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.
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 Wikipedia'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?
Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?
Answer: I've spent much of my time on Wikipedia defending articles from anonymous editors who are out to ruin people's reputations through removing positive material and putting in negative material in Biographies of Living People. I was watching a couple of the Austrian economics-related articles and saw this happening in a most egregious fashion. Did the articles have too much primary source material; were they lacking the many WP:RS which could have been added. Of course, but that's really not the issue.
What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?
Answer:
A listing per: WP:Disruptive editing by SPECIFICO and Steeletrap. (MilesMoney joined more recently and while I've seen him engage in some of these policy violations, I have failed to document them, especially since so many others continue to do so.)
Re: 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.
Re: Verifiability: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. (CM in DC: Especially continued use of Self-published blogs to ruthlessly attack people.)
Re: Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; {CM in DC: Even in a case like Rothbard as historian where they rejected other editors supporting almost a dozen RS saying he was an historian of some kind; or various editors repeated comments or reverts of attempts to remove 7 refs saying he was an Austrian economist).
Re: repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. (CM in DC: While usually overloads you with explanations, other times ignores threads in hopes they'll die out. Like this one.)
Re: Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. (CM in DC: How many times have various editors brought same issues to WP:RSN or WP:ANI? In short, an incredibly well developed I didn't hear that, refusal to get the point.)
Also, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO frequently mock the subjects of BLPS in talk pages, which I've mentioned a couple times at noticeboards to no avail.
Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?
Answer:
Steeletrap and SPECIFICO's frequently shared opinion that their allegedly high academic achievements and mainstream viewpoints (and Steeletrap having worked for the Council for Foreign Relations in the Antiwar.com article case) makes them superior to the rest of us. Steeletrap even proposed on WP:ANI that only Admins with a background in economics be allowed to review Austrian economics sanctions!! (Proposal obviously shot down.) Do I go around leaving non-verified boastings that I co-majored in economics or studied economics at Harvard and worked towards a Masters and been published on the topic and have forgotten more than some of them even know? Only here and only now. Respectful editors don't try to pull rank on others over and over again, especially when so much of their own editing is merely removal of WP:RS material and adding Self-published blog and other low quality smear paragraphs and sections to BLP articles.
SPECIFICO and Steeletrap appear to be so hypersenstive about their religion/ethnicity and/or their sexual/gender preferences that they repeatedly have complained about bigotry for innocuous comments - or even non-existent comments they've fully imagined. They rant about this on ANI with no diffs that prove their point.
I have a feeling they do not like me because I am an uppity female who doesn't shut up when I'm told to, as they have repeatedly inferred I should. Other editors also pick on me in a double standard fashion, while giving them a relative pass. But do I go around screaming sexism right and left? In fact twice when I merely generally alluded to the existence of sexism on Wikipedia (my talk page and Bill Clinton talk page) they went bonkers. Even after many initial complaints from women, the Wikipedia "gender gap" project acts like the problem doesn't even exist.
They make insulting, condescending comments inferring other editors are stupid, incompetent, unintelligible and/or cult members. I guess I should start keeping a log.
I put in the most neutral and positive content about the BLPs of just about any editor working on them and thus, I believe, they need to attack and discredit me unmercifully to succeed in their agenda of cleansing and/or AfDing a whole range of articles.
Very strong meat puppet-like behavior between SPECIFICO and Steeltrap which MilesMoney has recently joined in on. (A couple editors think he's a sock puppet, even though there were some administrative problems with proving it. In any case, I'm sure Miles has ticked off enough people such that Miles won't last much longer.)
Also, I just noticed that User:Sitush does a lot of deletions of material and articles, has AfD'd one I'm working on, and left a message on my talk page mocking the BLP, and making what looked like threats to AfD number of other articles I have been bothering to beef up, and then removed rather customary links on the botton of that AfD'd article. See User_talk:Carolmooredc#J._Stromberg. User:Steeltrap ran to his web page encouraging him to delete a bunch. I mean this behavior is so dysfunctional, I do not know why I bother!
In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?
Answer: Take the advice of User:EdJohnston who wrote in part on Sitush's talk page: Admin action has to be taken for some reason...Is there actual misbehavior that would be easy for outsiders to check, once it was pointed out? It helps if there is a smoking gun or a problem that is easy to see if a couple of links are given...The sanctions at WP:AEGS improve the incentives for admins to be involved, but they don't solve the problem of knowing what to actually do. Any admin action would be controversial and would need to be defended with good arguments. Nobody wants to spend hours searching through partisan diatribes to find enough facts to justify a block or topic ban. A request for admin action that was focused on a small set of facts would be worth considering.
In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?
Comment by User:SPECIFICO. The most constructive action would be for Carolmooredc to move on to other areas of WP which are less upsetting to her. She has twice "voluntarily" sworn off editing these articles but subsequently returned with guns ablaze. So this time, it would be good to see her stay away for an extended breather. To help us get back on track, Carolmooredc should refrain from reading the talk pages and noticeboard pages relating to these articles because she does not seem to be able to resist coming back after her voluntary retirements from them. After, say, six months' absence, in order to return and edit in this area, she would need to stop her incivility, "discuss content and not contributors", purge her conspiracy theories about other editors and her special mission to save WP from POV pushing bad faith invaders, stop misrepresenting the views or behavior of other editors in her posts at talk pages and Noticeboards, and generally begin to collaborate respectfully with others. I was also incredibly offended by the obscene photograph she posted after she was rebuked at ANI last summer and I do not ever wish to see that kind of behavior again. She mustn't behave that way again. It pointlessly offends users and harms the Project. SPECIFICOtalk 04:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment by User:MilesMoney: If I could ask Carol to do one thing, it would be for her to stop before she hits Save so that she can re-read, correct and compact her comments. I often have great difficulty even understanding her point. Maybe if she did this, her contribution would cease to be a distraction. MilesMoney (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment by User:steeletrap: Four suggestions. First, please try to develop a clearer form of writing (as Miles say). I feel icky saying that, because it's mean, but the lack of clarity characterizing your posts prevents effective collaboration. Second, you need to be sure that the personal accusations you make about other users every few minutes are factually accurate -- and, even if technically accurate, not out of context or misleading -- before making them. Just this morning you accused me of having a tendency for adding "Self-published sources"; you fail to note that, on the only occasion I can remember ever adding SPS, it was justified by the experts exception, per WP:SPS, as it featured several eminent economists' (Paul Krugman's, Brad DeLong's) evaluation of the methodology of Robert P. Murphy. Third, you ought to develop a better understanding of policy. Fourth, you really need to try to assume good faith. Currently, you appear to actually do the opposite, and assume bad faith whenever situations are ambiguous. This has a corrosive effect on the community. Steeletrap (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute?
Comment by User:SPECIFICO: User:MilesMoney sometimes rubs editors the wrong way by making terse comments which the other editors misinterpret as personal insults. He might avoid this by patiently explaining his views and then stepping back. If for whatever reason other editors are unable or unwilling to accept his view then repeating himself will not be likely to change things in the short run. Better to wait for fresh eyes to come on the scene and revisit the issue a week or month later. Also reverting more than once, even when certain editors (wink wink) try to draw you into an edit war, is not a good move. Just go do something else for a while. SPECIFICOtalk 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment by User:Steeletrap: I basically second SPECFICO's criticism above. That being said, Miles is a useful and knowledgeable member of this community, so I hope he is able to improve his relationship and interactions with other peers and continue editing.
Comment by User:Carolmooredc: add more neutral and positive WP:RS material to articles.
User no longer wishes to participate in this discussion
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)
Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?
I have a doctorate in economics with a specialization in monetary theory and the Austrian School. I happened to read an article which referred to Peter Schiff, a stockbroker, and called him an Austrian School economist citing Wikipedia for that misstatement. I decided to have a look to see how something so misleading could have been published here, and soon thereafter I began editing. That was around September 2012. In the course of reading other WP articles which relate to my fields of expertise I found them to be replete with error and misrepresentation. I began working on improving various of those articles. I should state, because I see statements here which suggest it needs stating, that as a scientist I am not interested in promoting a point of view but rather in pursuing truth and making verifiable statements. I get the impression that some editors believe that academic training might lead one to be doctrinaire or set in one's opinions, but in fact the opposite is true. I like nothing better than to discover that I've made an error because that gives me the opportunity to explore new ideas and fresh ways of thinking. I don't have much tolerance for shoddy logic, rote recitation, polemicism, or passive/aggressive forms of discourse and debate. I try to speak clearly and to listen carefully. SPECIFICOtalk 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?
