Misplaced Pages

Anarcho-capitalism FAR

My reasons for closing:

• Original concerns were addressed.
• There was a concensus for keeping the article's featured status.
• Work was not being done on the article at the time of closing.
• Article had been stable for more than four days.
• Article had been in review for a month with no outstanding requests for extension.
• I understand that not everyone can check Misplaced Pages every day, however the FARC was open for 2 weeks. We cannot have a FARC open until everyone votes. Joelito (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will deny your request for an extension. FARC is not a vote. I did not count votes I reviewed the commentaries and whether they were addressed or not. Your only objection was stability and in my opinion the article was stable at the time. I suggest you take your request to the FAR talk page and if there is a consensus for reoppening the discussion then it will be done. Joelito (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As Joelito explained, the FAR is closed. If you feel it was done prematurely, you should take the discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. Regards, Sandy 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The admin closing the review makes the decision. Joelito has already given his reasoning, and it was fully in line with other FARCs. You should also note that I raised the problem with this FAR in my first comment on the FAR fully a month ago. Re-read the FAR, and you will see that I requested an analysis of specific problems with the article, which was not given in the original nomination. In the month that was allowed for review, my request was never answered, there was never a case made that the criteria weren't met, and it always read like an issue between editors. FAR is not for dispute resolution. Sandy 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've received your message and entered my comments on the FAR, though I can't make head-or-tails about how the actual process is going. I try to keep myself to things that I have an interest in and hope the AnCaps do the same - "perhaps it's his willingness to be deceived that marks God amongst men" (Nietzsche) does not begin to described how taxing that policy of mine is... --Marinus 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have different things that most bother us about the AnCap article and its proponents: I'd be happy to allow them their article to wax lyrically about what they do, as long as they don't sabotage everybody else for their vainglory. Which they unfortunately do. This has been the first time I've intervened in their affairs at all (except perhaps for typo-correction). I am hoping that to highlight the POV failings of the article will show how disruptive certain AnCap editors are and hopefully marginalise said POV activity. Oh well. --Marinus 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

thatshot

thatshot has 2 reverts today already. if he gets to 4 i think we should report him. let them have some of their own medicine. your thoughts? Blockader 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I don't like using the policies just to break somebody's balls. That's gaming the system. Although, I think that it's pretty clear that he's logging out in order to avoid breaking WP:3RR. --AaronS 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree with you about policies but they threatened me with 3RR and i believe in fighting fire with fire. further, he's obviously not logging in in order to revert which is pretty cheap and underhanded imo. Blockader 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with blockader, I usually don't like reporting 3rr, but this is getting ridiculous. Ungovernable Force 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet?

you accusing me being a sockpuppet, interesting, because i have never register before. this ip is the only way i use for editing, and as far as i know "sockpuppet" means i have another account, could you point out which one is it and why? or you can request a checkuser if you like. There are about 10 or more source said ancap is form of individualist anarchism, and you got zero, so the one doing contentious edits is you, not me. regards. 203.84.69.69 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I've somehow heard this refrain before. --AaronS 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

because i post on blockader's talkpage before, and maybe you already know that, or perhaps blockader using the same computer as you are? 203.84.69.69 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I've somehow heard this refrain before, too. *yawn* You know, a lot of companies produce video games. If you like to play on your computer, I suggest trying one of them. It's much more fun than Misplaced Pages. --AaronS 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, I tend to respect you as an editor and also tend to agree strongly with your methods, but I do have to say that you tend to be a bit trigger happy on the whole sockpuppet thing — which I can't completely blame you for, I've been guilty of it too, it's hard not to with articles as notorious for it as Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism. However, suspicion of puppetry and the fact that you've "heard this refrain before" does not nullify a solid argument. This anonymous user has attempted to explain their position to you and you disregard them with some abstract ad hominim assuming that they are a sock puppet. If you have had this discussion before and don't feel like repeating yourself, perhaps you could link to where you've discussed it before instead of assuming bad faith. —Two-Bit Sprite 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is noted, and I appreciate it. I understand that I can appear trigger happy regarding sock puppetry, but I have also usually been correct in my assumptions. I've got a lot of experience with those editors who most engage in sock puppetry. This user appeared today only to engage in a revert war. It is very difficult to assume good faith when that is the case. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by 203.84.69.69, and welcome him to join in the discussion on Talk:Anarchism. --AaronS 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neocolonialism

It's wrong to mention it under section on capitalism. Look Neocolonialism article, it doesn't mention capitalism even once. Also, Anti-globalization doesn't mention neocolonialism at all.

As for quote: "Because of its putative ideological similarity to individualist anarchism, the anarchist-communism of Johann Most and the anarchists of the International Working-People's Association, was subjected to some bitter criticism, particularly in the period of the latter's dramatic growth, from 1884 to 1886. Led by "X" (Henry Appleton), this attack focused on the cover and overt authoritarian tendencies and violent strategy of the anarchist-communists" form the The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908) -- Vision Thing -- 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't mention globalization by name so that's OR unless someone provides a source. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ward

Can you quote where Ward says that anarcho-capitalism is mainly discussed by academics? -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)