Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 28 January 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.”

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)

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. In any case, ARBCOM has no authority to overturn community decisions. TFD (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

{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.

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

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, 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 {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.