Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07 The anarchy battlefield

Mediation Case: 2007-03-07 The anarchy battlefield
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Lord Metroid 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Anarchy related pages, see below for more specific information.


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Chuck0 has been warned for writing personal attacks on various talk pages including his own talk page done in association with the revert and edit wars between User:Chuck0 and User:Anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism in the United States and Social anarchism articles. On Anarchism, User:Infinity0 wages a revert war on the claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism argumented by the counter claim from User:Anarcho-capitalism that it is a form of anarchy.


 * Sorry if I'm not supposed to post here; feel free to move this somewhere else. But your claim that "On Anarchism, User:Infinity0 wages a revert war on the claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism argumented by the counter claim from User:Anarcho-capitalism that it is a form of anarchy." is false. There are 30 sources cited in support of the latter claim. I have been trying to add opposing sources whilst reducing this spam of 30 sources; but I have not been trying to remove the latter viewpoint from the article, I have just been trying to give due weight to a very significant view which has been omitted. -- infinity  0 


 * Furthermore the above is a mere incident in a greater whole. Endless philosophical debates that don't present any new arguments are being written all over the anarchy related talk pages regarding the disagreement on whether or not anarcho-capitalism are to be represented among anarchy related articles based on viewpoints from a great number of users debating such in articles like Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Talk:Anarchism and Portal talk:Anarchism addition to the above.


 * What's going on?
 * It has, from what I can distinguish, became a situation with no ending in sight, making every anarchy page on wikipedia a battlefield between people of either the viewpoint that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchy and should be presented on various appropiate anarchy articles or those who don't think it is an anarchy and it shouldn't be represented on anarchy articles. Many people including me have become involved in this battle of what can probably be seen as POV pushing from both sides because of the obvious bias. People can not let go of the strong emotions that politics in the same way religion brings forward and which have become a problem for further editing articles.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I am seeking help to resolve this situation where users on both sides of the dispute refuses to accept and/or acknowledge sources the other side presents and conduct their manners accordingly. Arbitration from 3rd party is obviously the needed factor to help settle what sources and how to further develop the articles in the future.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I leave it up to you to decide what the situation demands. Can always contact me by User talk:Lordmetroid

Mediator response
While I am perfectly happy to help if it's possible, this is going to be a major undertaking and it looks like most people have lost interest. I'm willing to begin proceedings if at least one person on each side of the debate wants to make himself party to mediation.

I'll keep this case open for a week; if I haven't gotten any responses by then, I'll close it as inactive. I hope somebody turns out, though. It sounds like you guys could use it! --Moralis (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to take contact with all the parties in the conflict. Everyone can be found via Miscellany for deletion. Lord Metroid 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be another interested party, but I'm on the same side as Lord Metroid. Fephisto 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * My compromise suggestion: Put a section that include both argument that claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and the argument that it is not, let readers decide which one they are going to believe. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you would have to confront the users in the articles that this is going on rather than in here as I doubt that they are looking here. I am merely reporting a dilemma which I was suggesed to do by some administrator when I asked for help to solve this issue. Lord Metroid 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As I've added before in a few other small places, User:Anarcho-capitalism has plenty of sources to back up the "Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchism" claim. Fephisto 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are biased. They have been specifically chosen to push the POV. See below for my alternative. -- infinity  0  16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I obviously have a bias here. I identify as an anarchist, but do not think that anarcho-capitalism is anarchistic. However, this general dispute is more then just that. If it were that simple, it would have been solved (and that issue has been solved and re-opened) by now. It is about what, if anything, anarcho-capitalism has in common with individualist anarchism, mutualism and similar. It is about the use of sources and what sources are accepted and acceptable (An Anarchist FAQ for example). It is about the very definition of anarchism (is it against all social hierarchy, or just government?). It is also about history, and the shared or not shared history of the various forms of anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism.

My preferred solution is simple. On the relevant pages, "anarcho-capitalism" gets a mention, with the comment that it isn't considered anarchistic by most historical anarchists and most anarchists today. The various attempts at changing the definition of what individualist anarchism is (such as seen by User:Anarcho-capitalism) should be rejected for just that reason, an attempt to change an accepted definition. (See for a small discussion on the matter.)

Regarding history, I think that sources that are widely accepted (such as Demanding The Impossible, A History of Anarchism should be used. I don't have a copy with me where I am, but I have read it, and I think that it is quite good.  ~AFA Imagine I swore. 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources can be found, both sides of the debate should probably be mentioned in the article, per WP:NPOV. I think a major function of mediation could be determining how to go about that, however. We have to be careful to give due weight to both sides of every issue. Arguments for and against anarcho-capitalism as anarchy should both be equally presented if they can be properly sourced. That said, I know virtually nothing about the subject (which is why I think I'm probably the right person to mediate here). If one side of the debate is seriously in the minority, the above doesn't apply. --Moralis (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction there. I'm not attempting to change the definition of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is a broad label to define any philosphy that holds that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority." Heywood, Andrew, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave, ISBN 0-312-23381-7, 2000, p. 46 I didn't make the definition. Some forms of anarchism are "social" forms and some forms are individualistic. Anarcho-capitalism is a individualistic form of anarchism. It's not a form of social anarchism. There is no denying this. The question is not whether anarcho-capitalism is an individualist form of anarchism. There is no way to deny that it is an individualist philosophy. The question, apparently, is whether it is a form of anarchism. If it is a form of anarchism then of course it's an individualist form of anarchism. And whether it is indeed a form of anarchism, is assented to by a tremendous amount of sources. Almost none say that it is not. Those that say it is not are simply anarcho-communists who of course despise capitalism. It's to be expected that they would say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. I have no problem with saying in any article that some social anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. What else would one expect them to say? I'm an anarcho-capitalist who denies that anarcho-communism is a true of anarchism. It goes both ways. What matters is not what anarcho-capitalists claim or what anarcho-communists claim, but what scholars claim. That's why the sources on my user page separate anarcho-capitalists out. And note that those scholars in my list that say it is not a form of anarchism includes anti-capitalists. Virtually no published scholars are going to say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. After all, it does have the "anarcho" prefix. So why wouldn't it be? It's a silly debate.Anarcho-capitalism 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's now been established that at least one user on each side of the issue is interested in rewriting our coverage to give due weight to each position. To open actual mediation, I'd like to ask each of you to describe (briefly) the way YOU would write the paragraph (or section, etc.), giving NO weight to the other position. What I'm looking for here is at least one response talking about anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchy, and at least one response explaining that it isn't and why. Please post your responses on this page to argue against anarcho-capitalism or this page to argue in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Don't worry about citing sources at this point.

I'm sorry if this seems demanding. I expect that it'd make a good starting point to combine two of the responses. --Moralis (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided alternative sources, which are more notable and representative of anarchist and general opinion on the matter. It is open to discussion at Talk:Anarchism at the moment. I also wish to remove several of the pre-existing, biased sources, so that only 9 of them remain; I have not done so yet but I have picked out the ones to remove on the talk page. -- infinity  0  16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be very unlikely to be active in this discussion from now on, since I am very busy, but I would like to point out that User:Anarcho-capitalism is likely to be banned as part of a 13-sockpuppet POV-pushing ring as per Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein/Proposed_decision. -- infinity  0  16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this dispute should be settled by consulting the definitions of “anarchism” in two dictionaries: The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language and The Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Any attempt to buck the dictionary — one way or another — is an attempt to use Wikipedia for purposes of mind-control. EOS. —SlamDiego 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the dispute is somewhat non-conserning... I tried but whatever, I am dropping it. Lord Metroid 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing. --McClerk 05:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)