Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 4 February 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Austrian economics proponents tend to remove, whitewash, and obscure the position of the peer reviewed secondary economics literature

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

Examples:

1. Economic growth due to greater income equality on Progressive tax: diff, diff, discussion permalink
2. Implications of income inequality in Economy of the United States: diff, diff, discussion permalink
3. Returns from education, infrastructure, and health care spending on Government spending: diff, diff, discussion permalink

Several additional examples are available on request (e.g. diff and diff) but those three are very recent.

Austrian economics proponents make baseless accusations, using WP:TAGTEAMs and WP:POV RAILROADing to try to push their POV

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

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

Evidence presented by Steeletrap

Austrians/Misesians are WP:fringe

A central problem in these articles is an inability or unwillingness to recognize that Austrian economists are fringe. When one realizes this, edits that appear to be POV-pushing are revealed to be attempts to conform articles to NPOV and RS standards.

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

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

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

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

If one lacks background knowledge on Misesian economics and The Ludwig von Mises Institute, it would indeed appear that, by removing positive material and adding negative, I and other editors are engaged in POV-pushing on the Austrian pages. But all we're really doing is adding reliable mainstream sources (which tend to be critical) to these article, and removing WP:Fringe ones (which tend to be glowingly positive, written as they are by friends, colleagues and fellow travelers of Rothbard) in conformity with NPOV. These mainstream sources are (predictably) critical of LvMI scholars, but I have not hesitated to add positive RS to the article; it's just that they are difficult to find. What's irritating is that the users who condemn me and other alleged 'anti-Austrians' as biased refuse to add any favorable mainstream economics RS to these articles, presumably because they can't find any.

I'm very proud of my contributions to these pages. Prior to my arrival, the Misesians were presented as leading lights in academic economics, the equivalent of presenting creationists as leading figures in biology. The pages were largely edited (and very often created) by fellow travelers, including a former employee of the Institute, User:DickClarkMises. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to concerns raised by User:Shii and others, I should clarify that I am not saying all Austrian economists are fringe. I am referring only to a subset of them as: the Misesians, or those who adopt Mises' methodology and work for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. My edits to the Austrian School article reflect my commitment to a neutral accounting of the contributions of Austrians to mainstream theory. However, "heterodox" yet respected Austrians such as Hayek must be distinguished from fringe Austrians such as Mises and Rothbard. See: Split among contemporary Austrian School for more about this distinction; the Misesians tend to disparage the Hayekians as 'statist' interlopers. Steeletrap (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The Four Deuces

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

"Murray Rothbard." SPECIFICO supported the inclusion of "Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." It was sourced to an article, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid." by James Kirchick in the Daily Beast. Carole Moore wanted to add "According to James Kirchick" and set up a discussion thread, Talk:Murray Rothbard#Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable? I later took the discussion to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and it can be found here. Kirchick wrote that "Rothbard...published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that...supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." I pointed out that Kirchick was referring to Rothbard's article "Right-wing Populism", that was written after Duke's run for governor, and that the article was already substantially discussed in the article. (One cannot "endorse" a candidate after the election is over.)

In the article's discussion page, Steeletrap said "it's up to RS (not us) to determine what constitutes an "endorsement"." (00:47, 17 November 2013)

"Walter Block" Walter Block's 1976 book, which was published by "Fleet Publishing Corporation", apparently part of the Macmillan Company, contains a page with comments by Friedrich Hayek providing an endorsement of the book. John Gray, in a book about Hayek published by Routledge, which is an academic publisher, says that Hayek endorsed the book and uses the book as his source.

SPECIFICO removed mention of the endorsement based on RSN. The discussion is on WP:RSN#Hayek info RS for same two articles? with a permanent link as at 22:49, 27 January 2014 here. Here are some of their comments:

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

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

Reply to EllenCT

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

Re "Fringe"

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

Evidence presented by Alanyst

Scope and parties

1. Based on the pattern and number of edits to Austrian economics related articles (see ), the deeply involved parties in terms of content are Carolmooredc, SPECIFICO, Srich32977, and Steeletrap. Binksternet is moderately involved, and A Quest For Knowledge and The Four Deuces are only peripherally involved, primarily in talkpage discussions (see interaction summary below).
2. One other deeply involved editor was MilesMoney, who is indefinitely blocked under the auspices of a community ban. MilesMoney has indicated on his user talk page that a ban appeal is in the works, but the status of the appeal is unclear. If the block or ban has a possibility of being lifted before this case nears its end, MilesMoney ought to be added as a party. Because MilesMoney's appeal has been declined, the evidence presented includes interactions by MilesMoney only in order to provide context for the other disputants' behavior.
3. Though largely centered on the topic of Austrian economics, the same core disputants have also engaged in conflict in topics related to American politics (especially libertarianism); see the editor interactions linked below for specific articles.

Interaction summary

1. Interactions of core content disputants are given for the article namespace.
2. Added interactions of A Quest For Knowledge and The Four Deuces for the article talk namespace due to their involvement in content discussions.
3. Added interactions of Adjwilley for User and Misplaced Pages (and corresponding talk) namespaces due to involvement in related dispute resolution efforts.

Evidence presented by VictorD7

Most of EllenCT's "evidence" is false, off topic, and should be disregarded

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by TParis

Support for MilesMoney Community Ban

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

Evidence presented by Carolmooredc

Context of biography-related violations/disputes

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

Concurrently I noticed violations by new user Steeletrap (who primarily adds WP:Undue and often distorted versions of negative and often sensationalist info from partisan sources to biographies of living and some deceased individuals), working closely with new user SPECIFICO (who defends Steeletrap's edits through aggressive reverting and discussion). Both consistently remove WP:RS info that makes subjects look credible. I agree there were primary source and original research problems with these biographies; I've tried to add WP:RS info; I'm fine with BLP-compliant criticism. However, tendentious, POV editing has wasted hundreds of hours of my time and most BLPs remain biased or worse. (See my "To Do" list.)

Steeletrap and SPECIFICO’s policy violations show Misplaced Pages is their platform for advocacy via denigrating economics professors and writers, mostly libertarians, associated with the Ron Paul-connected Ludwig von Mises Institute; they and their sources often quote a few individuals' obscure writings of 15-20 years ago. Suppression of minority viewpoints seems to be a goal; (like the 2014 New York Times article about Ron and Rand Paul quoted by Steeletrap?) Resulting talk page disputes with long-time editors supporting long-standing policies, and repeated noticeboard reports by multiple editors and admins, eventually led to Austrian economics/General sanctions. (See relevant ANI discussion. Since then SPECIFICO and Steeletrap each have been blocked for behavior issues. A Quest for Knowledge initiated the Arbitration January 15 because of this discussion that day.

BLP Issues

Self-published sources in BLPs

• WP:BLPN: 1, 2, 3, 4
• WP:RSN: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Steeletrap and SPECIFICO engaged in same SPS editing at Ludwig von Mises Institute , , , that MilesMoney was contemporaneously banned from the article for
• Steeletrap's attempt to change SPS policy during Arbitration: 1, 2;

Biased/WP:Undue additions

• Existing WP:Undue/distorted article sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• Talk page/noticeboard discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
• Questionable claim about notability: ,

Removal of RS info

• WP:RSN: 12, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, especially 9/
• Talk pages: 1
• "Walled Garden" links-related essay used as excuse to remove WP:RS from Mises Institute-related professors and writers' BLPs
• WP:Fringe: Steeletrap - WP:ANI, , ; SPECIFICO - 1, ; other editors on "fringe" issue: , , , , .
• Unsuccessful BLP-related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Behavior issues

Edit warring/flouting consensus

• ANIs/EW: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Examples of flouting consensus above, plus here: 1, 2, 3; uninvolved editor's comment/

Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry

• Users: SPECIFICO (registered Sept 2012) and Steeletrap (registered April 2013) quickly became collaborators and engage in mutually reinforcing edits and discussions promoting their POV. Until MilesMoney (registered July 2013) was banned, they worked closely with him and were his most vehement supports during three WP:ANIs 1, 2, 3 and later at closing admin's talk page.
• After a WP:SPI on Steeletrap and MilesMoney, the closing admin wrote: "In the worst case scenario, this is meatpuppetry, which can be handled outside SPI."
• Editor interaction analysis shows that SPECIFICO and Steeletrap overlap on more than 100 article and talk pages, user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (They overlapped with MilesMoney on over 50 such pages.)
• Use similar themes: "Walled Garden"; charges of WP:Incompetence1, 2, 3, 4. (See attempts to make Misplaced Pages:Competence is required more stringent here.)

WP:Harassment of me

• Steeletrap: 05/30/13 ANI warned, Admin page 10/31/13
• SPECIFICO: my warning 6/23/13, 6/29/13 ANI, Admin page 10/31/13, 11/31/13 block for harassing me described at ANI, my warning 1/14/14, Admin page 1/14/14 .

Mocking Misplaced Pages administration of policy

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

Motivating biases

• Steeletrap's recent research for a "Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements", where her adviser recommended she look at those involved with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, , made her admittedly “strongly biased against them”. She called them "cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans", repeats the "cult" accusation and also calls herself "anti-libertarian", calls them extremists. She infers editors who stand up for policy are "movement" members who "will revert all of the RS content" and writes "supposed supporters of LvMI want to censor..." Steeletrap’s Jan 25 Arbitration entry illustrates these issues.
• SPECIFICO has expressed similar biases, . He has written: I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition.
• Note that three long-time editors, including myself, have very differing libertarian views; a few other editors also are biased against libertarians; others oppose various policy violations.

Unsigned/Original diff 15:02-1/28/14

Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence

In her "shock value", biased and perhaps defamatory editing style, in her Arbitration Evidence above. At these links:

• Hoppe is misrepresented as defining science views of all "Miseans".
• Block actually rejects "cult" description and does not think "cult" status leads to rejection by publishers.
• Rothbard article "Right wing populism" comments on David Duke's 1991 Governors race platform not his "white nationalist” and “KKK” platform; also Rothbard says "paleo-libertarians" not libertarians.
• Rothbard article Steeletrap misrepresents her opinion as fact
• Steeletrap writes about "connection of numerous Mises Institute scholars to the League of the South..." but only presents RS evidence that two professors have minor associations which she inserted in WP:Undue sections here and here.
• blog entry "evidence" is to broken links.
• Steeletrap, like the New York Times, misrepresents Woods quote (see actual one) and also slavery quote (see this source, 4). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: LewRockwell.com links see “About” page endorsement comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Shii

WP:FRINGE is a general guideline irrelevant to the Austrian economics dispute

I have never edited the Austrian economics article, but the sophistry on this page is disappointing. The actual WP:FRINGE guideline is this:

When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

So?

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

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

Evidence presented by Adjwilley

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

A couple comments

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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