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)

You have been blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR vio on Anarchism. It's your 3rd 3RR block in just over a month. --Woohookitty 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Regarding my alleged 3RR violation, I ask that you, again, take a look at the substance of those edits. You might also want to note that DTC has been trying to retaliate against me for quite some time for putting a suspected sock puppet tag on his user page. Anyway, here are a few facts: this is not my third violation in a month. The last one was a mistake, as was eventually admitted by all involved (I was reverting the edits of a banned user). Second, if you take a look at my edit summaries (beyond the part where I note that it is a revert), you'll see that I was not reverting anybody's edits, but rather reverting the unintentional removal of completely unrelated edits during wholesale reverts by users. Hence the following:

"rv to AaronS: if you want the note in, put it back in, don't delete all of my edits"

"rv to AaronS: please learn how to revert some edits without deleting other edits"

"rv: please learn how to revert without deleting a myriad of unrelated edits; it's not my job to sift through your revert"

Note that these were reverts of two different users, not simply DTC. That's Hot, the other user, said:

"aaron, i didn't see your edit. it must have happend right before i hit the button. I'm noting now that what old individualist anarchist meant by capitalism was state capitalism."

So, if this is a violation of the 3RR, what was I exactly reverting? I was not reverting anybody's additions; I was reverting wholesale reverts that deleted a lot of unrelated information, asking, in my edit summaries, for the editors to be more careful. To me, this seems like a clear case of "reverting without edit warring."

I'm really tired of administrators unintentionally facilitating the gaming of the system that goes on every day at the anarchism-related articles. It's quite clear who the good editors are, and there are a lot of us. There are only two or three who, they admit, engage in edit wars and sock puppetry. It's really, really disappointing to be following the rules only to have an administrator who hasn't examined the situation closely enough come barreling through and making the situation far, far worse. I apologize if I sound reproachful, but, as I said, the last time I was blocked was an error, and I strongly feel that this time is, too. Weeks ago, I tried to draw attention to the nature of the situation at Misplaced Pages talk:3RR, WP:AN/I, and the rest, and received very little response.

I urge you to reconsider the matter. I've been here for years, and I'm afraid that I may be the second or third decent editor of these articles to quit Misplaced Pages in disgust (I have already come close) in less than a month because of the gaming of the system that goes on.

Again, please don't take my tone as reproachful or anything like that, if it seems that way -- I hope that it does not. But I am finding it difficult to hide my disappointment at Misplaced Pages in general, which seems to reward a clever manipulation of the rules -- it's nothing personal.

Best, --AaronS 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are the one attempting the manipulation. These are the reverts: , , and . Those are comparisons between one revert and the next. Every single one is a "pure" revert, i.e. you are reverting to previous versions that were done by yourself. None of the edits consist of simply readding material. They are all reverts by AaronS to versions of the article by AaronS. Just no way around that. --Woohookitty 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have already established that I was reverting. Again, you're failing to note the reasons why. I reverted back to my version, asking the editors who were engaging in more comphrensive reverts to choose their deletions more carefully (so that they would not remove information completely unrelated to what they intended to revert). My version was simply the status quo, i.e. the version without the unintentional deletions. When they did revert more carefully -- indeed, even making edits that I might disagree with -- I did not revert them. This is called "reverting without edit warring." It's quite clear to me, now, that you haven't made much of an attempt to fully understand the situation, and can't quite get past the fact that these are four (rather unrelated) reverts in a row. I ask you, again, to please consider the situation with a bit more attention. I understand that you're busy, and that you deal with this on a daily basis (and with many users who cry foul), but I have good reason to believe that you're making this decision in error. I'm also rather disappointed at the fact that you're accusing me of manipulation. Please don't add insult to injury. --AaronS 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted you I did mean to revert away your edits while reverting mine back in. This is because you were misinterpreting sources as well as ignoring many many existing sources by moving the anarcho-capitalism section. You were also reverting away the edits of others while simultaneously reverting yours back in. The difference with you though is that you did it over and over and over and over and violated the 3RR and edit-warred. DTC 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you made no fuss of it at the time. I guess that it only mattered once you developed a major grudge against me (even going so far as to suggest that I and other users might edit while drunk). Regardless, two of the reverts were of That'sHot, who mistakenly removed unrelated edits. One of my reverts of you had absolutely nothing to do with sources. There was no edit warring. This just has to do with you wanting to retaliate against me for suspecting you of being a sock puppet of User:RJII, which, for the record, is a suspicion that I still maintain. --AaronS 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that WP:3RR is meant to be preventative and not punitive. What are you trying to prevent? Where was the edit war? --AaronS 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response #2

Alright, this is pretty ridiculous. I should have known better than to question the perfect rectitude of the action of a long-standing administrator. I forgot how easily some administrators are offended when their righteousness is called into question, however politely. Discussion is moot.

I had my fun with Misplaced Pages, but that's all Misplaced Pages will ever be -- a fun place for people. It will never be taken seriously as a scholarly resource, because scholarship is not determined by majority rule, but rather by merit. The articles that I have been most heavily involved in have a good amount of excellent editors who are willing to compromise and more than happy to consider each other's points of view (for we all have points of view -- what matters is whether or not one's point of view is grounded in reality as opposed to fantasy). Unfortunately, there are a few people who have been gaming the system and using sock puppets so that they might "defend the cause." So long as there are zealots, sophists, and partisans who are clever enough to game the system, Misplaced Pages will be a mess, and good editors like me will get bored with their game.

I'm the second or third editor in less than a month to quit Misplaced Pages because of the actions of these users, and because of the manifest incompetence of the administrators. Many administrators are so enveloped in "The Process" and their own sense of self-importance (for they, too, are "defending the cause," just like the worst trolls) that they fail to see the forest for the trees. Thus we have administrators, like the one above, who are easily tricked by trolls who have long since learned how to game the system into punishing good editors with whom they disagree. These administrators only see Misplaced Pages as a series of processes, and only interact with others on Misplaced Pages through their imagined role in these processes. Being ignorant of context and situation, it's no surprise that they often make incorrect decisions. Having such a sense of self-importance, it is also no surprise that they are unwilling to admit this (except as a platitude).

I thus bid you all farewell. I am not discontented, because I never took Misplaced Pages as seriously as most. I am, however, a bit disappointed, because, when I signed up nearly three years ago, I thought that Misplaced Pages still had promise. Perhaps it still does, but not until major changes are made.

So long, --AaronS 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)