Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anarcho-capitalism

User:Anarcho-capitalism

I am concerned about the purpose of this page. The page is not a normal user page, as in it does not contain any personal information about the user(s) of this account whatsoever. The page is an extremely length article supporting a fringe POV, which is OK for personal uses, but it goes beyond this. To see what I mean, see this google search for "anarcho-capitalism". To be blunt, I am concerned that this user(s) is abusing the notablity of wikipedia and the google rankings system to push his/her/their viewpoints to the top of google rankings, by editing lots of pages and signing everything, so that lots of pages on wikipedia link to his/her/their page, pushing his/her/their viewpoints up the google rankings. In short, I am concerned that this user(s) is using his/her/their wikipedia user page to publish their own views. -- infinity0 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. ("Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.") The material on his page is not useful material for any articles, because it fails the WP:NPOV policy, and so is irrelevant to wikipedia.

1. Delete - for reasons stated. -- infinity0 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment I don't see any problem with the googles. The Anarcho-capitalism article is the first link and the userpage of User:Anarcho-capitalism is as far behind as the second page of google's search. And first on his page it says this is not an article but a userpage. Lord Metroid 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Keep Wow, now that is real paranoia. I hadn't even though of this "google rankings system." I don't even know what is is. The first half of my page contains an article I wrote so Wikipedia editors could obtain a strong understanding of anarcho-capitalism, in order to assist them in their contributions to articles that have to do with anarcho-capitalism. I have a fundamental understanding of it, so I felt I was qualified to do this. And I think I've written the article pretty NPOV. The second half of my page contains a long list of sources that say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I created this as a reference source for Wikipedia editors. There have been lengthy edit wars in the past over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The purpose of me creating this list was to stop the edit wars over this. And, I think it's worked. Ever since I did this the edit wars have stopped. That is, continual insertions and removals of the anarcho-capitalism section from the Anarchism article has stopped. Now there is no question that there are a tremendous number of scholarly sources that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It's indisuptable now. For those who are unfamiliar, though a philosophy that calls itself a type of anarchism is of course considered a type of anarchism, POV pushers, typically anarcho-communists have been claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Silly I know, but they've been causing edit wars over it. Anarcho-capitalism 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
   1. The "long list of sources" are specially selected ones by you. You have been refusing to allow sources contradicting yours to be used. Your page is extremely POV, as anyone who knows anything about anarchism will understand. Similarly, all the edit wars have been caused by you not allowing removal of such POV from articles. Also, please don't play the "I'm the good neutral guy here" game, your very account name gives you away. -- infinity0 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   There are almost no sources that say that anarchist-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. That's the whole point. The objective is to show that there are an overwhelming number of sources that explicitly say it is a form of anarchism, in order to stop the edit wars. And, it's worked. I've noticed you've been deleting sources from the anarchism article which say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I think I see what you're doing. You want sources removed so that you can later claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and delete it from the article, causing an edit war. Am I right? If the sources are removed from my user page, edit wars will definitely ensue. I'm confident of that.Anarcho-capitalism 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   I provide plenty, including a Noam Chomsky source. You just brush them off as they don't exist. -- infinity0 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   I just found out that Infinity is a convicted edit warrior on probation: [1] Now it all makes sense.Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Ahh the old smear-tactic. RJII used to do this. -- infinity0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, give me a break RJ. You didn't "just find out" anything. Quips like that make the act just that much more annoying. It doesn't even come out very naturally. It feels rather forced. Stick to laying low. Owen 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

   Another note, I see that Infinity is campaigning by leaving messages to people he knows so that they will vote to delete. Is that allowed?Anarcho-capitalism 02:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   • Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing to determine if his actions are in violation of wikpolicy. Lawyer2b 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Keep'" for reasons listed below,

   • 1. I just clicked on Infinity0's google search link and the userpage he wants deleted doesn't even show up on the first page of links, at least on my computer.

   Anyone can check the link for themselves. -- infinity0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   • B. his accusation of the user's motive for creating the page (unless he has some sort of evidence to back it up) is a blatant violation wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith.

   AGF is not a policy, it is a guideline. I have assumed plenty of good faith with regards to his actions. -- infinity0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   • Third, I think the userpage contains information helpful to editing the article on Anarcho-capitalism and is, hence, relevant to wikipedia. Yes, it may or may not contain some POV that is not suitable for inclusion in an article but, it's on his userpage, and, in balance, it also contains many good sources for researching and editing the wikipedia article about anarcho-capitalism. Lawyer2b 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Keep, although it would probably be best to make it clearer that this is the user's opinion, and not intended to be neutral. I'd very much rather know his political viewpoints than not, if I was in a dispute with him over some anarchism article. -Amarkov moo! 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
5. DELETE. Are you kidding? "ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS" is just the kind of attack page and attitude we don't need. Get rid of it. Anarcho-capitalism itself is a troll magnet and an extremely offensive "philosophy", sort of like Fascism with all the good parts taken out. Destroy this. Herostratus 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Ehum, are you just being sarcastic? Lord Metroid 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Nope, he just has no felt need to be civil. I s'pose that I should be glad that I've not been dragged into the debate amongst anarchisms and pseudo-anarchisms which has evidently been running rather wild. —SlamDiego 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I found these words on your user page, Herostratus: “This user is a Wikipedian and checks his opinions and ideologies at the door. He trusts that you do, too.” —SlamDiego 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete. I strongly suspect that User:Anarcho-capitalism is a reincarnation of banned User:RJII. The edit summaries, the sentence structure and attitude conveyed, the areas of interest and nature of POV warring, the conflict with User:Infinity0, the specific objection to including "An Anarchist FAQ", the huge edit counts racked up... there are just too many similarities. Admittedly, I sometimes have trouble telling Randroids apart, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment You can see the discussion regarding the user's alias on User talk:Anarcho-capitalism#Follow up about your username and if you don't have any evidence to back up your claim that User:Anarcho-capitalism is the same person as User:RJII I found your attitude despeciable! No assumed good faith at all. Lord Metroid 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment I've held similar suspicions for some time. Besides the obvious similarities in attitude and sentence structure, his user page contains information on obscure individualist anarchists such as Clarence Lee Swartz and Henry Appleton, whose articles were written by RJII. Even more telling, he created an article on philosophical anarchism without categorizing the article, a staple of RJII's writing style that I've never witnessed in any other experienced editors. Perhaps it's time we start pursuing the matter more thoroughly. Owen 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment After further investigation by browseing the several links presented in this discussion, the claim that User:RJII and User:Anarcho-capitalism is the same person holds a less frivolous ground. But evidence of prose and article association is arbitrary at most and I will not judge neither User:RJII nor User:Anarcho-capitalism before I have some hard evidence that the claim is true. Until then I consider them to be seperate people. Lord Metroid 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Billy Ego is almost certainly not a fascist, but someone representing himself as such in an attempt to expose crypto-fascism. Even if that sort of use would serve the salutary purpose of forcing recognition of fascism, it more generally corrupts the relevant process for arriving at a best approximation of the truth. The other guys can misrepresent themselves, and will have a greater sense of license. (Of course, Billy Ego may himself or herself have felt licensed by such misrepresentations on the part of his or her opponents. I have no idea where the spiral began.) Given that Billy Ego is not a fascist, it becomes plausible that he is an anarchist of some sort. Certainly, some of his rhetoric has what could be read as an anarchistic flavor. But there are many anarchists out there. Billy Ego's “association” with User:Anarcho-capitalism could be no more than birds of a feather abiding together. —SlamDiego 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete or Merge with new user page. I think that the content is probably ok, even though very polemic, there are other polemic users around. The combination of the content and the username are incompatible. - Francis Tyers · 11:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Delete the treatise on anarcho-capitalism. POV is fine in a userpage, but this is excessive. The user, based on their name and userpage, appears to be using a role account. I also suspect them to be a sockpuppet of the banned RJII, an admitted role account. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Delete. This ain't a user page, it's a content fork/polemic with "User:" pasted to the front of it as a figleaf. Geocities, MySpace, or Tripod are that-a-way if you're really bursting to tell the world what you think. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep. I do think this is relevant to work on Wikipedia, but maybe it could be pared down a bit. And that's coming from an anarcho-syndicalist! Abeg92contribs 14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep. I have used his user page to check out sources, views, etc.. It's incredibly useful. Especially the sources. "Abusing Google rankings" seems a bit ridiculous to be an excuse to delete a page. Maybe violating user-page policy is a better excuse, but even then, I'd say it's too valuable a source to supercede this. If this was really a geocities-ish page, then User: Anarcho-capitalism would've had multiple user-pages, instead of one, straight run-through. Fephisto 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep there is no reasonable or compelling need to delete. A user can express his opinions on his userpages. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep per Wooyi; there's absolutely no reason to prevent users from expressing opinions on their userpage. Also, the comments above describing anarcho-capitalism as a "troll magnet" and an "offensive philosophy" hardly seem to be approaching this from an NPOV perspective. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep It is a perfectly good userpage made by a person very dedicated to editing wikipedia containting an explanatory essay regarding anarcho-capitalism for people he has to deal with when trying to edit anarchy articles as well as various sources the user User:Anarcho-capitalism uses for his editing. This situation of his userpage being proposed for deletion have appeared several times in the recent past all done by users with contrary believes to User:Anarcho-capitalism. Where the proposal for deletion has been This page violates the "no substantial content" rule for user pages which have been reverted by other users. I am a majorly concerned that User:Infinity0 has angst towards User:Anarcho-capitalism as a part of the bigger problem of which I have asked for help to solve some time ago but the case has yet yet to be opened by the Meditation Cabal: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07 The anarchy battlefield. Lord Metroid 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I have supported deletion before, and anarcho-capitalism is far closer to my beliefs than anything else which has a name. It's also not constructive to declare that deletion nominations have been made by people who dislike anarcho-capitalism (even though this time it is made pretty clear that everyone who has said to delete does disagree with the philosophy). -Amarkov moo! 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I hope you will agree that Infinity's accusation of User:Anarcho-capitialism manipulating google rankings is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Lawyer2b 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Keep I agree with Fephisto's comments.Caliban 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The user who created this page has been identified by checkuser as an alternate account of User:Billy Ego, who appears likely to be banned from editing for one year by an Arbitration Committee decision. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence#Evidence submitted by Mackensen; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision. As a result, this discussion is likely to soon become moot. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment That is quite strange Billy Ego seems to have been holding a POV of Fascism and anti-capitalism according to User:Billy Ego totally opposit of User:Anarcho-capitalism, you sure it's the same person? Because User:Anarcho-capitalism is well read on anarchy and specificly anarcho-capitalism. Lord Metroid 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure of nothing. I'm going by what an arbitrator/checkuser (I am neither) posted at the links I cited. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is rather unlikely, though, that they both stop editing for around 8 hours (presumably sleeping) at nearly exactly the same time, a quarter past 5 UTC, yet they have zero interspersed edits as far as I went back. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser whatever. I'm not Billy Ego. You should get your facts straight before throwing around accusations. Anyway, this vote is on my user page, so why would you say the vote is "moot"? If a person is blocked for a time he still has a user page.Anarcho-capitalism 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If the decision is reached that your account is part of a set of abusive sockpuppets, then the account may be more than temporarily blocked, and its user page may be effectively taken from you. See, for example, Grazon. —SlamDiego 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• My faith in checkuser is now further diminished. —SlamDiego 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When User:Newyorkbrad said, "The user who created this page," I thought he was referring to this page (this "Miscellany for deletion" page) and it was User:Infinity0 who he thought an alternate account of User:Billy Ego. Of course, I could be mistaken; perhaps he can clarify about whom was he talking. Lawyer2b 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By "this page," I meant the page that is the subject of this discussion, not this MfD page itself. My apologies to Infinity0 and Lawyer2b for any inadvertent confusion. Newyorkbrad 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The checkuser result to which he refers includes a claim that Anarcho-capitalism is Billy Ego. I cannot know for certain that Anarcho-capitalism is not Billy Ego, but checkuser seems to proceed on the assumption that no two editors can frequently share the same connection. And, instead of something such as a modest declaration that Wikipedia must go with the best protocol available to it, combined with a block that admits possible injustice, there is a monkey-dance of condemnation when two accounts are shown to share a connection. —SlamDiego 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• If an-cap is RJII, which I have often thought and said it likely is, then it might make sense. RJII was a role account that was supposedly run by several individuals (based on RJII's own admission). Perhaps one of them has a different viewpoint. Anways, the section does say itself that Billy Ego (and all the socks) was accused by others as being RJII. I also wouldn't put it past RJII to create various accounts that purposefully attempt to seem different (a la Wolfstar). Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 08:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with strong encouragement to change a few things such as the reference to “STUPID ANARCHISTS”. —SlamDiego 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Keep. It may have alot of opinions etc... but that's what userpages are for. Gateman1997 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This page is borderline inappropriate, but I'm not sure which side of the border it's on. A case could be made that it is helpful. After reading sections of it, I will say it is interesting and informative, even if I disagree with it. It does seem like a personal website more than a real userpage though. I would suggest An-cap move most of that stuff to a private page, or a user subpage at the least and add more info on themself with a link to the other stuff or something. Seems like a good compromise. I don't think it's the most important thing in the world though, and Infinity may have been a bit too early to assume it was a purposeful attempt on An-cap's part to gain easy visibility. I think it's possible, especially if An-cap is RJII, which like I said above, I think they might be. Well, that's my two-cents. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 08:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The only problem I find with moving the essay to a subpage is that then it would look even MORE like User: Anarcho-capitalism is trying to make his Userpage have substantial content. That, and if it's O.K. for a subpage, I don't see why that wouldn't imply that it's O.K. for the main page. Fephisto 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a lot of talk about the line ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS. 1) Opinions can be expressed on User-pages, and 2) The main policy issue here is that you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia on the user-page, not 'this line is offensive', correct? So, what is the big deal about this line? Fephisto 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: It is uncivil and will provoke outraged response without producing much in the way of offsetting benefit. —SlamDiego 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Fephisto 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As another comment, the part that is unrelated to Wikipedia on the user-page is key here, is it not? I would argue that in terms of looking over articles involving Anarcho-Capitalism, there is very little that would be unrelated. Fephisto 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Contrary to much of the fulmination against the page, it seems that it can serve two legitimate purposes. First, it can be a reference to which discussion on various article talk pages is directed. Second, because anarcho-capitalism is a subject relevant to various articles, it is a reference to which editors may turn in trying to organize some of their thinking for those articles. —SlamDiego 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on "STUPID ANARCHISTS" line. I removed it three hours after the nomination. Why did nobody notice? -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the template warning placed irresponsibly on the page, whomever created this userpage has clearly intended it to be POV encyclopedic-style content. It's an evasion of wikipedia policy just like sockpuppet, and should be deleted. VanTucky 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I fully support giving leeway for people to express political, philosophical and religious opinions on userpages, and I am OK with it going a little bit overboard sometimes (if it doesn't bother people too much some WP:IAR on the userpage policy and pretending we didn't see it is OK). But this userpage is HUGE, far beyond reasonable bounds. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not free webspace for you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete . Definite campaigning and using userpage as vehicle of un-academic, un-encyclopediac POV content that this user(s) can't seem to get into their target articles. Blatent ati-communsit and anti-anarchist. This latest wave of evangelical anarcho-capitalism/right-wing libertarian attacks on articles started as soon as the RJII issue was resolved. I believe RJII project was a far-right attempt to infiltrate anarchism to gain recruits and 'revise' what got in the way. I seem to recall anarchism.net as a similar project. Please delete and block sockpuppets. - maxrspct ping me 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This user "maxrspct" is one of the users that Infinity recruited to vote here in his canvassing attempt. [2]Anarcho-capitalism 12:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was thinking about taking the essay portion of the user page soon anyway to finish it up offline and publish it. The references will definitely stay for the long term though.Anarcho-capitalism 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)