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:

Comment by others:

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

MilesMoney

The community ban of User:MilesMoney is reversed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with first comment by others below: The community topic ban of User:MilesMoney from the area of Austrian economics is affirmed and is indefinite. etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was community banned and this is not fora for reversing or limiting that ban. It's unrelated to the ArbCom proceeding and the community has not specified it to be narrow. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 - TP 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@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)

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 - TP 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 - TP 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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. Every avenue for you to raise your point has rejected it. Now it's time for you to put it to rest.--v/r - TP 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should think a 48 hour community ban is hunky dory even though most of the intelligent editors are able to have jobs keeping them from checking WP:ANI twice a day? EllenCT (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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 EllenCT

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

1) Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Everyone has political views. If your political views agree with those of the most reliable sources, which in the field of economics comprise the peer reviewed academic literature reviews, then it is acceptable to include them as fact or indicate that dissenting views differ from them. If your views are opposed to the peer reviewed literature reviews, then you should not attempt to obscure, whitewash, or purge Misplaced Pages of the more reliable sources' views, and you should only include your views with some indication that they are opposed to the more reliable sources, and then only if they are mainstream enough to be shared with a noteworthy proportion of economists. You should not in any circumstances try to gang up on editors who are conforming to these policies in order to remove or inhibit their work or exclude them from editing. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Competence is required

2) Competence is required to edit. If you are unable or unwilling to search the peer reviewed economics literature reviews, or you find yourself so opposed to their findings that you are unable to abide by their status as the most reliable sources upon which the encyclopedia is based, then you should refrain from making substantial content contributions to articles about economics or economists. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Competence obviously is required, per the essay of that name and higher levels of expertise in articles that are about the most technical subjects in mathematics, science, technology, engineering, and even some topics in economics. But one must be careful not to claim other editors are incompetent regarding issues that don't need economic expertise, for example, most factoids in WP:BLPs.

Moreover, the encyclopedia is written for the general public. See Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Peer reviewed academic papers/review are not the only sources allowed. Articles about economic topics that are widely covered in mainstream non-academic WP:RS (Barrons, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, etc), WP:RS popular and academic economics books, etc. are comprehensible to the average intelligent editor. And we can use such sources, including even to balance or refute academic articles. Academia is not the only source of reliable knowledge on the planet. Sometimes it's even wrong. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc is making a straw man argument. I am not aware of any editor opposing use of a WP:RS reference, subject to other content policies, due to its not being an academic source. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, she didn't say "only" allowed, she said best. After so many months and so many removals of RS info because not academic journals (per my evidence), it just feels like "only." So let me clarify to say academic sources are not always even the best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reliance on secondary and tertiary sources is paramount. Whether that requires "competence" is somewhat vague. If competence were required, I'd suspect that all commentators on finance be billionaires. Yet that is not the case. Well compensated journalists make quite a good living on their opinion rather than their acumen of economics and market success. --DHeyward (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes between those agreeing with and opposed to reliable sources are behavioral issues

3) The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. When a content dispute is comprised of one set of editors who are adhering to the reliable source criteria, and another opposed to identifying the most reliable sources as such, then it is also an editing behavior dispute properly within the purview of the Committee. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

48 hours is insufficient for closure of a non-WP:SNOW community ban

4) When productive editors see that they need to follow WP:AN and WP:ANI closely daily in order to effectively oppose community bans of other editors frustrated to the point of exasperation by those who do not follow the reliable source criteria, they will become discouraged and less interested in contributing to the encyclopedia. Why should anyone want to contribute to an encyclopedia written by those who try to game the system to advance their political viewpoint, especially when those viewpoints are substantially detrimental to society at large? Who would want to be associated with a reference work authored by political ideologues who act in concert to exclude those who are skilled at summarizing the reliable sources in order to achieve their ends? The idea that 48 hours is sufficient to close a non-WP:SNOW community ban is extremely harmful to the retention of productive editors. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Please drop the stick and back away from the horse. Arbcom has resolved your Miles Money issue, albeit not to your liking, and this is clearly not the venue for a rehashing. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is community banned. This is not the forum to unban. There are other fora. --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

I comment here because I was apparently mentioned in EllenCT's evidence submission. 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)

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)

EllenCT's submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am commenting here because I was also mentioned by EllenCT here and here 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 Misplaced Pages.

For instance:

• one of her diffs cited in her evidence of my joining this group of Austrian economics oriented editors 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 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)

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 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". 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 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 (). 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 (not prominence among RS) - I note the subjectivity of what is most accurate and reliable because she's argued that her view is the most recent and reliable based on a new research publication, 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 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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 Austrians 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_{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• 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 below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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_{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let the record show that EllenCT failed to supply a single quote supporting her claim, or to retract the claim. Her last reply wasn't even a rational response. This highlights the persistently disruptive behavior from her that so many editors are complaining about. VictorD7 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No reasonable editor could possibly think there is a reasonable reply to such a statement. EllenCT (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah... but you are not a reasonable editor, so your statement is not applicable. Here is an RFC that indicate you have recently engaged in WP:OR: 1, and two indicating WP:Coatrack: 2, 3. The are many, many discussions where these themes are repeated. Are you saying that all of the editors who commented on the RFCs against your approach are part of an Austrian Economics "cabal"?Mattnad (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Analyses of evidence by Steeletrap

The Four Deuces submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• re: Steeletrap/SPECIFICO: The Four Deuces in his Evidence presentation does an excellent job of detailing just two of the dozens of incidents of Steeletrap and SPECIFICO's Failure or refusal to get the point, especially if the point interferes with pushing their POV. In my evidence I present numerous bulleted examples of this behavior which complements his.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence submitted by SRich32977

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Posted by SRich32977 – Austrian economics (AE), in each of its manifestations, is not mainstream, but that does not make it WP:FRINGE. AE is heterodox, that does not make it FRINGE. AE thought is discussed in a WP:Walled Garden, but that does not make it FRINGE. AE is/can be described as fringe (when compared to mainstream thought), that does not make it FRINGE. AE is a school of thought that does not rely on mathematics, statistics, scientific method, etc., but that does not mean it is scientific or non-scientific. It is more philosophical than scientific, so it is improper to describe it as fringe-science or pseudo-science or FRINGE. In Misplaced Pages, the proper place to argue FRINGE is on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard – but the FT/N has a single focused thread on AE posted here in 2008. In the evidence I've provided – A/2, A/4, A/5, A/8, A/9, B/8, B/9 and by her own admission – Steeletrap misconstrues FRINGE and thereby seeks to justify POV edits. Specifico justifies removal as fringe at D/5.

Ah, yes, AE is not mainstream – e.g., we do not see AE discussed in mainstream economics journals. (Except we see that Paul Krugman makes derogatory comments in the NYT.) But AE is having an impact in non-economic-journal areas. E.g., we have Ron Paul and John Stossel admitting their preference for AE, if not for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Yet we see Steeletrap removing RS about this influence/impact sourced by "mainstream" media such as Stossel (B/4), the HPR (B/5), and WSJ (B/13). Positive remarks by Hayek are removed at B/10. (Removing positive commentary, based upon flimsy, invented rationales, serves to reinforce arguments that AE is not mainstream/FRINGE.) Sadly, Steeletrap goes a step further and seeks to find (and construe) negative information about AE/Mises.org/Mises.org-affiliated persons. A/7 (with B/12) is one example. The edits surrounding B/1 is another – Steeletrap want to add a side-remark in a blog about Ron Paul to describe Rothbard as anti-evolution-theory. In B/13 Steeletrap leaves poorly sourced material about LvMI as a cult (which is eventually removed as non-RS/UNDUE.) As noted in the Evidence, Steeletrap has restored the WSJ material and edited the supported text. This indicates willingness to edit in a NPOV fashion. But did this occur simply because the ArbCom had been opened? I would hope that such was not the case; Steeletrap, it seems, insists that fringe is an important factor in her analysis.

SPECIFICO abets Steeletrap in these efforts. He tags articles for notability (D/7) when they should be improved, he removes suitable, sourced material (D/1, D/2, D/3, D/5, D/6), he encouraged, he supported the notorious (now community-banned & owntalk-indeffed) User:MilesMoney (C/7), and he posts disruptive comments and warnings that don't pertain to article improvement (C/1, C/2, C/3, C/5, C/6, C/7, C/8, C/9, C/10, C/11, C/12, E/2). Recognizing that Specifico's comments about me and to me are often personal, I am irritated that he won't WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP (E/3) and persisted in posting a critical ad hominem remark about an Austrian Economics sanction on various talk pages (E/1).

Steeletrap describes herself as a Progressive (I assume, supporting big government), and seems allied with SPECIFICO who describe himself as Austrian (I assume, less-than-enthusiastic-about-big government). Could it be that they are allied to denigrate a branch of the Austrian School (promoted by Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, and others) because they have a mutual enemy? The Justin Fox articles in Time magazine (, , & ) make me wonder. (But this is a side-rumination.) In summary, I think they have made some helpful contributions to Misplaced Pages, but the contentious nature (we are more WP:COMPETENT than you are) of their POVs is disruptive in the end. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit's mocking the Austrian school as "Austerians" (has we know Paul Krugman has repeatedly in NY Times columns) is not helpful to the discussion. Stossel was used for book reviews of a popular economics book, published by RS, used in the author Walter Block's bio and the book article, and show general notability, so they are appropriate. Moreover SPECIFICO was so opposed to using an F.A. Hayek favorable quote, it ended up at WP:RSN where it still is. Ron Paul, as a former congressman who has written and spoken on economics is relevant to bios regarding general notability and might possibly be used in economics articles, especially regarding legislation he promoted in congress and news reports of that. (PS: still not sure what the heck we can discuss here; except that no new evidence allowed.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting; live and learn! FYI, you used it in a EllenCt section above also. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see Srich analyzed away here, linking to his diffs in Evidence. And he did a good job. Couple comments:

• Austrian economics uses a lot of Economic history and some of economists are described as economic historians, though per a diff I linked to, we had to bring their opposition to 10 odd WP:RS to WP:RSN to get that factoid approved as RS for Rothbard.
• Re: SPECIFICO's many disruptive comments, I just let all my complaints about harassment, and their diffs, speak for themselves.
• Analysis of motivations are not "side-ruminations" but the core of the issue. Thus my various diffs presented in evidence.
• Yes there's been a 30% improvement in their behavior since MilesMoney got banned and maybe 10% more with Arbitration, but not enough to assure me that post-Arbitration they would not quickly return to their wicked BLP-violating tendentious ways. And, yes, 50% plus of their removals were acceptable and got no arguments from me. 90% plus of their sources can be kept; but the problems with WP:undue/POV sectioning and descriptions and highly negative opinion material from relatively partisan sources still must be deal with by some more NPOV editor to comply with BLP and NPOV policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap and I are separate individuals in this Arbitration. Please differentiate between us when you are making allegations or speculating as to our motives or behavior. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to me, I'm averaging my numbers regarding two editors, whether working separately or on the same articles. The numbers themselves are obviously a subjective quantification of my sense of things and a replacement for "a little" or "some" or "quite a bit" or "most". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider what I said. What if somebody were to average you, EllenCT, AFQK and Ubikwit? Would that be meaningful or constructive? SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hmm, some interesting commentary there, but one point that stuck out like a sore thumb for me was the WP:RS fact that Ron Paul and John Stossel are not RS on economics of any sort, let alone the exotica of the AusteriansAustrians; meanwhile, Paul Krugman is.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I struck "Austerians" and replaced it with 'Austrians'. I had not been aware that it represented a form of mockery. I'd assumed it had been a naming adapted as a shorthand to distinguish followers of the economics school at issue here from the people of Austria, ie., "Austrians".

I looked the term up and see that it is characterized as a pejorative term according the definition here.

Regardig Carol's comments on sourcing, I checked the links she posted, an it seems that the statements are citable--at least with attribution--so I suppose that I stand corrected with respect to the remark "not RS on economics of any sort", insofar as the book by Block is acknowledged to be a "popular economics book". Seeing that the comments are by a "Fox Business News pundit" and a libertarian politician, their commentary would seem notable only insofar as the commentators are notable, not because they are experts on economics.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Further comment on the response above by Carol. Having gone through some of the Walter Block article, I noticed that Ron Paul is actually a "Senior Fellow" of the Mises Institute with the title of ""Distinguished Counselor". Accordingly, I don't know how that affects his status vis-a-vis WP:RS regarding economics in general and WP:PRIMARY with respect to the Mises Institute. He's a physician by training, but serving in congress would obviously require that a degree of knowledge on economics be acquired.

Also, though that fact is mentioned about Paul on Block's bio, it was curiously missing from his own.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of the Mises Institute vis-a-vis Austrian Economics

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

IMO this question (e.g., the status of Mises.org) is outside of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration. User:Steeletrap submitted a lot of links (not diffs) that supports her views about fringe and WP:FRINGE, but the links did not address any editor behavior questions. Ubikwit's remarks are interesting, but can the ArbCom make "content decisions" about Austrian Economics or Mises.org-related articles? I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at and even grabbed boilerplate from 5 or 6 arbitrations now. I see that what they can do is clarify general principles, like the use of FRINGE in types of topic areas, or the importance of BLP, or even attitudes that newbies vs. old timers need in approaching each other. That's what I was trying to get in above when I gave an overly detailed analysis of how policy and behavior can intertwine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Having examined a portion of the evidence it has become apparent that parties are making recourse to Austrian Economics in order to support the work of the Mises Institute and its affiliated "fellows".

Given the fact that the composition of the "fellows" and "associated scholars" of the Mises Institute would seem to represent a group that only a tenuous connection to academia and publishes in non-academic, non-peer reviewed, often self-published publications, the question is begged as to what the status of the so-called "instutute" is. From what I have seen so far, it would seem to be nothing more than an advocacy group, and one that has attempted to appropriate the work of academic scholars that were associated with the "Austrian School" of economics.

I'll post more on this later, but thought I'd throw this out there to invite early rebuttals.

Let me just give one example, that of David Gordon (philosopher), whom is found on the Mises Institute website listed as a "Senior Fellow" and whom Binksternet includes on his list as a philosopher. There is nothing on the Misplaced Pages bio of Gordon that would seem to indicate that anyone outside of the Mises Insitute considers him to be a philosopher. Simply having a PhD does not make one a philosopher; that is to say, one has to be reliably published in the field.

Apparently, Gordon had one book published in 1991 by a non-academic press that met with dismissive reviews from academia, and that is the extent of his work that even mention in passing outside the context of the Mises Institute and libertarian advocacy.

This further begs the question of the WP:Walled garden in respect of the institute and the individuals associated with it. The most nettlesome point would seem to be sorting out the viability and validity of the connection of the Mises Institute to the more prominent academics associated with the Austrian School before the split in the AE school.

There are probably too many names to go through on that long list of individuals, but I will probably find time to look at a couple other individuals, and intend to look at the publications and the like of a couple of the fellows working in academia.

Related to this are the edits I made to a section of the article on Walter Block after looking into one (or two related) issue(s), and the "predictions" of Robert Murphy have already been discussed above. Murphy is not a "fellow", though, just an "associated scholar"--another so-called "scholar" that is not associated with academia or published by a scholarly press.

Continuing on the walled garden them, is anyone that the Mises Institute deems to call a scholar a scholar according to the Misplaced Pages meaning of the term? Is there an instance in the Arbcom case history of dealing with an organization in such a scenario on Misplaced Pages?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: