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

Evidence presented by EllenCT
Ellen’s evidence is misleading/off-topic. The disputes she refers to are outside the scope of Austrian Economics and as far as I know her opponents have not been involved in the Austrian Economics disputes; at least not prominently. They (Mattnad, Morphh, VictorD7, Capitalismojo) are not named as parties in the case and did not comment in the Request for Arbitration thread. Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, I'd say that presenting evidence concerning non-parties is allowed (it can be done to demonstrate the editing environment prevailing in a given topic area for instance to ask ArbCom to authorise the imposition of discretionary sanctions, or even in preparation for asking that said non-parties be added as parties), but the people whose actions are discussed should be notified. If has not done so in a reasonable time I'll ask the clerks to do that on her behalf. I do not comment on whether the evidence is material to the case at hand or not, because I have not really examined it in depth yet, although I'll say that it's rare for ArbCom to exclude evidence which includes diffs at this stage (irrelevant evidence is usually just ignored at the voting stage).  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Do I reply to Ellen's evidence under her section or do I add my own evidence section, which discusses her evidence?  My disputes with Ellen have primarily been with regard to her inserting WP:SYN.  She uses primary sources and then applies her own interpretation to the results, then tries to insert it into any weakly related article.  If we disagree, we're personally attacked as incompetent for not seeing the obvious WP:CK and labeled whitewashing libertarian "Randroids".  I'd be happy to have it reviewed by fellow editors - many disputes were RFC, which in each case has !voted against her position.   Morphh   (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Morphh. To reply, you must create your own section: "The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect". You can read more at the top of the evidence page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can post rebuttals on the main page, but it's also acceptable to post them on this talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "outside the scope of Austrian Economics" in what way? 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. The reasons for the belief in the United States vary from the fear that a large government may contradict the Bible more effectively with public education than would allow parents to maintain "messenger of God" status with their kids, trust in the so-called axioms put forth by paid economic advocates for the rich, inertia, and various other motivations. And just look at their talk pages if you think they don't collude. EllenCT (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me as one of these editors, I've never expressed, nor do I hold such views. I've also not seen the other editors referenced in your evidence  express such views, not that such views should matter when following Wikipedia policy. For reviewing editors, please take Ellen's statements with caution and verify their validity.    Morphh   (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is yet another chapter in Ellen's long, well documented history of tendentious behavior. Her "evidence" has nothing to do with this dispute. She's apparently trying to hijack this process in the delusional hope that it will help her in wider content disputes. I don't recall ever mentioning Austrian economics on Wikipedia; I certainly never edited about it. I don't even identify as an Austrian, and, knowing her history, I seriously doubt Ellen could articulate a coherent definition of the school without some panicked, hurried googling (hint - it's not about the Bible). She's persistently misrepresented sources, Wiki policy, and other editors' positions, and has alienated editors from across the ideological spectrum.  Morphh, I'm tempted to rebut Ellen on the official evidence page, but I'm not familiar with this procedure and I'm not sure how appropriate that would be.  I figured at least someone should post a section briefly pointing out that Ellen's "evidence" is wildly off topic and should be disregarded, just in case not every reader is as thorough as he ideally should be. What do you think? VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I followed 's lead and posted a response here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop. I hope this is correct.  If not, I can replicate my response to EllenCT's accusations in another place.Mattnad (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * &, I also placed mine with Capitalistmojo and Mattnad so they were all in one place, but as Mattnad stated, I'd be happy to move it where you guys think it needs to be.  Morphh   (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and posted my section on the Evidence page to cover the bases, though I wouldn't be surprised if all that stuff gets moved or deleted. VictorD7 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be posting soon, but the great majority of these disputes are regarding professors and writers associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I got pinged but didn't answer, because I though the arbitrators or clerks were the right persons to do so (I am just a hang-around here). I see you posted in the «Comment on Ellen’s evidence» section and there are now (already) 5 entries in that section so it would seem natural that arbitrators should pay attention to it (even though Salvio says it is normally an obscure place). Since Ellen’s evidence in my view is off-topic, it is somewhat tidy that the rebuttals to an off-topic «evidence» is separated a bit from the ordinary evidence section (but I think Victor’s evidence was totally appropriate where he placed it also). Personally, I would like the arbitrators to go further than just disregard Ellen's evidence; and actually give her an admonishment based on what has been pointed out in the various rebuttals to her claims; I will probably suggest this on the workshop page. But I am of course not sure that the arbitrators will spend much time on considering her «evidence»/behaviour and may choose to focus solely on the real Austrian disputes. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Further questions
I see that User:EllenCT has requested that ArbCom overturn a ban imposed on User:MilesMoney.

Questions Oops, after posting this I see that it has been partially addressed below. However, while that section indicates that Arbcom may not have the authority to even consider it, I would think it would be useful to remove it from the evidence, so that the next person who reads it does not waste the hour I just spent reading the ban and related material.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Does ArbCom have the authority to overturn a community site ban?
 * 2) If the answer to the first question is no, is it the responsibility of the clerks to: Remove the request? Request the removal?
 * 3) Or is it the responsibility of the arbs to address the question?
 * 4) Is it proper to make a request about an editor without informing them?
 * 5) If not, is it the responsibility of the clerks to: Notify the subject or Notify the editor providing the evidence to make the notification?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I am far more interested in preventing future non-WP:SNOW community bans closed in less than a week than addressing MilesMoney's ban in particular. Such an environment encourages tag teaming and railroading, elevating ganging up on opponents above seeking to ensure that the most reliable sources are reflected as such. If there is a more appropriate forum to achieve that advance, I'd like to know where it is. I already tried an RFC at WT:BAN but foolishly didn't word it to accommodate WP:SNOW closes. If the Committee tells me to try again with better wording, I gladly will, but it's not clear to me that they can't do it with greater chances of success themselves based on previous cases that modified the banning policy to achieve specific narrowly-tailored objectives. (In this case, the objective is editor retention without fear of sudden railroading.) In any case, I still believe the individual ban should be overturned on the principle I've stated here, and do not wish to withdraw my specific request. I am aware the Committee already considered and affirmed MilesMoney's ban on other grounds, but has not yet considered the editor retention grounds on which my request is based. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see descriptions of this Arbitration. It is not for promoting general policy concerns. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Importance of brevity in presenting evidence?
On ANIs, users (and sadly, admins) often ignore complaints that are too long. I'm worried that will happen to my presentation of evidence here. However, I hear that Arbcoms are more serious about this stuf than admins; can I get a guarantee that the Arbcom will read my entire presentation of evidence? (Long as it is now, there is more to come -- I am going to create a second section on user misconduct.) I think the stuff I have now is important, but I am willing to cut it down if the arbcom won't read all of it. Steeletrap (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are supposed to read all evidence that is submitted, but please be aware that there are limits on the number of words and diffs (for parties, it's 1000 words and 100 diffs, whereas for non-parties it's 500 and 50 respectively). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I request an in-depth discussion on the use and spelling of "chronophagousity." "Tempovoracity" would be the preferred legal term. Discuss. --DHeyward (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney's ban
I see that evidence has been submitted concerning MilesMoney's ban; please note that it is entirely superfluous: ArbCom have already reviewed the sanction in question, refusing to overturn it. Also this would probably be the wrong venue anyway, considering that the appeal of a community ban is usually heard by WP:BASC and not by ArbCom en banc. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is relevant here is the back and forth between TParis and an editor in this Arbitration regarding things TParis wrote on the MilesMoney ban ANI and TParis talk page and TParis original table. Since TParis has removed all that material, I won't link to it when I do my evidence, but I wish he would refer to his comments here. (Hope that isn't canvassing!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, my page gets auto-archived. What material have I removed exactly that you wish to refer to?  Have you searched my archives?  And can you clarify which editor I've been going back and forth with.  I don't think I've interacted much with editors on either side.  Specifico maybe?  We discussed MilesMoney once but I wouldn't say that we've gone back and forth about it.--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you ask: SPECIFICO's complaint you mentioned his hounding editors in your close to MilesMoney ANI and also here. Your reply that almost inspires me to write a song. And then TParis "(Remove accusation of houding)" and TParis "(Rm SPECIFICO column)". I guess I hadn't noticed that you'd removed those when I complained about SPECIFICO wikihounding me on your talk page, which lead to the request for Arbitration. Just a helpful context I hope you don't mind too much my bringing up. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed them because my impression when I closed the thread was that SPECIFICO had replied to a significant majority of the opponents. When I actually did the numbers, it was still uncomfortably high but not near what my impression was and it was marginal whether it was hounding.  I was particularly concerned with the folks he identified as "involved" as an ad hominem counter to their arguments but that number was actually quite small (4 or 5, you can see the chart's history for the actual number) and so as that was my main concern and the facts showed it was a much lower response than my initial impression, I retracted the accusation.--v/r - TP 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on notification

 * Note: moved from main page talk per what Iselilja wrote below.

Will Clerks notify (uninvolved) editors listed here re: the Arbitration? If not, can involved editors notify them? Can we notify all other editors who had more than a casual participation in one or more articles since dispute began? Or at least Ping any whose comments we link to? I guess in absence of reply I should go by Canvassing which quotes past Arbitrations on this topic. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was notified by a clerk that the case was opened, so I belive those of us who gave statements have been notified. Otherwise, it may seem like you are more likely to receive an answer from an arbitrator if you post at the evidence talk page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are wanting to present evidence regarding users who are not listed as parties then you must notify the non-parties that you have presented evidence about them and you should bring up with the arbitrators whether or not the users should be added as parties to the case. Otherwise, so far as I can tell, standard canvassing rules apply. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply. I read "present evidence regarding users" as including editors who have commented in any substantive and especially repeated manner on the various talk page sections or in diffs I've presented. And they'd be included under "standard canvassing rules" anyway.  I'll take another day or two to think about it and report here as necessary per wp:canvassing rules. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between historical and present philosophy? Suggestion
I've read the articles and I am not a participant in the case. But reading the article, I get the perception that both Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman both consider it fringe. That raises a giant red flag in my mind as I suspect neither of those economists agree about much. Is it the case that there are two aspects of "Austrian economics" that are being conflated? It would be easy to make the case that Marxism and Communism are now "fringe" as the dissolution of the USSR and the new open market of China show. It would be hard to argue that Cuba and North Korea have emerged victorious as an economic model. I would be reluctant to label any of them fringe as they have all created the basis for modern economic theory. To the extent Keynsian and non-Keynsian economists concur is more of an advance of the science rather than an agreement that a certain view is fringe. Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" might be dated but it would be abuse of the label "fringe" to label it as such just as labeling Krugman's embrace of Carter's economic policy is fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the real problem here is an overabundance of reliance on our policy, WP:FRINGE, as a weapon or tool rather than a guidance. I'm concerned that WP:FRINGE is being used here to cover all minority or non-mainstream views rather than pseudoscience.  The fringe label is being used as an ad hominem against the sources presented by those supportive of the minority position creating a hostile environment.  Editors supporting the mainstream view are not responding to the concerns of others in good faith and tendentiously using WP:FRINGE as their go-to answer for material they dispute with only superficial investigation of the sources.  That's my general impression, anyway.--v/r - TP 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi TP. Can you provide some examples of edits to articles that support your position? It seems like a kneejerk reaction. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert: Thanks for suggestion. Put some in my Evidence on Evidence page]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is fringe because Austrians reject the scientific method and do not publish papers in academic journals. Scientists develop hypotheses that can be tested and publish them where other scientists can challenge them.  But Austrians claim the scientific method cannot be used in economics.  So they do not publish papers or submit their views to the scrutiny of mainstream economists.  That puts them in the same pseudoscience category as astrologists and faith healers.  Of course they could be right.  It may be that since economic activity is the product of multiple individual decisions of people with free will, it is impossible to treat economics as a science that relies on empirical evidence.  TFD (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But as devil's advocate, is their a distinction between historical and current views? As my example, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" is dated but not "fringe".  Newtonian laws of motion are dated but not fringe.  Marxism is dated but not fringe.  Anyone that cites outdated views is not fringe.  I suspect Krugman and Freidman would have different takes on old Keynesian economic theories and yet understand it's shortcomings.  Disputes shouldn't always fall into a correct and fringe buckets.  Bitcoin and other anonymous currency, for example, seems like an implementation of a form of austrian economics and it exists as more than a thought experiment.  Is it to omuch of a reach to call such theories as "fringe?"   --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a workshop discussion of this. I won't repeat my comments there. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On the basis of which "form of Austerian economics" (e.g., whose theories?) would you consider Bitcoin to be an implementation?
 * In addition to the divisions within the Austrian School (since the 1930s?) and the exacerbation of that by the establishment of the Mises Institute, the economists I've cited (Krugman, DeLong, Caplan) for their criticisms of Miseans (i.e., not those associated with Hayek) are criticizing individual Miseans on the basis of logical inconsistencies in their theories (or "predictions", as the case may be) per se.
 * That is besides criticism and ostracization on the basis of the refusal to employ standard metrics to assess their theories and engage other economists in meaningful discussion.
 * Accordingly, I don't think that the theories under criticism are technically even valid theories, because they have been shown to be logically inconsistent. That is not a divide between historical and current views, but deficient reasoning coupled with a refusal to engage in rational debate about those views in the present tense. Caplan states that Rothbard does not even understand a position he attacks.
 * It is clear why DeLong and Krugman include characterizations related to ideology in their criticism. There is the following statement in yet another NYT column by Krugman that specifically mentions Wikipedia"Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it's changes, only that it's been around a while and based on evolving economic thought, I'd be reluctant to label it fringe especially if they've had noticeable impacts on economic theory. The first I even heard about it was when Ross Ulbricht was arrested for allegedly running Silk Road .  For Krugman, I'd expect a defense of expansion of money supply and deficits, though historically when M2 was controlled by the Fed, we had "stagflation." Now the Fed targets interest rates as far as I can tell.  Still, Keynesian survived, perhaps reformed, when by the end of the 1970's and about 8 years off the gold standard (and famous statements "We are all Keynesians now"), we had double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, there weren't many economists defending it. Were Milton Friedman alive, I'd suspect he might be critical of Austrian economics but not for the same reasons as Krugman andmy little "this can't be right" bell went off when the article listed both Krugman and Friedman.  My main concern now is how much of the opposition is to the theory vs. opposition to politicians like Ron Paul mentioned in Ulbricht articles?  --DHeyward (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually googling "austrian economics bitcoin" yields a bit morethan just Ulbricht. That was just the first time I saw "Austrian economics."   --DHeyward (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm no economist, either, and I'm inclined to think that you may know more about the field than me. The perspective I'm taking is more of a meta-analysis, a discourse analysis, perhaps.
 * It seems to me that Friedman admits Hayek's theory is a theory, but finds that it is wrong upon analyzing it. Krugman does the same for some of the theories. On the other hand, other pronouncements do not seem to even be considered to merit a response as theories, because they are logically incoherent/inconsistent, etc. Take a look at this passage from a pro source cited in the articleHayekian Trade Cycle Theory: A Reappraisal."Even those who recognize the logical integrity of the theory may have doubts about both its historical significance and its present-day relevance: The Hayekian theory might explain some aspects of some nineteenth- and early twentieth-century trade cycles, but it does not explain much, and it does not explain anything about modern fluctuations in economic activity."Note that the statement presumes a recognition of "logical integrity". In regard to the concept of "theory" in general, the last sentence of the lead of the corresponding Wikipedia article reads"A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory."I don't think that the "predictions" and the like of the "latter-day" Austerians meet that criteria, and that is the basis of Krugman and DeLong's references to "ideological beliefs", prophecy, etc. It seems necessary to differentiate that which qualifies as "theory" among the body of pronouncements by the Austerians and that which doesn't. Pronouncements not deemed to meet the standard to be considered viable theory would further seem to require evaluation to see if they fall under WP:FRINGE.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a good anaylsis. Earlier Austrians and some modern ones participated in the academic field of economics while the economists associated with the LvMI do not.  But I do not think that is an issue here.  The case is about editing articles, mostly biographies related to the LvMI, not about using LvMI views in general economics articles.  The disputed text was mostly about adding information that had nothing to do with economic theory, for example the connection between individuals and the Ku Klux Klan, holocaust denial and homophobia.
 * I have worked on a number of articles about the American Right and I think these articles should accurately portray what they are about, who belongs, what they believe, what they do, how they influence the mainstream. When MilesMoney and others put in that Rothbard endorsed the campaign of David Duke (which is false), that is just using guilt by association to discredit him.  They are putting their desire to discredit the LvMI above the requirement to describe them as they are seen in reliable sources.
 * TFD (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sources have to meet RS and not be misrepresented. That seems to relate to an aspect of WP:Fringe that should be easier to sort out. I don't intend to look at the sources in questin to that dispute, but I did see the following mention in a very recent NYT article relating to Rothbard"They envisioned a libertarian alliance with “cultural and moral traditionalists” who shared a dislike for everything from environmentalism to postmodern art. Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana ..." -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The addition of "endorsed" was misleading. But I think it was a good-faith mistake. First, it was sourced to a RS. Second, it's clear that Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform right after the campaign ended, including Duke's stances "against racial set-asides" and for "equal rights for ... whites." Duke's policy positions were widely described in the media as reflecting a thinly-veiled neo-Nazi/white nationalist positions. Steeletrap (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I get the impression Workshop is the place for these types of discussions and that this is a talk page for process-related questions/issues. I doubt the Arbitrators will take anything said here seriously. Thus I just left a couple quick notes about what's relevant on the Evidence or Workshop page. I mean, if this page is a free for all, then anything mentioned in Evidence could be brought here and I could quote lots and lots of stuff and opine upon it, as my evidence indicates. As TParis commented on workshop, any clearly new evidence also doesn't belong here. So perhaps we should stop it now? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is not a good idea to use a passing reference to someone about something they did decades before in an article about current politics. The source for the claim is an article written by Rothbard ("Right-wing Populism" January 1992). The claim is misleading because Rothbard said that rather run on a Klan platform, Duke had run on a "right-wing populist" platform that conservatives and libertarians could support. The NYT article implies that Rothbard supported Duke's KKK platform. Dan Quayle also "endorsed" the platform, while at the same time opposing Duke because of his past. (see Chip Berlet. Right-wing populism in America (2000), pp. 284-285.)

This particular article by Rothbard already comprised one third a significant part of his Wikipedia article. However, MilesMoney found another source, an article by James Kirchick about Ron Paul, that said Rothbard, in the newsletter he co-edited with Rockwell, endorsed Duke when he ran for governor. However that is impossible since the article was written after Duke ran for office. That did not stop MilesMoney, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO from insisting that be added too.

TFD (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, TFD. Could you explain what you mean by this: "This particular article by Rothbard already comprised one third of his Wikipedia article." Also, what do you mean by "insisting"?  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a third of the article, but it is the last paragraph in Murray Rothbard and most of Murray Rothbard. By "insist" I mean continuing to argue for the edit on the talk page and RSN long after it had been explained that Rothbard had not mentioned Duke in the newsletter until after the campaign was over. You know that Rothbard was not a klansman or holocaust denier (at least not that we know), yet support edits that imply he was. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So, are you retracting your statement about 1/3 of the article? I think it's unfortunate to make inaccurate and unsupportable allegations here at this proceeding. Calling a good faith disagreement, conducted in an orderly and civil framework "insisting" is likewise an inappropriate way to present facts to Arbcom, most of whom have no prior familiarity with these matters and have a right to rely on all the statements here for accuracy and an appropriate level of care in presentation.  Please consider. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It also appears necessary to state that, just because you or another editor may have "pointed out" your disagreement with Steeletrap's view, it is perfectly appropriate for there to be further good faith discussion of whatever you "pointed out" or of other points which you may not have pointed out or otherwise failed to address. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, you need to stop making false statements. Duke may have ditched the white robes and stopped using the n-word, but his 1991 platform of "equal rights for whites" was NOT a mainstream libertarian/conservative message. His platform was regarded as veiled racism and neo-Nazism by the mainstream media and other RS. Hence his ostracism from the entire Republican leadership, including President Bush and Vice President Quayle, who (in virtually unprecedented fashion) endorsed his Democratic opponent. In one of his many verbal flubs, Dan Quayle stated that Duke's "message" of 'putting welfare recipients back to work' was a good one (this was really a rhetorical tool aimed at underscoring how bad the "messenger" was). But he did not "endorse" that message in the highly specific and explicit sense Rothbard did. (Rothbard praised Duke's attacking of "racial set asides" and support for "equal rights ... for whites.") Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please provide diffs supporting your charge that we have stated Rothbard was pro-KKK or a Holocaust denier. We have stated that he supported Duke's platform, in conformity with numerous RS (including an article in last week's New York Times). Steeletrap (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, "equal rights for whites" was not a plank in the 1991 Duke platform. It is not in any of the sources that you and MilesMoney presented, and I have no found it any reliable sources.  Since you have put it in quotes, kindly provide a source.  More importantly, we are not supposed to conduct original research and provide our own views on Rothbard's essay.  We cannot take a source about Duke and a source about Rothbard's article about him, and make a judgment on what Rothbard wrote.  The is the role of journalists and academics and our role is to report what they say, not replicate their original research.
 * I did not say you stated Rothbard was pro-KKK or a holocaust denier, but that you implied it. You implied it by saying he "endorsed" the campaign of "former KKK leader David Duke" and was influenced by the "holocaust denier Harry Barnes."  If I said the best known conservative theorist was the anti-Semite Edmund Burke or that Protestantism was founded by the anti-Semite Martin Luther, one would think by implication that conservatives and Protestants had something to do with anti-Semitism.  TFD (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD. I'd appreciate a response to my post above. Because, as you know, your recent participation in the Austrian School articles commenced when I reached out to you and invited you to participate (despite knowing that you and I would often disagree about content in those articles) your suggestion that I willfully refused to engage in good faith discussion with you about this or that disagreement is bizarre and unfortunate.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The media reports of the time virtually always described Duke as a former KKK Grand Wizard. That's because, in the view of RS, the racism espoused and developed in that period of this life were connected to his 1991 political platform, even if in a repackaged form. In the weeks leading up to the election, Duke (according to the NYT) "equated the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany with affirmative action programs in the United States." His campaign slogan was "equal rights for all", and he was specifically referring to equal rights for whites. These are the statements of someone advancing a racist agenda; thus he was considered such by RS. You and Rothbard are entitled to disagree with the view that Duke was advancing a racist platform in 1991, but we have to go off of RS. The vast, vast majority of RS discussing the 1991 campaign describe Duke as a "former KKK grand wizard", so we should use that description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 February 2014

The discussion above is pretty much Godwinned. It should be apparent that the first reference David Duke should have been reverted and that line of thought banned as having lost argument, per Godwin's law. It's pretty clear that whole line of reasoning and discussion is pointless and counter-productive as economic theories are about human behavior regarding choice. Fractional reserve banking, utility, opportunity cost, price indifference, taxation, money supply, interest rates, etc, have no racial preference nor are Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, or austrian or any other economic theory inherently more racist. David Duke is not an economist. Nor would it be appropriate to find a source that some dictator with an awful human rights record was a fan of Paul Krugman and tie them together. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, I wonder whether you've misunderstood. It was the economist who was the "fan" of Duke, not the other way around as your analogy suggests. SPECIFICO  talk  04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is misplaced. The one paragraph in Rothbard's entry about his support for Duke's right-wing populism is sourced to high quality mainstream sources. Rothbard's praise of Duke has received significant coverage in RS, including a mention in last week's NYT article on Rand Paul. Mention in RS, and not our personal judgment, is the gold standard for notability on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You said, "You and Rothbard are entitled to disagree with the view that Duke was advancing a racist platform in 1991." As far as I know I have never commented on whether the platform was racist. It could be that "equal rights for all"="equal rights for whites" = white supremacy, and by not condemning Duke, Rothbard was advocating white supremacy. And you might want to explain how this differs from the mainstream Republican Southern Strategy. However this is all synthesis and has no place in Wikipedia. If reliable sources draw that connection, we can mention it. but if they ignore it, then so should we. TFD (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, you continued to argue that Rothbard "endorsed" the Duke campaign long after it was pointed out to you that the source Kirchick used was an article written after the campaign was over. I agree you are on firmer ground with the political analysis in the NYT.  But no serious scholar writing an article about Rothbard would use an analysis of Rand Paul for information about Rothbard's writing on David Duke 20 years before.  It is likely anyway that the analysis does not meet rs, because it is an opinion piece rather than a news article.  And we can read Rothbard's article and determine what he said.  By running on views acceptable to libertarians and conservatives, he did way better than he had promoting a KKK platform.  The lesson was that Libertarians could achieve electoral success by doing the same.  There is nothing particularly inaccurate about his comments, and writers on the American Right have made the same observation.  TFD (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece was not an opinion piece, as someone who regularly reads papers like the Times could easily tell you.
 * Again, you object to characterizing Duke as a "former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke" in the article. But this is mentioned on basically every article about Duke written during his gubernatorial run and since them, including the NYT article from last week which discussed Rothbard's sympathy for Duke's 91 campaign. So that's how we should present him, whether or not you think that's "guilt by association."
 * Duke was opposed by virtually all mainstream Republicans and conservative/libertarian academics. He was widely considered to be running on a racist and neo-Nazi platform, and the mainstream Republicans in that state joined the Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism to fight Duke's election. As you mention, Duke did win lot of votes. He did so in spite of being completely ostracized by the mainstream. Duke's votes came from racially concerned white people, which was a sizable chunk of the electorate in 1991 Louisiania. Though Duke denied being a racist and did not use racial slurs, the perception of virtually all mainstream sources (which apparently you and Rothbard disagree with) is that Duke was advocating racism in the campaign. It is debated whether Bush and Reagan ran on racism, but it is not debated (among non-fringe sources) that Duke did this. The perception that he ran a racist campaign is the reason the press so often mentions what you deem to be an unimportant part of Rothbard's legacy. It shocks people that an intellectual with substantial influence over a mainstream political figure (Rand Paul) was sympathetic to Duke's 1991 campaign. (the reaction would be very different had Rothbard endorsed a typical "southern strategy" Republican.) Steeletrap (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Can you please stop saying "you and Rothbard.") I have never identified here with Rothbard or Austrian economists.  My only concern is that articles are prepared according to policy.  Your statement that Duke "was widely considered to be running on a racist and neo-Nazi platform" is wrong and you have never provided any sources to support it.  In fact I provided sources that say he abandoned the KKK rhetoric, which is why he won the primary and what Rothbard wrote about.  Your approach appears to be that you think everyone who has an opinion different from yours has the same opinion.  You form opinions about events then Google search for sources, instead of researching topics and letting the sources guide what you write.  TFD (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mention of David Duke in the article on Austrian Economics seems entirely out of place. Just like an article on Chemical bonds mentions Linus Pauling there is no need to mention any of the quackery that would be weighted properly in his bio. It simply has no relevance. Contrived connections have no place in the article. Just like "Noted neo-Keynesian Paul Krugman, who shares a love of vanilla pudding with former candidate David Duke..." is a gratuitous reference. So is other associations that have high political coverage but unrelated to the topic "For Senator Ted Kennedy championed universal healthcare but Mary Jo Kopechne did not survive to take advantage of it." We also don't mention that Obama smokes when talking about the [Affordable Health Care Act]] It's gratuitous and a logical fallacy of argument. It doesn't matter how much individual coverage they got or what reliable sources have printed these facts. They're not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be out of place to mention Rothbard's sympathy for Duke's campaign in the AE article! We mention a few sentences about it on the Rothbard biography, under the section about political activism. Everything is sourced to RS. This is what TFD is apparently objecting to. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of David Duke in the article about Austrian Economics. What was discussed above was a small part of the biographical article on Murray Rothbard.  Please consider whether you're familiar enough with the background and the issues here to contribute constructively.  I know that you are well-intentioned but the result could be to confuse other readers.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on above: Below are some comments on the process we see above. Note: I see there were some "new evidence" diffs inserted above. I have mentioned diffs of my previous entered evidence or quotes of material above.
 * 1. TParis wrote the "real problem here is an overabundance of reliance on our policy, WP:FRINGE, as a weapon or tool rather than a guidance.... as an ad hominem against the sources presented by those supportive of the minority position creating a hostile environment. Editors supporting the mainstream view are not responding to the concerns of others in good faith and tendentiously using WP:FRINGE as their go-to answer for material they dispute with only superficial investigation of the sources."
 * Most of My Evidence makes the point that fringe-type arguments are used as an excuse to put in negative, WP:Undue whole sections by heavily partisan sources about minor, dated, or out of context statements by subjects of BLPs, while removing evidence of notability and credibility about them.


 * 2. Similarly, in evidence Shii said fringe "is functioning as a talisman to ward off discussion."
 * My "Fringe" evidence presents a couple of examples of claims that other editors are not competent to edit or opine on the Austrian economics biographies because they don't know the difference between "fringe" and "mainstream" in economics., . However, in all these biographies knowledge of economics rarely is needed to fill out biographical, notability and viewpoint details about professors and/or authors.


 * 3. The Four Deuces writes above that "The disputed text was mostly about adding information that had nothing to do with economic theory, for example the connection between individuals and the Ku Klux Klan, holocaust denial and homophobia."
 * Here's relevant RSN to the David Duke issue.
 * Note that (the deceased) Murray Rothbard is considered a leading figure among American libertarians and is highly regarded by many Mises.org-related figures. His article's "What links here" shows he's listed as an influence, or quoted, in over 100 BLPs and other articles. Thus the effort to tarnish Rothbard's reputation negatively affects a lot of BLPs of professors and writers. Two particularly absurd removals of RS from My Evidence are of special note: removal of 7 refs that he's an Austrian economist and removal of around a dozens refs saying he's an historian. See also the incredibly biased "Viewpoints" section which doesn't distinguish between his most important contributions in thought and his most obscure and absurd rants. It also lacks biographical context, especially regarding the circa 1988-1992ish period when he was pursuing his failed activist strategy of trying to appeal to "right wing populists".
 * Because of constantly having to deal with these POV editing problems on a number of BLPs, I have not had the time or energy to restructure the Rothbard article in an NPOV way and add a lot of WP:RS material about him that I have in my files.

4. Finally, the discussion above is typical of those with Steeletrap and SPECIFICO. They confuse, frustrate and exhaust editors with their constant and mutually reinforcing flood of convoluted arguments, making it easier to keep their policy-violating material in articles. (See My Evidence under Behavior Issues, both Edit warring/flouting consensus and Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Need Clerk to clarify purpose of talk page
I was told I should not provide "new evidence" at the Workshop and see we aren't supposed to bicker there. So why are people presenting and demanding evidence on this talk page and should it stop? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence is only to be presented at the Evidence page, and discussed at the evidence talk page (this page). The purpose of the Workshop is to propose and discuss possible and/or recommended outcomes to the case, such as which findings of fact or remedies would be of interest to the Committee to consider before reaching a final decision. So, yes. There should be no evidence at the Workshop. If you feel that you need your word limit to be extended to be able to provide all the evidence you need, feel free to ask one of the drafting arbitrators for such an extension. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then why does Evidence page from its initiation here include "Analysis of Evidence" which is filled with others' analysis and even new evidence. I was only one warned not to present new evidence and not told that this page could be used for analysis. I guess I should just move my whole discussion here then?? Thanks. Before I only checked the current Gun Control arbitration that wasn't helpful; just checked two broad topic closed arbitrations 1 and 2 and see Workshop section on "Analysis of Evidence" not used or only used once. So will proceed to move mine over... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Last minute flood of evidence?
I see there's an evidence deadline 8 Feb 2014 (midnight). I assume if someone puts in a bunch of evidence 5 minutes or two or three hours before midnight we'll be given time to provide arguments or diffs to counter it if necessary? I've been told "new evidence" to counter such evidence is not allowed at Workshop. Just wondering. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would be regarded unfavorably, as an attempt to game the system. Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope these pings work. and  Per my question, there does seem to be a last minute flood against me. So I hope I'll have extra couple hours to finish my response; plus might need another 100 odd words. Thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Other comments on WP:fringe vs. minority position

 *  Clerks: feel free to hat this section I initiated since evidently I misunderstood Hahc21's comment "Evidence is only to be presented at the Evidence page, and discussed at the evidence talk page (this page)." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. ''WP:FRINGE is about the sciences. Is economics a hard science?''
 * Steeletrap in evidence says the ‘Miseans” are fringe because of generalizations about all of them from Bryan Caplan and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, someone’s personal comment about Rothbard’s alleged refusal to try to publish in academic journals, and the fact a couple economists calling them a “cult.”
 * To me, this seems like pretty thin evidence to deprecate the work of dozens of professors and writers with even the loosest of association with the Mises Institute and assert that they have one narrow “Misean” cultish view. Category:Austrian School economists suggests the many individuals who have inspired these scholars and in my experience those who have published with or spoken at Ludwig von Mises Institute events have a variety of views, many original, influenced by them.
 * Note also that many Austrian and "Misean" economists are economic historians (for example, Rothbard, Woods, DiLorenoz, Murphy) who believe studying a human economic history filled with Economic bubbles, stock market panics and crashes, hyperinflation, currency crises, mass unemployment, trade wars and wars over trade is as ormore useful than focusing on mathematical models. Economic history is a real discipline.
 * Finally, I have to question whether "WP:Fringe" applies to economics - or any social science - where little scientific experimentation can be done and How to Lie with Statistics is practiced more easily than in the hard sciences. Also, many "mainstream" economists work for government, or else their universities, corporate or think tank clients or employers receive substantial funding or regulatory benefits from government. Many move back and forth between lucrative and prestigious private sector and government positions. A primary reason free marketeers are "ostracized" by “mainstreamers” is that free marketeers’s analysis blames government policies (and even mainstream economists!) for most of our economic problems.


 * The Four Deuces on this talk page writes “It is fringe because Austrians reject the scientific method and do not publish papers in academic journals." etc...
 * Again, no evidence of this. However, he does make the excellent point, per mine above, that "It may be that since economic activity is the product of multiple individual decisions of people with free will, it is impossible to treat economics as a science that relies on empirical evidence.” These methodological disagreements are well within the borders of acceptable social science discourse where there are majority and minority opinions - which may change status over time. (New paradigms happen.) They are not an excuse to violate Wikipedia BLP and NPOV policies.

2. Is Ludwig von Mises Institute fringe?
 * Note that looking at Ludwig von Mises Institute article for the first time in a couple months it also needs to have it's negative information reviewed and more NPOV material entered. (Per my evidence, MilesMoney was banned from editing the article because of BLP violations; his supporters who engaged in similar activity were not. EllenCT is right that at least one unfair thing happened to MilesMoney.) Anyway, The Four Deuces writes in Evidence that "original publications of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) are fringe and present views not present in academic writing."
 * First, I don't see any evidences presented of that assertion. LvMI publishes a lot of out-of-print books originally published by more mainstream publishers, obviously is well-funded enough to pay editors, popularizes original work by professors and writers who have published in mainstream outlets and promotes those works through LvMI institute functions, website, etc. The use of specific sources published by them should be judged by who has written them and other RS standards. A simple Wikipedia search of "Mises.org" shows its publications have been used as sources on a few hundred articles. If material published by it was not RS, 3/4 of them would have been booted by now. If that's a "walled garden" it's a really big one.

3. Should Austrian/Misean minority views be banned?
 * User:Shii in Evidence quotes the WP:Fringe “In a nutshell" box: When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.
 * I agree. I don’t see any editors arguing that any of the subjects of these biographies have a dominant academic view which must be inserted into every relevant article as the dominant view. I have seen legitimate minority views removed because of accusations of fringe (see my RSN removal and Fringe Evidence).


 * The Four Deuces writes in Evidence: ".. this case is about the editing of articles about the LvMI and individuals associated with it, not the use of LvMI sources for economics articles in general."
 * The issue of inserting Austrian/Misean professors or writers ideas into various economic articles or biographies has lead to a few minor disputes, but I don't believe any have gotten to noticeboards unless they involved BLPs. (However, I have no doubt if Steeletrap and SPECIFICIO weren't busy with BLPs they'd be removing every other mention of Mises.org-related sources they could find.) The primary issue remains adding negative or removing neutral or positive information from BLPs, implicitly or explicitly defended by reference to “fringe”. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * With regard to the academic discipline of history, please see historical method and philosophy of history. There are certain corollaries between the scientific method and the historical method, so the analogy is not totally irrelevant even when a historical approach is adopted with respect to economics. Moreover, Krugman and DeLong are obviously well versed in that subject matter as well.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Experimentation is not the touchstone of scientific method. Rather, it is falsifiable theory and empirically testable statements which characterize the natural and social sciences.  Think: Is astronomy a science? Yes. Do we do "experiments" on distant stars? No.
 * Your stream of statements which present your personal disdain for other editors, e.g. the one directly above, and your inability or unwillingness to differentiate your disparagements and accusations among those whose edits you dislike makes all your accusations here meaningless. If I submit evidence it's likely to focus on the strain of misrepresentation and personal disparagement that has become your hallmark on Wikipedia.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify this further for you,, your personal theories, OR, and soapboxing above, about "economic history", are not not relevant to our task as editors of Wikipedia content, which must be based on secondary RS references. Ironically, the Austrian school was founded on its rejection of the Historicism of the other German-speaking economists of the late 19th Certury, (Marx et. al.) I suggest you read that wikilink on the subject for starters. See also, this discussion by von Mises on the Mises Institute website. SPECIFICO  talk  23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia it is less of an error if one misspeaks from time to time on factoids in making a point about policy, like the policy that violating BLP policy using "Fringe" as an excuse is not permitted. Occasional errors can be corrected more easily than long-term biased editing against BLP and other policies by individual editors, evidence of which is a fitting topic for an arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Carolmooredc, as I tried to explain, your entire theory is based on error, so it's not a matter of "misspeaks from time to time". SPECIFICO  talk  01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of Steeletrap's evidence

 *  Clerks: feel free to hat this section I initiated since evidently I misunderstood Hahc21's comment "Evidence is only to be presented at the Evidence page, and discussed at the evidence talk page (this page)." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley pointed out Steeletrap's misrepresentation of a couple sources in her Arbitration evidence, possibly for "shock value". Adjwilley's efforts motivated me to investigate every assertion and I found almost all to be misrepresented, including for shock value, some of which some could see as quite defamatory. Thus the necessity for this long analysis ''which also fleshes out my bare bones criticism at the "Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence" section of my Evidence page. I only quote diffs from the evidence page here.
 * 1) Steeletrap's second paragraph states that the "Mesians...readily concede their fringe status" and are proud of it, quoting Hoppe ("dogmatic and unscientific") and an article mentioning Rothbard's reluctant to publish in mainstream publications. (Neither source uses the word "fringe"; Hoppe also is misrepresented as defining science views of all "Miseans".) In that context, when Steeletrap writes that "Prominent Misesian Walter Block" notes that two economists refer to Austrian economics as a cult, it sounds like Block is proud of it. However, in the article Block, writes against the claim "Austrian economics" is a cult, saying "My goal in writing this present essay is to attack this view as the pernicious and false doctrine that it is."
 * 2) In paragraph two, after noting another economist thinks the Austrian school is a cult, Steeletrap summarizes Block, writing "Austrians could not get published in mainstream journals". This leaves the impression Block thinks it's because "mainstream" journals regard them as a cult. In truth Block writes: "Articles that simply assume a familiarity on the part of the profession with methodological norms and theoretical developments within the Austrian tradition are unlikely to be published;" plus two other related observations which have nothing to do with "fringyness" or "cultishness". And, of course, even if all Austrians or "Mesians" explicitly declared themselves "fringe", it would not affect how Wikipedia policy defines or uses the concept.
 * 3) In paragraph three Steeletrap presents several distorted "shock value" allegations. Describing a Rothbard article called "Right wing populism", she mentions Rothbard's 1992 comment on "white nationalist and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 political platform". However, this was not Duke's white nationalist KKK platform, as Steeletrap infers, it was his 1991 Governors race platform.
 * 4)  Re: that platform, Steeletrap asserts that Rothbard wrote there is "'nothing'" in it "which libertarians shouldn't support". However, Rothbard does not write "libertarians", he writes "paleo-libertarians". As Steeletrap well knows, Paleolibertarianism was a short-lived view in the 1990s which most libertarians rejected and which even most of its few adherents rejected after Rothbard died in 1995.
 * 5) Using a Rothbard article as a source, she shares her opinion that he "was a champion of the 'historical revisionism' of Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes (though coyly never mentioned his notorious denialism)". She never presents evidence that Rothbard, a Jew, wrote anything about the Holocaust anywhere. But Steeletrap has managed to call him "coy" in her evidence.  As of today there also was no ref for related National Review  "guilt by association" paragraph here. The National Review has been hostile to Rothbard for decades. [Later note: struck example here and removed from Evidence when realized that the error was an inaccurate ref name that pointed to another, primary source per this Rothbard talk page discussion/explanation ].
 * 6) Steeletrap writes: "Then there is the connection of numerous Mises Institute scholars to the League of the South..." She's only found RS evidence that two such professors have had minor associations with it. See articles on NY Times best selling author Professor Thomas Woods and Professor Thomas DiLorenzo.
 * 7) She mentions assertions sourced to a professor's 1995 blog entry attacking Wood's best selling book. Woods allegedly wrote something in a League of the South publication; all blog entry links to the article are broken so we don't know if they were published, when they were published, if they are accurate or in context.
 * 8) Steeletrap writes that the NY Times notes that Woods "has written in opposition to Brown v. Board of Education." Actually, in his book Who Killed the Constitution, published by Random House, Woods called the decision "a dizzying display of judicial imperialism." Libertarians denounce all sorts of Supreme Court decisions - and some denounce the union war against the confederacy - not because they support state government-imposed slavery, racism or segregation, but because they oppose powerful and imperial central governments. Wikipedia is careful about using even high quality sources that misrepresent facts.
 * 9) Updated 2/5/14 per talk below: Steeletrap writes that the same NY Times article "quotes a Mises Institute economist as characterizing slavery as 'not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.'” The Times mentions Block wrote it and at least notes that he was "faulting slavery because it was involuntary". These are two Steeletrap omissions of fact which misrepresent the context. Both are quoting Walter Block out of context. Steeletrap herself at this talk page informed us that that Block responded to the Times and said this was out of context. But she has not changed her misleading evidence accordingly. He actually made the comment Block's response is backed up by his similar comments in a verbal debate whose transcript was published in a 2013 NYU Journal of Law and Liberty article entitled Walter Block & Richard Epstein Debate on Eminent Domain quoted below.
 * Another point is that Richard’s position implies no right of secession. This, in turn, implies slavery. Look, the only thing wrong with slavery was that you could not quit. If you could quit, it would be no problem. It’s a pretty good deal: You get fed three meals a day, you pick cotton and sing a song—and then the guy pulls out the whip and you would say, “Wait, I quit.” And he says, “No, you can’t quit.” You can’t secede from slavery...

I think Wikipedia RS and NPOV norms disallow these sorts of things anywhere on Wikipedia. (Later note 2/8/13 per Steeletrap's request: original said "Both are quoting Walter Block out of context. He actually made the comment in a verbal debate whose transcript was published in the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty."] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert: #10: Reply to one piece of evidence I missed earlier and just inserted in Evidence re: LewRockwell.com editorial policy. The “About” page reads: Lew strives to present diverse daily selection of interesting articles from our writers and other sites, but he does not necessarily endorse every view expressed. He does, however, believe that each piece will repay your reading. Wouldn't it be NPOV/WP:OR violation of BLP policy for editors to opine in articles, on talk pages and even here on which articles Rockwell agrees with, which he thinks present some interesting arguments among other bogus ones, which he puts in just to make fun of, or other reasons we merely can speculate upon? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)]
 * When you are stridently condemning others for misrepresenting sources, it's probably a bad idea to misrepresent them yourself. The New York Times reporters say Block's comment was made to them in an interview, not the article you cite. Block confirms this, in a post formally accusing the NYT of libel). (He has been unsuccessful in seeking a correction, and the Times stands by its interpretation.)
 * A lot of your other stuff frankly showcases a lack of ability to understand the objective (logical) meaning of terms. For instance, you believe that my edit (more or less copy and pasted from RS) stating that Rothbard sympathized with 'the 1991 gubernatorial platform of fmr KKK Grand Wizard David Duke' directly implies that Rothbard sympathized with or endorsed the KKK. It does not, as a matter of logic. That sentence indicates that Rothbard was willing to overlook Duke's radical Klan past -- a past which(in the case of Duke) obviously related to his ideological development and racially charged 1991 platform. But it does not indicate that Rothbard sympathized with the Klan. Incidentally, we describe Duke as 'former KKK Grand Wizard' because all the RS which talk about Rothbard's support for his platform describe Duke as 'former KKK Grand Wizard' in their discussion of his 1991 campaign. They understand that, while Duke may have moderated his rhetoric and even his ideology, his racist 1991 platform was influenced by his Klan past. Whether or not you deem it to be fair, we go off of the description of RS.
 * Your failures in comprehension are further illustrated by your comments on Block and Hoppe. I never said that Block thought the cult characterization was accurate or is proud of it. I said he concedes the fact that the Misesians are regarded as fringe and even cultish by the mainstream, and is proud of their rejection of the mainstream. On Hoppe, I stand by the fact that his saying that all mainstream scholars regard the Misesians as "dogmatic and unscientific" is substantively equivalent to saying that they regard it as 'fringe.' Different words can, in a certain context, share precisely the same meaning. Your constant errors of comprehension make working with you difficult and discouraging. Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The NY Times writes: Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview.
 * It is clear they are referring to some past quotation in the first case. The interview only was about the Civil Rights Act. They still are taking the "anti-slavery' quote out of context and I'm sure they are doing the same with the Woolworth's quote.
 * The Block reply is new evidence which I had not been aware of it. In it Block confirms that the "slavery" comment was not in his interview but in a past writing; unfortunately he links to the wrong one, not the correct link that I provided. (Block is opposed to laws against libel, so I guess he couldn't charge "libelous" to get the NY Times' attention. Or maybe the NY Times knew that already.)
 * As for everything else, I clearly stated in one way or another that you implied such and such which is what many of your edits do. As my Evidence diffs illustrate, you frequently add out-of-context quotes and imply something negative, highly exaggerated or even false. Then there's another tedious, time-consuming fight with you (and usually SPECIFICO) to just get it properly interpreted in context and without negative inference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of these pages is to provide evidence to the Arbitration Committee so that they can fulfill their role on WP. Your personal opinions concerning the New York Times and your denial that it is WP:RS, are not helpful here. The Committee will note your gratuitous, irrelevant, and undocumented disparagement of me above. It would really help keep these pages on focus if you'd not do that again. Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, you are still misrepresenting the Times! Block's links to this source (not your source) and says it was "precisely what I was trying to convey to Mr. Tanenhaus in the several hours of interviews." He is stating that, in the interview, he was trying to convey the arguments h previously made in the linked source; he is NOT stating that the Times got the quote from the link, and indeed clearly indicates they got it from the interview. The Times is even more clear: “One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was ‘not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.'” (emphasis mine) Steeletrap (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replying to both editors above, I tried to make my reply more brief and accidentally edited out the parts about "why NY Times didn't publish Blocks letter" and “it could be because Block got confused on which article they were using as a quote” and thus only referred to libel issue.
 * In trying to be NPOV we do note when a usually reliable source misrepresents material, whether it's by error or malice; when the replying subject also makes an error, like assuming the Times is using the wrong article for a quote, things can get even more confused. So in a BLP article or other article where BLP becomes relevant, Wikipedia BLP policy would recommend not using the contentious material at all. Similarly, it remains problematic as your “evidence” that Miseans and Block are fringe so it’s OK to put in what others consider WP:undue amounts of negative partisan material about them. Additionally, we are not supposed to have to spend day after day arguing about it over and over. We should not constantly have to take the same issues to WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN.
 * And of course, related to SPECIFICO, I do state I am referring to evidence provided. Since I do provide evidence in clear categories, I assume the total picture will become clear to those who read it all and thus I do not have to list every relevant diff for every point I make. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've previously asked you not to make test edits here or to post garbled messages in haste, only to revise them after other editors have read them. SPECIFICO  talk  15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In reference to the links to Block's writings, it's not really relevant which one of the links you use, because it becomes clear (through his multiple uses of the analogy, with almost the same wording each time), that he has expressed a view of slavery which is inconsistent with what Tanenhaus claims Block said in the interview, but can be formed by truncating a quote to fit a preconceived view, stripping out the qualifiers and the context. Block linked to his use of the analogy in his response to the Times, Carolmooredc linked to another (much older) instance, and there are plenty of others out there with virtually verbatim iterations of the same idea. I have to say that it's more likely that the NYT sloppily quoted Block than Block suddenly reversed his views on slavery, to a position which is both offensive and ignorant, yet hewed so closely to his original construction.  Horologium  (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The full quote from the Times is that Block "while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.” They noted his criticism of the involuntary nature of slavery. They are not criticizing him for supporting slavery (which he does not), but criticizing him for thinking the only thing wrong with the system was that it as involuntary. (As a dogmatic libertarian, Block thinks every consensual market arragnement should be legal, irrespective of its effects on the poor, racial minorities, etc -- he told the Times he supported Woolsworth's right to ban blacks from their lunch counters.) In any case, the point is that this was clearly stated to the Times in an interview, and wasn't plucked from the article Carol cites.
 * I have no desire to insert this in the Block article, and your concerns about it are fair. But the quotation does shed light upon Block's radical libertarian outlook. Steeletrap (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: SPECIFICO above. Revising statements is permitted on this talk page, like Steeletrap also did several times above. I don’t see where I have changed any of my statements on this talk page after others have commented on them, unless there’s an edit conflict I missed somewhere.
 * To go back to my comments about endless arguing with Steeletrap/SPECIFICO, of which this thread is becoming a typical example, here are examples of having to take the same issues to different noticeboards with diffs from my my-still-uncommented-upon "BLP Issues" Evidence section. Regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute - on October 25 Steeletrap brought an issue to RSN that on October 26 Arzel brought to BLPN. Regarding Robert P. Murphy on December 7, 2013 I brought an issue regarding self-published sources in BLPN to  BLPN December 7 that got no outside editor input; after much discussion and some edit warring on the Murphy article on January 14 I brought it to RSN where a sort-of consensus has been formed. It begins to appear the only way to bring finality to RSN and BLPN discussions is to ask for an admin to close them with a definitive decision. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [insert]Carolmooredc, the Wikipedia community doesn't like what it calls forum shopping, where the same question is posted on multiple pages. You've repeatedly been asked not to WP:FORUMSHOP, and it's surprising to see you boast of having done so and even more surprising to see you boast of extending your "endless arguing" and blaming your behavior on others. SPECIFICO  talk  19:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert response to SPECIFICO: I report one incident where I brought up a dispute, BLPN did not address it, disputes and edit warring went on for a month, no one else got outside help, so I did. That is not forum shopping however your charge is an example of my Evidence page Behavior issues/Harassment of me with false statements about policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (in response to Steeletrap) Actually, it's not clear that the interview the New York Times cites is with the Times; it simply says "in an interview", rather than "in an interview with the New York Times..." Further, that quote appears twice in the article, once with the "does not support slavery" qualifier, but not Block's name, and then again, without the qualifier, but with Block's name; it's not made clear that the second mention refers back to the first one. As for an illustration of how radical his libertarianism is, I can concede that, but the context in which it is presented is a discussion of racism, and the attempt to mix it in with more clearly racist statements by other individuals is a BLP issue. You are using it in the same fashion—to imply racism, not to indicate how "radically libertarian" you consider Block's views to be (your explanation here on the talk page notwithstanding). Struck; see below. You have said that you do not wish to include the article in Block's BLP, but there are other editors who may wish to do so; I'd just like to state my objections to that article in the discussion in which it is first mentioned, and to point out that you are not appropriately contextualizing the quote.  Horologium  (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I never used the remark to imply Block is a racist. The context in which I quoted him was an argument (which you seem to agree with) that the Misesians are out of the mainstream. He seems to think the only thing wrong with slavery was that it was involuntary. (as opposed to the working conditions of the slaves, the racial harassment they encountered, etc -- not saying Block is OK with that, but he clearly thinks it should be legal for an employer to treat an employee that way. He has also said it should be legal for bosses to pinch their female workers, so long as they voluntarily choose to work for them, which is not a mainstream view.) There is nothing wrong with being non-mainstream, but we should not accord these individuals the treatment we do mainstream sources. (That's somewhat debateable when it comes to their philosophy and political theory, and I am willing to reconsider my position. But it is not debateable when it comes to their pseudo-social science. As I documented in the evidence, the Misesians reject use of scientific method in their economics, and make unverifiable (and therefore meaningless) theoretical claims. While we can give Misesian philosophy some leeway, their 'economics' must be held to the standards of WP:Fringe.)
 * Also, it's clear that the interview with the Times is referring to was with the Times itself; this is confirmed by Block's remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that his response on his site makes it clear that he was interviewed by the Times; that's not in dispute. The Times article itself, however, doesn't make it totally clear, since Block has brought out that analogy several times. And you are right about your presentation; I struck that statement above. (It still holds true for the NYT article, though.) My concern is not about how much weight is accorded to them in articles, but rather what is presented in their BLPs, or in other articles, which violates WP:UNDUE. Just as we shouldn't refer to Paul Krugman as "Enron consultant Paul Krugman" (even though he was a paid consultant), we shouldn't be using views which many may find objectionable as cudgels against living people in contexts where it is not appropriate. Discussing Rothbard's alleged racist views in an article on the Austrian School of Economics is inappropriate, since it has nothing to do with his economic theories. (I'm not thinking of a specific incident, nor am I claiming that any editor has done such a thing; I'm simply illustrating my point.) Not mainstream does not mean "free pass to smear."


 * On a related note, the whole thing on "minority" or "fringe" positions and whether they should be mentioned goes back to something I first noted in the Climate Change Arbitration in 2010—if someone is notable enough to meet inclusion guidelines for work in their primary field, then they should be notable enough to be mentioned in articles relating to that field. (diff) This is not an argument for rewriting our articles on economics to include the Austrian School or Misean arguments, just an observation. BLPs on lower-notability individuals, particularly those who hold minority viewpoints, tend to acquire quite a few coats, rather than simply present information about who the individual is, and why he or she is notable.  Horologium  (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Horologium, I agree that any mention of Rothbard's racial or even political views in the AE article would be incredibly inappropriate and biased But no one has ever done this; please review the Austrian Economics article, as well as my past contributions there. I am highly disturbed that many editors seem to have this misconception. The David Duke material people are hung up on encompasses up about half a paragraph of Rothbard's lengthy WP bio, under 'political activism.' (it ties into Rothbard's support for "Right-wing populism") Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you are aware that the content referenced on this page is in biographical articles about various writers, not in any article about Austrian Economics. Do you have an example of any reference to Rothbard's alleged racist views or other controversial views from any WP article about economics?  If not, I think it's important not to confuse the issue here, particularly since in this less than ideal world we inhabit some readers may incorrectly infer from your writing that various economics articles are being stuffed with off-topic content concerning social theory.  Another editor made a similar misstatement here:  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess both of you missed the parenthetical "I'm not thinking of a specific incident, nor am I claiming that any editor has done such a thing; I'm simply illustrating my point." It was intended to be an obvious example of misuse of cited information. My concern ties into some of the stuff I've seen in the evidence section of this arbitration, where all sorts of things are being dragged in to discredit individuals involved with the LVMI. Most of them have nothing to do with economic theory, which is a problem when the individuals (many of whom are alive) are economists, who appear to be notable for their economic theories, not their views on race or gender. That piece in the NYT is an example of a coatrack, since there's a lot there that isn't about Rand Paul, the ostensible subject of the piece.
 * As noted, I have a long-held concern about misuse of BLPs as coatracks; people who aren't notable enough to merit mention in articles in their primary field of study shouldn't have BLPs. The view held by a number of disputants here is that they are all fringe players; if that is the case, why are we wasting time discussing them? Delete their articles and be done with it. And Specifico, you need to dial back your condescension several notches. I am "quite" aware of the scope of this arbitration, since it's been played out on multiple noticeboards for months now.  Horologium  (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Horologium: Glad to see an editor experienced on relevant Arbitrations chiming in and keeping things focused. I wrote my addition to my question on New Evidence before I saw your reply. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1.Thanks to Horologium for making important points about January 25th NY Times article
 * Para 13 reads: One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”
 * Para 64 reads: “Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as ‘not so bad,’...”

Additionally, why does the Times make it sound like there are two different economists who say this? 2.At least two of us so far think the Times failure to provide sufficient context, thus misrepresenting Block, as Block contends and his other writings prove, is enough to make the reference too contentious to be used, per WP:BLP. 3.Even should enough editors agree the material is not too contentious to use, in Arbitration, a BLP or related article, hopefully there is agreement that if any version of it is used it also has to be mentioned that a) Block found this a twisted misinterpretation of what he told the reporters at length, and b) quotes from two articles he's previously written using that phrase, like the NYU debate and article(s) Block quotes in his defense. 4. Also, Steeletrap's obsessive dislike for "Miseans" including Block makes her write totally absurd things like directly above: Block ''seems to think the only thing wrong with slavery was that it was involuntary. (as opposed to the working conditions of the slaves, the racial harassment they encountered, etc -- not saying Block is OK with that, but he clearly thinks it should be legal for an employer to treat an employee that way."'' (Plus another claim not supported by any new evidence diff on the Evidence page.) This BLP violating WP:OR statement typifies her "righting great wrongs"/pov pushing editing and talk page discussion. Steeletrap's biases, which I detailed in my Motivating biases Evidence section, are very disruptive to the Wikipedia project. SPECIFICO may not state his biases as explicitly or frequently, but he usually supports her edits. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Insinuation without evidence is unacceptable here. Especially with WP:WEASEL words, (usually) (supports) etc. such as you've just used in the preceding post. SPECIFICO  talk  22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO: I've been careful to bring up issues that I believe I have amply illustrated at my Evidence page section. In fact I write directly above "which I detailed in my Motivating biases Evidence section,". Have you read my evidence? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I haven't had time to read your Evidence submission yet. I was just talking about this page. SPECIFICO  talk  01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition of new evidence and rebuttal to talk page permitted?
Can editors keep adding diffs of brand new evidence to the talk page? Clarification on that policy would be helpful since we are now going from discussing Evidence page evidence of "fringe" to needing to discuss new evidence diffs supporting attacks on an individual. Also I see an editor who only made general comments about policy being challenged to provide new evidence that editor's have erred. To me that seems like a way to discourage further contributions from individuals who want to comment on either presented evidence or policy in general. I have a feeling that's not the purpose of this talk page or Arbitration.

Also, I see editors doing defacto rebuttal of Evidence page evidence, claiming it is "clarificaiton." Is this correct? I did respond to Steeletrap's specific criticisms of my talk page explanations of her evidence above, which is proper since I repeated my Evidence page analysis here. However, I'm not sure if these rebuttals should happen here. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand your first set of questions correctly, the answer is that all evidence should be added to the evidence page, but only evidence related to the dispute at hand or conduct of the parties. Things like concerns about users adding improper evidence or questions about what evidence is proper should be brought up on the evidence talk page for the clerks and arbitrators to deal with. Personal attacks or other misbehavior on the case pages should also be brought to the attention of the clerks or arbitrators. As for your second question, I do believe that all rebuttals of evidence should go on the evidence page if they are to be considered by the arbitrators. Basically, in general, the evidence page is for submitting and rebutting evidence and evidence analysis, while the evidence talk page is for questions and general discussion about evidence and bringing evidence related questions or concerns to the clerks and arbitrators...no evidence or rebuttals or analysis should be presented on the evidence talk page. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. I guess my elaboration of evidence presented at Evidence probably wasn't a good idea either. Mea culpa. So now that all that is clarified, I guess further evidence, rebuttal or analysis should be reported, perhaps here. Will get the message out.
 * New questions:
 * Should we hat such off topic discussions?
 * I see a couple of editors have been going to the talk pages of editors who commented here to discuss their evidence; some could see this as a pressure tactic. I have a feeling off arbitration talk page discussions, private email discussions, etc also are a no no. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it to the clerks to hat off-topic discussions. As for discussing evidence on user talk pages and email discussions about evidence, I'm not sure. I'll bring it up with the other clerks and the arbitrators. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did notice that the other clerk said we can discuss evidence here. Confused. Would help to clearly state talk page guidelines on top of the page in future. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He is correct, and I was trying to communicate that evidence, rebuttals, and analysis of evidence (read: arguments) go on the evidence page while discussions about evidence go on the talk page. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words you can say "I think you have this evidence wrong, as I remember it blah blah blah, check it out" but you can't say "these 3 arguments and this new diff proves you are wrong."
 * Also, the question about following people to talk pages is an important one. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the evidence page is for "I remember it this way, per this evidence, which means this argument" while the evidence talk page is for "I don't think X's evidence should be allowed because Y" or "Can I present evidence Y" or "X is making personal attacks about me; please make him stop". As for following people to talk pages, I have asked the arbitrators for clarification and someone will answer when we get a chance. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User's attempt to cover-up (admitedly) false allegations she made
Here, User:carolmooredc removes a charge of "misrepresentation" against me that you now admit to be false. I think the arbitration committee has to take these things into account, as they arguably undermine your credibility. Thus I ask that you restore (and cross) your false accusation rather than simply covering up the fact that you ever made it, by removing it altogether from the evidence page. Steeletrap (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been many instances of these misrepresentations, personal attacks and other off-topic personal remarks which has posted here and later erased instead of striking them through. In several instances, I believe she's done this at the suggestion of other editors who have cautioned her about her inappropriate postings.  In the unfortunate event that any such misinformation or disparagement is posted in the future, I believe it should be stricken through rather than erased, so that the record is evident.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a constant problem on pages involving CMDC. The ANIs she's involved with are replete with crosses (as well as erases) of discredited personal accusations. I wish I had the motivation to compile the old diffs, but I don't. WP is more of a compulsive habit than a passion, and my efforts to improve human knowledge here are secure. The fact is, even if she trumps up allegations of "TE", the overwhelming majority of edits I've made are supported by RS and in conformity with NPOV. So even if I have to go, my influence will remain. Steeletrap (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert: Re:reading this again, I see you make an accusation without evidence that I removed things without mentioning it elsewhere. Please don't do that. However, it only has become clear that ''a major point of this arbitration is so that people can say - hey, you got that wrong, please remove it. They do, and the issue is over. Just like I asked you to remove undocumented claims] which I could allege were false. But they're gone now, so the issue is finished. Thanks. [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Per this Rothbard talk page discussion I see now that Williamson uses  which is the ref name for Rothbard, Murray (1968). "Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War.". Since I only read the "read screen" and didn't pay attention to the ref when put in "citation needed" I did not see that that was the error.
 * At this diff, this Evidence talk page, I struck it noting in edit summary  remove "no ref for" since wrong Ref name hid actual ref from the read screen). I also corrected the ref in the article. Obviously I should have explained why I removed it in this talk page, but I didn't feel like getting hassled for "adding material."
 * At this diff, Evidence page, I removed it noting in the edit summary remove "no ref for Williamson" since wrong Ref name hid actual ref from the read screen). I didn't want to waste words on explaining why and figured the edit summary would be seen. If that's a problem I'll put it back; plus I will put an explanation for the striking/removal above even if I get hassled for doing that.
 * Note that Steeletrap evidently would not have noticed my error at all if I hadn't corrected it in three places. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per this Rothbard talk page discussion I see now that Williamson uses  which is the ref name for Rothbard, Murray (1968). "Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War.". Since I only read the "read screen" and didn't pay attention to the ref when put in "citation needed" I did not see that that was the error.
 * At this diff, this Evidence talk page, I struck it noting in edit summary  remove "no ref for" since wrong Ref name hid actual ref from the read screen). I also corrected the ref in the article. Obviously I should have explained why I removed it in this talk page, but I didn't feel like getting hassled for "adding material."
 * At this diff, Evidence page, I removed it noting in the edit summary remove "no ref for Williamson" since wrong Ref name hid actual ref from the read screen). I didn't want to waste words on explaining why and figured the edit summary would be seen. If that's a problem I'll put it back; plus I will put an explanation for the striking/removal above even if I get hassled for doing that.
 * Note that I don't think an error like this is evidence of anything like the above. And Steeletrap might not have noticed my error at all if I hadn't corrected it in three places. But I did so anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's your responsibility to vet accusations of misrepresentation against a user before posting them. An error of that sort is more serious than most errors on WP. In this case, the false accusation could have been avoided by minimal reading on your part. Steeletrap (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:carolmooredc also needs to strike her accusation that I "misrepresented" a Block quote from his debate with Richard Epstein. The quote I cited did not come from that article, but from a NYT article, which was quoting Block from a personal interview. Horologium, who you seem to like, said that it is "not in dispute" that the quote was drawn from an original interview the NYT did with block; the evidence for this is presented above. Steeletrap (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [Insert: this is an error I corrected, not a misrepresentation.


 * I'm not terribly familiar with arbcom procedures, bit this kind of self correction seems harmless to me. I Imagine we would want to foster a community where users are allowed and encouraged to correct their own mistakes when they realize they are wrong, (as opposed to digging in their heels) and I know it's a trait I respect myself. If you think CMDC's error needs the attention of the arbs perhaps you could add a diff to your own evidence section. Otherwise I don't think this thread is going to be very productive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Adjwilley. Are we talking about the same thing? I believe that striking is generally encouraging over deleting on talk page discussions, especially when someone has posted something that is being actively discussed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess should have struck it instead of removing it, but greed for those extra few words got the best of me. Mea culpa.
 * Thanks for pointing out what, on my examination, turns out to be a couple of Steeletrap "misrepresentations by omission" points that dropped out in my attempts to be brief and/or cause tired. Have a draft but tired tonight. I will correct to a few added words in both Evidence and talk sections which will make my point, first thing tomorrow. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Carolmooredc, can you please restore (and strike) your misrepresentation of the Block quote, as coming from a source other than a NYT interview? It is not fair to me that my (correct/conceded) allegation of misrepresentation against you should be rendered unintelligible by your deletion of the misrepresentation. We are always encouraged to strike rather than deleting comments made in talk page-esque settings; this is particularly true here, where you made a highly loaded accusation against me. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are discussing this diff,, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'll have to quote for me or give me a diff of what you wrote that you are talking about since there's a lot of back and forth in there so I'm not sure if it really is something relevant or not. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming this diff above is what you are talking about, I clearly stated I was going to update/correct my error and then mentioned it was updated. As has become clearly last 48 hours or so, a major purpose of this page is to help editors remove inaccurate/erronenous/etc info, not to blare away all over that they made an error. But I noted the (admittedly sloppy error) which I took out in favor of the larger problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Various distortions by User:Srich32977
Srich, you have mischaracterized my views in several of your diff summaries on the table you created. I urge you to review your edit summaries to see if they accurately describe the rationales behind my edits. In just a few minutes, I have detected the following distortions.


 * Hoppe You claim that I am guilty of a double-standard by removing the LewRockwell.com blog from Hoppe's article but keeping it in Rothbard's. My rationale (which you inexcusably omit) is that the former (unlike the latter) is a living person, so a blog cannot be used for info about his views, no matter how reliable. NOTE -- The Ron Paul content in the paragraph is sourced (by Rockwell) to The Daily Dish, which is an RS. It is not established by the SPS LewRockwell blog. The Fred Reed stuff (which does appear to violate WP:SPS) was added by Carolmooredc, not by me.
 * Harvard Political Review You claim that my issue with this source is that it is written by an undergraduate. My issue with it is that it's entirely written and edited by undergraduates (i.e. is an undergraduate publication), and focuses on politics and economics. It is not a reliable source for a review of a book which presents itself as a serious work of philosophy and economics, because its authors lack sufficient expertise in those fields. Just because a publication's title has the word "Harvard" in it doesn't make it reliable.
 * Stossel. You claims that I removed Stossel's praise of Block's economics book because it makes Block look good. In fact, I removed it because he is a cable news pundit akin to Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. This does not (in my view) qualify him as an RS for a book which presents itself as a a serious work of philosophy and economics. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WSJ You claim that I removed the WSJ's alleged description of LvMI as 'world class' solely out of a motivation to portray LvMI as fringe. In fact, I removed it because it was quoted out of context. The WSJ does not "describe" the Institute as world class.
 * A writer for WSJ online wrote an article about the Institute, and posed the question: "How does a world-class think tank end up in east Alabama?" This remark, which takes the form of a question rather than a statement, could easily be interpreted as questioning whether LvMI is in fact world class (because it is not, to say the least, in a location traditionally known as an intellectual hotbed). If, speaking of a (hypothetical) NFL player, I say: "How does one of the best quarterbacks in league history have no super bowl rings?", it would be wrong to say I am calling him the "one of the best quarterbacks in league history." I could be, but I could also be calling that into question.
 * The WSJ remark is made in the form of a question, rather than a positive statement. And the second part of the question at least superficially calls into question the first. Thus, the WSJ LvMI statement is ambiguous -- it's plausible he was stating LvMI is in his opinion world-class and it's plausible he wasn't. He certainly seems to have a positive view of LvMI, and I think his remarks should be used in the article; but it's entirely plausible that he was gently challenging their claim to being world class. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Srich's tables and found many similar half-truths and misrepresentations. It's very unfortunate. I've left him a note on his talk page asking him to review and revise his evidence posting. SPECIFICO talk  04:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I await a full listing of my transgressions. Please provide a full listing of my "several" and/or "many" errors. I shall respond when your lists are complete. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We all come to this process with an obligation to speak truthfully and to represent facts accurately and fully. Posting "evidence" or diffs which misrepresent facts and context is an insult to Arbcom and to the community. It is not my job to correct your misrepresentations. I've mentioned one of them on your talk page. Steeletrap has listed others above.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO: The evidence page reads: The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect...
 * Short explanations there, with diffs showing that what you say above is what you said on a talk page probably would be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't mind if Specifico & Steeletrap comment here or on my talk page. If corrections or clarifications are needed, then I'd like to make the needed changes. The question of rebutting an argument is a bit different, and deserves different treatment in the ArbCom process. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is distressing. I pointed out a few things to Srich so that he could make corrections, and he responded constructively. Carolmooredc, how could you possibly think it's better to let Srich's distortions be introduced and then debated when a simple correction will save editors and the Arbitration Committee the time and effort of sorting out yet another disagreement?  Now that you've raised the subject, I'd like to ask you to examine your own evidence and remove or correct those entries and diffs which contain half-truth, out-of-context cherryicked diffs, and personal attacks not related to factual evidence.  Please consider.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Srich, this isn't a complicated issue. You listed a bunch of my edits, and attributed (to me) arguments for those edits that I never used to support them. See: Straw man fallacy.
 * Please read my edit summaries and the talk pages of the articles in question. You need to accurately represent my rationales for the edits you consider to be problematic. (If you are unwilling to take the time to read the actual edit summaries and talk pages, I have reproduced those rationales above.) While you are entitled to disagree with them, you are obligated to accurately represent those rationales in your table: please do so immediately. It's just a fact that you mischaracterized my arguments in your diff summaries. Strictly speaking, your 'arguments' can't even be 'wrong' (or 'right') since they're not logically valid. Steeletrap (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO:
 * I am adding to my new evidence question above, one on rebuttals. It seems like a way Arbitration presents a level playing field. I believe Users should not feel they have to respond to rebuttal type complaints on the talk page that should have been mentioned first on the Evidence place. Hopefully a Clerk will clarify.
 * I'm soon going to respond to Steeletrap's specific criticisms of my explanations of her evidence above, which is proper since I repeated my Evidence page analysis here. However, if specific criticisms aren't made in the proper place, I can't respond.
 * Arbitration is for presenting evidence of wrongdoing after dispute resolution fails. Don't blame me for presenting the kind of evidence asked for. Perhaps the WP:Formal Mediation in which you and Steeletrap refused to engage would have been the "gentler road." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, I don't understand why you posted to me about "rebuttals" above. Were you referring to the errors in Srich's original posting of evidence? The discussion between him and me on his talk page was a friendly exchange, and purely voluntary on both of our parts. There was no "rebuttal", in fact the point of our cooperation on this point was to avoid any adversarial exchange concerning facts which are not disputed between us. I've never known Srich to feel that he's compelled to do anything with which he's not comfortable. Please restate your comment more specifically if you were referring to something else or if you wish me to respond further.  Thanks. -- P.S. I think there may be a formatting error in your last post.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Evidence/Rebuttal question here, Cleark replied: no evidence or rebuttals or analysis should be presented on the evidence talk page. I then asked about hatting and off-evidence talk page of discussions. Then noticed other clerk said something else and added that to discussion above. OI!! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap has posted on the Evidence page regarding my "distortions" and I have replied/rebutted in my Evidence section. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminders
Just a reminder to all parties and participants that as I said in the section above, please keep all evidence, rebuttals, and analysis of evidence on the evidence page and reserve the evidence talk page for concerns about evidence presented and questions about evidence. Also, please bring any personal attacks or other misbehavior occurring on the case pages to the attention of the clerks so it can be dealt with appropriately. Thank you for your cooperation, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hello. Regarding your recent comments here, there seems to be a lot of text posted on this page (evidence and rebuttals,) which should have been placed on the Evidence page. If I understand your comment above correctly, this material will be reviewed by yourself or others and the inappropriate content will be hatted.  In order to have such statements or arguments considered as part of this case, therefore, they should be written instead on the Evidence page at this time.  Is that correct?  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the most basic principle of Arbitration, SPECIFICO. So if you are going to do it, don't delay til a few hours before the deadline. Other editors do need time to respond and to get permission for more words. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How does your post relate to mine? What basic principle?  Do what?  Please clarify.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your question "In order to have such statements or arguments considered as part of this case, therefore, they should be written instead on the Evidence page at this time." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've written on this page is "evidence". My inquiry related to other sections which appear to be posted as impeachment or rebuttal of material posted on the evidence page. Thanks for the clarification.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Per your diff, according to Clerk Ks0stm here and in question "Addition of new evidence and rebuttal to talk page permitted?" you can't present arguments here. I know I extended/explained mine earlier but evidently that was a No-No and those comments will be hatted. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Workshop guidelines – "The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence" – I think I have posted my remarks in the proper section. I think the concern above is about using this talk page for analysis, rebuttal, etc. of specific evidence presented rather than general concerns about how the Arbitration is being carried out. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SRich. 3 of 4 Arbitrations I looked at didn't use that section at all which makes it more mysterious. Also, no new evidence at analysis, per TParis's comments to me. I'm starting my post mortem on how to make it all clearer now, while fresh in my mind. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify please? What section is "that section" and what the links to the 4 Arbs you looked at? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remove undocumented claims from evidence
In new evidence Steeltrap makes undocumented, inaccurate or highly exaggerated negative claims about Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods. She makes unsustantiated claims that “There is a tendency among Carol and others sympathetic to LvMI to want to whitewash their more extreme views and affiliations.” She either should provide concrete evidence links immediately or remove the claims, per BLP. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, here  removed one unsourced allegation about me at the same time she added another one. Please source or remove it immediately. Thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, a general statement is not the same as a specific statement. A meta statement describing a 'tendency to whitewash' cannot be proven or disproven through a diff. The Arbcom has to look at your general outlook, including your view as to what constitutes "undue" additions to these articles, and decide whether they agree with my 'whitewashing' assessment. But it is not a misrepresentation because it's not specific enough to test. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You already removed Whitewash. Now I'm asking you to remove the claim I added material that is against WP:SPS without providing a diff that I added it. That is very specific. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, I'll add that. You weren't clear, so I didn't know what you were saying. Steeletrap (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Question for Alanyst
I find your lists and links interesting myself, as a trip through history. And I guess they are good context for Arbitrators, especially all those BLPs under disputes. Since this is first time I've been in Arbitration and only skimmed a couple completed Arbitrations previously, just curious about what other use Arbitrators or editors would make of such lists. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm endeavoring to present the big picture of the dispute objectively, with handy links for arbitrators to access relevant details. By starting at the highest level I hope to make sure the details are given their proper context: individual diffs of the sort commonly offered as arbitration evidence are useful, but can sometimes distort one's view of the dispute because there is much they don't reveal.  I hope that my evidence makes it easier for arbitrators to discern the proper scope of the case and to spot large-scale patterns and trends in behavior.  (Arbitrators, if you have any feedback on whether this approach seems likely to aid the deliberations, I'd be glad to hear it.) alanyst 17:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great. Looking at it more, user space disputes so immense and time consuming to figure out, may not be worth it, but Noticeboard visits related to specific articles are important; I'm quite sure the vast majority are BLP related.
 * Also, a) re: BLPs under dispute, the next three without notations are probably the most active ones to mention, if you do any more; b) while Murray Rothbard not a BLP it probably has been the most disputed page, since it does impact so many BLPs; the other BDPs have been less contentious but there certainly have been similar issues; c) also you might note which ones not Austrian economics related. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the opposite is more likely the case. Once a Noticeboard thread is opened, the involved editors will invariably post there (if only to present the issues for others to discuss) so the noticeboard lines represent a kind of double-counting which tends to skew the information to be gleaned from the table.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Word limit
I want to provide more detailed responses to the evidence for other users. However, I'm currently basically at the world limit. Should I cross (or delete) existing text in order to get some more room? Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand the ArbCom process, they will be looking at editing behaviors and editor interaction. (See: WP:Arbitration.) They will not, I believe, issue any rulings that say AE is fringe – not-fringe. If I'm correct, then your effort to prove LvMI or the Austrians or Miseans as fringe will be ignored. (If it were up to me, I'd say "take it to the FTN" and end the case. Then, if FTN consensus developed to say they are FRINGE, WP editorial treatment of AE theory would change.) Also, the postings on this page will not be considered by the ArbCom. E.g., the remarks are not presented as Evidence. Thus the efforts by you (and CarolMooreDC) to present evidence here and to argue the case will not be helpful in the long run. If I am correct, then you ought to revise your Evidence in the form of Diffs that focus on editing problems. I'd have no objections if you remove the 'Evidence' you presented and provided Diffs instead. (Material like "SRich32977 doesn't know anything about WP policy as evidenced by his remarks here." would be more helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the fringe stuff provides crucial context to understanding all the AE issues. For example, many of the diffs you object to, in which I removed lengthy discussions of the criticisms of the Misesians from major economics pages (such as Milton Friedman's page), are vindicated if one accepts that LvMI is fringe (and therefore, such extensive mention of its theories undue). I'm not looking for a pronouncement, just an understanding. Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If people need more words they can ask for it from Clerks. I don't think we are supposed to delete/remove evidence that has been responded to at Evidence, unless it has been proved unsupported by any evidence at all, or an editor has been informed of an error and made a good faith attempt to correct it. Both of which have happened at talk. Otherwise I don't think we should be advising each other on the best way to approach it or word things otherwise. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I really hope this is answered as (per Carol's concerns) I'm not inclined to remove my previous comments w/o permission. Also, Carol - Could you please, in the spirit of your remarks here, restore your prior, false statement about Block (i.e. that I misrepresented his statement from the NYU article), and cross it? Steeletrap (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There really is no point to restoring a statement simply to strike/cross it. If a statement once added to evidence is not restored, the ArbCom will not consider it. If it is restored and stricken, they will not consider it. We edit the evidence just like we edit articles – in order to make the text clear. We retract statements in talk pages in order to clarify that mistatements, errors, etc. are withdrawn. The ArbCom members have enough on their hands without this very minor issue around to nip at their heels. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is the impression I was starting to get, SRich. When I looked at my strike out of my correction of the wrong ref name, it looked silly and I had to add a note I "corrected" it. But then it occurred to me the purpose of this page is to say, hey, you were wrong or you don't have a reference (as I did a couple times) and then person just removes it. They don't leave a strike out of evidence they goofed up. (Like Steeletrap struck both her inaccurate and/or unsupported statements about me.) I doubt Arbitrators read anything but the final.
 * As importantly, we aren't even in the relevant section(s?) about Block and I think I left a question there needing an answer before I could figure out what she was talking about and if she was right. She should answer my question with a ping there and I can deal with it tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, I did not cross any false statements about you on the evidence page, nor did I make any. Please cross your comment. Steeletrap (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I mention what the statements were in the "Please remove undocumented claims from evidence" section so they can be discussed there. I searched around, found the section you are complaining about, figured it out and responded. Please discuss it there. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing of evidence? Time?
Could a clerk confirm the closing time for the submission of Evidence here? Is it midnight tomorrow or midnight on the 8th into the 9th? I am unfortunately preoccupied with some real life responsibilities and trying to determine whether and when I'll be able to submit evidence. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And confirm whether we can ask for more time (and still ask for more words) if there's a last minute entry of a lot of material. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to formally request an extension of the evidence phase of at least one week. Thanks, alanyst 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing of evidence period and word limit
We now have editors requesting or in some cases simply proceeding to take time past the Feb. 8 limit for posting Evidence. There are also at least two editors who have, by my estimate, exceeded 2,000 words. I request guidance from Arbcom as to whether the rest of us should continue to conform to the stated limits or whether we should continue to post past the limits? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8 February is a target and not a limit. At present, it seems, additional evidence can be posted. Regarding word limits, WP:TLDR is a self-executing mechanism. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * and Per my question at Last minute flood of evidence, I'd rather see Clerks rulings on all of this. Enough is enough already... Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, nobody violated the rules except you and Srich. Rules may not always be fair, but unilaterally choosing to violate them is even more unfair, as well as disruptive. Steeletrap (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a reminder Steeletrap wrote under "Last minute flood of evidence?" above: here Feb 1st: "I think that would be regarded unfavorably, as an attempt to game the system." SPECIFICO entered dozens of diffs of evidence against me five hours before official closing here. I entered the great bulk of my reply 2 hours after closing, with a few tweaks in the hours after. SRich entered his when he had a chance a few hours later. I also asked the Clerks for permission for more time and words. They will remove any material they feel is a problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to say that there was a "violation" of the "rules". Of course, case parties are granted 1000 words and 100 diffs, and non-parties 500 and 50, respectively, but this limit can be expanded if the dispute gets complicated. With the drafting arbitrators' approval, of course. I would also not say that there was any unilateral violation. I doubt that any case party would not feel that they need to post as much evidence as needed, even if they go above the limits. The usual path to follow is to ask the drafting arbitrators to grant them an extension, with an explanation of why such an extension is needed. However, parties and participants are instructed to keep their evidence as tidy as possible, avoiding excessive use of, for example, unnecessary words. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Such nit-picky comments! Watch out, Wikipedia, "violation of the rules", "gaming the system", "unfair", is at play. Seems that WP:COLLAB would be much better course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that a problem here is the notable absent of arbitrators and clerks to answer questions and guide participants in the process. It's not all that easy to navigate this on your own, and without much guidance the evidence/workshop presentation become more messy than it needed if advices were timely provided. Also, being part of an ArbCom process can be stressful and the athmosphere will naturally easily get tense among participants when there are uncertainty about rules. Iselilja (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While not on-point, the essay WP:ROPE comes to mind. Perhaps the arbitrators & clerks are just sitting back to let the cat-fight continue. Or, perhaps they are doing something more worthwhile – like enjoying the Sochi Olympics. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey all. Sorry for not being checking in very often, thanks for the ping (ping me every time you need me, please). I confirm that the deadline is February 8th at 23:59 (UTC). Of course, as said above, it is a target, but it must be complied with anyways, unless the drafting arbitrators agree that it should be extended. So, I expect nobody to add more evidence after Feb. 8 at 23:59 unless news of a deadline move arrive. Now about the evidence limits, I have given a fast look to the page, and will try to check again tomorrow and recommend to users going above the limits to reduce evidence or request extension to any drafting arbitrator (as I suggested above) if they haven't done this already. Finally, I apologize again for not being available on a timely basis, and feel free to email me or write at my talk page if you need an immediate response. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 02:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carolmooredc: I'd give you the green light to go ahead only once and add whatever you need to add against (or to counter) the evidence added (late, in my opinion) by the other two users. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and Iselilja: Don't worry and don't panic. I admit that RL has kept me unexpectedly busy but I am still able to answer any of your concerns in no more than 24 hours. So, stay calm and avoid going back and forth with the rest of the case parties without me or Ks0stm providing a response to your queries first. I know this can be extremely frustrating, but any question you might have will be answered as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the word limit is going to be dramatically relaxed for one user, and the time limit is going to be extended, I'm going to assume that applies to the rest of us as well. More broadly, could we have a one week extension on evidence? Steeletrap (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose any further extension. 1) Per the Workshop page commentary, the editors are extending their bickering into the ArbCom process. 2) Editors were warned that this was coming months ago by User:Sitsushi and that they should start preparing their diffs. (The link for Sitsushi's warning is not that important or probative.) 3) Steeletrap, for one, was advised to focus on editor behavior instead of arguing for FRINGE. She chose to ignore the advice. 4) Enough evidence has been presented. Further diffs would only illustrate the patterns we see in the Evidence and in the ArbCom process. 5) The Sochi Olympics are on! Let's close the evidence phase here-and-now, let editors comment in the Workshop phase as the Games are going on, and then close this up with some decisions. – S. Rich (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, closed!! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging User:Floquenbeam, one of the drafting arbitrators, to request permission to continue to add to my evidence section and not to be held to the usual non-party limits on word count and diffs. I have been attempting a dispassionate analysis and detailed summarization of the dispute but there is so much material to review that I have not been able to complete it. I aim to produce a reference for the arbitrators that will help them make sense of the contours of the dispute and be sufficiently informed when the time comes to draft the decision. Specifically, I'd like to catalog the various Wikipedia-space discussions on the topic, and the way that the parties have interacted with each other on their user talk pages. Floquenbeam, if what I have produced so far seems useful and constructive to you, I'd like to continue in that vein. On the other hand, if my presentation of evidence so far is too broad or voluminous or duplicative, or has yet failed to shed light on the dispute, just say so and I'll leave off. alanyst 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have an opinion on how to handle this, but as a newbie arb, I'm going to check with a few other arbs to see if I'm off base compared to current practice. I'll get back to you in a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're checking, I noticed that in my rush to complete my Evidence submission, I omitted a few pings and dropped several links that I had in my draft text. If there's any extension, I'd like to put those links in their proper places. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , as long as it's cleanup, rather than the addition of substantial new evidence, I don't mind that. See general comment in section below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also see my question below which is relevant and I've made a subsection. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , yes, I would welcome your addition of project and user talk space information similar to what you've created for article space. I don't see this type of summary as beneficial to any one side, but I do see it as beneficial to me. Thank you. In theory, I suppose this could go in the workshop or a talk page or something, so as not to upset the timetable, but frankly that would be the tail wagging the dog. The evidence page makes the most sense to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Too late for questions on evidence?
Looking at SPECIFICO's last minute evidence, I just noticed a link I somehow missed which lead to a huge archive page of lots of threads. So I really don't know how it's supposed to be evidence of what it's claimed (a much more specific link should have been provided) or anything else. Can we ask? Or is that the sort of thing that will be ignored by arbitrators anyway? I think it may be used now to make claims at workshop that aren't really proved, so would be helpful to know. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a typo. If you don't mind, tell me the link number and I'll check/correct it. Thanks!  SPECIFICO  talk  01:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I searched the diff for “block” and found the added section in question is only a small part of the whole ANI thread which is Off-wiki harassment by User:Carolmooredc. It’s quite self-explanatory. I similarly linked to the full ANI thread of your block and that's what is appropriate. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, the timetable/schedule is intended primarily to prevent an unworkable situation where substantial new information is provided very late in the game, with little chance for arbs to consider it, and little chance for other parties to respond, and dragging the whole process out. The only reason to treat it as a completely strict deadline is that people in some past cases have tended towards gamesmanship in when and how they present their evidence.  I don't think a strict deadline necessarily prevents that, at worst it just alters the type of gamesmanship.


 * As a relatively new and not-yet-completely-cynical arb, I'm willing to assume that all parties are capable of acting in a way that helps me draft a fair proposed decision, no matter how much animosity has developed. 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 they recently found that makes a previous point better.  If it starts to look like someone is taking advantage of this approach, I may change my mind.  But for now, don't take "close of evidence phase" as "you are no longer allowed to touch the evidence page". Consider it more like "nothing substantial or new without prior approval". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I meant to ping you on this, to make sure you saw it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see a bunch of new evidence won't be added. I might want to add a couple more "defensive" links, especially of full threads, after I take a nap, so at least full context is obvious as opposed to cherry picked diffs. Later note: I added one link, a couple clarifications, and moved all that stale info to the end so that Arbitrators won't get too confused about what is and isn't relevant here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to add Evidence
In this comment by others, a long-inactive editor with a low edit count has posted a diff regarding one of the parties. I request that the diff be admitted into the Evidence. & .  – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First, the "evidence" from 2 years and more is stale and irrelevant. Second, the editor Goodwinsands comes out of a 25 month retirement at this moment. He comments on my complaints still at User talk:Goodwinsands that 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? I have to wonder why he suddenly came out of retirement. He should not be allowed to post this stale evidence whose sudden appearance is questionable, to say the least. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I don't see the point; as the drafting Arb, I am not going to pay any attention whatsoever to 2 year old evidence submitted by an account that has been dormant for 2 years, but pops back up when there's an ArbCom case against their old enemy. None whatsoever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I assumed you'd be that sensible.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I posit: 1. The evidence is evidence regardless of its age. 2. That it was submitted by a dormant editor does not change the evidence itself. 3. The evidence would be considered if it had been submitted during the open phase (even if submitted by an old enemy). We have diffs that date back several years in the evidence – are those diffs going to be disregarded? If so, what is the cutoff date for diffs? 4. At present the ArbCom is a case involving "new enemies", so the dating of enemy status really doesn't change things. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Floquenbeam. While I think I understand your reaction to Srich32977's request, I believe that the link does relate to the discussion in the current case. In my evidence I reviewed some of Carolmooredc's history in order to demonstrate that her disruptive behavior is longstanding, that it was not precipitated, as she claims, by recent events in the Mises/Austrian articles, and that her patterns of denial and excuses are also longstanding. The material in the link is a contemporaneous account of Carolmooredc's behavior as of the time of its occurrence, so it appears to be the sort of evidence which is generally considered credible.  There are many editors who have quit various articles or quit WP due to the kind of harassment this user believes took place, so I respectfully ask you to allow it to be placed in evidence in case any of your fellow arbitrators find it relevant.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I going back into evidence unrelated to or earlier than disputes starting in April 2013 is the standard, I know I have a harassment and other issues from late 2012 to April 2013 involving SPECIFICO, and to a lesser extent SRich, that I'm not happy about. (I feel harassment led to unnecessary banning of two editors.) But I controlled myself and only posted evidence from April 2013. So if we re-open old stuff, let's reopen it for everyone! :-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no stated standard, so I don't know where April 2013 comes from. Requests to admit evidence post-closing can be accomplished on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration, IMO, is whether the evidence is probative. If the diff is admitted, Carolmooredc would certainly be able to refute or rebut the diff. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my request is moot. The particular diff posted by Goodwinsands in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop is contained in a July 2013 ANI which Specifico linked to in the Evidence as Diff #87. – S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Goodwinsands finally clarified it was a current ANI already in evidence, and one that mentioned him, and not one of the old ANIs I was in with Drsmoo and Goodwinsands in 2011. So I moved reply to that evidence to correct place in current evidence and gave my reply re: that still stale Drsmoo/Goodwinsands evidence. His comment at workshop is therefore not trolling, but his "evidence" remains stale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is yet another example of your tactic, detailed in my evidence, of walking back your policy violations, in this case your personal attack concerning trolling, after you've been rebuked. SPECIFICO  talk  18:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the "finally clarified" is rather funny. Either way, it's now established that it does not constitute a reopening of the evidence docket. What individual arbitrators make of it is their personal decision, as is their decision on whether or not the behavior it documents is similar to what has transpired from the same editor in the area of Austrian economics. I think the relevance to the current case should be rather clear, but then opinions are like . . . great-grandfathers. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, given that stale evidence is being given more weight than I was lead to believe it would above, I have clarified one (or more) points and added a link and note about dozens of ANIs and BLPNs on this one bio. If stale evidence is taken seriously, the questionable motives and reputations of those bringing it up should be noted. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie)
 * Evidence of a long-term pattern of abuses is not "stale" if the pattern of abuses itself is on-going; otherwise how else could you demonstrate that any pattern of any kind is a long-term occurrence? And of course the determination lies with the arbitrators, not the involved parties. If you do not in fact have a long-term pattern of Wikipedia WP:BATTLE abuses, if you do not WP:HARASS, then you have nothing to fear from the evidence. I am now stepping out of the matter again, although I may return if I again see something from Carol too outrageous to escape my comment. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Read User:Floquenbeam's Feb 12 note above about whether to add any evidence from User:Goodwinsands here: ''(e/c) I don't see the point; as the drafting Arb, I am not going to pay any attention whatsoever to 2 year old evidence submitted by an account that has been dormant for 2 years, but pops back up when there's an ArbCom case against their old enemy. None whatsoever.''
 * I guess I focused on the old evidence and not the note that it was Goodwinsands evidence that was not acceptable. Mea culpa. (Unless you did include Drsmoo as I originally thoght?) Ah, communications breakdown! she said tearing out some hair.
 * However, I added a few more diffs to show how non-credible Drsmoo is and hopefully that should do the job. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahoy matey. The Evidence page closed a week ago. If you want to reopen evidence, please make a request so that everybody can adjust as you are doing. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

General note
If, at this stage, after so many innocent electrons have been sacrificed, anyone feels that making their case hinges on (a) adding yet more evidence, or (b) having the opportunity to respond in depth to every piece of new evidence, or (c) parsing the precise wording of everything I've said without listening to the overall meaning, then that's a clue that they probably don't have a great case to make.

Look, as I said before, conduct during this arbitration case will be used to determine remedies, so I would think it's in your best interests to act reasonably. It's simple: if there's an error or minor omission in your evidence, then clarify it. If someone posts something new, if necessary make a small addition to your evidence in response. If it's not minor, or if it's been said before by others, then come on, time's up. I have resisted making hard deadlines because I hate operating in that kind of rigid environment. But some poor idiot has volunteered to read all this. Please show that idiot some consideration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I let Goodwinsands interpretation of your only slightly altered wording on the workshop talk page get me flustered. ;-( Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Need to reply to false description of draft link just provided
User:Ks0stm and User:Hahc21 and Floquenbeam: SPECIFICO asked to "correct" a link but at this diff he actually changed from linking to his comments at the informal mediation to my first version of comments. So I need now to add my comment about that actually being my first draft and the link to my final comments User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am now aware that the link is to your first draft, and will read your final draft. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are the only person reading evidence, then I guess it doesn't matter. FYI, I don't disagree with what I wrote, and did feel we'd been encouraged to let it all hang out, but it was overblown for the forum so I toned it down. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One of Carolmooredc's deceitful tactics (as I assert and demonstrate with third-party diffs in my evidence) is to publish false or disparaging statements and subsequently to feign error or ignorance. Carolmooredc published the version I linked, (which contrary to her statement here was not a replacement for the link to my own statement but simply a link which was lost when I cut-and-pasted my evidence) for all parties to read. It remained in place for eight hours.  The fact that she "retracted" her remarkable personal attacks 8 hours later, after they were published and read by all, is irrelevant.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless people respond, we really don't know who did or didn't read what. In any case, I think leaving the false impression it is the final version is problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)