The precipitating factor was the active participation of User:Carolmooredc, beginning last Spring. This user is unable to interact with civility or to think or express her thoughts in a clear and constructive manner. She has issued a constant flow of personal rumination, speculation and interpersonal accusations against fellow editors in edit summaries and on talk pages. She is unable to "discuss content not contributors". She regularly escalates disputes to Noticeboards without providing diffs or documenting her accusations. She appears to act out of personal fantasies that she is responsible for a mission to protect WP and the subjects of various articles from willful sabotage by a various conspiring groups of other editors here.
There have been plenty of other contributing and exacerbating factors, but there is no doubt that her participation is the origin and the sustaining factor of the dysfunction. SPECIFICOtalk 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?
Economics and political theory are topics which are not often fully understood by the casual reader. In matters of balance interpretation and weight, careful and detailed discussion of complex abstract issues is needed. Some editors here have a lot of enthusiasm but not much knowledge of the subject matter -- e.g. Srich32977 and Carolmooredc. Others are paranoid or authoritarian in expressing their views. Others do not take the time to fully understand policy or to explain why they believe that WP policy supports their view or interpretation. A few just enjoy fighting. I suspect that similar issues arise on many articles, but in the presence of a destructive dynamo such as Carolmooredc, disputes which would otherwise be manageable can grow out of control. SPECIFICOtalk 02:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?
I should walk away more quickly when editing disputes cease to be constructive. SPECIFICOtalk 02:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Hoppesays, 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 Wikipedia. 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)
Comment by User:SPECIFICO: In a way this may seem odd, but I suggest User:Steeletrap try being less polite. When responding to a troll or an ad hominem attack, the best course is to make your reply short and succinct and then get on to other things. I think that Steeletrap sometimes feels that she is being judged on her "good manners" and lingers too long in fruitless discussion. A few times she went to ANI in the naive expectation that the WP community would support her civility and her request that others reciprocate her request for similar treatment. She quickly learned otherwise. Not that her points don't deserve to be heard, but one cannot force others to listen when they have no desire to engage. SPECIFICOtalk 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment by User:Carolmooredc: stop all the negative soapboxing and adding all the negative, Self-published and low quality source material to article and add more neutral and positive WP:RS material to articles.
Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?
Answer: I came across these articles because there is a huge group of "libertarian" writers who continually argue for the inclusion of views I had never heard, such as "fascism is socialism", and they appear to trace mostly to these writers.
What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?
Answer: Three editors appear set on adding information linking these writers to hate groups and hate speech.
Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?
Answer: There is an absence of detailed sources for the views and biographies of any of these writers.
In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?
Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?
Answer: I don't edit articles about Austrian economics, and I know very little about Austrian economics other than the small bits I've read on Wikipedia. I am here because I like trying to solve tough problems, and this area is currently problematic.
What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?
Answer: I think that deep down this is a content dispute. As far as I can tell, these people called Austrian economists have said things that are controversial and/or offensive and there is disagreement over how to treat the biographies and related articles. I can imagine a spectrum where on one side we turn the biographies into hit pieces, lampooning the subjects for every dumb thing they ever said (out of context of course) and on the other side scrubbing the article of anything negative and making them look like Nobel prize winners. Obviously I think neither of these options is right for Wikipedia, and the solution is somewhere in the middle. Personally, I think articles like these should be cropped down and made a bit more "boring". Drop the sensationalized news sources that are crafted to attract attention and generate revenue, pick the best few peer-reviewed book or article sources on the subject (the ones by authors who everybody cites both inside and outside of the AE club) and write the articles as if those sources were all that mattered. That would be my approach.
Are there any other problems or factors contributing to the ongoing dispute?
Answer: Yes, absolutely, and that has been why it's so hard to get to the root of the problem. Edit wars, long running disagreements, and unkind personal remarks have resulted in bitterness and entrenched positions. On the one side, the Three Musketeers need to break up the band...stop fighting each others' battles, responding to comments not directed at you, piling on at every opportunity, helping your friends and fighting your enemies. On the other side, these newer users need to be treated with respect. They have knowledge and wisdom to contribute as well, and they should be allowed to do so. On both sides, collaboration and compromise are needed, as well as honesty and humility. Everybody, yes everybody, needs to stop the little personal jabs at one another, and most need to "grow a thicker skin" and ignore the jabs when they are received.
In your opinion, is there anything you could do better that could help resolve the dispute?
