Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:45, 9 December 2013

The purpose of this page is to serve as an informal but moderated dispute resolution forum for editors involved in the Austrian economics topic area. Participation here is voluntary, and participants are asked to remain civil and keep the discussion focused. The moderator, User:Adjwilley, reserves the right to completely remove nonconstructive or uncivil comments. Diffs are appreciated, but not required.

This page will be divided into sections, one for each user. Each user may edit their own section, and may leave brief comments in the designated locations in sections of other users. For longer threaded discussions, please start a thread on the talk page.

User:Binksternet

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer: Originally, I started because of this BLPN thread of late July 2013, which I looked at and quickly acted upon by removing some primary sourced text from Gary North (economist) with this edit. I then posted at the article's talk page and took part in the BLPN discussion. From there I investigated the disputing parties see if I could identify a locus of the problem.
From that beginning I continued to help at selected Austrian School articles with the intention of keeping them neutral. I have wide interests but I never studied economics. The role I've taken here is one of a disinterested party trying to maintain Misplaced Pages's core policies. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer:

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer:

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer:

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:Carolmooredc

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer: Was watching a couple of the articles, editing from time to time, and noticed a pattern of "attack article" type editing that actually was worse than I'd seen in Israel Palestine articles where there are a lot of paranoid editors convinced the other side is out to kill them (and some of them may be; I got over a thousand death threats over a couple years from one - or maybe two - crazy guy for defending mostly Jewish BLPs against unfair attacks). They insult and make exaggerated or false allegations against editors who try to support policy and thus frustrate their attempts to use Misplaced Pages for what they tell themselves are their righteous "righting of wrongs". See the Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard views section to see POV attack editing run amuck.

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer: If you want the root, and hopefully I can't be blocked for identifying the root, IMHO, and if I'm not honest, why continue?:

• SPECIFICO and Steeletrap have found that through what they hope will remain "anonymous" editing they finally can take out all the rage and hate they feel against a world they believe treats them like dirt because of their religion/ethnicity and/or their sexual/gender preferences. They've both repeatedly complained about being oppressed by innocuous comments - or even non-existent comments they've fully imagined. You don't have to be a Ph.D. psychologist to know the psychological matrix of feelings of oppression and rage when you see them. The fact that people don't bow to their alleged high academic achievements and ever-so-mainstream intellectual superiority to the rest of us just enrages them more, increasing the pain in their hearts.
• Thus they engage in Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing. Especially tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
• I believe they don't like me because I have added a lot of WP:RS neutral and positive info about BLPs they were attacking, reverted their deletions of perfectly fine WP:RS material, called them out on their policy violations -- and probably because I am an uppity female who doesn't shut up when I'm told to, as they have repeatedly inferred I should.
• And, of course, I've reported them to various noticeboards with long lists of solid diffs proving various policy violations. Unfortunately, these are - over and over again - drowned out by their usually trumped up and even fabricated loud and even hysterical counter-charges of "Carol's a big insulting bigot, boo hoo" - made, or course, with nary a diff. (Oh, gosh, I finally gave them some!)

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer: Very strong meat puppetry between SPECIFICO and Steeltrap which MilesMoney has recently joined in on, though I'm sure Miles has ticked off enough people such that Miles won't last much longer.

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer: Start a new religion that would help them heal the hate in their hearts. Or do a really good ANI finally. Or unwatch all those BLPs and let them busily use Misplaced Pages to destroy a lot of peoples' reputations.

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:MilesMoney

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer: In America, Austrian economics is strongly associated with libertarianism. The overlap with my interests is that I'm a (non-American) libertarian who edits on libertarian-related subjects and has a working knowledge of economics.

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer: It comes down to the fact that Austrian economics is fringe. Because it is not a part of the economic mainstream, it's very hard to find mention of its practitioners outside of the circle of mutually-supportive Austrians. These are poor sources because they do not reflect the mainstream, and instead distort the importance and acceptance of the subjects. The mainstream sources that do comment on these Austrians are less than approving, and are therefore attacked as being "undue" or "biased". While it's economically fringe, in America at least, it's not politically fringe within right-libertarian circles, further complicating matters.

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer: Yes, many. As I've commented earlier, most editors fall into one of two groups. The first are those who are distant from the subject and therefore make errors out of ignorance. The second are those who are close to the subject and therefore make errors out of bias. There's very little in between.

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer: I could petition to have my single-article ban removed. It's counterproductive and gets in the way of editing on this subject.

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:Sitush

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer: I haven't chosen to edit them and in fact have done very little editing of them. My contributions have been almost entirely to talk pages for (it seems) a small subset of the topic area + some related talk pages, such as those of users and WP:RSN etc. I've little knowledge of the subject matter & little inclination to pursue that knowledge (very tritely, economists = snake oil salesmen?) but a pretty extensive knowledge of WP procedures and a good sense of what constitutes a reliable source etc. I've also got a fairly decent nose for pov-pushing vs neutrality. I cannot recall why I got involved but almost certainly it was while browsing WP:ANI because, with the exception of Binksternet, I don't think I've had any past engagement with any of the major contributors. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer: Pov pushing, wikilawyering and intransigence, probably on both "sides" but with the emphasis seeming to be on the "anti" side - clear attempts to denigrate in BLPs etc using inappropriate sources etc. Were these things neutral in the first place? Probably not ... but there are boundaries and the "anti" brigade seem to have overstepped them far more. Erring on the side of "pro" caution is a necessity with BLPs, alas even if that means a distorted picture. The manner in which both "sides" have collaborated sometimes within minutes of each other makes me suspect that there may also be a fair amount of off-wiki talking going on. I've had a couple of examples and am willing to share them with any uninvolved admin. BTW, I seriously doubt whether a lot of the individuals are even notable - the subject area seems to be quite incestuous when it comes to sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer: It has become personalised. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, I sense that some who are involved may be seeking to right great wrongs. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer: Not really - I'm trying to steer a neutral course, which probably explains why various posts made by me have attracted echo thanks from both "sides" (never at the same time!). - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:SPECIFICO

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer:

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer:

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer:

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer:

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:Srich32977

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer:

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer:

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer:

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer:

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:Steeletrap

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer: My undergraduate degree is in economics, and I did considerable research on the Misesian economists (a subset of the Austrian School centered around the Ludwig von Mises Institute) for my Master's thesis (in anthropology) about fringe U.S. political/intellectual movements. To avoid being 'outed', I did not include anything about the Misesians in the final publication, but I developed substantial knowledge on the subject matter. They are anarchist economists who, in contrast to all mainstream social scientists, reject the scientific method in their models. They are proud of and explicit about being out-of-the-mainstream; as the eminent Misesian Hans-Hermann Hoppe says, they are regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all non-Misesian economists. It therefore concerned me to see that, on WP, the Misesians had established (as user:sitush puts it) an "incestuous" collection of BLPs, largely sourced to each another, that presents Misesian economics and economists as leaders in their field as opposed to fringe, ideologically-motivated figures who don't use the scientific method. This is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, which says that we have to use mainstream rather than fringe sources to evaluate contributions to academic subjects. I have tried to restore balance by adding mainstream sources to, and removing fringe sources from, the articles. Steeletrap (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer: The problem stems from the conduct of two types of users. First, good faith users -- such as Binksternet and Srich -- who are (admittedly) ignorant of the subject they are editing. These users mistakenly believe that my (and others') adding "negative" sources to and removing "positive" sources from Misesian articles is non-NPOV. In reality, we are just adding mainstream sources (which tend to be critical) while removing fringe (universally positive) sources; NPOV demands no less. Both Binksternet and Rich have, at various occasions, made statements sympathetic to the Misesian rejection of the scientific method in their models. That's fine, but their inability to discern mainstream from fringe economic theory hobbles their ability to comply with NPOV.

Second, biased users seeking to promote a libertarian anarchist political agenda on Misplaced Pages. The impact of these sort of users is littered throughout the Misesian WP pages. For instance, User:DickClarkMises, a former employee of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (who currently manages its wiki), substantially edited or created dozens of pages (e.g. Robert P. Murphy) about his co-workers. These pages are of dubious notability and sourced almost entirely to each other, misrepresenting these fringe figures as major players in academic economics. Steeletrap (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer: I have clashed with several users on these pages (including Bink, Rich and Miles Money), but all but one of them seem to be capable of collaboration. The one exception is User:carolmooredc, who is constantly insulting and disparaging the motives of me and other users with whom she disagrees. I have no idea what the source of her rage is, and thus I couldn't tell you how to contain it; but if it were to be ameliorated, collaboration would proceed much more smoothly. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer: Honestly, I'm not sure. When I try to be polite, I just get attacked even more adamantly by Carol. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example:

User:Example

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Answer:

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Answer:

Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?

Answer:

In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?

Answer:

Section for other users

In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?

• Comment by User:Example: