Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:51, 1 February 2014

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

After "original research" I think we should add something highly relevant and explicit like negatively toned and unbalanced material about living or deceased individuals. (For why this is needed, see Context of biography-related violations/disputes and BLP issues.)

Obviously this can be tweaked, but there does need to be some reference to deceased individuals. There is a massive amount of unbalanced material on the Murray Rothbard article and attempts to make the article more NPOV have been fought tooth and nail. Rothbard played a "seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism" and helped found the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Thus discrediting him helps discredit hundreds of WP:BLPs who admire Rothbard for his great body of work and not his more obscure and obnoxious rants of the 1990s which partisan anti-libertarian sources choose to feature. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Decorum

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Controversial Issues

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would add after "that editors":use primarily high quality and non-partisan secondary sources. Per my BLP issues evidence section, there have been constant disputes over the addition of low quality and self-published blog sources and the removal of higher quality and more neutral sources. We need a clear statement on this issue.

Comment by others:

Battlegrounds and bad blood

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I obviously agree with this statement, I think it would be helpful to add something like: However, editors should not claim that real Wikipedia policy disputes are merely personal disputes in order to deflect attention from the former. This is something I've seen in "real life" political situations and in articles related to this dispute.

That comment made, I think the whole section should be merged into Decorum and have that or an equally neutral sounding title. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scope of ArbCom Proceedings

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"User conduct" is not very clear since does not specify anything about policy. During [the Arbitration request nine editors and two Arbitrators clearly expressed BLP policy concerns. It would be helpful somehow to clarify that there are policy issues regarding WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. that need addressing because they have been problematic in the past. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would add after "about Austrian economics": and especially biographies of living or deceased individuals," (See comments in your "Purpose of Wikipedia" section regarding mentioning "deceased" people.)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There doesn't seem to be any lesser way to deal with this situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MilesMoney

The community ban of User:MilesMoney is reversed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with first comment by others below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

I think this and the above remedy should focus on the close and not the topic ban itself. Was the close made by me appropriate, within discretion, and consensus? If so, it is affirmed. If not, it is reversed. Or rather, a finding of fact should first be made about the appropriateness of the close, and then a proposed remedy should determine whether to reverse it or affirm it.--v/r - T P 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: is closing a community ban of a longstanding productive editor more appropriate at hours to days or days to weeks? If the former, does that allow for editors whose work limits their ability to read WP:ANI twice a day to have any say on whether the editing community is comprised of people who are better at summarizing reliable sources than ganging up on opponents? EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT, I showed you where to ask this question, you asked it, and the community answered. If you cannot accept the community's answer, which was yes 48 hours is appropriate, then I suggest you try to change that norm or you learn to respect it. MilesMoney is neither the first nor last to be community banned in 48 hours, and Arbcom has already reviewed it and determined it is appropriate. At this point, your question is verging on WP:IDHT. Time to move on. After this case is through, I will not be responding to you with respect to MilesMoney's community ban anymore. I've fulfilled the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT by anyone's standard.--v/r - T P 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that you think 48 hours is better than two weeks. Do you think I agree with it? EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen any ANI thread be constructive for 2 weeks, EllenCT? You failed to gain (any) support for your 2 week requirement. Your the only person here who has such an unrealistic picture of Wikipedia that you think 2 weeks would lead to anything productive. But, EllenCT, I'm beginning to suspect that's the point. You think 2 weeks would've given MilesMoney's proponents enough time to fill that thread with enough text that it would've been neigh on impossible for any closing administrator to sort through the mess and actually close a thread; let alone close it in a community ban. You can keep trying to convince the community, EllenCT, but until you do, they support my view and not yours that that's what I agree with.--v/r - T P 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two weeks would have changed the outcome. EllenCT (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your just being tendentious now EllenCT. Two weeks would've had a conversation that was more air than substance. That's why we close these things after a day or two. But nonetheless, every avenue for you to raise your point has rejected it. Now it's time for you to put it to rest. Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him. This isn't a court of law, it's an encyclopedia project. When people become disruptive to the project building, they get asked to leave. There are no rights here, all that matters is the encyclopedia. Two days is all that is needed. If you're such an advocate for 2 weeks, why arn't you all over ANI defending everyone who is under the threat of a 2 day community ban? Because your only interested in MilesMoney. Clearly, your priorities arn't the encyclopedia.--v/r - T P 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

EllenCT's submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Much of what EllenCT has written relates to pro-Austrian (or what she sees as pro-Austrian) editors working on economics articles, while this case is about editing of articles about Austrians. Most of the disputes do not even involve economics. I auggest that this evidence be struck out as irrelevant. TFD (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, I haven't been involved in any articles that I remember with EllenCT. I don't know if any of the editors EllenCT cites identify as being "Austrian", as opposed to generally free market or pro-capitalist. And she doesn't link to any of the biographical articles of Austrians that have been the major areas of dispute. So her evidence does look irrelevant to me as well. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I comment here because I was apparently mentioned in EllenCT's evidence submission.[1] I find this odd because I don't believe I have ever edited Austrian economics (or related biography or organization articles). I have interacted with EllenCT only on other articles in trying to remove edits (usually graphs) that were classic examples of WP:SYNTHESIS that the editor had dropped into a large variety of other articles, ordinarily without consensus, and frequently unrelated to those articles. Not having edited the relevant (Austrian economics) article I don't have further comment on her evidence, except to say I obviously am not part of a "POV railroad cabal" or "whitewashing" "tag-team" on any article (much less ones I've not edited or watchlisted). Capitalismojo (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

EllenCT's submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am commenting here because I was also mentioned by EllenCT here [2] and here [3] as evidence of my connection to a group of editors guilty of promulgating Austrian economics in an abusive way. I have never participated in the Austrian economics discussion and I have no understanding of what Austrian economics are. EllenCT's most recent accusations are a form of administrative coatrack that perfectly represent her strategy on other economics oriented articles. However, the fact that EllenCT has felt it appropriate to include me in this arbitration is emblematic of her misunderstanding or misuse of Wikipedia.

For instance:

one of her diffs cited in her evidence of my joining this group of Austrian economics oriented editors [4] is my objection to her adding a graph showing the net tax returns by tax payer education, in the Government spending article with the caption, "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.". Without a reliable source, I felt the graphs were inappropriate and misleading. I attempted to address this concern with EllenCT on her talk page here User_talk:EllenCT#Edits_to_Government_spending. The dialog speaks for itself, but I'll add that when asked a direct question, EllenCT is evasive and resorts to name calling and arguing I lacked competence.
In this RFC Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth, EllenCT was pushing for a graph that was not supported by reliable sources. After the RFC concluded against her position, she once again inserted the graph on another article [5] about a month later, ignoring the RFC.

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

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

EllenCT's submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm also commenting because I was mentioned in EllenCT's evidence submission[6][7] along with the discussions for two of the articles referenced. While I'm familiar and have studied the differing schools of economic thought, I haven't participated in the articles or disputes which are the subject of this Austrian economics case, nor do I have them on my watchlist. With regard to the evidence presented by EllenCT, I recommend reviewing the full discussion on the topics: Progressive tax (RFC discussion, Graph discussion), Government spending (full discussion). These are just two articles among many which include the same type of discussion, but you'll see that my disputes with Ellen have primarily been with what I perceive as her soapboxing economic inequality topics into various articles using tendentious editing and repeated insertions of synthesis. I don't say that as a personal attack, but as a description of her behavior, which has been observed by numerous editors. She uses primary sources and then applies her own interpretation to the text. If we disagree with the verifiability or off-topic coatrack, we're personally attacked as incompetent for not seeing the obvious common knowledge or labeled whitewashing libertarian "Randroids".[8][9][10] In one example, even after an RFC and consensus determines a graph's causality is not supported by sources, she persists (WP:IDHT) in including it in other articles[11][12] and disregards opposition as systemic bias. In another case of SYN, we should just trust her mathematical reasoning. She repeatedly misrepresents the views and statements of sources, as well as wikipedia editors, for example some false statements concerning me ([13][14][15][16][17][18]). The lack of editorial trust for Ellen has us verifying anything pertinent she writes. Many editors are at their end with her behavior and it's my hope that, while I expect not pertinent to this case, reviewing admins will help address the problem.

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

EllenCT's submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hope that this is the proper way to use this template--just following suit as per the above postings.

At any rate, I'm here because I'm interested in seeing how the sourcing issues play out.

Regarding EllenCT's evidence posting, there are some involved sources she posted, and I am not going to look through all those due to a lack of time as well as the fact that I am not an economist. However, there is an ideological overlap between the topics to which she refers and the Austerians and Libertarians, so I don't think that the matters she has pointed out are unrelated to the topic.

However, in light of the complexity of some of the sources, it would behoove her to be more proactive in demonstrating how they support the assertions she wants to make.

I basically agree with her position on social infrastructure, and have edited the Government spending article to introduce the concept where it was implied but missing and basically obscured in a somewhat jumbled and unwieldy paragraph.

I addressed one of the sources in the thread on her talk page referred to by Mattnad above, and also pointed out that a link to another didn't work. It seems that the source I mentioned on her talk page may offer weak support for some of what she wants to use that graph to say, but it is somewhat unclear, as indicated by Mattnad as well. The statement appended to the graph stated "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.". It seems that it may be a valid statement, but the support for it in the RS has not been adequately elucidated. If Ellen has the expertise to demonstrate RS support for that statement or something proximal thereto, she should take the time to make the case, and I hope that she intends to do so here. Not being an expert myself, maybe to an expert WP:Common knowledge applies to some extent, maybe she is trying to combine too many sources in a way that straddles WP:SYNTH.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have created below a separate section for the evidence from Steeletrap, since she is a party to the Arbitration and there are so many issues to discuss.

User:Shii is quite correct to quote WP:FRINGE: When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. And as Shii says "it is functioning as a talisman to ward off discussion." User:Steeletrap (and to a somewhat lesser extent User:SPECIFICO) also use it as an insult against subjects of BLPs and against other editors who are routinely criticized as not knowing the difference between "fringe" and "mainstream" in economics. In all these biographies we've rarely seen knowledge of economics needed to fill out biographical, notability and viewpoint details about professors and/or authors. However, repeatedly we have seen fringe used to try to remove dozens of acceptable and even high quality sources with the excuse the professors and writers are too "fringe", even as self-published blog rants are defended as "RS".
I see that User:Ubikwit (who started this thread) has become quite active in Austrian economics-related articles, RSNs, and related policy discussions the last few weeks; not quite enough to be called a "party" at this point. His postings usually do look at both sides of an issue, though it would help if he gave sources for his quoted statements above.

I have to question whether "WP:Fringe" applyies to economics - or any social science - where little scientific experimentation can be done, How to Lie with Statistics is practiced regularly and so many "mainstream" economists work for government, or 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.

What really causes free marketeers to be "ostracized" by all of those mentioned above is that their analysis blames government policies for most of our economic problems. Note that Austrian and "Misean" economists are more economic historians 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 more useful than studying mathematical models. So they admit they start with certain ideological precepts or viewpoints. I'm more concerned about those who falsely claim they have none and are unbiased and "scientific"!

However, as The Four Deuces (TFD) points out this arbitration is not primarily about whether Austrian or Misean views are "fringe" (and he agrees they are a "minority" view) but "editing of articles about the LvMI and individuals associated with it"[19]. The bottom line is assaulting BLPs of professors and authors with WP:Undue negative material using "fringe" as an excuse is a misuse of a policy regarding minority viewpoints. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

The use of the term “heterodox” appears to have fallen out of favor since the 1990, with the increasing use of “pluralism” being used in its stead to characterize schools of economic thought and combinations thereof outside of the mainstream. The Heterodox economics article contains numerous relevant passages.

Heterodox schools of economics are also usually dismissed as "fringe" and "irrelevant" by serious and prominent mainstream economists.

”…the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE) does not define "heterodox economics" and has avoided defining its scope. ICAPE defines its mission as "promoting pluralism in economics."

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

Looking at the Austrian School article, it is readily apparent that before they started being characterized as heterodox their members comprised academics that published widely, developed actual theories and engaged the mainstream theories. In fact, the split is characterized in terms of those associated with Hayek, and those not. Hayek published Individualism and Economic Order. Here, another passage from the Heterodox economics article states

…mainstream economics deals with the "rationality-individualism-equilibrium nexus" and heterodox economics is more "radical" in dealing with the "institutions-history-social structure nexus".

and that statement would seem to indicate that Hayek's work addressed concerns associated with issues in the mainstream.

In light of the recent exchanges between Krugman/DeLong and Murphy, and the breakaway group of Austrians known as the Miseians that have basically been ostracized by academia as well as criticized in the following terms (from Austrian_School#General_criticisms)

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory. Caplan says that Rothbard did not understand the position he was attacking, because microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.

it would appear that there may be an endemic problem with the topic that straddles the fringe issue insofar as there are two distinct and disparate factions associated with the Austrian School. And that would seem to call for some clarification in relation to WP:FRINGE.

In short, is economics considered a social science, and therefore subject to Pseudoscience and other fringe theories

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

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

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

Reply to analyses of evidence by EllenCT

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Consumers "overlap" entirely with workers and investors since they all consume. But they're different activities, and the article is about how much corporate incidence falls on employee wages (at an industry specific level to boot; not wherever people shop) versus people's capital income. It's not about consumption at all. If I'm wrong, please provide a single quote supporting your claim. Just one. This isn't about my views, but an accurate representation of sources. I'll also note that you failed to rebut the observations that your links weren't to biography articles or to discussions about Austrian economics. At issue here is whether you're capable of exhibiting the basic good faith rationality required for collaborative discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using Marxist terms instead of Adam Smith's terms? What is your motivation for all this? EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

EllenCT's comment above demonstrates her disregard and disdain for any editor that does not agree with her - all are Austrian economists by her yard stick. I have to ask... is this an editor who can work in a collaborative environment? Is a topic ban in order here? Mattnad (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is whether editors agree with the reliable source criteria, not whether they agree with me. The suggestion that I think "all are Austrian economists" when I specifically and prominently referred to the success of the New Keynesians in the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature reviews, in turn because of their success with the prediction of historical outcomes from prior data, suggests to me that topic bans of those who agree with the Austrian School are most certainly in order because of the behavior patterns they continue to demonstrate. EllenCT (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we presume you are sincere, then you fundamentally do not understand WP:RS and WP:OR, as well as WP:Coatrack (and the coatrack applies to your general editing choices, as well as your inclusion of articles and editors unrelated to the Austrian Economics arbitration)Mattnad (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analyses of evidence by Steeletrap

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Further explanation of my short my "Steeletrap misrepresents evidence" Arbitration Evidence sub-section.

Thanks to Adjwilley for pointing 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, which some could see as quite defamatory. Thus the necessity for this long analysis :

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 sources uses the word "fringe"; Hoppe 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."
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.
In paragraph three Steeletrap launches into 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.
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.
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)". Where is the evidence that Rothbard, a Jew, wrote anything about the Holocaust anywhere?
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: NY Times best selling author Professor Thomas Woods and also in the article on Professor Thomas DiLorenzo which I already linked to in the "Existing WP:Undue/distorted article" sections of my Evidence.
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.
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.
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.'” 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 and titled Walter Block & Richard Epstein Debate on Eminent Domain.

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...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I disagree with User:Adjwilley's insinuation that I misrepresented Rothbard. He clearly does not believe that torture of criminals suspects should be criminalized per se. I crossed the torture/child starving stuff because there were more illustrative examples of his fringiness available -- e.g. on real-wrold politics. rather than speculative utopian philosophy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope the fact that Carol's inability to read and follow policy -- i.e. posting this to the wrong forum --, even when reporting alleged violations of policy, is noted. (Please copy and past my and TP's comments when you do move these to the evidence page, Carol.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This belongs on the evidence page.--v/r - T P 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 ::::::Have you seen any ANI thread be constructive for 2 weeks, EllenCT?  You failed to gain (any) support for your 2 week requirement.  Your the only person here who has such an unrealistic picture of Wikipedia that you think 2 weeks would lead to anything productive.  But, EllenCT, I'm beginning to suspect that's the point.  You think 2 weeks would've given MilesMoney's proponents enough time to fill that thread with enough text that it would've been neigh on impossible for any closing administrator to sort through the mess and actually close a thread; let alone close it in a community ban.  You can keep trying to convince the community, EllenCT, but until you do, they support my view and not yours that that's what I agree with.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 :::::::Yes, two weeks would have changed the outcome. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
+::::::::Your just being [[WP:IDHT|tendentious]] now EllenCT.  Two weeks would've had a conversation that was more air than substance.  That's why we close these things after a day or two.  But nonetheless, every avenue for you to raise your point has rejected it.  Now it's time for you to put it to rest.  Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him.  This isn't a court of law, it's an encyclopedia project.  When people become disruptive to the project building, they get asked to leave.  There are no rights here, all that matters is the encyclopedia.  Two days is all that is needed.  If you're such an advocate for 2 weeks, why arn't you all over ANI defending everyone who is under the threat of a 2 day community ban?  Because your only interested in MilesMoney.  Clearly, your priorities arn't the encyclopedia.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 ===Proposed enforcement===