog about Ron Paul to describe Rothbard as anti-evolution-theory. In B/13 Steeletrap leaves poorly sourced material about LvMI as a cult (which is eventually removed as non-RS/UNDUE.) As noted in the Evidence, Steeletrap has restored the WSJ material and edited the supported text. This indicates willingness to edit in a NPOV fashion. But did this occur simply because the ArbCom had been opened? I would hope that such was not the case; Steeletrap, it seems, insists that fringe is an important factor in her analysis.
 * SPECIFICO abets Steeletrap in these efforts. He tags articles for notability (D/7) when they should be improved, he removes suitable, sourced material (D/1, D/2, D/3, D/5, D/6), he encouraged, he supported the notorious (now community-banned & owntalk-indeffed) User:MilesMoney (C/7), and he posts disruptive comments and warnings that don't pertain to article improvement (C/1, C/2, C/3, C/5, C/6, C/7, C/8, C/9, C/10, C/11, C/12, E/2).
 * Recognizing that Specifico's comments about me and to me are often personal, I am irritated that he won't WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP (E/3) and persisted in posting a critical ad hominem remark about an Austrian Economics sanction on various talk pages (E/1).
 * Steeletrap describes herself as a Progressive (I assume, supporting big government), and seems allied with SPECIFICO who describe himself as Austrian (I assume, less-than-enthusiastic-about-big government). Could it be that they are allied to denigrate a branch of the Austrian School (promoted by Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and others) because they have a mutual enemy? The Justin Fox articles in Time magazine (,, & ) make me wonder. (But this is a side-rumination.) In summary, I think they have made some helpful contributions to Wikipedia, but the contentious nature (we are more WP:COMPETENT than you are) of their POVs is disruptive in the end. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

-
 * Ubikwit's mocking the Austrian school as "Austerians" (has we know Paul Krugman has repeatedly in NY Times columns) is not helpful to the discussion. Stossel was used for book reviews of a popular economics book, published by RS, used in the author Walter Block's bio and the book article, and show general notability, so they are appropriate. Moreover SPECIFICO was so opposed to using an F.A. Hayek favorable quote, it ended up at WP:RSN where it still is. Ron Paul, as a former congressman who has written and spoken on economics is relevant to bios regarding general notability and might possibly be used in economics articles, especially regarding legislation he promoted in congress and news reports of that. (PS: still not sure what the heck we can discuss here; except that no new evidence allowed.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting; live and learn! FYI, you used it in a EllenCt section above also. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I see Srich analyzed away here, linking to his diffs in Evidence. And he did a good job. Couple comments:
 * Austrian economics uses a lot of Economic history and some of economists are described as economic historians, though per a diff I linked to, we had to bring their opposition to 10 odd WP:RS to WP:RSN to get that factoid approved as RS for Rothbard.
 * Re: SPECIFICO's many disruptive comments, I just let all my complaints about harassment, and their diffs, speak for themselves.
 * Analysis of motivations are not "side-ruminations" but the core of the issue. Thus my various diffs presented in evidence.
 * Yes there's been a 30% improvement in their behavior since MilesMoney got banned and maybe 10% more with Arbitration, but not enough to assure me that post-Arbitration they would not quickly return to their wicked BLP-violating tendentious ways. And, yes, 50% plus of their removals were acceptable and got no arguments from me. 90% plus of their sources can be kept; but the problems with WP:undue/POV sectioning and descriptions and highly negative opinion material from relatively partisan sources still must be deal with by some more NPOV editor to comply with BLP and NPOV policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap and I are separate individuals in this Arbitration. Please differentiate between us when you are making allegations or speculating as to our motives or behavior. SPECIFICO  talk  17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to me, I'm averaging my numbers regarding two editors, whether working separately or on the same articles. The numbers themselves are obviously a subjective quantification of my sense of things and a replacement for "a little" or "some" or "quite a bit" or "most". Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please consider what I said. What if somebody were to average you, EllenCT, AFQK and Ubikwit? Would that be meaningful or constructive?  SPECIFICO  talk  14:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These really are editing and RS issues that should be dealt with at the articles or WP:RSN since content is not a purview of the Arbitration. Add info you think needs adding and see what happens. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Hmm, some interesting commentary there, but one point that stuck out like a sore thumb for me was the WP:RS fact that Ron Paul and John Stossel are not RS on economics of any sort, let alone the exotica of the Austerians Austrians; meanwhile, Paul Krugman is.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck "Austerians" and replaced it with 'Austrians'. I had not been aware that it represented a form of mockery. I'd assumed it had been a naming adapted as a shorthand to distinguish followers of the economics school at issue here from the people of Austria, ie., "Austrians".
 * I looked the term up and see that it is characterized as a pejorative term according the definition here.
 * Regardig Carol's comments on sourcing, I checked the links she posted, an it seems that the statements are citable--at least with attribution--so I suppose that I stand corrected with respect to the remark "not RS on economics of any sort", insofar as the book by Block is acknowledged to be a "popular economics book". Seeing that the comments are by a "Fox Business News pundit" and a libertarian politician, their commentary would seem notable only insofar as the commentators are notable, not because they are experts on economics.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment on the response above by Carol. Having gone through some of the Walter Block article, I noticed that Ron Paul is actually a "Senior Fellow" of the Mises Institute with the title of ""Distinguished Counselor". Accordingly, I don't know how that affects his status vis-a-vis WP:RS regarding economics in general and WP:PRIMARY with respect to the Mises Institute. He's a physician by training, but serving in congress would obviously require that a degree of knowledge on economics be acquired.
 * Also, though that fact is mentioned about Paul on Block's bio, it was curiously missing from his own.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the status of the Mises Institute vis-à-vis Austrian Economics

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * IMO this question (e.g., the status of Mises.org) is outside of the Arbitration. User:Steeletrap submitted a lot of links (not diffs) that supports her views about fringe and WP:FRINGE, but the links did not address any editor behavior questions. Ubikwit's remarks are interesting, but can the ArbCom make "content decisions" about Austrian Economics or Mises.org-related articles? I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at and even grabbed boilerplate from 5 or 6 arbitrations now. I see that what they can do is clarify general principles, like the use of FRINGE in types of topic areas, or the importance of BLP, or even attitudes that newbies vs. old timers need in approaching each other. That's what I was trying to get in above when I gave an overly detailed analysis of how policy and behavior can intertwine. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I endorse much of 's analysis.
 * The Mises Institute website states: "About the Mises Institute You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." This is an extraordinary claim for any organization to make about itself.  We don't see Stanford University say "Welcome to the worldwide center of Computer Science".  The Mayo Clinic doesn't say "Welcome to the worldwide center of clinical medicine."   Consistent with its self-description, the Mises Institute calls its affiliated persons "Scholars" and "Faculty" and "Senior Fellows" -- terms normally associated with accredited academic institutions.  The WP articles for the Institute and its affiliates, many of which were started or heavily edited by affiliated persons, continued in that uncorroborated and arguably promotional vein.  Various individuals were described, without independent RS references, as notable economists despite there being almost no RS references, let alone peer-reviewed citations, to support those descriptions.
 * The affiliated persons are described in their WP articles as economists and social theorists, but instead of the reference citations one would expect for persons so portrayed, we find quotes from cable TV pundits or financial magazine writers.  Are these notable academics, as their articles suggest, or are they pundits and popular authors on their chosen subjects?  If the cited sources portray them as popular authors, WP should not cobble together a string of such sources to suggest that the subjects are notable scholars in economics, social theory, or anything else.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This analysis is relevant because it provides policy-based justification, in conformity with WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe, for the editing allegedly biased editors have done (specifically, removing LvMI sources from pages about mainstream economics, and denying their reliability for assessing the contributions of other Mises scholars). Steeletrap (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing: LvMI's official economics journal, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, has been characterized as "heterodox" by an article published in the prestigious American Journal of Economics and Sociology(see The Quarterly Journal's wiki page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
 * Similar issues arise in nearly all the Mises Institute-affiliated BLPs. They are portrayed as scholars or theoreticians but the few references to rigorous scrutiny of their theories point out fundamental flaws, often logical fallacies, which negate any claim to theoretical rigor. Then we're left with the book reviews from investment publications, endorsements from politicians, or C-Span or talk radio mentions.  These sources may in some cases establish notability per GNG but not as theoreticians in philosophy, economics, or political science.  If they were notable on that basis, there would be abundant corroborating RS citations we could add to the articles.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Having examined a portion of the evidence it has become apparent that parties are making recourse to Austrian Economics in order to support the work of the Mises Institute and its affiliated "fellows".
 * Given the fact that the composition of the "fellows" and "associated scholars" of the Mises Institute would seem to represent a group that only a tenuous connection to academia and publishes in non-academic, non-peer reviewed, often self-published publications, the question is begged as to what the status of the so-called "instutute" is. From what I have seen so far, it would seem to be nothing more than an advocacy group, and one that has attempted to appropriate the work of academic scholars that were associated with the "Austrian School" of economics.
 * I'll post more on this later, but thought I'd throw this out there to invite early rebuttals.
 * Let me just give one example, that of David Gordon (philosopher), whom is found on the Mises Institute website listed as a "Senior Fellow" and whom Binksternet includes on his list as a philosopher. There is nothing on the Wikipedia bio of Gordon that would seem to indicate that anyone outside of the Mises Insitute considers him to be a philosopher. Simply having a PhD does not make one a philosopher; that is to say, one has to be reliably published in the field.
 * Apparently, Gordon had one book published in 1991 by a non-academic press that met with dismissive reviews from academia, and that is the extent of his work that even mention in passing outside the context of the Mises Institute and libertarian advocacy.
 * This further begs the question of the WP:Walled garden in respect of the institute and the individuals associated with it. The most nettlesome point would seem to be sorting out the viability and validity of the connection of the Mises Institute to the more prominent academics associated with the Austrian School before the split in the AE school.
 * There are probably too many names to go through on that long list of individuals, but I will probably find time to look at a couple other individuals, and intend to look at the publications and the like of a couple of the fellows working in academia.
 * Related to this are the edits I made to a section of the article on Walter Block after looking into one (or two related) issue(s), and the "predictions" of Robert Murphy have already been discussed above. Murphy is not a "fellow", though, just an "associated scholar"--another so-called "scholar" that is not associated with academia or published by a scholarly press.
 * Continuing on the walled garden them, is anyone that the Mises Institute deems to call a scholar a scholar according to the Wikipedia meaning of the term? Is there an instance in the Arbcom case history of dealing with an organization in such a scenario on Wikipedia?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This case presents some interesting questions it would seem, and this section I started after pondering Binksternet's reference to the walled garden "nutshell". I think he's right that it doesn't fall under that concept, but there are parallels.
 * Take the long list of people associated with Mises Institute, and per the example above, though David Gordon's published writings in the field of philosophy are basically negligible, he has a Wikipedia article about him that calls him a "philosopher". the following is the second paragraph from the lead of the Wikipedia article philosopher"A generally accepted interpretation in academia is that a philosopher is one who has attained a Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches philosophy, and has published literature in a field of philosophy or is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher."
 * Is it sufficient that his because cohorts in the Mises Institute call him a philosopher Wikipedia calls him a philosopher? Does he have the requisite notability, etc., in that field? Here is the final paragraph from the Wikipedia bio on Gordon addressing what appears to be his most recent publication. He criticizes Harvard Press apparently without solid grounds in the article, which appeared in an electronic publication Econ Journal Watch on economics published by a "group of free market think tanks"."In 2011 Econ Journal Watch published an article Gordon wrote with Swedish consultant Per Nilsson called 'The Ideological Profile of Harvard University Press: Categorizing 494 Books Published 2000–2010.' They presented a spread sheet analysis of the books, some of which they had not read, and concluded the Harvard press’s political slant’s problem 'is not that it is ideological, but that its ideology is predominately leftist.' A reviewer noted that one author did not consider his book 'leftist' and that the reason other books were so characterized was not clear."
 * According to a review of the article, not only didn't Gordon read all of the books, the titles were not restricted to the field of economics and political science, but included "history, philosophy and sociology" as well. Why would such a study be considered to have credibility and be published in a journal dedicated to economics and edited by libertairian professor of economics Daniel B. Klein?"David Gordon, a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Per Nilsson, a Swedish consultant, scrutinized—but did not always actually read—494 titles Harvard published between 2000 and 2010 in economics, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology. They used a 10-point schema to categorize the books politically."
 * The fact remains that the abovementioned electronic journal is "peer-reviewed", but in light of the criticism of the paper, there would appear to be questions related to that peer-reviewing process. Since the authors didn't read the "494 titles", what did those reviewing their article read? In short, the paper seems to be an attack piece on the academic press of one of America's premier institutes of higher education by a group of individuals and organizations all of which have strong connections to libertarianism.
 * So the question becomes what does affiliation with the Mises Institute (and related libertarian "think tanks", etc.) mean with respect to the Wikipedia biographies for each of the individuals listed by Binksternet, for example. I think that this represents a gray zone that Arbcom might be able to clarify with respect to policies related to notability, etc. It seems that the status of academic sources needs to be defended on Wikipedia against assaults by individuals such as Gordon and the groups that sanction his statements. To that end, it seems necessary to scrutinize the status as a "philosopher" he is afforded in his Wikipedia bio. Maybe he should be referred to simply as a "libertarian writer", or something along those lines that more accurately reflects his professional status.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Specifico's pointing to the Mises websites claim to be "the world center of the Austrian School of economics" is pertinent, as it would seem to demonstrate that they are attempting to subsume or appropriate the work of Hayek, but Hayeks advocacy of a strong role for the state in regulating the economy would appear t be largely incompatible--if not diametrically opposed--to the so-called "anarcho-capitalism" that appears to be a focus promoted by those associated the Mises Institute. That brings the discussion back to the question of the relevance of the split in the Austrian school in the 1930s.


 * One more point about the Gordon article, the only person to refer to him as a "philosopher" without the qualification of "libertarian" is economist Peter Boettke, who self-identifies as an Austrian and promotes something he calls analytical anarchism "in the libertarian tradition of Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty (1973)". At least Boettke is not associated with the Mises Institute.
 * According to the Wikipedia bio, the other scholar, a sociologist, that reviewed Gordon's book of 1991 referred to him as a "libertarian philosopher", and basically deconstructed Gordon's arguments stating that he had shown little competency and fallen into "easily avoidable mistakes".
 * The only other publication that garnered a review by a scholar (professor of philosophy Barry Smith (academic and ontologist) was criticized "for its over-simplistic division of philosophers into two camps—German... and Austrian".
 * I find it somewhat troubling that Gordon is deemed to merit categorization as a "philosopher" by Wikipedia. Is such categorization in compliance with policy?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding evidence submitted by SPECIFICO

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Several editors have complained about Steeletrap andor SPECIFICO’s editing habits in Biographies of living persons [added later for clarification per below: as well as discussion of BLP in WP:RSN or WP:ANI per My evidence/BLP Issues/Self-published sources in BLPs]. Yet rather than use his evidence time to respond, SPECIFICO makes the case User:Carolmooredc is the cause of all the problems in editing the articles! Given he provided his diffs in the last hours, my necessarily quick response was disjointed and inadequate.  I respond only to a couple critical issues regarding this Arbitration below, referring only to evidence already linked on the evidence page.


 * The Arbitration Committee took this issue in large part because of evidence provided and comments made about Biographies of living persons issues and violations in the Austrian economics articles. At Arbitration other editors and I provided evidence and comments about this. SPECIFICO makes no attempt to address legitimate concerns. His only comment on that issue is: “Carolmooredc cloaks much of her tendentious editing in BLP policy.” And then he shares a diff of this BLP thread, inferring I originally inserted and then reverted removed "derogatory text"; this misrepresents what happened in the whole thread.


 * I admit that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO’s POV editing and thinly veiled attacks on other editors as cultists, censors, whitewashers, fan-club members, etc. annoyed me and I lost my temper several times in May and June. The admin who advised me to chill 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. Neither have most of the evidence SPECIFICO brought here. Yes, in August and September I brought up their admitted POVs at article talk pages more times than necessary after my various visits to noticeboards about their editing violations proved fruitless. But when administrators don't seem to care, one can get very frustrated. I believe my real crime is I’ve added more neutral and positive references and material than other editors and would continue to do so - at least until current BLP problems are resolved - unless I was topic-banned from Austrian school of economics articles.


 * Finally, I believe SPECIFICO attempts to poison the well of this Arbitration, discredit my evidence, discredit those sharing similar evidence, and perhaps panic some Arbitrators into action with his grand finale of alleging antisemitism. SPECIFICO says I have “a long history of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli POV-pushing and harassment.” If this were true, the many partisan editors who were on my case the years I edited a lot in the Israel-Palestine topic area would have gotten me repeatedly blocked and topic-banned long ago. SPECIFICO’s dragging up and misrepresenting long-settled issues should not be considered evidence in this Arbitration.


 * FYI, the facts on the old issue SPECIFICO brings up in very disjointed diffs are: In late 2010 Jehochman brought this WP:ANI. He had trolled the internet to find a 2013 email on a libertarian anti-war list which was my reply to an Israel supporter who repeatedly had threatened my life; I confess, it was not written as politically correctly as it could have been. The closing admin wrote: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". In [early] Jan 2011 Jehochman then brought a WP:COIN against me where editors agreed this was a POV not a COI issue. I did lose my temper at an unfamiliar editor at the COIN [in late Jan 2011] and questioned him on his talk page about his motives in editing a completely different topic; I posted a comment about it on a Wikia.com feminist page I erroneously thought was part of Wikimedia. Per this ANI discussion, I was blocked for six months, reduced to one week after multiple editors noted I had been harassed and thus lost my temper. Finally in May of 2011 the article that led to all this was AfD’d per SPECIFICO’s link.  See my AfD comments on problems with the article and my congratulations to Jehochman for finally recognizing some of the problems. SPECIFICO's diffs do prove that harassment happens. [Later note: My full updated reply to Drsmoo's 2013 allegations regarding 2009, 2011 editing is here.] Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * People on that thread lost their temper and were making hyperbolic claims against you (you tend to inspire a lot of dislike). You can't infer from that that there was nothing you were doing that was contrary to policy. Your constant PAs and overall unreliability as a contributor (see all your cross marks on this page and the evidence page -- as well as most any talk page you frequents -- for an inkling of how prone to mistakes and erroneous statements you are) are detrimental to the community. Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You state, "Several editors have complained about Steeletrap and SPECIFICO’s editing habits in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." This is not the place for undocumented assertions of fact. Please identify which diffs in Evidence support your statement with respect to each of me and Steeletrap. SPECIFICO  talk  22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert}: Just noticed this. My reply My evidence/BLP Issues/Self-published sources in BLPs lists several WP:BLPNs, and discussion of WP:BLP in WP:RSN or WP:ANI, initiated by me and at least two other editors. I've clarified that above. (Note that while you all aren't always named in initial complaints, the discussions are about edits which SPECIFICO or Steeletrap (or MilesMoney where relevant) have made and/or which SPECIFICO and Steeletrap have supported in some way at the links.) Thanks for noticing. 16:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [inserted in reply] Since you've just conceded that your assertion above that "several editors have complained ..." is false, I ask that you strike it.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you look at 1, 2, 3? Or per Alanyst's evidence: 4, 5. Feel free to count the number of crtiical editors besides myself in each. However, looking at the threads, I see it is more accurate to write "and/or", so I did change that for ya. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I’ve added more references and material than other editors and would continue to do so." Please provide some support from this, in terms of RS you have added to articles and how they are more extensive than (for instance, my) contributions. Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: SPECIFICO. Have you read other editor's evidence? It's ample. This is analysis section, not a new evidence section.
 * Re:Steeletrap: I meant I've add more neutral and positive information than other editors but it is true that that's not in evidence so I have removed it. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Carol, please restore your mistaken assertion and cross it. Failing to do so renders our responses and corrections unintelligible. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say I struck the assertion [about my adding more neutral/positive info than others] for which I provided no evidence in evidence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, you've added conspicuously little content to any of these articles.  I, on the other hand, have added large amounts of content to Austrian school, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises Institute and other articles, and most of my contributions have stood the test of time and scrutiny and proved to be stable improvement to WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked to remove my assertion because I had not put such material into evidence and I did so. Now you are asserting something that is not in evidence either. It's not supposed to be inserted anywhere in the workshop. See the guideline for info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Comment on content and the fringe/minority issue

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm responding to points made by Volunteer Marek below. He says that publisher ABC-CLIO has a poor reputation among economists but he does not prove this by pointing to a negative review of ABC-CLIO. I searched for any negative reviews and found nothing. In fact, Oxford Journals (a department of Oxford University Press) teamed with ABC-CLIO in 2004 for the purpose of improving the search capability of Oxford's online journals (public relations announcement about ABC-CLIO and Oxford Journals). These journals include the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, the Cambridge Journal of Economics, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, the American Law and Economics Review and more. This means I still consider the ABC-CLIO book Economic Thinkers: A Biographical Encyclopedia to be a suitable indicator of Rothbard's minority position rather than fringe position. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, Binksternet, all that that agreement between ABC-CLIO and Oxford journals entails is that ABC-CLIO "links its abstracting and indexing databases, Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life, to online journals from Oxford Journals" and Oxford Journals are ok with that. So... what? Some of the ABC-Clio stuff is pretty good, some of it's sort of "nah", there's a pretty wide variance in the quality. This particular entry was written - I think - by an Adjunct Professor. Nothing against Adjunct Professors, god bless'em all and may they get paid a whole lotta more than they do right now. But put it this way - writing stuff for ABC-Clio is not going to get you tenure, anymore than writing Wikipedia articles will. To show that the Rothbard stuff isn't fringe you do need a bit more than that. Like, let's start with articles in, say, top 10 economic journals that all these LvMI folks - them ones with all these super duper Wikipedia articles you mentioned - have published, in say last ten years. No? How about top 20 economic journals? Top 50? There you might find one or two if you're lucky and I'd bet money it was an article someone wrote before they went full-on Rothbardian. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, your argument is so fallacious that I have to again question your knowledge in the subject. Even if Rothbard were cited by a top-flight source (and the one you're using here is a far cry from that), that does not make one notable. Consider: prominent creationists are frequently cited in books about evolution (if only to debunk them). Please provide reliable sources that indicate Rothbard's contributions to mainstream theory. A good example would be an economics TEXTBOOK, rather than a collection of biographies. We have scores of sources, both mainstream RS and ones connected to Rothbard, that say he was shunned, dismissed and ostracized by the mainstream. You believe the opposite on the basis of no evidence, and in contradiction to loads of it. Steeletrap (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Sitush criticism, I was under the impression that everything here was draft until the closing period after which Arbitrators would bother to read it. Strikes are only necessary if one is changing material replied to already.
 * Yes, I got confused on whether evidence diffs had to be provided in the workshop and was hassled about it repeatedly til I provided some. Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration does not make it mandatory, but says it's "helpful". Then Goodwinsands rose from 2+ years retirement to attack me about my WP:SPI against him years ago and "harassing" Drsmoo whose problematic editing is documented now; I got flustered and I do find it hard to allow unfair attacks against this female to go uncontested. Sorry if Arbitrators have been keeping up contemporaneously or if it caused Sitush confusion.
 * I see Sitush followed the 2006 link to my (terribly outdated) webpage back when I naively thought it was OK to link there. He had to go there to find out what my POV is, ignoring those who evidence shows have repeated their POVs over and over again, as well as in this arbitration. He shares his opinion that I'm a "long-term, semi-professional political activist". Unlike thousands of other editors who actually are paid professional activists, I didn't know enough not to use my real name. However, the bottom line is that both Jehochman in 2011 and Steeletrap in 2013 did WP:COINs on me (both in evidence) and no conflict of interest was proved, only perhaps a typical level of "POV". Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Sitush reply to my reply, I do have a question in about changing unreplied to and replied to comments since there has been a lot of confusing back and forth on that by various parties. I won't bother to debate when talking about academic/activist histories, admitted by parties or discovered by researching parties off Wikipedia, becomes even more evidence of POVs than occasionally admitted POVs, repeatedly admitted POVs or ones inferred from editing. Angels/hatpins/and all that. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from Floquenbeam here on my question above: Generally, yes, normal talk page practice can be applied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

I am not familiar with the behavioral issues involved in this dispute, but I am sufficiently familiar with the topic area, and in the subject matter, to be able to comment on the underlying content-related issue at hand; whether LvMI, Rothbard, Austrian economics, or some combinations or these are fringe or a "minority viewpoint".

First, Binksternet above in his statement on the Evidence page (changed wording after move, VM) is incorrect when he states "This is just one of many possible examples showing that the LvMI is discussed seriously by mainstream economists.". LvMI is NOT discussed seriously by mainstream economists. Mostly it is not discussed at all, certainly not in scholarly publications, although one can find some *very occasional* discussions about them - usually negative - in the blogs of prominent economists. But that's blogs. The encyclopedia ABC-CLIO enjoys a reputation among scholars - well, at least among economists - which maybe, just maybe be, is a small notch above Wikipedia itself. Even on Wikipedia, I think ABC-Clio should be avoided as much as possible as a source (depends on the degree of controversy about a particular issue). The link to ABC-Clio really proves nothing.

The guideline WP:FRINGE states: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. By that definition, LvMI most certainly qualifies. LvMI represents the modern "Rothbardian" wing of the Austrian school (so a fraction within a minority faction) and basically, what applies to LvMI applies to Rothbard. His views are fringe by any reasonable definition and Rothbard should only be used as a source to document his beliefs.

A broader question is whether the Austrian School as a whole is "fringe". Well, I'm not sure where the dividing line between "fringe" and "minority view" exactly lies, and policy is silent on that. But sure, some parts of the Austrian School (Hayek, the George Mason folks) are more of a "minority view" but not "fringe". However, this does not apply to LvMI.

Likewise Binksternet's contention above that "A relatively large number of articles on Wikipedia are connected by close association with the Mises Institute." and that this somehow proves that LvMI is not "fringe" is completely wrong. All that this "relatively large number of articles" shows is that the LvMI folks have been extremely aggressive (and that, for awhile now) in using Wikipedia as a promotional platform for their views. A lot of these individuals are not notable (a quick give away is that most of them are sourced mainly to primary sources). Some of them may be borderline notable, and that's by Wikipedia's ridiculously low threshold for "notability". It's really not that different than music fans putting up a bunch of pages on their favorite MySpace (ik, ik) bands and nobody noticing. In fact, I'm seriously tempted to go through that list and scatter buck shot AfD a whole bunch of them as they are more than deserving of deletion. I won't, in order not to cause additional controversy during the case, but the point remains (and someone *should* do that at some point). What Binksternet seems to be saying is that because some fringe POV pushers have been successful in using Wikipedia as a promotional platform in the past, and no one stopped them previously, then that means that in fact, they cannot be fringe because... now it's on Wikipedia! You can't use Wikipedia as a source, and you can't use this as an argument either.

I would also argue against considering too broad of a subject area here, by bringing things like the Tea Party or whatever into it. The whole problem with Austrian School editing - especially the LvMI folks - has its own particular issues and has been going on since... damn, every since I can remember, though it's been an ebb and flow kind of thing. Since it is my general belief that Wikipedia content matters a lot more than conduct (within reasonable boundaries of course) I am very sympathetic to editors who try and uphold some minimal quality standards on what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. And that means removing the LvMI spam. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had some involvement in the BLPs, although mostly on talk pages and at an AfD that I initiated rather than in the articles themselves. Predicting that this would end up at ArbCom, and being frustrated with the dreadful sourcing, POV-pushing etc, I backed away from the dispute area some time ago. I'm not an expert but Volunteer Marek has hit upon a point that I, for one, have raised on several occasions, ie: the LvMI-related stuff - including numerous articles concerning obscure books, journals etc - is in many respects a house of cards from the point of view of sourcing and determining notability. "Spam" is indeed not far off the mark and I'm very unhappy about it: the LvMI area certainly needs attention from more people with clue, but clue in the norms and values of Wikipedia rather than in the subject matter. Broadening the scope of any decisions to include things such as the Tea Party might well cause the core content-related issues to become fragmented.


 * That said of the content issues, the behavioural problems have been on both sides. The verbiage from a small group of people has basically made it impossible for clue-ful "outsiders" to get a look in, and both sides have introduced dodgy material/removed sound material etc with a dismaying lack of judgement. If I had to single out two people who have been at the very heart of it then they would be the now-banned MilesMoney and Carolmooredc: they seem to disagree at an ideological level and are both intransigent but they have shared an alarming inability to evaluate sources etc and (in the case of the latter) a surprisingly frequent inability to adhere to our policies, guidelines and conventions despite some considerable experience here. Some examples of these issues for the various named parties are, of course, already in the evidence submitted by others, and the sheer number of strikes/retractions, modifications etc by Carolmooredc there is itself symptomatic: they seem sometimes to be confusing themselves, not just everyone else.


 * As is typical of fringe-based disputes, the behavioural issues have emerged here as shrill, nasty, often amateurish, always tendentious, based on the wrong principles (ie: on ideology and personality) and insidious in the way that they have crossed into so many types of dispute resolution forum, AN3, DRN etc. It was only last week that I realised from an Evidence page link to Carolmooredc's website that we have what seems to amount to a long-term, semi-professional political activist among contributors to this subject area, although I was aware of allegations of her pursuing strident activist-like behaviour in other spheres of Wikipedia (I never bothered checking those allegations). That sort of contributor is as much a problem as fringe content because they struggle to use any subject expertise that they might possess in a neutral, non-conflicted manner and because their very nature tends to be combative and tendentious. As far as I am concerned, anyone with that sort of background are themselves of the fringe, however righteous they may feel their cause(s). - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In a typical amendment by Carolmooredc, she has just made this change to her initial response to my point, over an hour after she made her first response and over 40 minutes since I read it. It confuses matters, she has been referred to TPG and our conventions on umpteen occasions and yet even now she does it? I wouldn't have bothered responding to her initial comment but this change requires something: she is confusing recognition of a POV with recognition of a history etc. I didn't say that her POV was a recent revelation to me (it isn't) but rather that her background was. And just as the significant amendments keep coming, so too is this an example of her twisting what is said - something for which even in the actual process of this arbitration case she has received numerous rebukes & requests for correction. Perhaps all of this is indicative of why there are issues with representing sources etc also. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding evidence submitted by Alanyst

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since we have had time extended in part for  analysis of his evidence, I might as well throw in a few insights I got from it as support for other evidence or just a general insight:
 * Scope and parties: While The Four Deuces hasn't edited the articles much (at all?), he has initiated some issues on talk pages, brought one or two to WP:RSN and elsewhere, and been a generally useful voice in analyzing policy issues, even when he disagrees with the views of the BLPs under discussion. Adjwilley did try to help with issues and hopefully will join the Mediation team and learn the techniques that work best.
 * The dispute in content space: The 160 might be a bit inflated since I know The Four Deuces and I have worked on a number of articles over the years, as doubtless have other longtime editors.
 * BLPs under dispute: This is where most of the relevant disputes are; irrelevant are Elizabeth Warren and Virginia Thomas. Nassim Nicholas Taleb isn't an Austrian but some of his theories are looked on favorably by some Austrians. SPECIFICO followed me to Stanley Fischer and Robert Hall (economist), though neither are Austrians.
 * The dispute in project space: Even though I did mention these in my evidence, it would be nice if they were in the table:WP:ANI vs Steeletrap, EW Noticeboard question on new theory of 3rr (archived discussion here); 3rr vs. SPECIFICO leading to article protection.
 * The dispute in user space: There has been far too much discussion in user space and I argued against it and was happy to institute and accept bans from Steeletrap and SPECIFICO. I got annoyed at Srich for a month or so and temporarily banned him, as discussed in some Srich evidence. Much of interchanges are Steeltrap/SPECIFICO hassling Srich with questionable concerns and/or lengthy contentious discussions, Srich posting to the three of us (sometimes far more than necessary) with usually legitimate policy concerns, and SPECIFICO's repeated questionable warnings to me (sometimes contested by Srich before I even saw them). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

