Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism

Where is the dispute?
Libertarianism

Who is involved?

 * User:Anatoly-Rex
 * User:BigK HeX
 * User:BlueRobe
 * User:Born2cycle
 * User:Carolmooredc
 * User:Darkstar1st
 * User:Jrtayloriv
 * User:The Four Deuces
 * User:Xerographica
 * User:Toa Nidhiki05
 * User:N6n
 * User:Fifelfoo
 * User:North8000

What is the dispute?
The basic problem is that some editors think the scope of the Libertarianism article is too broad, even though the article has included all varieties of libertarianism for more than three years. We are currently engaged in constant soapbox debates, which has been aggravated by Anonymous IPs and sockpuppets using personal attacks to try to exclude libertarian viewpoints (especially anarchist ones from both left and right perspectives) that goes against their POV. (The article now protected against Anon IPs and some new editors have joined in.)
 * Broad opinion

Lately there has been a "reliable source" war which some argue shows that many reliable sources relevant to the broad scope of the article are mutually exclusive. For example... Some argue that given that we are all simultaneously right and wrong it's impossible to achieve long-lasting consensus. Their goal is to have an article about their view of libertarianism that excludes the kind they don't like, which will be shunted into other articles located through the disambiguation page.
 * Libertarianism is for AND against capitalism
 * Libertarianism is for AND against private property
 * Libertarianism is for AND against the existence of the state
 * Libertarianism is the opposite and the same thing as Anarchism

However, inclusionist editors have offered solutions to this alleged problem and quote WP:NPOV: ''All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.'' (Note that this RfC supported this view which was more or less what the debate was at the time. The narrow faction's terms and conditions have shifted since then, confusing matters a bit.)

Some editors are determined to provide equal weight to minor Libertarian ideologies like 'Libertarian socialism' and Anarcho-capitalism; we view this as a violation of WP:Undue weight, as neither of these ideologies have been proven to be prominent. The 'broad' side has failed to provide links proving the significance or prominence of so-called 'left-libertarianism' and anarcho-capitalism within the Libertarian movement, and, as such, we believe this article should mainly be about the dominant form of Libertarianism, what is called 'right-libertarianism' here. We are not rejecting the existence of left-libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism; we are rejecting their significance.
 * Narrow view

What would you like to change about this?
Some editors are fed up with seven months of constant soap boxing, initiated by the "narrow view" side that wants radical changes in the article and now engaged in by both sides, and would like the issue resolved.

How do you think we can help?
Offer your third party perspective on whether or not the article should be broadly or narrowly constructed. ~ [Xerographica?]
 * Lately, the talk page has become nauseating. For almost a month now, there are two new threads everyday, saying the same thing, basically, that Libertarianism mean what the Libertarian Party says it is. (Mostly the argument doesn't even reach this level, it is: Libertarianism means what I know it means.) Already many RfC, which have brought many new commentators, have settled it, but the Talk:Libertarianism never quiets down.
 * Therefore, a mediator may help by blocking or banning a few editors. As this should cover a couple of editors, ANI is probably not the way to go.N6n (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Please allow me about 2-3 days to read the talk page and its archives for details on the dispute. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If Xavexgoem is unable to commit, I'd be happy to help - I should note, however, that in the distant past I had a dispute with Carolmooredc on an unrelated subject - I don't believe this would cloud my ability to mediate. I should note, however, that mediators are not enforcers - we do not determine right from wrong, rather, we create an environment where editors can work with eachother to solve problems. If I'm acceptable to all parties, I'll take this task on - if I'm not acceptable to someone, please feel free to ask me not to do this, here or in private, confidential email, and I'll step aside. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am both not acceptable to CMDC, and also unwilling to deal with her further. Best of luck finding a mediator who will! Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
I am closing this case, as a suitable mediator can not be found.
 * For the Mediation Cabal, The Wordsmith Communicate 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Carolmooredc, currently searching for "Libertarian" on CNN or NPR only results in one "variety" of libertarianism. Either this must be a very busy month for that variety or for the past 3 years the article on Libertarianism has given undue weight to anarchist varieties. Is it any coincidence that you are an anarchist and you've been in charge of the article for the past 3 years? Is that what you mean by WP:NPOV?

According to Wikipedia policy..."in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term". Given that all the results for CNN and NPR use the same definition then that is sufficient evidence for this article to be dedicated to that single definition. Of course, "your" reliable sources also indicate the CNN/NPR definition to be the best known and traditional definition.

According to Primary Topic it's also sufficient evidence for this article to be the default page rather than the disambiguation page..."Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." Anybody who knows of the other topics/definitions/varieties/forms would logically search for them by name...Left-libertarianism, Libertarian socialism, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism, etc. --Xerographica (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am an agnostic as to whether anarchism or minarchism is best, since we haven't had the freedom to experiment. Otherwise, this is not a place to argue points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agnostic? Let me refresh your memory..."I'm more a Rothbard libertarian who became a decentralist libertarian since I don't care if people live in anarchist or minarchist communities as long as there's no central govt and communities don't aggress on each other and work out their differences peaceably."  The key difference between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism is the existence of a central government...if you want to get rid of it then you are an anarcho-capitalist.


 * Even though the different definitions of libertarianism are clearly not equally relevant, significant, common or prominent...you gave them and continue to give them equal coverage in the lead and body of the article. Doing so was/is in complete violation of WP:NPOV and clearly reflects your personal bias.  You deliberately ignored "in proportion to the prominence" of each definition.  "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."  --Xerographica (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again this is not the place to discuss personal views (or misrepresentations of those views) or make (inaccurate) allegations about people's editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How did I misrepresent your personal views? It was a direct quote.  Allegations?  The current state of the article reflects your and BigK HeX's edits.  The article currently gives equal weight to Anarchist/minor definitions of Libertarianism.  If the article proportionally covered the various definitions based on their prominence then there wouldn't be a need for arbitration in the first place.  --Xerographica (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In case any Cabal Members are reading, this has been up a month, which I see it as a good faith attempt to get mediation, including by myself who has repeatedly updated information about this request to the article talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll pick this up. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * XeroGraphica -- please note the 11,000+ books Google books results here which discuss left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Historically, the term "libertarian" originally meant the left-leaning variety, and still does in many parts of the world. It's primarily the U.S. where the right-wing variety is the primary use of the term. (You can see a history of the term "libertarian" in libertarianism, by the way). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, I only counted 389 results. Congratulations on finding some sources and good luck adding them to the appropriate articles...left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism.  --Xerographica (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have kept going, like to the next page of results, but nevertheless, you're missing the point. Even if there are "only" hundreds of reliable sources discussing it, it's still clearly a significant viewpoint, and by WP:DUE we should include it. I'm not saying that it should necessarily be given equal weighting (I'm leaning towards not giving it as much weight, but I'd like to discuss it). I'm simply saying that there is no policy-based justification that has been presented for why it should not be included at all.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have kept going to the last page...382 results. "Significance" is relative.  Yes, those ideologies are significant enough to warrant their own Wikipedia pages.  Are they significant enough to warrant space on the libertarianism page?  Nope.  Proportionally speaking they are microscopically significant in comparison.  Why?  Because Cato is the 5th most influential think tank in the world.  Because no anarchists hold any significant political office.  Because anarchism is not a widely held view in anybody's book.


 * The policy based justification is "Stay on Topic" WP:TOPIC. The topic is the political ideology that runs from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill to Ludwig von Mises to Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to David Boaz.  If an ideology ventures off into abolishing government then clearly it is off topic. --Xerographica (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambivalence isn't working, why continue? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated discussion for potential new mediator
Since there have been complaints on various noticeboards whereLibertarianism issues taken that this article needs mediation, it would be great to get an informal mediator quick. Or else we might just go straight to request for formal. Also please note that some of us feel that Disruptive_editing is the main issue given some editors' attempts to gut the main Libertarianism article of everything except one narrow definition has failed in:
 * This August 27 RfC rejecting just making it about Right wing libertarianism,
 * This September 3 successful RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
 * This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (word)".
 * This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)".
 * This rejected proposal to revert to the 2005 version which does not include material they do not like does not go to broader community; currently 5 for and 5 against.

Feel free to reply at Talk:Libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Hipocrite. While the topic of the minor past dispute is not important, I think what he wrote at this diff might bother some editors: The problem that I see with that section is not that Cohen says Atzmon is a nazi, but rather that both he and far-rights suffer from a paranoid mentality (see The Paranoid Style in American Politics). Libertarians often are considered being far right and some want to use the phrase "right" to describe the topic in the article. So this whole issue probably would have to be discussed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be clear that what I was referring to there was not my belief, but rather what the source said. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not clear. Especially because you added to the article at this diff the questionable link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics, a book about American politics, even though the bio was on an Israeli/British figure. Seems like a preoccupation with right wing paranoia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly not acceptable to you as a mediator - and I forgot how much I disliked dealing with you. Best of luck. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a pussy compared to other editors who consider themselves "right" and probably would have freaked at content I refer to. The unfortunate thing is obviously the many editors mentioned above obviously aren't paying as much attention to this page. However, the good news is some defacto mediator types have started contributing which has cooled things down a bit; plus the worst sock puppet has left and most disruptive editor been blocked. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this be closed? Article protection and general warning in place
The article was protected til February due to edit warring, a couple editors were blocked, and a general warning against disruption has been created by other editors against bringing up the "broad v. narrow" issue until block ends. So perhaps this request should be archived and if things get out of control again in February we can try again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, narrowing the scope of the article is the only long term solution to the undue weight issue. Currently each "meaning" of the word "libertarianism" is given equal weight...and clearly, there are some editors, like yourself, which are perfectly fine with this blatant violation of wikipedia policy.  Until this violation is adequately addressed and solved...this request for informal mediation should stay open.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)