Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anarcho-capitalism

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC).

• Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Disruptive editor who edits only to push his POV. His user page is insulting and he's shown no respect for WP policies or Wikipedia itself. 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anarcho-capitalism#ANARCHO-CAPITALISM_EXPLAINED_FOR_STUPID_ANARCHISTS_.28a_work_in_progress.29
2. Communist distribution: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
3. Anarcho-Capitalism: 1, 2, 3, 4
4. FAQ link: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
5. Peter Marshall quote: 1, 2.
6. Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism move
7. Wikipedia is garbage
8. "Original research" or not, the theory is wrong
9. First appearance

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Does "anarcho"-capitalism exist?
2. Unilateral, controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Donnacha 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. WGee 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Full Shunyata 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. I have had many discussions with User: Anarcho-capitalism. He is generally a good editor, however I feel that at times he has a hard time being neutral. I've had to edit articles where he edited the article to not say things he disagreed with, such as he kept editing articles about Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism to point out that they are opposed to capitalism because of their belief in the labor theory of value. Their opposition to capitalism runs deeper than their theory of value belief and many capitalists believed in the labor theory of value as well. He would edit the article to leave out the fact that they are opposed to many elements of capitalism, even Anarcho-capitalism. He seems ancy to admit that some capitalism does not have a patent or a monopoly on the market system and that there are non-capitalistic market philosophies.Full Shunyata 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Same as above. --AaronS 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Same here, have been away for a while but nothing has changed - Supersheep 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Obviously this user is here to push a POV. 172 | Talk 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The following are numbered in accordance with the numbering in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section above.Anarcho-capitalism 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have the right to write an article on my Userpage. Donnacha mentioned something earlier that he was offended by the title, but I explained to him that it was just a take off on the "X for Dummies" and "X for Idiots" books that are popular. I was going to call it "Anarcho-capitalism for Dummies" but then I realized it was going to be too esoteric for the general population. I think mainly anarchists would be interested in it. At one point I called it "Anarcho-capitalism explained for Dummie Anarchists" but that didn't sound good, so the latest working title is what I have there now. It's unfortunate that Donnacha takes the title personally. He must not be familiar with the "for Idiots" series of books.Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. That anarcho-communists wish to coordinate distribution "according to need" is basic anarcho-communism. I don't know how anyone who studies anarchism would think that's false or POV pushing. I provided sources for that in the Anarchism Discussion Page which can be seen in the archive: [1], where I gave the following sources:

• "Need will be put above service," Kropotkin wrote; "it will be recognized that everyone who cooperates in production to a certain extent has in the first place that right to live comfortably." Underpinning this view was the conviction that technology had advanced to a point where everyone's needs could be satisfied. The famous communist maxim, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs," would be the rule for guiding distribution immediately after the revolution."" (Bookchin, Murray. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936, p. 104) The author, Bookchin, who is explaining Kropotkin, is an "anarcho"-communist too.Anarcho-capitalism 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Conquest of Bread, however, also reflects the more specific form of anarchism which Kropotkin esoused, called anarchist communism...Anarchist communism called for the socialization not only of production but of the distribution of goods: the community would supply the subsistence requirements of each individual member free of charge, and the criterion, 'to each according to his labor' [Proudhon's philosophy] would be superseded by the criterion 'to each according to his needs.'" (Introduction to Kropotkin: The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings, by Marshall Shatz)

Donnacha actually participated in that discussion so he should be aware of this. There are sources all over the place for that. Here is another, just for good measure:

• "The emergence of anarchist communism, by which the product as well as the means of production would be held in common and distributed according to need, can be traced to the middle of the 1870's..." (Woodcock, George. Peter Kropotkin: From Prince to Rebel, Black Rose Books, 1990, page 317)

3. So I edited the anarcho-capitalism article. So what? I helped explain things better and added some sources and took out some unsourced things.

4. There were two FAQs listed in that article. One was written by an anarcho-capitalist and one was written by social anarchists. Donnacha was deleting mention that the latter was written by social anarchists but wanted to keep in the mention that the other was written by an anarcho-capitalist. My request was to either mention the philosophy of the writers' of both FAQs or not to mention it for either. To only mention it for one but not the other is POV. The writers of the "An Anarchist FAQ" clearly state that they are "social anarchists" and are baised against individualist anarchism: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." [2] Donnacha knows this because I already pointed it out to him. Here he is deleting mention of it: [3] Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. The reason for that Peter Marshall edit was explained in the Discussion page: [4], which Donnacha failed to respond to as of yet.Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. The title of that article is POV. I was merely helping Wikipedia by moving the article to an NPOV title.Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Wikipedia is indeed garbage, as far being a reliable source. I was responding to Full Shunyata who kept quoting Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is worthless as a source for anything. It is nearly totally unreliable.Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. What is wrong with me saying "Original research or not, the theory is wrong"? Freedom of speech. That statement, and the statement I was responding to, was not pertaining to anything I put in the article. It was referring to my comments in Discussion only.Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Yes, my first appearance. Hooray. So what?Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Vision Thing -- 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Intangible 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. --WillMagic 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Academician 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and have always clearly said so for the benefit of anywho who might be curious, so my own view of this dispute might be overly predictable. On the other hand, I don't see myself, and SFAIK I'm not seen by others, as part of the predictable ideological-warriors (IW) crowd, and spend a lot of time editing articles on which my anarcho-cap beliefs have only a rather indirect bearing, or expressing my inclusionist wikideology in the Afd debates. So maybe I have some credibility after all.

All that said: the Rfc really hasn't been well defined. You can't presume that somebody is a trouble-maker simply because you disagree with him on hotly disputed, inherently polarizing matters, which is what those who are making the complaint here seem to be presuming. What, aside from the inevitable clashes of the IWs with each other, is the complaint here? --Christofurio 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

i am not an anarcho-capitalist in any way, shape, or form, and have no idea or opinion of the behavior of the subject at the other pages, but just want to say that, although i think he/she came on strong at first (dismissing previous work on the article as just incorrect), that User:Anarcho-capitalism acted just fine, was able to listen and consider another perspective and work well together regarding the article Enlightened self-interest. i think that, with some tweaking, the article will be better because of his/her input. at present, this editor is okay by me. r b-j 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a nasty communist, and I can't see anything intrinsically wrong with Anarcho-capitalist's behaviour. Two small things amongst all of the evidence, perhaps are note worthy, Anarcho-capitalism for stupid anarchists is a provocative title, at the least. And This edit does strike as a tad bumptious, but can be par for the course in a hot edit warrrr.--Red Deathy 10:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.