About a Pattern of Misbehavior
In case the arbitrators, buried under an avalanche of detail, are wondering what that whole Carol Moore / Goodwin Sands bit was about, I thought a little summary might help. None of this is new evidence, incidentally.
 * A few years back I was tag-team harassed [] by Carol Moore and the now-site-banned user Off2Riorob. (He blew a gasket, came back as the fresh-start YouReallyCan, and his abusive behavior led him to be permabanned under that name.) For purely WP:BATTLE reasons, Carol and Off2riorob tried to hang anything they could on me, in a forum-shopping WP:SPI extravaganza that always left them empty-handed. I kept the evidence on my talk page to document Carol Moore's destructive behavior.
 * When SPECIFICO entered that incident into the evidence of this case, Carol Moore's response was to exhibit exactly the same unrelenting WP:BATTLE behaviors all over this very page. If you've read the page this far down, you don't need me to tell you that. Watch in particular for a rhetorical technique that has come be known as the Gish Gallop: when she has clearly lost a point, she throws as much marginally related chaff in as many directions as she can; she doesn't mind intentionally losing the reader in the weeds if that means the reader doesn't notice that she's badly lost the main point.
 * I am not seeking any sort of belated justice for the way Carol Moore harassed me, although she plainly did. I do however think it is important that Carol Moore's misbehavior in the area of Austrian Economics be recognized for what it is, just one more local manifestation of her larger WP:BATTLE pattern. It was WP:BATTLE when she was harassing me, it was WP:BATTLE in Austrian Economics, and it's WP:BATTLE on this very page. It is all of a piece. Pattern, pattern, pattern.
 * Carol Moore will attack me, likely with a Gish Gallop, for having pointed this all out. She did the same when her fishing expedition a couple years ago came to naught, and settled instead for vague "insinuendo" attempts at character assassination. That too is part of the pattern. [Added later: Yup, sure enough, out came the Gish Gallop fire-hose below, in Carol's latest attempt to justify her WP:HARASSing behavior. Note that I did not edit the content of any of the interactions on my talk page, other than to give them their current titles, which spell out the shape of the tag-team WP:HARRASSment campaign Carol was so happy to participate in. But "insinuendo"-ing that I may have changed the content does after all give her the excuse to steer you to her own cherry-picked favorite parts of the whole sorry saga. And again, once again, note the absolute absence of any form of remorse. In spite of everything documented here, she can't own up to anything worse than having had a bad mood or two, as if that explains away everything that you've seen her do. What do you call people like that in real life? Goodwinsands (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)]
 * Arbs will have to address, one way or another, the question of Carol's dysfunctional WP behavior, and how to change it in a way Carol has shown she cannot do on her own. To the arbs, I say: don't be afraid to think big, as this is a big problem that's been a long time brewing, and she's shown she can't break the pattern without outside intervention.

Goodwinsands (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I still believe Goodwinsands, who has been disruptive here, could be a sock and even could be re-investigated as such. Let's look at the diffs of the original titles (where it's obvious), as well as the dates, of the sections which he has renamed at "Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment". I'm not going to try to figure out how he may have re-edited the sections when he retitled them.
 * 2/10/11, "Your editing history? Carolmooredc note on WP:ARBPIA. (retitled under "POV Warrior #1 tries")
 * 5/19/11, "BLPN Israel Shamir" Off2RioRob note on WP:ARBPIA. (retitled "POV Warrior #2 tries") (Note: I don't remember much contact with that editor besides here, and certainly should not be tarred by his being banned two years latter, per Goodwinsands inference.)
 * 7/25/11, "Edit warring notice", Carolmooredc discussion of some confusion on policy. (retitled "POV Warrior #1 tries again")
 * 11/08/11, "multiple accounts", Off2riorob asks once about Rolandr connection to Goodwinsands. Goodwinsands response is to launch Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR/Archive with himself as the sock, a great distraction from the question. (retitled "POV Warrior #2 tries again")
 * 11/13/11 subsection called "suspicious sock of Spaceclerk", Carolmooredc writes: While I didn't think the RolandR accusation plausible, while looking at bookmarks today I accidentally was reminded of User:Spaceclerk who "retired" a week before Goodwinsands appeared, working on some of same articles, particularly Shamir and Atzmon. Both RobRio and I have questioned both accounts as possible socks. Maybe that's what needs to be investigated.
 * 11/13/11, RolandR infers it would be OK if Goodwinsands had been Spaceclerk because there was no overlap. Off2riorob explains:Whats the master account and what restrictions have previously been applied to this user is what I want to know. 
 * 11/13/11, Carolmooredc quotes the relevant policy 'Username_policy as it was at that time.
 * 11/13/11, admin MalikShabazz writes: "If you have reasonable grounds to suspect Goodwinsands is abusing multiple accounts, WP:Sockpuppet investigations is the place to go." The same day I say thanks for advice and note I realized Goodwinsands also could be a sock of a previously banned user on the same article(s).
 * 11/15/11, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RTLamp/Archive, Carolmooredc subsequent PW:SPI closed in 12 hours because only Goodwinsands and RolandR answered. A big deal was made of the RolandR sockpuppet investigation and Checkuser is demanded, even though I was asking for a comparison of behavior. I have seen people banned as socks for less than the evidence I provided. The fact Goodwinsands retired soon after, like the other two editors, and only reappears now, remains suspicious. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * And that, arbs, was exactly the fire-hose Gish Gallop attack on me I predicted she'd do. Pattern, pattern, pattern. If you can't win the big arc, then bury 'em in minutia and hope the arbs lose the plot. But the plot remains clear as a bell: she tag-team WP:HARASSed me with an escalating series of "insinuendo"-based fishing expeditions, and came up empty handed each and every time. Then her tag-team WP:HARASSment partner popped his cork, fresh started, and was site-banned. WP:BATTLE on full, florid, unrepentant display, then and now. Inability to show any remorse, then and now.
 * Pattern, pattern, pattern of dysfunctional WP behavior. What can you do, arbs, to end her WP:BATTLE pattern?
 * Goodwinsands (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Narrative of the dispute's origin
''This is largely drawn from material found via my evidence and is intended to reveal how the dispute came to this point. alanyst 17:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)''

Back in April 2013 a new editor appeared in the Austrian Economics topic area. This was not the beginning of the problems in that topic area. There are no beginnings or endings to the Wheel of Wiki. But it was a beginning.

From the start, the new editor, User:Steeletrap, showed some familiarity with Wikipedia. She said she was working on a master’s thesis on fringe political groups in the U.S. and had keyed in on the Ludwig von Mises Institute ("LvMI") faction of libertarianism as a specific example. Her first action was to nominate Stephan Kinsella for deletion; within 24 hours she began to edit Hans-Hermann Hoppe ("HHH").

Before Steeletrap’s entrance, relations between User:Srich32977 ("SRich”), User:Carolmooredc (“CMDC”), and User:SPECIFICO were fairly cordial. SPECIFICO and SRich had generally been aligned in talkpage discussions on various economics articles, particularly in opposing the edits of  (indefinitely blocked for disruption in Mar 2013). They had had a fairly mild dispute with each other in mid Jan 2013 regarding SRich's revert of SPECIFICO's edits to Austrian business cycle theory and whether LvMI writings ought to be broadly refused as non-RS; but the encounter seemed to end amicably.  As for CMDC, her first significant interactions with SPECIFICO were in Feb 2013 at Talk:Murray Rothbard, while SRich and CMDC had no significant interactions to this point despite a few contemporaneous appearances at Talk:Libertarianism in Feb 2013.

Steeletrap’s appearance altered this dynamic. Her initial contributions were bold, voluminous and strongly reflected her personal feelings. She acknowledged her bias, but also asked for and received guidance on how one with such strong feelings ought to edit. Yet in spite of her efforts to disclose her biases and solicit advice, the sudden appearance of a wiki-savvy editor with a willingness to add strongly negative material to BLPs made a stir. SRich was first on the scene to challenge Steeletrap’s additions to HHH as original research and a BLP violation. SPECIFICO also joined in the conversation, mildly siding with Steeletrap regarding the appropriateness of the additions but also willing to accept outside opinions.

Over the next two weeks Steeletrap proceeded onward to Robert P. Murphy (“RPM”), Argumentation ethics (a theory of Hoppe’s), Lew Rockwell, LewRockwell.com, Gary North (economist), Ron Paul, and Ron Paul newsletters. Her edits focused on emphasizing allegations of racism, white supremacism, and anti-gay statements by (or connections to) the living subjects of those articles. In talk, she reiterated her view that the LvMI related articles were a walled garden of mutual promotion with insufficient external criticism. SPECIFICO strongly agreed with this view. SRich and User:Stalwart111 helped coach Steeletrap in various ways of the wiki, but were more reserved about the merits of her content contributions.

By early May 2013, things had soured. SRich had suggested that Steeletrap might have been inclined to minimize the notability of LvMI-connected individuals in agreement with her thesis, and Steeletrap took this as an assumption of bad faith and a personal attack, rebuffing SRich’s conciliatory efforts. Meanwhile, CMDC’s first interactions with Steeletrap were to POV-tag a section Steeletrap had added to Lew Rockwell and to ask her if she was an experienced editor editing under a new name; Steeletrap took the latter as a “baseless accusation” constituting a “highly insulting personal attack”.

On May 4, the situation had escalated to the point where after receiving template warnings from SRich about disruptive editing and personal attacks, Steeletrap announced her intention to leave Wikipedia; but she was persuaded by SPECIFICO to remain and to pursue official dispute resolution channels instead. SPECIFICO had erroneously (but in good faith) advised Steeletrap to post at WP:Editor assistance, and she took him up on it. The dispute was quickly moved to AN/I in two separate complaints: one on CMDC's characterization of Steeletrap's edits to HHH as libel, and the other regarding SRich's template warnings that Steeletrap felt implied a threat to block her. The AN/I participants explained to Steeletrap the inapplicability of WP:NLT to CMDC's "libel" characterization and even updated WP:NLT to clarify its language. The SRich complaint was dropped by Steeletrap when she realized that SRich, not being an admin, lacked the power to block her and thus the template was not an imminent threat of sanctions.

From here the record can be largely followed by examining the project-space dispute chronology, so I will not spend time attempting to reconstruct the full history. It is sufficient to say that from this time onward, Steeletrap was strongly hostile toward CMDC, who in turn began to complain at noticeboards about Steeletrap. Steeletrap also blamed SRich for enabling CMDC and accused him of being "obscenely biased ... and devoted to protecting LvMI people". SPECIFICO and Steeletrap, sharing a common disdain of the LvMI faction and having had no serious conflicts with each other, became more strongly aligned and began to support each other in subsequent disputes.

The final major participants in the dispute, User:MilesMoney and User:Binksternet, entered the fray in mid and late July 2013, respectively, with MilesMoney strongly favoring the position of Steeletrap and SPECIFICO, and Binksternet opposing it. The appearance of these two editors within two weeks of each other, on opposing sides of the dispute, served to increase the activity in the dispute but did not appreciably alter the equilibrium.

alanyst 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC) with subsequent update at 08:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Notable patterns of talk page behavior
''This is intended to point out patterns of talk page (and project space) behavior that I have noticed by various of the parties in my analysis of the dispute, that I feel have played a significant role in perpetuating it. These are dysfunctional patterns of editor interaction; the task of identifying problematic patterns of content contribution I defer to the committee. I present these without providing diffs or ascribing them to individual editors, so that the committee may take particular note of them as they review the record. alanyst 08:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)''


 * Speculating on or insinuating ill motives on the part of opponents
 * Failing to understand and verify an opponent's objections or concerns before addressing them
 * Repeatedly pressing an opponent to concede a point or to withdraw or strike their remarks
 * Making oblique complaints and casting aspersions on opponents without naming them
 * Treating disagreement with one's position as evidence of bad faith, incompetence, ignorance, and/or support for the opposing POV
 * Attempting to rebut every adverse remark and get the last word
 * Chiding opponents for behavior that oneself exhibits without remorse
 * Re-hashing the same arguments with the same disputants, without soliciting or respecting outside opinions
 * Monopolizing discussions in venues/processes intended to solicit outside opinions
 * Bringing up personal grievances in content discussions
 * Over-using the terms "personal attack", "shocked", "disappointed", "bizarre", "baseless", "regrettable", "bigoted", "disregard for", "campaign", "tactics", and similar emotionally charged language

Commentary

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I described myself as a "longtime lurker" but a new editor. In addition to my experience reading Wikipedia (including talk pages), I am the sort of person who reads instructions prior to doing a new activity. That largely explains my "savvy." I vaguely recall having made a handful of edits over the course of years, but I honestly don't remember what their subject matters was. I have no way of confirming this as I don't know the IP addresses I used on these unknown dates.
 * Also, presenting an author as anti-gay is not a smear if that author is in fact anti-gay. Gary North favors stoning gays to death; the Ron Paul newsletters refer to African Americans as "animals." Noting these facts helps readers learn more about the topics. That these facts are of a rather inflammatory nature doesn't mean they aren't true or well-sourced. Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) The committee must examine these pages and ask itself: Does the 'controversial' content added by Ms. Steele conform to WP:V and WP:RS standards? Steeletrap (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Alanyst does a good job here. Since he opens up past issues in his evidence, one thing I'd note on "SPECIFICO and SRich had generally been aligned". They also worked with User:Arthur Rubin and I think formed a defacto tag team that argued with both User:Xerographica and User:Byelf2007, neither of whom were expert editors and did have pro-LVMI biases. The two editors foolishly edit-warred and thus got topic or site banned. However, after that the alliance fell apart and I believe IMHO that SPECIFICO liked the effectiveness of that dynamic for achieving his editing goals and welcomed finding it again with Steeletrap/MilesMoney.
 * A few tweaks and/or comments on a couple of his/Alanyst's "Notable patterns of talk page behavior":
 * "Speculating on or insinuating ill motives on the part of opponents" - including by quoting past comments as support for those views (I add the section in italics because when new people came into articles trying to figure out what the brouhaha was about, or when I felt a reminder was needed of what was going on, I found quoting or referring to Steeletrap and SPECIFICO's highly biased comments helped; other times I just was frustrated because yet another noticeboard discussion high lighting problems with their POVs/behaviors was ignored and I couldn't control my complaints and whining).
 * "Repeatedly pressing an opponent to concede a point or to withdraw or strike their remarks" - or falsely claiming an opponent had conceded something when they had not (SPECIFICO did it here once during arbitration, at least a half dozen times somewhere in all those diffs/links provided.)
 * "Re-hashing the same arguments with the same disputants, without soliciting or respecting outside opinions" - or complaining people were going to noticeboards or RfCs too much when they solicited outside opinions
 * "Over-using the terms "personal attack", "shocked", "disappointed", "bizarre", "baseless", "regrettable", "bigoted", "disregard for", "campaign", "tactics", and similar emotionally charged language" (Don't look at me for such unctuous language; yes, I, and perhaps others, did repeatedly use and probably over use variations on "pov pushing", "partisan", "biased", "smear campaign" and "attack page", especially in relation to BLPs.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm struck by 's projection of a battleground interpretation on ordinary good-faith editing by everyone who is not Carolmooredc. WP is not World War One. There are not territorial empires, alliances, invasions, and crimes littering the domain. Most of us are just here to contribute to building an encyclopedia and most of us respect and collaborate with a diverse group of editors regardless of whether we agree on this or that topic or issue. Those who enjoy life in the trenches rarely know when to stop digging. That's why the Community correctly banned the editors you mention and that's why we more recently banned MilesMoney.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alanyst'e examples of "loaded language" are one-sided. The terms chosen are drawn mostly from me, even though I use loaded language less often by Carol. Despite the fact that she constantly uses loaded language, her preferred terms ("partisan editors", "smear campaign" "libelous" etc) are conspicuously absent from alanyst's list. Steeletrap (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There has also been recurring misuse of language which becomes "loaded" due to its inapproprate context and implied accusations. Come to think of it, Carolmooredc's use of "libel" is an example of that, but there are many others. It's a kind of passive-aggressive way of making an accusation or assuming the conclusion in an argument. And while we're thinking about language, there's Srich32977's frequent shouting "bullshit" at visitors to his talk page when he does not like or does not understand their civil words. Hostile denial, not helpful.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This misuse of ordinary language can be a highly disruptive battleground tactic. It is a self-reinforcing and frequently effective technique, particularly for Noticeboards or other threads where good faith editors take others' words at face value. In the Noticeboard threads cited in Evidence here, Carolmooredc regularly mischaracterizes other editors' actions, statements, and motivations to make unsupported claims that such editors are willfully violating WP policy.  Then, frequently, a few uninvolved editors are misled into condemning these actions and editors without the laborious checking that would be required to unravel the equivocation, half-truth, and worse.  This tactic corrupts WP dispute resolution and collaboration and per the links cited by Srich32977, Alanyst and myself, we see Carolmooredc repeatedly engaging in this behavior.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this Nov. WP:ANI SPECIFICO mentioned called "Tendentious referencing of other people's motives" initiated by Sitush against me is an excellent example of noticeboard interchanges, ones that more than once have been described as "chaotic". After Sitush lists several incidents of whining by me, that others didn't find very offensive, I then present a bunch of specific diffs about problems with SPECIFICO and Steeltrap's editing, most of which I included in my evidence at this Arbitration. SPECIFICO and Steeletrap then launch into exaggerated or fabricated attacks on me with little evidence presented. (That's when SPECIFICO had to drag in an 11.5 year old email, referenced at a site that wished me dead, to support his claim, leading to this WP:ANI. In the one atypical feature, SPECIFICO actually got this block for his behavior, mentioned in my evidence.) I'll be delighted to be shunt of this situation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alanyst: I added the new phrases because they had been actively used (and sometimes over used) and were part of the larger picture. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The list of terms I provided was not aimed at any particular party, but in hindsight I appreciate your complaint in that regard. I think it was more a result of my having very recently scrutinized those early edits and so that language was foremost in my mind, and with limited time and space to provide examples I went with the low-hanging fruit. It's certainly valid to note for the record and for the committee's sake that my list was neither intended to be exhaustive (much too short for that) nor proportionally representative of all problematic wording of all the parties.  I do agree with both Carolmooredc and you that the language choices ascribed to Carol above&mdash;and probably also employed by other parties to this case&mdash;merit (demerit?) a place on my list. alanyst 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Alanyst brought up the loaded language point, as that's something that had been bugging me as well. I think I started to notice it when MilesMoney was referring to ANI discussions as "lynch mobs", comparing topic bans to being put to death, and accusing people of making personal attacks and lying in the same sentence. I also remember User:Sitush commenting on the weird culture of demanding retraction and redaction of perceived personal attacks. Anyway, I hope that by becoming aware of the problem people will pay more attention to the things they're saying. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Accountability and transparency
The Committee should make public some of the details of its processes, including the reasons (unexpected life obligations, unusually intense/contentious deliberation, laziness, or whatever else may be at work) it has failed to live up to its self-imposed deadlines. It makes sense that the Committee's deliberations occur in private, and that many (perhaps most) details of them are not shared with the parties of the dispute. But providing no 'updates' whatsoever is inimical to the open spirit of WP and serves to insulate the Committee from needed and helpful criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Evidence is required
If the Committee decides to block, ban or admonish one of the parties to this dispute, it should provide reasons for its decision. This should take the form of links to the specific arguments it endorses regarding user misconduct. In many past decisions, the Committee has provided no reason as to why it did what it did. This is inimical to the open spirit of WP and only serves to insulate the Committee from needed and helpful criticism. The 'norm' that no evidence is required for Committee decisions also facilitates a culture of caprice and abuse. If the Committee has to point to (and endorse) a specific argument as the basis of its decision, this facilitates dialogue and accountability, because people are able to pinpoint the Committee's reasoning. Steeletrap (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: